A New Watergate?

[Lynne Foster]

I agree with you John, this is much more serious than Watergate. But so was Contragate.

The fact is, the only reason these scandals are not blowing up the way Watergate did is because there is this perception that "it is not good for the country".

So I really think that there is a good chance that there will be a plea bargain here, to keep the real truth buried because "it is not good for the country".

I don't excpect a serious meltdown in a country that tolerates questionable elections.

[John Dolva]

I agree with you John, this is much more serious than Watergate. But so was Contragate.

The fact is, the only reason these scandals are not blowing up the way Watergate did is because there is this perception that "it is not good for the country".

So I really think that there is a good chance that there will be a plea bargain here, to keep the real truth buried because "it is not good for the country".

I don't excpect a serious meltdown in a country that tolerates questionable elections.

I have a question for citizens of USA, about regular life in Joe and Jane's suburbs, country town, at gatherings etc.. It's something of ointerest here in OZ because of some draconian laws being proposed here at moment + some of them in the past, such as rights of assembly, reasons and conditions of detention, shoot to kill etc. You have a tradition recognising value of revolt. Sure, this was a long time ago. And as far as I know it is now illegal to advocate government overthrow? And there are attempts to make flagburning illegal? Let alone voicing joke or otherwise re bumpin off the head honcho? Is voice constrained in society in general? Can Joe and Jane citizen, chat over the backfence about getting rid of bad gov without getting a file and attendant probs? Or have I watched too much telly? (I suppose if the answer truly was no then the answer would be for safety sake yes or vice versa.

PS I was in washington a couple of years back when a big anti war demo was in full swing. Bush had just returned from visit to OZ. Lots of security etc. but generally people seemed free in expressing how they feel. I guess what I'm talking about is some lingering dominant McCarthyism?

Edited October 29, 2005 by John Dolva

[Lynne Foster]

Karl Rove is worst than Joe McCarthy and he has the ear of the most powerful person in the world.

Does that answer your question?

[John Simkin]

So what, exactly, does this have to do with the assassination of JFK?

I think Robert Howard provides a very good answer:

The 64 dollar question about the "Plame affair" is whether evidence that Fitzgerald has or will obtain will lead to a resurrection of the WMD issue, which for the most part seems to have disappeared from the media, which I think, is a sad commentary about the electorate. I personally believe that between drowning in cynicism and suspecting the worst about "our government" many American's are so unaware of the co-opted media (see Pres. Reagan vetoing of "Fairness in Media Act" to become Federal Law link http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html)

that the problem in restoring some semblance of reality to America's democratic process, is pre-empted by the fact that media has been asleep at the wheel for a couple of decades now. How can you solve problems in this country, when the electorate is basically sedated watching Nancy Grace and Hollywood Scandals Volume 12. IMO there is appx. a minority of Americans who realize that the Republican vs. Democrat battle royal is really more of a sideshow to the very real FACT that American government needs to "be reformed."

Bad things seem to happen to people throughout American history who have "a vision" that does not fit in with the status quo, see

MLK's "Re-distribution of Wealth, Poor People's March on Washington."

A kinder, gentler Malcolm X who seemed ready to "join forces with MLK."

RFK's - "Healing the rifts between black and white, young and old, pro or con over Vietnam and civil rights."

And so it goes....as Fearless Leader once said "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, er ah #%&* can't get fooled again."

The connection between the Wilson/Plame story and the JFK assassination is that they are both examples of how the US government and the CIA work together to keep the truth from its citizens. This is completely unacceptable in a democracy.

We have a similar problem in the UK. We now know that MI5 and the government worked together in order to publish lies about the existence of WMD in Iraq. Where you had Joseph Wilson, we had David Kelly, who exposed this lie via leaks to the press. He was then “outed” by the government and threatened with legal action. He was also smeared by the government machine. So also were those journalists who wrote articles based on Kelly’s leaks. Kelly eventually committed suicide (or was murdered) as a result of these events. .

Unfortunately, in the UK, the prime minister has the power to select his own judge and jury. Blair was therefore found not guilty of these crimes. (Although polls show that the vast majority of the public consider him to be guilty). However, we all know he is a xxxx and he will always been remembered for this. The history books will not be kind to Blair (the same goes for Bush). Blair’s Karl Rove, Alistair Campbell, also resigned as a result of the Kelly affair.

Bush’s aides have broken the law. It seems you have a honest prosecutor and he stands a good chance of getting both Libby and Rove. I expect Bush will not be impeached and like Nixon, will not end up going to prison. Bush and Blair have learnt from the Nixon case. They would make sure that there is no documentary evidence of their lying. For example, minutes were not even kept of the meetings when Blair discussed the Kelly affair.

Since 1963 the citizens of the US have been involved in a struggle to regain a democratic state. People in the UK are involved in a similar struggle. It is especially a problem because of the way that our governments use their control over the intelligence services and the mass media. The emergence of the internet has weakened their control of the system. Working together we can return our countries to democracy. As far as I am concerned, this is what this Forum is all about. That is why I started this thread.

[Mark Knight]

While I believe the Wilson/Plame issue is a significant one, the fact is, it just isn't getting the play in the press that it deserves. It is OBVIOUS that the intent of revealing Valerie Plame's name in the press was to make her further use as a spy impossible. To say that this act was not done in retaliation for her husband's article exposing one of the many lies the Bush administration used to sell the war in Iraq to the American people would be yet another comparable lie.

But I don't see this as a case that will bring down the Bush administration, as Watergate did Nixon's. Further, I doubt that Karl Rove will EVER face charges, in spite of any guilt on his part. Right now, the lynchpin is Libby...if Libby got his information from Cheaney--and it's already been established that libby did NOT get his information from reporters, as he maintains--then Cheaney might be the weak link in the palace--er, White House--armour.

It'll never happen. Watergate has almost completely ensured that, short of murder in the public view with a smoking gun in hand, NEVER will another American presidency be allowed to be dismantled based upon criminal charges. IT JUST WON'T HAPPEN, independent of any issues of guilt or innocence. And WHY won't it ever happen? Because there is no integrity in American government, and the people not only know that, they acknowledge it daily. As long as it can reasonably be claimed that a prior administration did something as bad, or something worse, the only guilt issues that will EVER be discussed in American society will be those concerning COMPARATIVE guilt. Nixon raised the "comparative guilt" issue during Watergate when the subject of illegal wiretaps was mentioned, but at least his pleas about his predecessors were ignored...probably because, at one point in his second term, ALL his predecessors were DEAD. [in my lifetime, Nixon holds the distinction of being the ONLY President to serve who had NO living ex-presidents from which to draw advice and counsel during a period of his administration...trivial fact of the week.]

The conservatives, those who complain that America is on the road to ruin because there are only shades of gray and no absolutes of right and wrong in American society today, are among the FIRST to bring up the subject of "comparative guilt" whenever the President is concerned. To these folks, whether he's right or whether he's wrong, he's still the President, and one doesn't speak ill or disrespectfully of the President, unless he's a Democrat liberal. Or at least that's how their arguments come across to me.

The issue being raised was the law against revealing the identity of a covert agent. Yet conservatives on this very forum won't address THAT question without bringing up the name of Phillip Agee. While Agee was indeed guilty under this statute, the argument of "comparative guilt" is once again raised along with Agee's name. The issue of guilt regarding the members of the current administration is swept aside, if only to argue that they were "less guilty" than Agee. The truth is, someone in the current administration is EQUALLY as guilty as Agee, but on fewer COUNTS of violating the law. The argument of "comparative guilt" is used to varnish over that fact, to attempt to try the current administration against the Agee case rather than against THE LAW...the law which is otherwise "holy' to the conservative, UNLESS its violation negatively impacts the current administration.

But as long as conservative news reporters and commentators can keep the focus on "comparative guilt," the fact that SOMEONE IS GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE LAW in THIS ADMINISTRATION will be obscured by somkescreens such as this, and the American public will be hoodwinked into believing that, when all is said and done, NOTHING HAPPENED...and THAT is yet ANOTHER lie.

[Ron Ecker]

You have a tradition recognising value of revolt. Sure, this was a long time ago. And as far as I know it is now illegal to advocate government overthrow?

I believe you are correct that it is against the law to advocate a violent overthrow of the government. Whether official law or not, this suppression is basically unconstitutional, since as I understand it the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights in order to protect the people against tyrannical government. In other words, the people have a constitutional right to revolt (not that I advocate it!) and they need arms to do it.

Let alone voicing joke or otherwise re bumpin off the head honcho?

It is also against the law to threaten the president, or at least it will get you a visit from the Secret Service. The only non-government people immune to this law would be robber barons like H.L. Hunt, who allegedly told a group of people that the only way to get rid of Kennedy was to shoot him.

And there are attempts to make flagburning illegal?

On flag-burning, there was an unsuccessful movement to amend the Constitution to outlaw this form of protest. Flag-burning has been one of the emotionally charged non-issues like school prayer and gay marriage that "conservatives" always use to distract people from the country's real problems. It is claimed, for example, that Bush "won" the 2004 election on the burning issue of "family values." Meanwhile, isn't it a shame what has happened to the Wilson/Plame family?

Is voice constrained in society in general?

I think the real problem is that the voice of the corporate media is constrained, and that’s the voice that most Americans hear in terms of what’s happening. I don’t think the voice of the people would be constrained if the people knew what to talk about. Instead they parrot media-purveyed government propaganda. For example, Muslim terrorists attack us because “they hate our freedom,” and the solution to this is to “spread freedom in the world.” To me this sounds like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it, but of course the intent of such nonsense is to avoid talking about the real reasons so many people hate, not America and its freedom, but decades of intrusive and imperialistic American foreign policy.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark Knight wrote:

The issue being raised was the law against revealing the identity of a covert agent. Yet conservatives on this very forum won't address THAT question without bringing up the name of Phillip Agee. While Agee was indeed guilty under this statute, the argument of "comparative guilt" is once again raised along with Agee's name.

If I recall correctly, what Agee did was morally reprehensible in putting the lives of American operatives in danger, but it was not illegal at the time. The law making it illegal to reveal the name of a covert operative was passed in response to what Agee did.

[Tim Carroll]

Watergate and Leakgate have a common subtext which I believe is being missed in the coverage. Pundits are scratching their heads over the issue of motive; if everyone knows that it's not the deed itself that gets one in trouble, but rather it's the cover-up, then why would Libby lie about something so provable? I believe that Fitzgerald signaled the answer to this when he explained the Obstruction of Justice charge by saying that if Libby had just provided the truth, the whole investigation could have been completed last October. Last October, weeks before the election, the last thing the Bush Administration wanted was for this issue to rise to the fore. Similarly, Nixon's brain could not wrap itself around any solution other than containment when he had the last election of his life in the offing.

Tim

[Tim Gratz]

Let us try to get the facts correct.

It is claimed that Bush II lied about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq to justify the Iraq war. But there is no question that Bush was relying on information and assessments from the CIA. If the information that Bush had was either intentionally or negligently incorrect, that does not make Bush a xxxx. It must also be remembered that just about the entire Washington establishment, including President Clinton and the leaders of his administration, including Secretary of State Madeline Albright, believed that Iraq had WMD.

John has written, without any factual basis whatsoever (but what else is new?) that President Bush ordered Karl Rove to orchestrate a "dirty tricks" campaign against Joe Wilson. But what did the alleged "dirty tricks" consist of? Allegedly, the revelation that Wilson had been sent to Niger (to investigate the claim that Hussein had attempted to purchase material for WMD from Niger) through the efforts of his wife, who was a CIA agent. The problem that arose was that Wilson's wife was a "covert" CIA agent (i.e. she was not so publicly identified) so whoever told a member of the media that she was a CIA agent may have violated a law that prohibits such disclosure. But the disclosure itself was, of course, the truth (if it was not the truth it could not be a statutory violation, of course).

As far as I know, no one has disputed the claim that Wilson's wife manuevered to get him his assignment to Niger.

So how does telling the truth about the origins of the Wilson trip to Niger become a "dirty trick"?

Edited October 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

Mark Knight wrote:

The issue being raised was the law against revealing the identity of a covert agent. Yet conservatives on this very forum won't address THAT question without bringing up the name of Phillip Agee. While Agee was indeed guilty under this statute, the argument of "comparative guilt" is once again raised along with Agee's name.

If I recall correctly, what Agee did was morally reprehensible in putting the lives of American operatives in danger, but it was not illegal at the time. The law making it illegal to reveal the name of a covert operative was passed in response to what Agee did.

While Agee's revelations may have been the inspiration for the law in question, that doesn't prevent obfuscators from bringing up the argument of "comparative guilt", as I previously mentioned. In other words, the argument is made that what the current administration did is much less wrong than what Agee did [although, at the time, there was no law prohibiting Agee's revelations]. I just find it informative that persons who call themselves "conservatives," who live for "the rule of law," would resort to defending the current administration by arguing "comparative guilt," as they do and have done. To an intellectually honest person, the degree of guilt is NOT the salient argument; both are equally guilty. The difference is of how many COUNTS each are guilty. Of course, since the law was passed in response to Agee's actions, he is only MORALLY guilty, and not LEGALLY so...whereas someone in the current administration IS legally guilty.

As an ex-attorney, I would have thought that Mr. Gratz would have understood that one does not prove innocence by arguing on the basis of "comparative guilt." But perhaps it is I who didn't make a forceful enough argument when Agee's name was brought into the discussion, and therefore the fault is mine.

But I also believe that Mr. Simkin is mistaken in the belief that this issue constitutes a constitutional crisis on the level of Watergate. The primary difference is, in 1973-74, the American people had enough faith in their government to NOT believe that "everyone does it." Today, that faith is lacking, and the American people--those who haven't succumbed to terminal apathy-- DO believe that "everyone does it," including born-again compassionate conservatives, and that to argue for the upholding of a higher standard is ultimately an exercise in futility.

Or, to Gable-ize the response: "Frankly, John, America no longer gives a damn."

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, I do not want to quibble here, but I think there may be judgments of comparative guilt. Surely we would all agree that a serial murderer who has killed dozens of innocent victims has inflicted greater damage than a person who has killed only one person, perhaps in the heat of passion. Clearly the existence of serial killers does not absolve a person who has only killed once.

Perhaps you missed my point. My point is that I doubt that John, who is clearly anti-CIA, objected to what Phillip Agee did because Agee's motivation was in left-wing politics: to disrupt the activities of the CIA. I suggest John (and others) are not aghast because Victoria Plame was revealed as a CIA operative (what a dastardly thing to do!) but rather because it presents an opportunity to bash Bush.

Note moreover that Fitzgerald has not accused anyone of violating the law relating to exposure of identities of covert CIA agents. And there may be a good reason for that. The law requires that the person charged have had a specific intent to wrongfully disclose the identity. Let me suggest a scenario why Fitzgerald did not charge Libby with violating that statute. (I am not saying my scenario is in fact what happened but I think it may be clear that it was Libby who first revealed to the press that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent or officer.) Is it totally unreasonable to assume that Libby was unaware that her identity as a CIA officer was covert and thus could not be revealed? In other words, whoever told Libby that Plame was a CIA officer or agent might not have made it clear to Libby that her status was covert. Because Wilson's wife went by her maiden name, Libby may have wanted to ensure the press could connect her to Wilson, and report her role in Wilson's assignment to Niger. This could have happened if whoever first advised Libby that Plame was Wilson's wife and that she worked for the CIA was not careful to tell Libby that Plame was a covert agent. This scenario could explain why Fitzgerald was unable to indict anyone for a violation of the statute.

The big question I have is why Libby, a lawyer himself, thought he could successfully lie to the investigators. As I understand it he told them that it was Tim Russert who told him that Plame was CIA. Surely he must have known that the investigators would check his story with Russert (who, by the way, also has a law degree).

(For those interested, here is a link to the actual law. If you read it carefully you will note there is also a requirement that the name of the covert CIA agent whose identity is disclosed must have worked outside of the U.S. within the past five years. I am not certain but I have heard discussion that Plame had not done so.)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/usc...ection_426.html

Edited October 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Did Bush lie:

Here is an interesting quote from Joseph Wilson himself (from the horse's mouth as the old saying would go):

Oct 31, 2003: "Unfair Game / Joseph Wilson on the cost of telling the truth in Washington", LA Weekly, Ben Ehrenreich:

Excerpt: Q: Do you think it’s possible that the president himself did not know the information that you brought back from Niger before he gave the State of the Union speech?

WILSON: I think it’s highly likely that the truth was kept from him. The question for me is who so betrayed the president as to allow this lie to get into the State of the Union address? It wasn’t me. It was somebody from his own staff. It was a manipulation of intelligence, a twisting of intelligence, the selective use of facts or fiction to bolster a political decision that had already been made.

[John Simkin]

Watergate and Leakgate have a common subtext which I believe is being missed in the coverage. Pundits are scratching their heads over the issue of motive; if everyone knows that it's not the deed itself that gets one in trouble, but rather it's the cover-up, then why would Libby lie about something so provable? I believe that Fitzgerald signaled the answer to this when he explained the Obstruction of Justice charge by saying that if Libby had just provided the truth, the whole investigation could have been completed last October. Last October, weeks before the election, the last thing the Bush Administration wanted was for this issue to rise to the fore. Similarly, Nixon's brain could not wrap itself around any solution other than containment when he had the last election of his life in the offing.

Very good point. The Watergate cover-up did ensure Nixon’s victory in 1972. Evidence that Bush had lied about WMD in order to invade Iraq might well have handed victory to John Kerry at the last election.

It is always assumed that Nixon was intent in covering up a minor crime (bugging the Democrats). However, it is possible that in fact he was covering up a far more serious crime (the removal of George Wallace from the presidential campaign). If that is the case, the Watergate and Leakgate affairs have more in common than most political commentators think.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I await any proof you may wish to offer that Bush lied. As Adlai Stevenson once famously said, I am prepared to wait until hell freezes over.

Your calling Bush a xxxx ten thousand times does not make him a xxxx. Nor does the fact that intelligence reports given to Bush stating that there were WMD in Iraq make him a xxxx for relying on such reports (unless you have evidence he knew such reports were false).

I am not aware of any evidence or witness that indicates that either Bush or Blair were liars.

[Tim Gratz]

An interesting "take" on this whole matter (from "The Unaliebable Right" web-site):

In the end, the most important question in the whole Wilson/Plame/Rove/Libby/Fitzgerald/ … /Cooper/Miller/Iraq/Niger/mint-tea-gate “scandal” is: why in the world was Joe Wilson sent to Niger in the first place?

Remember, this was after 9/11. The intel agencies were supposed to be out there doing everything in their power to protect Americans from another terrorist attack. At the time, Saddam Hussein was still in power, and the United States government was considering an invasion to remove him from power, no trivial task, as is now quite obvious. Whether he was seeking or obtaining uranium was a critical question. (And recall that before the 1991 Gulf War, the CIA had greatly underestimated the state of Iraq’s nuclear program. You’d figure they wouldn’t want to be caught flat-footed the same way again.) The CIA is presumably staffed with hundreds of professional intelligence agents. If it’s not, then why does it exist? Does the CIA not exist precisely in order to answer questions such as “is terrorist-supporting dictator Saddam Hussein trying to acquire uranium to build a nuclear weapon?”

If the question is, “Hey, who can we get to go pick up a box of donuts and some Starbucks?” or “who’s going to pick up the kids from soccer practice?” then “my husband can do it” might be an appropriate answer.

But when you’re some top-secret super-spy (where if your identity were revealed, it would be a most dire threat to national security, if we’re to believe all the hyperventilating on the left), and the question is, “hey, did that terrorist-supporting dictator of a rogue state with a history of seeking WMD try to buy uranium to build a nuke? Who do we have available to go check it out?”, then the serious, professional answer most certainly is not “my husband can go do it, he used to work in Africa and stuff.”

So the really important issue, which is being covered over by the sideshow of who said what to which reporter, was a decision by those who sent Joe Wilson not to take a critical national security question seriously. Whoever was involved in making that decision, including Valerie Plame, did not act with due diligence and professionalism in responding to that serious inquiry. That is the real scandal.