Page is cached in an undisclosed location.

"innocent mistake"

It is to laugh.

Not to mention that there is no provision for innocently committing a felony.

Since it is averred by Novak that *two* officials leaked this to him, it's not an accident, and there's a very reasonable question as to how many more were party to the action, aware of it, tolerating it, and approving of it.

And all of them would be accessories to the crime. Before (or in some cases, perhaps, after) the crime.

Sounds like plenty of munitions there for impeachment. And for criminal prosecutions.

"innocent mistake"

It is to laugh.

Not to mention that there is no provision for innocently committing a felony.

Since it is averred by Novak that *two* officials leaked this to him, it's not an accident, and there's a very reasonable question as to how many more were party to the action, aware of it, tolerating it, and approving of it.

And all of them would be accessories to the crime. Before (or in some cases, perhaps, after) the crime.

Sounds like plenty of munitions there for impeachment. And for criminal prosecutions.

Even assuming that the story is accurate (which is very doubtful), to say this is worse than Clinton selling national security secrets to the Chinese for cash (which secrets included the names of undercover operatives in SE Asia), or worse than the illegal review of hundreds of FBI files on political opponents, or the use of private investigators to intimidate and harass opponents, or the use of the IRS to harass and intimidate political opponents, or the sale of pardons for millions of dollars ...

is simple and utter nonsense.

Don't agree. I have long had doubts about the CIA and its left wing politics. Don't know why Tenet is still there. But to your point, how much influence did Wilson's wife have in selecting him to go to Niger? If she did, than I think that is the real story since Wilson was known to be anti Bush and anti war. Moreover, his investigation was superficial and his op ed column in the Times left out a key finding - that the NIger official Wilson talked to claimed he was approached by Iraqi officials two years previous.

If this is true I would have ratted out his wife too.

which is very doubtful

Unlike the conspiracy theories you are peddling above, this one has every earmark of being truthful, from half of Washington having been contacted for the smear job in the first place, to the CIA themselves requesting an investigation.

Perhaps your doubts about these claims would get better play on freerepublic.com?

If this is true I would have ratted out his wife too.

so much for the "rule of law".

"Even assuming" commits three sins.
First, for reasons of partisan bias, to dismiss well founded charges against members of his or her own party.
Second, to credit preposterous charges against members of the other party.
Third, on the strength of crediting the preposterous, to imagine that "everybody does it," and therefore nobody need be called to account.
Quite a story, this: no less than Tenet seems the most likely source, no less than Rove himself one of the mostly likely perps. (But is it more likely it's a number 2 in Rove's office did the actual calling?--maybe not--would they have the security clearance?)

Dan,

I'd reserve judgment. This smells like a hit piece. Almost everything the press has trumpeted about the Bush Administration screwing up in national security has turned to stone afterwards. I don't trust any of the participants in this, including Karl Rove and the purported victim, and suggest you shouldn't either.

...illegal review of hundreds of FBI files on political opponents, or the use of private investigators to intimidate and harass opponents, or the use of the IRS to harass and intimidate political opponents, or the sale of pardons for millions of dollars ...

Even assuming that these stories are accurate (they're not), didn't Karl Rove pioneer the use of these tactics during the Nixon years?

If true, the adminisitration has been sitting on information relating to this "CRIME" for months now. It was "TWO SENIOR" officials who leaked the info, in case you haven't heard, this is a very select group. In addition, the WaPo story says the leak was shopped around to "at least six journalists". Novak bit. And most galling of all, Plame is alleged to be a weapons of mass destruction operative! Is there anything that this administration can possibly not stoop to? Does national security mean nothing to them? Wake up!

I must say this all seems quite peculiar to me. Why would someone in the WHite House do something like this... something so patently illegal... for so little actual gain. Of course the Watergate Breakin was nuts, if you think about it, but at least that was supposedly done out of the public eye. They just got caught. This was through a leak to Robert Novak, of all people. It's almost as if they were asking for it. I'm scratching my head on this one.

Who are the other journalists? Maybe they can name the senior administration officials. There's a lot of anonymous cr*p in all these articles. Give me specifics or don't waste the trees.

{{{Even assuming that the story is accurate (which is very doubtful), to say this is worse than Clinton selling national security secrets to the Chinese for cash (which secrets included the names of undercover operatives in SE Asia), or worse than the illegal review of hundreds of FBI files on political opponents, or the use of private investigators to intimidate and harass opponents, or the use of the IRS to harass and intimidate political opponents, or the sale of pardons for millions of dollars ...

is simple and utter nonsense.}}}

Let's examine this, shall we:

"Even assuming that the story is accurate (which is very doubtful)"
Then Robert Novak is a liar and whoever is talking to the press that it was shopped to at least six different media outlets is a liar.

The facts, as we now know them, are that Plame's name was published by Robert Novak who claimed he was given the information by two "senior administration officials." This is press-speak for those at the level of deputy secretary and above (and Novak, we may be sure, is aware of the conventions that govern such attributions). We know that another administration official says that it happened. We know that the CIA believes this to have been in violation of the law, which would seem to indicate that as far as it is concerned she was, in fact, a covert operative. Since we know these to be the facts, then what we have here is a violation of federal law.

"to say this is worse than Clinton selling national security secrets to the Chinese for cash (which secrets included the names of undercover operatives in SE Asia)"---
Other than in Ann Coulter's wet dreams and the delusions of Freepers everywhere, where is the evidence that this is what happened? Which "undercover operatives in SE Asia" were compromised?

As for the rest, isn't it curious that with all of the allegations, the ONLY thing that the OIC found to constitute grounds for impeachment was related to an illicit affair with a White House intern. Was Kenneth Starr's office simply incompetent?

As for lee's comment, "I would have ratted her out as well," then you would have also been in violation of the law [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/421.html ].

Now I don't believe the president knew that this had happened. I don't believe that he would have condoned it. But now that it is out, he has a responsibility to find those responsible and turn them out. He promised up an era of accountability and now its time to make good on that promise.

At least one person close to the president has said that he has "nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources." Such people, this highly placed presidential advisor said, are "the most insidious, of traitors." Since this is the case, the president needs to act to get these two miscreants out of the White House and into prison.

I will be skeptical of this story until I see names, places, dates and times connected to it.

"Two senior administration officials" -- if this is a code-phrase for a select group, then it's time to get each member of said group on record. Reporters know how to do that -- even bloggers can do that. Even if the response is "no comment" or "the official did not return our call" or "the official refused to talk with us(me)."

Ditto for the half-dozen reporters. If this is true, a trip to the nearest Washington press corps watering-hole would generate specifics.

There exists a real possibillity that Mr. Tenet has asked for an investigation because he knows(believes) that the charge is bogus and wants to kill it. Ignoring it didn't work, so now an investigation will be done. Of course, when that turns up nothing, there will be those who refuse to believe and who will insist that it's all a cover-up.

Regards to Dan for his excellent blog.

This wasn't the only dirty trick that week. Jeffrey Kofman was outed to Matt Drudge that week due to his story on ABC the day after Novak's column, interviewing soldiers criticizing Rummy.

There is a dirty tricks group in the White House, there are more than 2 people involved.

Yes, it was despicable. Have to see what Bush does about this. Did he know? Why doesn't one of the 6 journalists step up to the plate? Did Novak warn Palme before outing her? Everyone's pointing at Rove. I would suspect Cheney and Rumsfeld as well, or someone who reports to them. Who told the WP about this? Powell and Rice would be prime suspects. i wasn't gonna vote for Bush anyway. If the Dems had nominated someone like Sharpton (you never know what they'll do), I would have abstained. That said, the CIA is not off the hook either. It is a real scandal that no heads rolled in either CIA or FBI after 9/11.

it's time to get each member of said group on record

Condoleeza Rice says No Comment. That can't be good.

"There exists a real possibillity that Mr. Tenet has asked for an investigation because he knows(believes) that the charge is bogus and wants to kill it."

That's, um, an interesting take on things. It's quite possible Tenent was the source of the WaPo story. Tenent, after all, feels burned by the yellowcake story and the disregard for the CIA the administration has had. There is some score settling perhaps, but there must also be some institutional protectivenes at work. One of Tenent's people was outed. How could he not be furious (and especially with everything else).

Make no mistake.
Tenent is the engine of this story. He alone pushed it back into the national press. He could have killed it, and instead did the opposite. And to think that anyone in the WH would seek out the linking of "national security related felony" and "top White House official" is just nuts.

Here's a possible explanation of why somebody in the administration would do something so weird for "so little gain."

Assume the object is to intimidate Wilson and others to prevent further commentary on whether the Admin knew or should have known that the sixteen words did not have a solid foundation. So far, so good, but why take the big risk? Why not find another way? In other words, what would make somebody in the administration reckless?

Here's a possibility (just a possibility). Wilson was looking into documents (that turned out to be, apparently, third rate forgeries) that purported to show that Saddam was trying to import yellow cake from Niger. If they were forgeries, who forged them? For what purpose?

If the whole Niger yellow-cake business was an invention and was invented by somebody with a connnection to the Bush administration, then Wilson's revival of the issue in July would be a cause for considerable alarm. That person might want to step hard on the inclinations of any others to criticize.

Yes, it would still show rotten judgemnt. On the other hand, if somebody created the Niger document, that, by itself, shows pretty rotten judgment?

All of which sounds pretty paranoid. I don't think that is what happened here. On the other hand, I didn't think the third rate burglarly at the Watergate was really connected to CREEP at the beginning.

This story is too close to the Democrats' "Bush is stupid, evil and gets away with it anyway" meme to be believable.

The insistence of Democrats in the media and bloggerdom that not only is there a Bush Administration dirty tricks squad going after its political opponents, but that it is also a *incompetent* dirty tricks squad _committing easily proven felonies_, should be people's first clue as to whether this story is a hit piece or not.

I just can't tell all you conservative numbskulls just how much it warms my little liberal heart to watch you all struggling so mightily with what must be some really intense cognitive dissonance.

Watch out with all those contortions, though. You could throw your back out.

HA-ha

ROTFLMAO, Trent T!

too close to the Democrats' "Bush is stupid, evil and gets away with it anyway" meme to be believable

yeah. I have more trouble believing things when there's a lot of supporting evidence too. it's part of that whole 'scientific method' thing.

*incompetent* dirty tricks squad _committing easily proven felonies_

er, you mean like the Watergate plumbers? exactly how old are you, son? some of us actually remember Tricky Dick.

Trent,

The thing is, the source for the WaPO story is a senior Bush Administration official. It's not just "Democrats in the media and bloggerdom" making this claim.

Trent Telenko:
"This story is too close to the Democrats' "Bush is stupid, evil and gets away with it anyway" meme to be believable."

Bob Novak is a Democrat?

Since no "responsible" journalist should reveal his sources, nothing will ever come of this.

Nothing that is, except to sling mud on everyone and anyone that the slingers want.

Names have been tossed around here identifying the "guilty" party purely based on the whimsical fancy of their enemies.

It might be illegal to identify undercover agents, but it is also despicable to jump to conclusions and accuse people of this crime with nothing to base it on, especially since we're not even sure whether a crime has even been committed.

Knee jerks.

The outing of Plame was intended to chill criticism. What that tells me is that there was something else that they wanted chilled...we need to find out what that was.

I rise in defense of "innocence", and innocent acts.

Deep in the WaPo story, we get the thoughts of Robert Novak himself:

"When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons," according to one CIA official. Intelligence officials said they believed Novak understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover.

Novak said in an interview last night that the request came at the end of a conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request. If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it."

After the column ran, the CIA began a damage assessment of whether any foreign contacts Plame had made over the years could be in danger. The assessment continues, sources said."

So, Novak checked with the CIA, which did not vigorously discourage him (so he says). And the WaPo says, as does Novak, that folks would normally respect a CIA request like that.

Meanwhile, the CIA is still trying to figure out whether any harm was done.

Now, I said a long time ago that this was a stupid thing for the White Hosue to do. But if the CIA didn't think then, and is not sure now, that "outing" her was a big deal, it is quite possible that the WH staffers did not think so either. They might have been figuring they could embarrass Wilson without any national security implications whatsoever.

So far, we have no particular evidence that national security was compromised. We have conflicting versions of the CIA chat with Novak. We also have the CIA (we infer) chatting with TIME magazine about Ms. Plame, so the idea that they were desperately worried about this doesn't hold up well.

If it was technically illegal (still not known) but national security was unaffected, my outrage is diminished.

If she really was involved in selecting Wilson (Novak and TIME say so) then, arguably, she is part of the story.

Is truth a defense?

One of the more interesting aspects of this story is what it tells us about the relationship of the CIA to this Administration and the consequences for the WH. It tells me that Bush has not simply lost them but has made the Agency an active enemy. Revealing the identity of an undercover operative is the greatest sin one can commit to career Agency personnel. You do so at your own risk--and among the risks is the revelation of many secrets you desperately hope to keep out of the public domain.

The CIA almost certainly knows the identity of the WH officials who identified Plame to Novak and the others. After all, they conducted an internal investigation and made the referral to DOJ and were almost certainly the source of the Post story. Now the WH must be living in abject horror that not only will the two WH officials take the perp walk with raincoats over their heads but, perhaps even more ominously, that even more closely guarded secrets that could cause extreme discomfort in the WH will be revealed to really, really make the point that you don't f*** with the CIA.

Tom Maguire-

No, truth is not a defense when the felony is the actually telling the truth to an unclassified person. That should be obvious, even to someone who is willing to continue being an apologist for the current regime under these circumstances. If Valerie Plame was a covert operative within the meaning of the act (and she appears to have been) then "outing" her was an act of treason, a felony, and everything else that has been alleged. I'm touched that you think that the CIA should run in hysterical rings proclaiming how important she was and how dangerous this act was before we , as the public, take it seriously. Haven't you ever read any lecarre or any other spy novelist? The whole point of the spy world is to keep your cards close to your chest in terms of how important any given assett is to you at any given time.

And as for Wilson's wife "being part of the story" I don't get that in the first place. He was asked by the CIA to go to Niger, and the CIA was asked by Cheney's office. If people who knew he was an expert in the region (former ambassador and all that---and remember he was acting ambassador under Bush I in Iraq at one point too--selected him what on earth did that ever have to do with his wife, or why would her part in his selection even be noteworthy? Its only part of a story in this laughable white house attempt to make Wilson's trip seem unimportant. If they had a legitimate beef with his trip, his findings, etc...of course they could have addressed that directly in an op ed piece instead of leaking pointless information. But that is totally their method: remember what happened to John McCain in South Carolina? Remember Karl Rove's history with the College Republicans? All this stuff isn't some Democratic wet dream/nightmare, its something Rove himself has bragged about and Rove himself has used as part of his selling of himself as a smart political operative.

What this whole situation means to me is that the Bush Team never took the war on terror seriously at all. Their lack of concern with actually finding the WMD they alleged existed (remember how we didn't get search teams in right away? remember how we didn't cordon off and secure the nuclear sites?) is equalled by their lack of concern with the life and safety of a CIA operative and her family. So much for the restoration of honor and dignity and so much for national security. I'm really glad we have the Patriot Act in place and I sure hope that the DOJ is as eager to use their new tricks on the white house as they are on the ordinary citizen. --aimai

Ironic, isn't it, that "If it was technically illegal (still not known) but national security was unaffected, my outrage is diminished," didn't hold sway for so many righties when Clinton's alleged perjury about his marital fidelity was the issue.

Plus, "freed on a technicality" has long been a bugaboo of law-and-order Republicans (aside from when discussing things like Oliver North an other Iran-Contra-esque conspirators).

Tom,

Now I´m not an American and I just stumbled across that story some days ago.....
I´m still undecided but your post simply required an answer! :)

I´ll just use some of your quotes
from the WaPo article:

"Intelligence officials said they believed Novak understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover."

Now maybe it was a weak request by the CIA....:)

"They said it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad..."

And probably "personal security" ALONE isn´t something that should make a reporter think twice about writing a column.....right?
Now what´s the big deal for "WH staffers" (your words!) if she´s getting into problems "traveling abroad"?

Not to mention the fact that by saying that "it's doubtful she'll ever AGAIN have a foreign assignment" (emphasis added) they practically confirmed that
she HAD foreign assignments before.

And what did you say?
"Meanwhile, the CIA is still trying to figure out whether any harm was done."

Uhh, that Novak article was written on July 14.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

IF she wasn´t a covert agent why would the CIA need MONTHS to figure out if any damage was done?

If she isn´t employed by the CIA or is just working in the CIA cafeteria I´d assume that it would be a matter of hours to decide that no harm to national security was done?

Could you please explain to me why "the CIA is still trying to figure out whether any any harm was done" MONTHS after that article was published?

Detlef

It will be interesting to see how the DOJ investigation turns out.

Half of Washington apparently already knows the identities of the "officials". Nothing about this particular story can be covered up.

Wait and see what happens. Speculation at this point is equivalent to masturbation.

I do recall President Bush having to swear an oath at some point to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States" and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."
If he knows the identity of the leakers and does not fully cooperate with any investigation--that is, if he does not tell the relevant person who the leaker was--then he is in explicit violation of that solemn oath. And if lying about a blow job was a high crime or misdemeanor, then certainly this would be.
What's the over-under on when someone at the White House invokes (or tries to invoke) executive privilege? I'd give 'em a week. Maybe.

There is a lot of corroboration for this story.

First, the CIA knows exactly who the six journalists are because they all called the CIA. Any responsible journalist, including Novak, would run this past the CIA before publishing it. In fact, Novak has stated that he contacted the CIA, and they asked him not to publish her name for reasons of national security, but Novak did so anyway. The other five journalists didn't publish. They must have contacted the CIA, and respected the request on the grounds of national security.

So the CIA isn't fumbling around in the dark. They know at least two key facts that prove a crime was committed. They know Plume was an agent. They know that six journalists came to them with information about Plume, and each of those six said senior White House officials were the source. That's lock cinch corroboration that a crime took place, and that it took place in the White House.

As for who at the White House did the crime, the CIA may not know yet. But that will happen as soon as the Justice Department's subpoena power is used.

Unless this investigation gets buried -- a possiblity with republicans controlling the subpoena power of the entire federal government -- someone is going to jail.

3 leaks that week from the White House.

First was Valerie Plame. Second was Jeffrey Kofman being gay. Third was actually very signifigant as well

http://www.thehill.com/news/072303/leak.aspx

Somebody from the communication shop falsely leaked to the media that Dick Durbin was leaking classified info and that republicans on the intelligence committee wanted him booted. The story was absolutely false.

Bill Frist actually rose to defend Durbin from the charges. However they were being made, anonymously by the same people who went after Wilson/Plame, and the ABC reporter, and it all ties in. Wilson discounted Uranium, ABC's Kofman let soldiers on tape bash Iraq and Rumsfield, and Durbin asked to get Wilson's allegations investigated.

All 3 that week had nasty leaks, one of which at least was illegal done in response. There is no coinkidinks here. It was a program.

*GRIN* Ogre

> Not to mention that there is no provision
> for innocently committing a felony.

Right. "I see now that my judgement wasn't what it should have been, and I deeply regret the mistake I made in stabbing those 3 guys in the throat," doesn't really cut it.

---JRC

Tom Says:

But if the CIA didn't think then, and is not sure now, that "outing" her was a big deal, it is quite possible that the WH staffers did not think so either.

Are you joking?

What the WH staffers 'thought" is completely irrelevant. They seem to have committed a crime. You don't get to say "But I didn't think it was a big deal" in cases like that.

How difficult is that to understand?

My take on this is here. The basics:

1. The evidence that Plame is truly an undercover agent is actually very weak.
2. The chances of Bush "getting away" with this is pretty good (even if she was an undercover agent).
3. The Dems need to be careful: If the evidence clears the White House, it will be Democrats who did more to uncover a covert operative than Republicans.

1. If a bombshell crime has clearly been committed, why has the CIA been so timid about the investigation?
2. Read Bob Novak's quote in the WaPo story. The CIA wasn't exactly fighting to keep Plame's identity secret.
3. If Plame is a covert operative -- the footsoldiers of an intelligence agency -- why was she involved with high-level intelligence policy?

"Why doesn't one of the 6 journalists step up to the plate?"

Well, one of them did step up--Novak. Like Novak the other five are most likely rightwing conservatives friendly to the Bush administration. I don't see anybody in the WH calling NYT or Wapo to leak stories.

The silent five have the choice of continuing and growing a scandal for the guys they want to stay in power, or staying silent. If they could clear the Bush WH, they'd be on the tv screen right now, and stay there all day every day until the Plame afair went away. That they are silent speaks volumes.

I first heard of this story several weeks ago and, when it apparently disappeared, thought no more of it. Its reappearance after several weeks reveals a fair amount.

I am informed that Novak's "source" shopped the story around to many reporters prior to Novak biting on it. This says still more, especially to those of us in the legal profession who know that any potential client who has unsuccessfully sought representation from other lawyers concerning the same problem will likely sue us for malpractice if we dare take on their case. If my information as to Novak's source is correct on this, the story doesn't just smell, it shines in the moonlight.

"As for the rest, isn't it curious that with all of the allegations, the ONLY thing that the OIC found to constitute grounds for impeachment was related to an illicit affair with a White House intern. Was Kenneth Starr's office simply incompetent?"

For what it's worth, Starr was never authorized to investigate the fundraising scandals. Janet Reno successfully stonewalled an independent investigation. Contributors got away with selling high-tech weapons to Red China. Senior government officials got away with receiving six figure contributions from impoverished nuns.

There is no corroboration on this story, of any kind.

Stephen Glass was caught only because it was dicovered his sources didn't exist. Jayson Blair was only caught because his sources said he lied about what they said.

Conveniently, in this case, there are no names of the sources to allow a check to make sure that Novak's sources even exist. There are no names to check if the words attributed to the sources, if they exist, are merely Novak's lies. There are no names to check to see if Novak's sources, if he reported their positions and words correctly, were not themselves lying to Novak. Wilson has carefully couched his statements about his wife in the standard "neither confirm nor deny" phraseology, which means we don't even know if his wife did actually work for the CIA or not!

Then we move on to the Washington Post story, which itself is entirely claims about anonymous sources once again -- government sources, a senior administration official, sources familiar with the conversations, an anonymous reporter who talked to Wilson, a source who would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists, and a bunch of unnamed journalists who were supposedly informed by the unnamed leakers.

All we know is:

1) Novak said anonymous sources said something.

2) Mike Allen and Dana Priest say anonymous sources said something.

3) Wilson has been throwing around the implication that his wife is a CIA operative exposed by Karl Rove.

If that's a scandal, I'm the Pope. All it is is an indication that there might be a scandal. Call me when there's a real story.

Timberlake and Triplett, former national security staffers, wrote two books, Year of the Rat and Red Dragon Rising, which meticulously document how Clinton gave John Huang and the Tiadys unlimited access to the CIA's secrets in SE Asia.

The illegal review of over 900 opponents' FBI files is so well-known that anyone questioning it must be ignorant or stupid.

The use of private operatives to intimidate and harass was revealed by Dick Morris.

The evidence of Clinton's use of the IRS to harass opponents was well-established through discovery in a variety of lawsuits, many of them brought by Judicial Watch.

Clinton's brother and brother-in-law each brought in more than a half million dollars peddling pardons. Denise Rich and a number of others gave the Clinton's presidential library slush fund millions of dollars to secure pardons that even the Clinton's most loyal spear carriers have been unable to defend.

Robert Novak isn't a democrat. What he IS, demonstrated several times over, is a paleocon and borderline antiSemite who is well known for believing that the US should have been sucking up to the Arabs and dumping Israel. Think he'd like to embarass Bush?

If the nuns were impoverished where did they get the six fiqure contribution?

"Robert Novak isn't a democrat . . .Think he'd like to embarass Bush?"

Well, then, SDN, that makes the Bush operatives doubly foolish and incompetent for having notified him. Gave him the rope, so to speak.

There are an awful many so-called conservatives who could learn a thing or two about taking a principled stand from Daniel Drezner. If the story turns out to be true, the Bush Administration more than deserves its fate. If not (if Novak and the WaPo are lying), "that which does not kill. . .", etc. In contrast, "deny, deny, deny" is in itself disgraceful, because it implies indifference, and extreme, fanatical hypocrisy.

I'll say ti again, because it bears repeating in light of subsequent comments that focus on Novak. Novak is not the sole source of this. The CIA did an investigation. The CIA knows for a fact that 5 journalists other than Novak turned down this story, because the CIA talked them out of it.

No, Robuzo, it means that he could have made the story up out of whole cloth. Not like that would be unusual for reporters with an axe to grind or a point to make, eh Mr Blair or Mr Gilligan? And I'm amused by hearing the same people who claim the CIA lied or sexed up WMD now treating them as the font of revealed truth because they might get Bush.....

Sorry, SDN, if the CIA requested an investigation it means that one of their peopled was outed. They aren't asking whether it happened, they're asking who in the Administration did it. The issue isn't Novak's veracity, although there is no reason to think he or the WaPo is making things up "whole cloth". You're clinging to false hopes, but by all means keep it up. I don't much like watching fanatical yahoos running the country into the ground, but it's fun to watch the like of you squirm.

The CIA is filled with leftover Clintonistas. This is just part of the full court press to discredit Bush on as many fronts as possible. Remember April Something or Other, Ambassador to Iraq prior to the first Iraq war? There was an attempt to discredit Bush, the elder by claiming that she was told to tell Saddam that we wouldn't interfere if he invaded Kuwait.

Too much of a coincidence that they've using the same MO.

Well, speaking as a somewhat-unwilling Bush supporter, who has been disappointed by Bush's domestic actions and concerned with the possibility that he is not serious enough about the WoT - if this story holds up and seriously embarrasses the administration (i.e. perp-walks and the rest), then I think it would put the Republican primary into play. I would welcome a primary fight on the Republican side - why should the Democrats have all the fun? Who do you think might step into the fray? McCain? Who else?

McCain has been positioning himself as someone who takes the WoT seriously. On the other hand, he is the co-author of that atrocious campaign finance "reform" bill. Eh, more choices please. Maybe even someone I would be happy to vote for? Is that asking too much?

The CIA knows for a fact that 5 journalists other than Novak turned down this story, because the CIA talked them out of it.

And how do you know this, pj? Wait -- you don't. You know that an unnamed source said that to WashPo writers. So here's a challenge for you:

1) Prove the reporters aren't lying about what the source said, or even the source's existence.
2) Prove the scource wasn't lying his own ass off from the security of being unnamed.

Again, there might be a story here. But all we have is the word of three writers that the word of some unnamed sources are good.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has confirmed that the matter has been turned over to the DoJ: that brings the number of established facts to four. Probably five; it strongly indicates Plame did work for the CIA.

That's what's known. Anything else is just speculation on claims that may be as divorced from reality as anything Glass or Blair wrote.

Ok, as to my question "is the truth a defense", that willb emy last attempt at a drollery, until the next one.

Secondly, this looks like the relevant part of the statute:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

I (for example) could easily have heard that Wilson's wife works at the CIA, and been told that she helped pick him for the Niger gig, without also being told that she was a covert agent who had been posted overseas.

If I then passed on what I had been told, it may well be something for the lawyers to decide as to whether I had intentionally disclosed the info knowing that it would identify her as covert, and in disregard of the fact that the US was taking steps to conceal her identity.

According to the WaPo, the motive was to embarrass Wilson, not to "out" his wife.

So actually, ignorance looks like it might be an excuse. I hope that is not too hard to understand.

Now, I see no evidence that the other five reporters called the CIA - what did I miss?

Statute
http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html

You forgot to mention one other thing we know. We know that the Justice Department is investigating the allegations at the request of the CIA. Do you think the CIA made the request casually?

SDN: And I'm amused by hearing the same people who claim the CIA lied or sexed up WMD now treating them as the font of revealed truth because they might get Bush.....

This is so dishonest and stupid that it makes me want to vomit. No Democrat of any standing accused the CIA of lying about WMD. The argument all along was that the White House, particularly the OVP, made up its own intelligence to circumvent and humiliate the CIA, which was trying to restrain them from going into Iraq.

I can probably get enough evidence for this from links to contemporaneous statements from just one mainstream liberal blogger, Josh Marshall. Yes, I just checked and in fact I can. But I don't have all day, so how about if I just stop at thirteen? Try here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Shockingly, the CIA has been wearing the white hat throughout this affair from beginning to end. Administration critics are entirely consistent when they credit the CIA's current allegations as plausible. SDN, you should be ashamed of yourself for signing your name to this utter trash.

Note to those who think Novak made the whole thing up: on July 17, Time ran a similar story, including the following:

"... some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

Maybe Novak and Time got together to fake this one. Kind of like a vast liberal conspiracy to bring down the President. Funny, though, because they're not liberals.

The CIA is filled with leftover Clintonistas. This is just part of the full court press to discredit Bush on as many fronts as possible.

Wow, only took 19 minutes for the party line to change. At least this one is logically consistent, but does anyone really believe that the natural sympathies of the CIA, of all places, lie with the Democrats?

It's incredible that your first reaction to hearing these very serious allegations is to automatically, without any specific evidence to the contrary, just assume that it must be because the messenger is evil. It doesn't seem like you've even considered the possibility that just maybe the charges could be accurate. They have to be false because, well, they just have to be.

On a related note, anyone who thinks it's more plausible that two high-profile reporters for the Washington Post just flat-out lied about the existence of an anonymous senior administration source on a story of this magnitude than that this White House (gasp) actually might have done something wrong is standing with two feet firmly planted in tinfoilcap land. And don't give me Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair. (a) Those guys were a statistically insignificant sliver of the pool of journalists out there, (b) the Post reporters here are veterans who are much bigger deals in their profession than Glass and Blair, who were both young strivers, and (c) this story is huge and will be subject to immense scrutiny, and there's no way any reporter could possibly think they could get away with such a huge lie unless they were mentally ill. Actually, why am I even debating this issue? I mean, this is just plain nuts.

Your headline for this topic suggests someone who's political values are not well founded. Is being a member of a political party something akin to Kiwanis vs Rotary to you?

I didn't read anything below the headline. And I doubt I'll be back to the site again.

Mindless and embarrassing.

One(at least) question remains-who in the White House has access to the identities of covert cia operators..certainly not all "top officials" have that type of access..perhaps a short list would include Cheney,Tenet and maybe Rumsfeld.So even if it is an underling responsable for the leaks..they didnt just find that information laying about.

I'm a moderate politically, somewhat leftist, but I've supported Bush on a few things, including Iraq. I'm with Mr. Drezner on this. If it's proven true, the perps better end up behind bars, never to see the light of day again. If Bush knew, impeach the hell out of him.

"ken" suggests that "political values" are a matter of party loyalty, rather than principles, which might explain the degraded state of the Republican party of today: "Who cares if George Bush lied? He's a Republican President, so it doesn't matter!" As someone who dislikes both sides of the aisle, I have to applaud Mr. Drezner for both his honesty and his devotion to the principles of democracy.

I think everyone should just wait to see the facts revealed, and then there won't be any need to blame the "Clintonistas" or to yell that it is a Democratic plot. Just follow the facts and make sure they are not doctored by the threatened parties. Let it play out and get to the truth.

The fundamentally frightening thing about rubbing the CIA the wrong way is that the CIA, more than any other organization in the world, knows how to pull the rug out from under governments.

The CIA is filled with leftover Clintonistas. This is just part of the full court press to discredit Bush on as many fronts as possible. Remember April Something or Other, Ambassador to Iraq prior to the first Iraq war? There was an attempt to discredit Bush, the elder by claiming that she was told to tell Saddam that we wouldn't interfere if he invaded Kuwait.

erp, I hope that was a joke. Her name is April Glaspie and she was the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq in 1990. After being summoned to a surprise meeting with Saddam eight days before the invasion and listening to him complain that Kuwait was overproducing oil in what amounted to economic warfare against Iraq and that the U.S. was supporting this policy, she infamously said that the U.S. had "no opinion on Arab conflicts", reported back that Saddam appeared to be extending a hand of friendship and then went on vacation. While her intent may be disputed, her words are not. See John Bulloch and Harvey Morris's Saddam's War on p. 10 or Iraq's Road to War, edited by Amatzia Baram and Barry Rubin, on p. 20.
I believe most people see it as a gaffe rather than an intentional attempt to encourage Saddam, but I think everyone can concede it wasn't a very wise thing to say to someone like Saddam (especially if we were supporting Kuwait's policy of oil overproduction, which it seems likely we were).

ken writes, "Is being a member of a political party something akin to Kiwanis vs Rotary to you?"

Spoken like a true Bolshevik.

I'm intrigued at the press's unquestioned acceptance of Wilson's conclusions. As he is known to be a GW critic, why is no one asking questions about HIS agenda? Also, why is no one concerned about the apparent nepotism in his wife's designating her husband to carry out this sensitive mission?

Hysteria happens. Calm down...I know that GW's enemies are working 24/7 to drum up some "scandal" to bring him down, and that is politics as usual. Watch out that you do not become a flaccid facilitator or fellow traveler in this demogogic exercise.

Why doesn't the President just called his SENIOR officials into the room and ask them the question...Did you do this?

That might be a naive question but I would like a serious response to it.

Sissyphus writes: "I'm intrigued at the press's unquestioned acceptance of Wilson's conclusions. As he is known to be a GW critic, why is no one asking questions about HIS agenda? Also, why is no one concerned about the apparent nepotism in his wife's designating her husband to carry out this sensitive mission?"

What does that matter? All of that is beside the point, and none of it excuses multiple felonies that jeopardize national security.

Are you seriously saying that it's okay to out a covert CIA agent because you don't like what her husband said? What difference does his agenda make?

Is there anyone you wouldn't sell out for partisan gain?

Would you also think it would be okay to put a bullet in the head of an Army private in Baghdad just because his wife wrote a letter to the editor complaining about Bush's Iraq planning?

Sneaking suspicion it was Ari.

Just musing for the heck of it today but I think one of the two must have been Ari. Why else would he have left suddenly during the summer?

if George W. Bush knew about or condoned this kind of White House activity, I wouldn't just vote against him in 2004 -- I'd want to see him impeached.

No worries Mr. Drezner. You think aWol knows anything? He was playing computer golf and/or watching Tom & Jerry at the time. Duh.

"ken" suggests that "political values" are a matter of party loyalty, rather than principles

No, he suggests that, as a Republican, the fact that the Bush White House has done something illegal shouldn't turn one into a Democrat. You either agree with the Democratic Party's principles and will adopt them on their merits, or you don't.

Yet another reason to support a candidate who is strongly pro-military, has a sound foreign policy, is fiscally conservative, and has a stronger belief in free trade and balanced budgets than the current president. I believe this gentleman's name is "Joe Lieberman."

Hey, John H:

"Wilson's political leanings and associations (not disclosed by the Times and others journalists interviewing him) cast serious doubt on his objectivity..."
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp

Just a crazy thought, but wouldn't it be great if the executive branch were a little more transparent and accountable in its operations? Wouldn't we all benefit by rejecting the current culture of closed-door dealing and habitual obfuscation that dominates political decision-making?

It just bugs me that both democrats and republicans are quick to pounce on scraps of apparent corruption and abuse of power committed by the other side, and are equally quick to defend indefensible behavior when their own side is in the oval office.

Hey Sisyphus, what part of "it doesn't matter" don't you understand? Even if Wilson were biased, how does it excuse breaking the law and risking the CIA's ability to gather intelligence on WMD in order to retaliate against him? If they had a beef with Wilson, they should have taken out an op-ed and attacked his credibility like men. Instead, they appear to have resorted to slimeball tactics, and the possibility that Wilson might have been wrong doesn't make the tactics any less slimy. The content of Wilson's report is totally beside the point.

What bothers me the most about this affair is that the entire story is constructed by the news media using anonymous sources. In the blogosphere, we insist on links, and sources, so that we can "fact check your ass". We have done that on many occasions and revealed factual and philosophical errors, and plagerism, among other "crimes of fact". Here we have an allegation that may or may not be a crime, but with no government official on the record providing any facts. We have Bob Novak's word for the original story, and wronged husband Wilson's complaint about it, and that is all. If this were a story originating in the Internet, it would have died a long time ago for lack of sourcing. Why is it that the news media can do this, over and over with many stories, and not be called on it? It's not news if it cannot be fact checked, is it?

It's quite clear that someone may be lying here. Absent names and job titles, we cannot know who. And, of course, news people cannot be forced to name their sources by law. So where can any investigation go? An anonymous smear, originating with complaints from an avowed anti-administration source, Wilson, and not a single fact to back it up.

If this were a story originating in the Internet, it would have died a long time ago for lack of sourcing. Why is it that the news media can do this, over and over with many stories, and not be called on it?

Because the major newspapers are repeat players, with clear long-term institutional incentives for maintaining their credibility. This doesn't mean that everything they say should be accepted uncritically, but it makes them far more reliable than either random posters on the Internet or self-interested White House officials who are the subjects of the story.

In the interests of transparency, I am a Liberal Democrat.

That being said, what the hell kind of Kool-Aid have the hard-right Republican posters on this thread been drinking? I can try to make this as simple as possible, but I doubt it will help you take off your blinders.

A CIA agent, specializing in a field that is critical to NATIONAL SECURITY, was outed as such by WHITE HOUSE SOURCES, according to reports. That warrants an investigation. The motive behind the outing does not matter in the slightest. One of our intelligence assests was compromised, if you believe that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. If you don't believe that, you're insane. Clinically insane. The sole basis for denial of that claim is that the CIA didn't vociferously enough confirm the fact. That's like arguing that saying "yeah" is less of an affirmative answer than saying "yes, sir, oh great one!" Both mean yes. If the CIA was quiet in their confirmation, it is because they, unlike the leaks in the W.H., understand the importance of prudence and reservation in handling intelligence affairs.

Someone ("federalist") was nice enough to post a quote above from a former intelligence official and Presidential adviser, though the name of the speaker was not given. That part of federalist's post follows:

"At least one person close to the president has said that he has 'nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources.' Such people, this highly placed presidential advisor said, are 'the most insidious, of traitors.'"

Those quotes are well in context. The person speaking them was former President George H.W. Bush. Something tells me he would want to see this fully investigated, not for any political gain, but for the sake of national security and of his son's legacy. An investigation NOW is the only way W. will remain clean thirty years from now.

I know that GW's enemies are working 24/7 to drum up some "scandal" to bring him down, and that is politics as usual. Watch out that you do not become a flaccid facilitator or fellow traveler in this demogogic exercise.

Yes. Whether or not the allegations are true is not our concern. Notice how I don't even acknowledge that issue. The important thing is to prevent any political harm from befalling the Great Leader.

Sez David:

Sneaking suspicion it was Ari.

Just musing for the heck of it today but I think one of the two must have been Ari. Why else would he have left suddenly during the summer?

I've heard, perhaps even thought, this myself. But it simply doesn't wash.

Bush's problem with trying to pin it on Fleischer is that Ari, like Scott McClellan now, wasn't a policymaker; he was merely a conduit for (dis)information. If he leaked the story, it's a lead-pipe cinch that someone higher up in the administration *told* him to do it.

A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair game."

The above is an actual quote from the WaPo article which is causing such a buzz in the (left half of) the blogosphere today. It's but an example of how thinly sourced, anonymous, and speculative this all is. Atrios et al have already embraced the maximalist version of the events, based primarily on the speculations of David Corn, Timothy Noah, and other like-minded souls. If you're not filled with visceral, Krugman-like loathing of this administration I don't see why you would jump to these conclusions. A little patience please.

It is, however, good to see that the left now has such a serious, law and order attitude regarding felonious behavior in the executive branch. I remember when felony perjury in a civil law suit by the President wasn't such a big deal. I wonder what could have caused this change of heart.

Eric Deamer:

I would expect that you, with your authentic "law and order attitude regarding felonious behavior in the executive branch," are OUTRAGED.

There's no question at least one felony was committed--the only question is WHO, not WHETHER--unless you assume some outrageous facts such as:

1) There is no such woman as "Valerie Plame"

2) Ms. Plame does not work for the CIA at all or is a low-level functionary with non-covert status

3) Bob Novak, Time Magazine, and at least two Wash Post reporters are lying when they quote anonymous sources

What we do know (or have a very good reason to suspect, assuming 1), 2) and 3) above are not true) is that:

1) Valerie Plame does exist

2) She is or at least was a covert agenct for the CIA

3) Bob Novak and other reporters were not lying when they said that her existence and identity were given by someone in the Administration.

What we also know is that the outing of Valerie Plame--regardless of whether it was widely known, widely suspected, or "fair game"--is a felony.

What we don't know is who committed the felony, not whether the felony occurred.

----

So, for those wagon-circling types out there asking for "patience" for an investigation to occur, let me ask you this:

Why not have an independent counsel? What is unreasonable about Sen. Schumer's request?

Thumper:

Of the three facts you listed only 1 of them is irrefutably true, 1) Valerie Plame does exist.

It's at this point debatable whether or not she was "covert". Read the National Review piece that everyone is linking today for more on that. Also, the original Robert Novak piece does the "outing" as a momentary aside. It is not the thrust of the article and he does not present it as earth-shattering news.

As for "the administration" doing the "outing" I think that's what we're debating today. Depending on how you read these various anonymously sourced reports the "outing" could have come from the CIA or from somehwere in the White House. What level it was done or authorized at is not known defnitively by anyone yet, except for those who actually did it and perhaps Robert Novak, who will never reveal the source(s).

I'm very interested in the answers to these questions, and perhaps an Independent Counsel is the correct approach to get to the bottom of this. I'm just pointing out that from these minimal facts, everyone's gone on to the most baroque interpretations possible. That's what I mean by couselling patience.

It hasn't been confirmed that she is a covert agent. Working for the CIA can mean being an analyst, which is what was implied when Novak wrote his article. The CIA would never admit publicly that one of its employees was or wasn't a covert agent. Just because they're doing an investigation doesn't mean that she was one.

Second, we don't know that a crime was committed. In order for this to be a crime, the knowlege that Plame was a covert agent, if indeed she was one, must have come from someone officially informed of her status.

For all we know, the source knew she was a spy, if she is one, because the Nigerian government figured it out and it became common knowlege. Divulging information learned from non-informed sources is not a crime.

By the way, Novak is now saying that his source was not from the White House, but is a senior administration official. This could mean a lot of things, folks.

There may be something here, but it is way too early for people to toss out "impeachment" or other reprisals before we know even if a crime was committed.

Mike, Novak called her an "operative" in his column...his wording changed as the implications of his actions sank in.

This Administration has gotten the reputation of being nasty, spiteful and childish in its attitude towards those who don't follow its commands--freedom fries, cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys, chocolate makers, etc. The likely perp in this case would seem to have those attitudes.

George W. Bush, anyone?

It's your Texas, and Florida. Why be surprised?

You kill your own astronauts because NASA can't read a Power Point bullet.

You kill democratic Presidents and contenders.

The Republicans you select are brain-dead before they achieve (are, dodgily, shoe-horned into) power, and graduate to Alzheimer's in office.

Why not, after signal success in Iraq, invade Iceland? It is quite small. Your troops will not have to exhibit much bravery.

The blonde Icelandics have a fiendish plan to eliminate oil, for power. And it is working.

Very, very, un-Haliburton of them.

Murder them. For Texas. And Florida. And Dick Cheney. Quick now, before he decides to do it himself. And may attract personal blame.

Or may be forced to call Karl Rove, to call that staunch defender of democracy, and truth, Bob Novak, and ask him to create a different fiction.

Save Dick, and Texas, and Florida.

Without them could the rest of the world cope?

Ask Dick, or Karl, or Bob. But not Dubya. He's having trouble remembering what today's answer is.
And no wonder.

lee carr: Two corrections -

1) "since Wilson was known to be anti Bush and anti war" - You are hardly the first person I've seen saying this, so I assume that this must be some new meme the the Right is trying to push. For the record, Wilson is politically a centrist, although that may seem to be left to you. As for Wilson being anti-war, Wilson could not possibly have been anti-war at the time. Wilson's trip was early in 2002, and the war effort wasn't "rolled out" until September, 2002. Now unless Wilson can warp time, he certainly wouldn't have known about the war back then. Which means that it is you who is trying to warp time.

2) "the Niger official Wilson talked to claimed he was approached by Iraqi officials two years previous" - What's your point here? Approached, yes, but with no mention of aquiring yellowcake. This is a crime worth waging a war over? In fact, what you are doing here is exactly what the administration did in cooking its evidence ... trying to see a crime in every movement and word of the former Iraqi government.

Mike Rentner: "Since no "responsible" journalist should reveal his sources, nothing will ever come of this." - Phone logs perhaps?

marc: Executive privilege is not applicable in this situation. Both the CIA and the DoJ are part of the Executive Branch.

Tom Maguire: "heard that Wilson's wife works at the CIA ... without also being told that she was a covert agent who had been posted overseas." - Not likely. If the leakers knew her by the name Valerie Plane, then they knew she was a covert agent because she only uses that name when she is acting as a covert agent. The rest of the time she is simply Mrs. Wilson.

This seems to be a recurrent pattern with the White House....if you criticize you can
expect an underhanded personal attack in response...I'm sure we all remember the
the attempted smear of gay Canadian ABC news reporter Jeffery Kofman after his
report of demorialized US troops in Iraq earlier this summer.

Four things. Was raised a Republican, and until recently was proud to be one. It used to be that the fact that Replubicans are better at dirty tricks was a selling point. It's one of the underlying notions beneath the criticism of Democrats as idealistic, weak, and naive.

Second, it doesn't matter what you know - just what you can make stick. So all this crap about Clinton and the FBI files, and killing Vince Foster in a jealous fit over the affair with Hillary, and sending Mr. Brown into a mountainside in Europe to clean house ... well it may well all be true but is *completely* irrelevant. Why? Cause my fellow Republicans already took their best shot and came up short. Nothing stuck, except Lewinsky. So get over it and stop whining or you'll start sounding like Democrats.

Third, big guys get taken down for little mistakes. It wasn't running booze and putting out hits that got Capone, it was taxes. It wasn't Whitewater that tarnished Bill, it was a little office fling with a bimbo. It wasn't murdering elected foreign officials, it was a stupid burglary into an office that got Dick.

So all my fellow Republicans who are saying this isn't a big deal are expressing wishful thinking. It's precisely cause it isn't a big deal that they should be worried. Cause it's not the big deal you can't prove, but the little indiscretion you can that matters.

Fourth, I just had dinner with a Republican friend of mine who says after the past three years, "At least thank God it wasn't Gore in office. Say what else you want about Bush."

With all Due Respect to my otherwise brilliant friend, this is a cop-out. We're Republicans. You know? The Party that used to be able to say, yes we are callous bastards but we can get the job done? Let's face it. We got a big sour lemon in the White House, and there ain't no amount of sugar that is going to make Lemonade out of this.

You think that's too extreme? Wait till North Korea actually takes South Korea and kills half our guys there and takes the other half hostage, and maybe nukes guam and okinawa to kill the staging and bombing areas. That sound ALARMIST? well it's not, anymore than the guys screaming RED ALERT before Pearl Harbor were alarmists. Given the current strategic situation and background intelligence, this is a real possibility - maybe before Halloween.

Wake up and smell the bootshine. We're all in a world of hurt now, and it can only get worse. Sigh.

Hypothetically, If this thing blew up real big, all the way to the top, and Bush ended up being brought up for impeachment, would the charges also include his AWOL status from National Guard during Vietnam?

Someone upthread wrote: "What this whole situation means to me is that the Bush Team never took the war on terror seriously at all. Their lack of concern with actually finding the WMD they alleged existed (remember how we didn't get search teams in right away? remember how we didn't cordon off and secure the nuclear sites?) is equalled by their lack of concern with the life and safety of a CIA operative and her family."

There's a plausible explanation for their failure to take any of this "seriously."

All that mattered to Bushco was starting the war, getting the foothold in the Middle East. Nothing after breaking the place up and getting in mattered.

Why?

Because for them, chaos = dollars. Extended chaos = more dollars. Trillions of dollars for the cronies, looted from the pockets of American families and laundered through the military industrial complex directly into the wallets of the Bush clique-donors.

This explains the looting, explains the laggardly reconstruction, explains the inadequate supplies and mealstuffs for soldiers. They truly didn't give a flying fook about anything but securing the opportunity for profit.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but how the hell can America not be enraged by the fact that the Bush family's trust fund is swollen with blood money through Father Bush's Carlyle Group? The conflict of interest is ghoulish and barbaric.

Yes. They lied, and sexed things up and they DIDN'T care about the lying because breaking Iraq apart and getting the looting started was the goal. Profit uber alles. CEO administration.

Geez. I'm sorry if I killed this blog.

But as long as there's a lull, I'll take the opportunity to add another thought.

If we stipulate that the Bush administration takes inexplicable actions (failing to plan and pay for the peace, running a political juggernaut out of the West Wing, running the economy into the ditch by transferring wealth from generations yet unborn to the trust fund set, and so on) and if we stipulate that the Bush inner circle presses on its agenda with impunity and hubris while poll numbers fall off into the abyss on policy and job performance, then we are confronted by a Very Serious Question.

To wit: Do these people not fear the will of the voters? And if not, why not?

Lurking in the back of my mind is the brand new book "Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century."

For those who may not be aware of the recent frantic dustup over electronic voting machines, let me tell you that some computer-savvy people found (on the web pages of vote machine manufacturer Diebold) the software code for the company's voting machines. Tests were run using the code. Enormous flaws were found -- flaws that could allow transferring of votes in an eyewink, by varied simple methods. Subsequently, batches of Diebold internal memos were leaked. The revelations show that our votes aren't secure.

Diebold (owned by Republican interests) is trying to fight off the citizen investigations, but Diebold stock is also being dumped.

Oh, there's another ironic tidbit. Walden O'Dell, a Diebold executive, announced to a Republican audience in September that he was ""committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the president next year." WTG, Walden!

If you want to know more about all this, go to www.blackboxvoting.com.

Now, can someone convince me that George W. Bush is conducting the affairs of the United States in a manner that indicates he expects to be returned to office in a full, free, and fair election?

W survives this only if he finds and cuts loose WHOEVER made and/or authorized the 6 calls.

It is always the cover-up and not the crime.

Why would 'they' do it? Hubris-plain and simple.