At the Examiner, Laurie Byrd has a rueful look at the Libby conviction and the congealing of the fact-defying CW. The Washington Post editorial is well worth reading as well:
Mr. Fitzgerald was, at least, right about one thing: The Wilson-Plame case, and Mr. Libby’s conviction, tell us nothing about the war in Iraq.
I dont get the calls for Libby to be pardoned. He is guilty of what he was convincted of, not many people are arguing that. Anybody that supported the impeachment of Clinton certainly doesnt have a leg to stand on in Libby’s case. Lesson- dont lie to federal prosecutors, we have laws against that.
Lorie Byrd is a right wing nutcase who posted her hateful bile at Polipundit for a while until getting “promoted” to Wizbang.
Her article is all about Joe Wilson and how the “media” continue to ignore “overwhelming evidence” that he “lied”.
What does this have to do with Libby’s conviction for perjury to the grand jury?
Nothing. Nada. Niente.
What does it tell us about the inner workings of Cheney’s White House leading up to the war?
Well, on the issue of disputed intelligence, not too much that is conclusive.
But one thing is clear.
The truth was apparently worth commiting a felony to protect from the public.
Really makes you wonder, don’t it?
Remember, the WaPo is no disinterested spectator here. As one of their own columnists put it, certain journalists confused access to inside information from powerful officials as an end, and not a means to an end. More to the point, their chronology is off. By the time Fitzgerald was appointed, Libby had already perjured himself and the evidence was right there. One could hardly expect a career prosecutor to walk away from that, although of course the Bush Administration is changing what it means to be a career prosecutor.
Whatever light it sheds on Iraq or doesn’t, this conviction tells us a lot about Cheney’s m.o.
Talk about perpetuating myths!
Here’s Byrd, quoting the WP:
“In a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.
Here’s what Wilson actually wrote in the NYT:
“In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990’s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.”
How does Wilson suggest that Cheney sent him?
More by Wilson from the NYT:
“The vice president’s office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.”
Note Wilson’s words “help formulate an answer”…confident that approriate officials received his answer…(Wilson says elsewhere in the Times that he did not “write” a report himself, but gave an oral briefing)
Wilson’s initial claims in the NYT were quite modest; Byrd’s claims about them are inflated. This is just beyond the pale.
Talk about ignoring the point.
Lorie Byrd was speaking to the widespread (and near deafening) roar of conclusions from many, that Libby’s conviction on lying about his conversations with reporters confirms and vindicates Joe Wilson.
It does no such thing. Wilson himself has been thoroughly discredited, by no less a source than the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that many of those partaking in the current hysteria have often heralded.
Saddam Hussein sought — as in tried to get but may not have — uranium from Africa. That’s what the President said, and it’s well supported by captured documents in Iraq, as well as by the original British intelligence that led to the claim. They stand by it. The CIA, in receipt of whatever it was that gadfly Wilson reported, actually felt his information confirmed rather than refuted suspicions that Saddam was trying to get his nuclear program back on track.
So there’s that, that Wilson lied about. But he lied about almost everything else too. He lied about who revealed his wife’s identity to the press — it was Armitage at State — and he lied about why her name was revealed. He lied about her status as “covert,” which Fitzgerald did too in calling it “classified” in his summation, as he and his wife identfiied themselves as such in a Who’s Who publication, and have sought all manner of publicity before and since.
And yet, to Byrd’s point, the media continue to spin this crap as a vindication of poor old Joe Wilson and his wife. The movie, if it comes about, won’t even be as accurate as your average Oliver Stone fantasy piece.
Yet now that I think about it, there are many who think the CIA assassinated JFK…I suppose there’s always a market for conspiracy fiction.
Wilson has not been discredited. Read what he actually wrote, rather than what is attributed to him by those who seek to discredit him. He never made any grand claims.
His belief (not claim) that Rove and Libby revealed to the press that his wife worked at the CIA have turned out to be true. That Armitage also revealed her name to the press in no way means that Rove (Novak’s 2nd source) and Libby did not do so also.
If the senate report disagrees with Wilson’s view of the likelihood of Iraq having sought urnatiam from Niger, that’s just a difference of opinion, it’s not discrediting; it makes Wilson wrong, not a liar.
This is getting so silly
I second #2 Wei’s comment, re: the Libby’s guilt:
“What does this have to do with Libby’s conviction for perjury to the grand jury?
To quote Mark above: “Lesson- dont lie to federal prosecutors, we have laws against that.”
That is the bottom line.
Of course that opens up the NEXT question – why was Libby willing to commit perjury? What was he protecting?
Dadmanly, you don’t even have the correct report. It’s the Senate Select Cmte on Intelligence. (Be careful from whom you copy.) And only three GOP attack dog senators had anything to say about Wilson’s report from Niger other than the possibility that one elliptical conversation could have been interpreted as an interest in yellowcake. (Wilson also reported that there was no way that such a delivery could have been made without it becoming evident.)
Somehow, it always strikes me as comic when Bushbots talk about Wilson (or much of anything else) being “debunked”. We’ve been in Iraq for years. Where’s the damn yellowcake or any other WMD?
As an initial matter, I thought Libby was going to be found guilty of 1-2 counts, so I’m not extremely surprised. Also, per Mark’s challenge, I oppose and still oppose Clinton’s impeachment. I see this all as part of a larger process of criminalizing politics. I am also reaching some negative conclusions about Fitzgerald’s investigation of Illinois’ Democratic governor in the run up to last election, but I digress.
(And to further reflect how crazy I am, I don’t think people should ever be put in jail for lying to an investigator, as opposed to lying to a grand jury or tampering with witnesses)
There will be a case made for a pardon. This was an unusual case in many respects. Fitzgerald prevented the defense from getting access to a lot of documents and from calling certain witnesses. He was able to do this because his case focussed on the specific lies and not the larger criminal and conspiratorial allegations surrounding them. On the other hand, Fitzgerald referenced these larger issues, including in his closing argument which the judge chastised. I believe the defense will appeal on the grounds that it was denied a fair trial due to the lack of access to potentially exculpatory documents and witness testimony, including the documents of the conversations that the FBI agent(s) carelessly lost.
These and other issues will probably be brought up on appeal. They may result in a mistrial. They may not. The Appellate Court won’t want to put the taxpayers through the expense of another trial unless the errors reach some tipping point. Still, its the President’s job to determine whether justice was done. The court’s job is to make sure that the proper procedures and rules have been followed. Justice and procedure are not the same thing. If the President can look at all of the evidence for and against a pardon and decides that justice was not done, but pardoning Libby would hurt his Presidency, it would be immoral for him not to pardon Libby.
The good side of all this is that the jurors seem to have been shining credits to America, doing what was right according to law regardless of their personal feelings, and arguing together to achieve a decision.
The confusion was (and Joe Wilson is a smart enough guy to know this) whether Wilson’s job was to debunk a _sale_ of uranium to Iraq (which no-one was claiming) or Iraq _seeking_ uranium. Wilson came back and claimed up and down that Iraq hadnt bought Uranium from Niger… which was true but _not the question he was supposed to be asking._ Wilson debunked something that was never ‘bunked’, and then tried to make political hay with it. Like I said, its not a misunderstanding, Wilson is plenty smart enough to know better.
This entire episode would have been avoided had the CIA gotten a nondisclosure agreement which is absolutely standard in this type of mission. Considering how Wilson got pegged for the job in the first place (ahem) i’m surprised nobody has investigated how that particular oversite happened. One conclusion is that some faction of the CIA (including if not led by his wife) intentionally sent Joe Wilson to create a political stunt, but thats conjecture. But conjecture that fits the facts perfectly.
For those who think that a conviction means there must be more there — “what was he lying to cover up?” — I would pose the same question back about “everyone else” involved in trial testimony. The jury clearly thought most of the journalists involved were lying too. They must have been trying to cover something up, right? Like knowing they are being used by partisans on both sides in a battle of leaks. Or that this was really a war between the CIA and State against their own bosses in the Administration. (Funny how none of the conspiracy mongers have anything to say about that.)
The CIA doesn’t allow its covert agents to register themselves in Who’s Who, and would surely look askance at a CIA spouse writing an Op Ed for the NYT. Plame was NOT covert, though she was an employee. Note that nowhere in Fitzgerald’s case did he introduce ANY evidence about Plame’s status whatsoever.
Listen, you can cull through any manner of claims, beliefs, assessments made pre-war all day long. None of it changes the fact that all Western intelligence services and a lagre majority of Congress (GOP and Dems) thought Iraq either had WMD stockpiles or was actively trying to revive/reinvigorate WMD related programs, including a nuclear one.
That El Barradei of the UN thought Saddam was “newly cooperative” in the leadup to the war only reinforces the likelihood that Saddam was closer to revitalized programs than it now appears he was. (Although, there are clues that people and material that would be involved in such a program may have been evacuated to Syria and/or Russia in the laborious and much delayed 6 month “rush to war.”) For the history-challenged, all that money Saddam was dishing out to the French, the UN, and Russia was to get sanctions lifted, so Saddam could resume military and nuclear transactions from friendly western suppliers. What did you think he was paying for?
I’m kind of suprised that the more even-handed folks who regularly inhabit the comments here aren’t more skeptical of some of these wild eyed “Bush Lied” meme mongers. If we still have to argue those old tired saws now some 3-4 years later, there is no hope for finding a rational common ground.
Dadmanly writes
I don’t believe that for a minute. Would you mind citing some source other than your own beliefs and your experience of James Bond movies? Have you ever heard of the spy Moe Berg? He was a major-league catcher, much less in Who’s Who.
There’s a certain paradox, that whenever a lot of people believe that spies shouldn’t be allowed to do X, it just makes it a better cover to have spies do X.
Lie under oath, go to jail. Boo-freakin’-hoo. I don’t have the slightest desire to second-guess the jury here, althought the snippets I hear about Fitz do make me wonder a bit.
The only reason I care at all is because of the apparent CIA screwup. They should have sent an actual professional (who understood that the price of access to government ears is that you don’t write op-eds)rather than a publicity-seeking clown. The fact that we don’t have assets in one of the world’s major sources for nuclear material is also a problem.
Other than that: don’t perjure yourself.
Do covert agents generally commute to Langley every day? The briefest glance by the rankest amateur intelligence officer at Plame’s bio (much less the envelope her paystub comes to her house in) would reveal exactly what she was. During the early 90s her mailing address was an APO at an American Embassy for goodness sake.
Here’s an authority I grant you is not entirely trustworthy:
_”Plame’s husband, Joe Wilson, stated in a July 14, 2005 interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN that “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.”_
“source”:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html
Mark, I certainly agree that Plame was not a clandestine officer by the time she worked openly at the CIA. I also agree that the state of our human intelligence in Niger (many other places too, no doubt) is pathetic. How this relates to Plame’s status seven or eight years ago is unclear to me.
Small question:
Libby has been convicted of four crimes that carry sentences for a range of years. At the sentencing hearing is it possible that we will find out Plame’s statuts for certain? Wouldn’t everyone agree that Libby should serve on the upper end of the sentencing range if she was covert?
_Lie under oath, go to jail._
Just for the record, the lies to the FBI were not under oath. Now the other three counts . . .
Mark, clandestine does not equal covert. Don’t let AJL trick you.
_”How this relates to Plame’s status seven or eight years ago is unclear to me.”_
How is Plame’s status 7 or 8 years ago relevant to this discussion aside from the fact that her cover was never taken remotely seriously post Aimes fiasco in the mid-90s?
Im not sure what you are asking Andrew, my only point is that Plame had no cover to blow by the time Novak got ahold of her.
I personally think the scariest thing being lost in the smoke and heat of this argument is how the CIA (or elements thereof) apparently worked actively to undue the policy of an administration. That should be scary to everyone of all parties. I dont think the Democrats in particular should be ok with CIA freelancing, from a strictly philosophical stance.
_”Mark, clandestine does not equal covert. Don’t let AJL trick you.”_
I don’t think there is much of an argument she was either, which is apparently why Fitzgerald only has Libby to show for this circus. Is anyone arguing Plame served outside the United States within 5 years of the disclosure? Isnt that the legal definition of covert? Didnt she start working out of Langely in 97 and spend the interim getting married and having babies?
Is someone legitimately arguing that even though her identity was assumed to have been compromised by Aimes, she had a public address at an Army post office box at a US embassy in Europe, she was working directly out of CIA headquarters, and yet she was still sent to serve covertly overseas in between babies?
That is absurd.
_Is anyone arguing Plame served outside the United States within 5 years of the disclosure? Isnt that the legal definition of covert?_
Its been suggested that Plame may have gone overseas in the service of the government within the prior five years. I believe the PDS/AJL hypothesis is that this service may have been of such a duration or nature that Plame’s status under the statute is uncertain and could only be resolved by a trial. I have offered additional reasons that I believe AJL finds less convincing, including whether she had already been outed and whether the CIA was continuing to take enough affirmative measures to conceal her status.
The ambiguity of her status would explain Fitzgerald’s narrowly-focussed investigation of the matter. He was for a smoking gun and was only go to attempt to resolve her status if he found it.
The judge has looked at the CIA referral and related documents and has said that he doesn’t know Plame’s status.
My understanding is that she most likely had a non-official cover identity, which is common with american ambassadors (or spouses, close family etc). Although her identity was in plain sight, it allowed her (at some point before 2003, and possibly again in the future) to travel into other countries and discretely gather information while traveling in her ‘real’ identity. (note: This reminds me of a WW2 spy story I once heard… one guy actually walked around telling people he was a spy. He told everyone he met, neighbors, the mailman etc. and acted very eccentric all the time. As a result, everybody thought he was crazy, and he could move about unnoticed.)
In addition to ‘outing’ Plame (assuming this is the case), this also ousted the company she worked for, which was again working under non-official cover. By blowing her, they also blew an entire group which was working in many places around the world.
In fact, ironically, according the Michael Isikoff’s new “book”: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn, he dictates that she was working in the “joint task force on Iraq”, and that group had been frustrated by an inability to find nuclear data in Iraq.
Haven’t heard anyone break down Isikoff yet, so feel free to go at him.
PD Shaw: interesting point. Worth contemplating.
Dadmanly: The reason why most of the world thought they had nukes is because no one had done real reconnaisance in Iraq in almost 10 years. It is generally a bad decision to base a war on 10-year old data and intel fed to you by groups that have been known to be loose with the truth (and have been asking us to reinvade since 1991).
“a non-official cover identity, which is common with american ambassadors…”
That would be a textbook case of an “official cover.” The idea with an official cover is to use diplomatic immunity to protect your spies. (Though you wouldn’t expect an “ambassador” to be a spy in any event; their rank is too high within the State Dept. hierarchy for the slot to be passed off for CIA use.)
A NOC would be like a corporate worker, or somebody who just went into the country to teach English, or a tourist, or some idle rich person on permanent vacation — i.e., not with any official connection to the US government.
Alchemist
“It is generally a bad decision to base a war on 10-year old data and intel fed to you by groups that have been known to be loose with the truth (and have been asking us to reinvade since 1991).”
True. However, that was only one of a lengthy list of reasons. And when it came to assessing loose truth tellers, which do you think was seen as more credible,
1) the exiles
2) Saddam… given his prevarication in the face of the weapons inspectors and his history of actually developing and using the weapons.
Now we know the answers. Both were liars.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot.
Saddam won’t be developing nor using any more of these weapons. We can be CERTAIN of that.
“Saddam won’t be developing nor using any more of these weapons. We can be CERTAIN of that”
True Dat!!
It’s also true, that the very good thing described above (Saddam not developing weapons) has been at the cost of that victory is:
what will end up being over a trillion dollars
half a million Iraqi lives
so far more U.S. military deaths than were lost on 9/11
going on 25K U.S. wounded
a strategically more powerful Shiite crescent
a failed country in Iraq,
the accelerated birthing of ten thousand jihadists bent on revenge against the West, and the U.S. in particular.
All in all, not a good trade, nonexistent weapons for the after-effects described above.
Hypocrisy rules,
“what will end up being over a trillion dollars”
Perhaps.
“half a million Iraqi lives”
did you subtract off the ones that would have died under Saddam and the sanctions?
“so far more U.S. military deaths than were lost on 9/11
going on 25K U.S. wounded”
Sad.
“a strategically more powerful Shiite crescent”
Tactically or strategically?
“a failed country in Iraq,
the accelerated birthing of ten thousand jihadists bent on revenge against the West, and the U.S. in particular.”
Hmmm. Smuggled nuclear weapons vs. 10000 irrational and perpetually angry anyway, illiterate, emotionally stunted,
future casualties that need to be fed, clothed, housed, trained, and then transported to the front line. Did I forget anything. Oh yeah, weapons/explosives need to be found somewhere.
Tough call.
Hypocrisy,
I can’t believe I missed this:
“so far more U.S. military deaths than were lost on 9/11
going on 25K U.S. wounded”
There is no connection between Saddam and 9/11. Why do you equate the two?
Well, clearly Saddam and 9/11 they are connected in some type of mystical way, that you must be a neocon to understand.
Unfortunately, it’s all rather above (or below, or to the side – some direction) my head. I think I began to understand the connection, one night when I hadn’t gotten any sleep, had gotten up at 5 AM the previous morning, and it was 2 AM the next night. Delirious, on my way home, with many different types of liquids in me – you can figure out the liquids – I began to get a glimmer of the connection –
but then it faded in the morning.
One day perhaps I’ll get it – clearly, the realm of connection between Saddam and 9/11 is available and crystal clear, in some twilight realm, closely associated with Lord of the Rings, or something…
hypocrisyrules,
“Well, clearly Saddam and 9/11 they are connected in some type of mystical way, that you must be a neocon to understand.”
I haven’t heard any neocons make this connection. I did see you imply it, though.
hypocrisyrules has been making the same claim about 9/11 and Iraq for years now, and its been rebutted for years now. Of course, its gotten old.
Likewise, no one can figure out where he gets the silly idea that military casualties were somehow pegged to the number of deaths on 9/11. Must take a BDS sufferer to understand.
I think it got tagged along when Bush said something like:
“I can’t distinguish the differences between Al Queda and Saddam”.
But that’s just my opinion.
Libby lied under oath. If he is pardoned it will save Cheney.
_”If he is pardoned it will save Cheney”_
From what? His blood clot?
Alchemist said
“I think it got tagged along when Bush said something like:
“I can’t distinguish the differences between Al Queda and Saddam”.
But that’s just my opinion.
_____________________________________
What’s your opinion?
Is it that the neocon’s got stuck with the bogus contention that they confused 9/11 with Saddam?
or
Is it your opinion that Bush said SOMETHING LIKE
“I can’t distinguish the differences between Al Queda and Saddam”?
Well, did he actually say it or didn’t he? A source would be nice so I can verify the context because this is very open-ended in terms of interpretation.
As an attorney, he knew very well how heinous a crime perjury is against our legal system and yet he did it. I can’t have a lot of respect for a man who subverts the principles he has been professionally trained to uphold.
On what grounds would he deserve a pardon for this particular crime?
This is not a political issue. If Libby would sit in a cell for 1 to 3 years, maybe everyone in Washington, left and right would get the idea that their is a difference between spinning things to the press and lying under oath.
Pardoning Libby, it seems to me, would only further blur that distinction.
TOC,
I can’t say I have followed the details of the trial very closely, but if he did, in fact, commit perjury or obstructed the investigation then I agree with you completely. Why would he deserve a pardon?
Having said that, was the trial fair? I guess we’ll find out more on appeal.
Next question that I find interesting, aside from Libby, though not excusing him, is what about Fitz? Was he being wholly ethical in his pursuit or was there some political payback in there?
#37 from h2o273kk9
Well he does have an appeal.
On the second question, My take on Fitz is that he is your typical good federal prosecutor. Relentless in pursuit and vicious in the execution of a trial. As far as being political, Guiliani made his name on making Wall Street executives do the perp walk. He later went to the same group to fund his campaigns for Mayor.
From the limited experience I have had with them, they seem pretty straight forward, motivated and not the type of people that like to be lied to.
My nephew spend some time in the FPO in New York a long while back.
I realize this is old but…
“You can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.” [President Bush, 9/25/02]
And people why Americans somehow got confused…
…alchemist, it’s both old and incomplete. try this instead:
From the “White House”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/text/20020925-1.html site
A.L.
Lets not introduce logic and context into a perfectly good smeer job.
fair enough