A New Watergate?

[Tim Gratz]

This article seems fairly well-balanced and a rather detailed chronology:

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html

[John Simkin]

This article seems fairly well-balanced and a rather detailed chronology:

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html

I agree. It should be read by all those interested in this story.

[Tim Gratz]

OCTOBER 31, 2005.

MARK THE DATE, EVERYONE.

JOHN AND I AGREE ON AN ESSAY!

I concur with John it is worth your time to read it in its entirety.

Edited October 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Chuck Robbins]

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.

Cheney has been named as the source of information to Libbey. It is being said that this disclosure from Cheney to Libbey is not illegal.

I have to ask one question. What was the purpose of the information being disclosed to Libbey? Is part of his job description that of one who needs knowledge of intelligence officers identities to do his job?

While the act of Cheney giving the information itself may be technically legal, when you ask what the purpose was for the disclosure of that information, the spectre of conspiracy raises it's ugly head. Was the purpose of this disclosure to Libbey made so he would leak the information to the press? And was he given instructions of what to do with this information he had been given?

Conspiracy is one of the easiest of all crimes to convict upon. Two persons discuss committing a criminal action, the two are capable of committing, and then act, in furtherance of this criminal action.

It seems pretty obvious that this is not a case of simple error in judgement by Libbey.

Unfortunately, the administrations cohorts in the gov't. and the press are going to let this one slide by with no serious reprisals being taken against the criminals.

Why is it that a person can get five years in prison in the U.S. when a starving person steals food to eat, yet, a serious felony compromising our national security is allowed to go unpunished? Something is seriously wrong with our system.

Chuck

[John Simkin]

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.

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."

I have attempted to answer these issues on the thread of Philip Agee:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5290

[John Simkin]

These people are going to remain in power. They didn't steal it for nothing. The worse things get politically for Bush, the more dangerous they get for the American people and the rest of the world. There is no poll numbers problem that another terrorist attack, worse than 9/11, couldn't solve, followed by martial law. Everyone should hope Bush gets through this CIA payback with minimum damage.

This is indeed a scary comment. Do you really think that things in the United States is as bad as this?

Do you think the Tom DeLay scandal will have any impact on the political scene in the United States?

[Mark Knight]

In my opinion, the Tom DeLay "scandal" will have no more overall significance that Newt Gingrich's troubles a few years back, or Trent Lott's problems more recently. While the Democrats are jumping up and down with bulging eyeballs shouting "SCANDAL!!" at the top of their collective lungs, the actual truth is that the American people simply don't give a damn. The incident only confirms their worst, most cynical fears about government, that "everybody does it," and the public becomes numbed to it all.

And the perpetrators fade from public consciousness, only to be replaced by more of the same...it seems there's no attrition in the fight against corruption, as whenever one corrupt figure falls, there's always another there to take his "rightful" place.

"...And the beat goes on, yeah the beat goes on..."

[Tim Gratz]

The revelance of the disclosure that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer and that she manuevered to get her husband the assignment to Niger is obvious.

The importance of whether Hussein was attempting to get materials for nuclear weapons annot, of course, be over-emphasized.

Wilson was a diplomat, not a trained CIA investigator. Although he knew some Nigerian officials, he was not an obvious choice for such a sensitive and important assignment.

I understand that when the CIA evaluated Wilson's report (on its quality) it graded it, on a scale of one to five, as a "three". I guess that might be equivalent to a grade of C.

And then it turns out that both Wilson and his wife were Kerry supporters.

The fact that Wilson was selected to carry out this CIA assignment despite his lack of investigative experience and that he got the assignment through his wife's intervention (and then lied about her involvement, a lie that I think only demonstrates its significance) either indicates that she was just trying to give her husband an interesting job (or one to add to his resume) or, more sinister, that they had some hidden political agenda.

Hopefully this post was clear enough that people will understand why the Bush administration thought the role of Wilson's wife was relevant.

[Pat Speer]

The revelance of the disclosure that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer and that she manuevered to get her husband the assignment to Niger is obvious.

The fact that Wilson was selected to carry out this CIA assignment despite his lack of investigative experience and that he got the assignment through his wife's intervention (and then lied about her involvement, a lie that I think only demonstrates its significance) either indicates that she was just trying to give her husband an interesting job (or one to add to his resume) or, more sinister, that they had some hidden political agenda.

Hopefully this post was clear enough that people will understand why the Bush administration thought the role of Wilson's wife was relevant.

First of all, the word is relevance, or in Bush-ese, relevancy. Second of all, Wilson's competence or his wife's role in his hiring have NOTHING to do with anything as the CIA and the BUSH ADMINISTRATION have both confirmed that his diagnosis was correct!!! The ONLY person in Washington who pretends to still believe the yellowcake myth is Cheney, for OBVIOUS reasons, as it seems his top advisor was trying to cover the Administrations fanny BEFORE Wilson ever ratted them out. You reallly oughtta drop this whole blame the victim thing, Tim, it's most unattractive.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Pat Speer

[John Simkin]

The importance of whether Hussein was attempting to get materials for nuclear weapons annot, of course, be over-emphasized.

Wilson was a diplomat, not a trained CIA investigator. Although he knew some Nigerian officials, he was not an obvious choice for such a sensitive and important assignment.

I understand that when the CIA evaluated Wilson's report (on its quality) it graded it, on a scale of one to five, as a "three". I guess that might be equivalent to a grade of C.

You have failed to point out that a "three" represents "good". In contrast to this, the original claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium yellowcake was classified by the CIA as "false" and the documents used to back up this claim were forgeries.

The story about the supposed agreement between Iraq and Niger for the sale of uranium yellowcake originally came from the Italian intelligence service in October 2001. The claim was investigated by both the CIA and MI6. They both came to the conclusion that the story was false. On 18th October, 2001, the CIA wrote a report entitled: Iraq: Nuclear-Related Procurement Efforts. It gave two main reasons why it did not believe it was true. (1) The French controlled Niger’s uranium industry; (2) The claim was not corroborated by any other source.

This caused problems for both George Bush and Tony Blair. They were both desperate to get their intelligence services to discover evidence that Iraq posed a physical threat to the US and the UK. We now know that Blair asked his intelligence services to collect up any evidence it could to substantiate this claim. I suspect George Bush gave similar instructions to the CIA.

As a result the CIA’s Directorate of Operations issued a report including “verbatim text” of an agreement, supposedly signed July 5-6, 2000 for the sale of 500 tons of uranium yellowcake per year (5th February, 2002).

On 24th September, 2002, the British government published a public dossier made up of any information that the intelligence agencies could find that suggested that Iraq had WMD. We now know (Hutton and Butler reports) that this dossier misrepresented the views of the intelligence services. What Blair did was to edit parts of the report and to add its own words. Therefore, words like “maybe” were replaced with words like “is” and "are". Also terms like “unreliable source” were removed. One passage in the report said: “There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” It did not mention that MI6 had already dismissed this claim as being false. Nor did it point out that the CIA tried to get the British to omit these claims (Washington Post, July 2003).

Blair and Bush now used this dossier to justify their claim that Iraq had WMD and were trying to get nuclear weapons. This was a lie, and they knew it was a lie.

On 28th January, 2003 Bush made a speech where he said: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” He did not say the CIA had given him this information because by this time they had been told by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the international body that monitors nuclear proliferation – that, after a “thorough analysis” with “concurrence of outside experts,” that the Italian documents— “which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger—are in fact not authentic.”

Despite the knowledge that these documents were “not authentic”, Bush and Blair continued to claim that there was evidence that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. This is the background to Joseph Wilson’s decision to go public with the information that Bush was misleading the American public with his claims about the secret activities of the Iraqi government.

[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.

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.

The first columnist I have found to recognize the electoral angle of the CIA leak story coverup is E. J. Dionne, Jr.:

washingtonpost.com

What the 'Shield' Covered Up

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, November 1, 2005; A25

Has anyone noticed that the coverup worked?

In his impressive presentation of the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby last week, Patrick Fitzgerald expressed the wish that witnesses had testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, and "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation.

As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson....

Dionne goes on in the above article to note that if he is confident of receiving a pardon from Bush, Libby will have little or no reason to cooperate with any plea bargain deal which requires him to roll over on others.

Tim

[John Simkin]

The first columnist I have found to recognize the electoral angle of the CIA leak story coverup is E. J. Dionne, Jr.:

washingtonpost.com

What the 'Shield' Covered Up

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, November 1, 2005; A25

Has anyone noticed that the coverup worked?

In his impressive presentation of the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby last week, Patrick Fitzgerald expressed the wish that witnesses had testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, and "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation.

As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson....

Dionne goes on in the above article to note that if he is confident of receiving a pardon from Bush, Libby will have little or no reason to cooperate with any plea bargain deal which requires him to roll over on others.

A similar story appears in today’s Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1607193,00.html

Julian Borger in Washington

Thursday November 3, 2005

The Guardian

Lewis Libby, vice president Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, is due to appear in a Washington court today to enter pleas on charges of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice.

The Washington Post predicted that Mr Libby will declare his innocence in the case surrounding the 2003 leak of a CIA agent's identity, blaming a bad memory for false statements he made to investigators and a grand jury.

A guilty plea could avert a lengthy trial that has the potential to be very embarrassing for the Bush White House, but only if Mr Libby was able to strike a deal with the special investigator, Patrick Fitzgerald.

However, observers of the case suggested yesterday that Mr Fitzgerald would also demand testimony on the role in the leak played by other senior White House officials, before offering a significantly reduced jail sentence. Mr Libby faces a maximum of 30 years in prison if found guilty of all charges.

However, even if Mr Libby - a leading neo-conservative and energetic advocate of the Iraq invasion - is sentenced, he could be pardoned by President Bush when the president leaves office in January 2009.

EJ Dionne, a columnist on the Washington Post, appealed to the president to rule out that option to maximise the pressure on Mr Libby to testify.

"If Bush truly wants the public to know all the facts in the leak case, as he has claimed in the past, he will announce now that he will not pardon Libby," Mr Dionne argued.

Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, is still under investigation in the same case, and Mr Fitzgerald has explicitly refused to guarantee he will not be charged.

[Tim Gratz]

I just heard a senior Newsweek editor state that Joe Wilson used to walk around Washington introducing his wife as a CIA agent. So much for her covert status! (If this man's claim is true.) In his press conference Peter Fitzgerald stated he never made a determination whether Plame's status was covert (a predicate, of course, for prosecution under the statute.

If Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, did all the Democrats, including Clinton, Kerry, Albright, who said the same thing, also lie?

The claim that Bush lied is of course a ---lie!!

[Pat Speer]

I just heard a senior Newsweek editor state that Joe Wilson used to walk around Washington introducing his wife as a CIA agent. So much for her covert status! (If this man's claim is true.) In his press conference Peter Fitzgerald stated he never made a determination whether Plame's status was covert (a predicate, of course, for prosecution under the statute.

If Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, did all the Democrats, including Clinton, Kerry, Albright, who said the same thing, also lie?

The claim that Bush lied is of course a ---lie!!

Fitzgerald checked with Plame's neighbors and none of them knew.

If Kerry repeated an untruth the President told him, somehow you think that makes it equal to the President's telling an untruth that the CIA had already discredited, only worded so that it would sound like fresh intelligence? Your efforts to defend Bush are to no avail. Either he's a deliberate xxxx, an incompetent, or both. I agree with you that his being merely incompetent is a strong possibility, but both is probably the correct answer.

[Tim Gratz]

Pat not everyone knows their neighbors well.

As I stated, Fitzgerald said he made no determination if Plame indeed fit the covert status under the Espionage Act.

Do you have reason to dispute the statement by the Newsweek editor that Wilson often introduced his wife as a CIA agent?

And your claim that Kerry said Iraq had WMD because Bush told him so is ridiculous. Clinton and Albright were saying the same thing during the Clinton presidency.

Do you claim that Clinton and Albright got their information from then Governor Bush?

And WMD or not it cannot be disputed that Iraq and its neighboring countries are far better with Hussein out of power. His trial should reveal the evil butcher that he was. He killed thousands of his own countrymen with biological agents. The US wants a stable democracy in Iraq, it does not want to rule Iraq or stay in Iraq for any lengthy period of time. But creating a democracy in a country without democratic traditions is not neccessarily an easy task. Look how long it took Gen. MacArthur in Japan. But look where Japan is now, thanks to the fact that the US defeated it.