A CIA Cover Blown, a White House Exposed ...(Plame/Wilson BIG story)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-leak25aug25,0,3249357.story?track=hpmostemailedlink

WASHINGTON — Toward the end of a steamy summer week in 2003, reporters were peppering the White House with phone calls and e-mails, looking for someone to defend the administration's claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

About to emerge as a key critic was Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who asserted that the administration had manipulated intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion.

At the White House, there wasn't much interest in responding to critics like Wilson that Fourth of July weekend. The communications staff faced more pressing concerns — the president's imminent trip to Africa, growing questions about the war and declining ratings in public opinion polls.

Wilson's accusations were based on an investigation he undertook for the CIA. But he was seen inside the White House as a "showboater" whose stature didn't warrant a high-level administration response. "Let him spout off solo on a holiday weekend," one White House official recalled saying. "Few will listen."

In fact, millions were riveted that Sunday as Wilson — on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post — accused the administration of ignoring intelligence that didn't support its rationale for war.

Underestimating the impact of Wilson's allegations was one in a series of misjudgments by White House officials.

In the days that followed, they would cast doubt on Wilson's CIA mission to Africa by suggesting to reporters that his wife was responsible for his trip. In the process, her identity as a covert CIA agent was divulged — possibly illegally.

<snip>

On the eve of the Iraq war, with Rumsfeld as Defense secretary, these men were fighting yet another battle with the CIA, this time over the credibility of Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi.

Rumsfeld, Libby and Wolfowitz were longtime supporters of Chalabi, the Iraqi National Congress leader who was a key source of the now-discredited intelligence that Hussein had hidden huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. The CIA viewed Chalabi as a "fake," said Daalder, a former Security Council staffer.

Rumsfeld's Pentagon established an independent intelligence operation, the Office of Special Plans, which essentially provided the Defense Department and White House with an alternative to CIA and State Department intelligence. The competing operations would create confusion in preparations for the invasion of Iraq.

When the disclosure of Wilson's CIA mission to Niger put the White House on the defensive, one administration official said it reminded a tightknit group of Bush neoconservatives of their longtime battles with the agency and underlined their determination to fight.

Many of those officials also were members of the White House Iraq Group, established to coordinate and promote administration policy. It included the most influential players who would represent two elements of the current scandal: a hardball approach to political critics and long-standing disdain for CIA views on intelligence matters.



more....this is WOW rate it up and keep reading....

[Justyce]

1. Done - great time line too

[SteppingRazor]

2. Great summary of everything we already know...

Nothing new, unfortunately -- aside from a few quotes substantiating previously known evidence -- but that'll probably come out in the Fitzgerald investigation.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. There's what we know

and then there's what's accepted as common knowledge. The problem is in moving things from the first category into the second. Articles like this, as well as the CNN "Dead Wrong" special, are vital in that transfer.

[WhiteTara]

16. although, this may not be new to us, it is definitely

new to those who have slumbered through michael, the bride, the endless abduction/murders and all the daily dramas the msm feeds. They are now becoming aroused and this is brand new to them. This should start the sharks sniffing blood. The intractable heartland moves. :woohoo: Okay, this is what I want to see.

[Uncle Joe]

30. I agree and this quote would be hilarious if it were not so sad.

"What motivated President Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove; Vice President Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; and others to counter Wilson so aggressively? How did their roles remain secret until after the president was reelected? Have they fully cooperated with the investigation?

The answers remain elusive."

The answers are only elusive because the MSM had sold out the American People ever since at least 1998 with their "War Against Gore" and thereby enabling Bush to power to begin with. Add to this their abdication of their duty to keep the American People informed instead of concealing or obfuscating the truth on behalf of Bush and the neocons. The MSM have basically refused to look in the mirror and accept any responsibility for the situation that we are in today.

[myrna minx]

3. Thanks. n/t

[Sydnie]

4. B-E-A-utiful! Thanks n/t

[Supersedeas]

5. Was the Office of Special Plans event mentioned in "Dead Wrong"

Guess they were too focused on the character assassination of George Tenet to mention that the White House wanted an 'alternative' to CIA and State Dept. intelligence.

[electropop]

7. Office of Silly Partisanship

was created to fabricate pseudo-intelligence. This alone should have been a firing offense for Rummy.

[jsamuel]

6. cool beans... kudos to latimes

[Moderator]

9. ElsewheresDaughter

Per DU rules, please post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.

Thanks
DU Moderator

[Roland99]

10. Wow...excellent article.

[hiley]

11. Thanks, great time line

;)

[Jack Rabbit]

12. This is part of the circumstantial case that the lies were deliberate

The idea of grooming Chalabi to be Iraq's strong man replacing Saddam was bad enough. In addition to being a convicted embezzler, Chalabi had not been to Iraq since childhood. It was absurd to use him or any one in the INC as a credible source for military intelligence. He had no way of knowing anything about Saddam's weapons.

The only reason to use him as a source is that he was he was saying what the neocons wanted the public to believe. If it turned out to be a lot of baloney, as it did, the neocons could always blame intelligence failures or even blame Chalabi, but only after the invasion became an accomplished fact.

It's hard to blame this on an intelligence failure if the CIA rightly doubted Chalabi. It is easier to maintain that the "intelligence failures" originated in the Office of Spaecial Plans, not the CIA.

It amazes me that for some reason Chalabi was thought a credible source of intelligence on Saddam's weapons and Scott Ritter was not.

[electropop]

17. Not an "Intelligence Meltdown,"

but an "Intelligence Bypass." Big difference in intentions. The WHite House went to great lengths to gin up fake intelligence: OSP, Chalabi, Cheney browbeating CIA, recycling discredited foreign intel, and yes, treason against Plame and America.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. Exactly

While I think Treason is too strong a word to describe the outing of a CIA operative, you pretty well have it.

The intelligence was bad because the policy makers wanted it that way. Instead of looking at facts and deciding whether or not to go to war, they decided to go to war and then starting looking for talking points. Facts did not enter into their thought process. That goes a long ways in explaining how they got everything wrong.

[electropop]

20. Look at the consequences of this outing (and others).

Plame was running a major operation to investigate possibilities of WMDs in the hands of Saddam and others. Outing Plame destroyed this operation, which was absolutely critical to national security. We have lost forever, an untold number of existing sources, cultivated for years. Even worse, we have chilled those who might have considered helping us in the future, because they will perceive the risk of doing espionage for us is not worth it when the US might choose at any minute to expose them.

This operation is similar to other acts of treason our current regime have perpetrated. For example, remember the outing of the Al Qaeda operative whom had been 'turned' to spying on the group? He was a computer expert as I recall. The Bushitler regime chose to reveal both sources and methods in this ONGOING case, destroying a operation that the UK and Pakistan had spent over a year putting together. They were livid.

Incidents like this, as they are repeated, make it appear that our government is intentionally sabotaging the anti-terror operations it claims to carry out. This leaves us in far greater danger, and in my mind easily justifies the term "TREASON."

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Treason

Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution (Article 3, Section 3):

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

That implies that those who unmasked Mrs. Wilson were doing so in collaboration with an enemy power, such as al Qaida. I don't think that is the case.

The unmasking of Mrs. Wilson is a serious breech of security that warrants prosecution if the US Attorney feels he can prove a case against the guilty party. However, it is not treason.

[electropop]

32. Do you not think it gave Bin Laden, Khan, Kim Jong Il

aid and comfort to know that their nuke programs could proceed in secrecy a bit longer? OK, maybe not Khan, but his successors.

[Jack Rabbit]

34. The more important question is . . .

. . . if you were Patrick Fitzgerald, do you think you could that you could make that case to a jury without establishing that the accused even said "boo" to Osama bin Laden or Kim Jong Il?

I don't.

[electropop]

35. Probably not

but there are plenty of very explicit laws covering Rove's behavior. Revealing classified information definitely carries jail time in serious cases such as this one. As a long-time clearance holder, I'm very aware of the consequences of breaking that trust.

[Jack Rabbit]

36. There are plenty of very explicit laws covering Rove's behavior

I agree. The constitutional definition of Treason, cited above, is not one of them.

My bet is charges will be brought under the Espionage Act.

[Peace Patriot]

13. Yup, they need a War Democrat in there to nail down those 15 new

permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, clean things up just a tad (creative accounting, "talking points," and a few low level prosecutions), institute a Draft (particularly hard for Bush to do; cannon fodder desperately needed), manufacture some "Gulf of Tonkins" to expand into Iran and Syria, squeeze the poor even tighter to keep the military contractor hogfeast going and stave off utter U.S. insolvency ("fiscal responsibility" will be all the talk), and get some at least bare minimum competent people appointed to accomplish these things. A promise not to loot Social Security will be a sufficient sop to "voters" (stupid peons sending bunches of electrons to Mars in the almost religious hope that the God of War believes in democracy). And, with a War Democrat in charge--promising not to loot Social Security--Cindy Sheehan and that ilk will have no one to appeal to. The War Party wins.

Do we really think that CNN and the L.A. Times--after all that has gone down in the last five years--are suddenly getting religion on the Bush Cartel and WMDs?

The key to whether or not we restore democracy in the U.S. is not the current Bush junta going down, temporarily*, but rather, whether the American people wake up sufficiently to, a) throw Diebold and ES&S out of the election business (into 'Boston Harbor' with their election theft machines, I say!)**, and b) use a War Democrat administration (which must pay lip service to progressive values) to bust up the war profiteering corporate news monopolies and reclaim our public airwaves for real news, real political debate, and real election returns.***

-------

Notes:

*Crystal ball: The above scenario guarantees Jeb in '12, if we don't reform the election system. The gas riots, the food riots, the granny riots, and the huge peace movement will rip the Dem Party to shreds, once and for all; the news monopoly propaganda machine will blame Dems for all the grief, and we will then become "one nation under Diebold, with liberty and justice for no one"!)

**Election reform: We need, a) paper ballots, hand counted at the precinct level (--Canada does it in one day, although speed should not even be a consideration, only accuracy and verifiability), or, at the least, b) paper ballot (not "paper trail") backup of all electronic voting, 10% audit (automatic recount), strict security and NO SECRET, PROPRIETARY PROGRAMMING CODES OWNED BY BUSHITE COMPANIES (...jeez!).

***Media reform: Never, never, never forget that, on election night '04, all of the news monopolies, acting in concert, FALSIFIED their exit poll numbers that said Kerry won--"adjusted" those numbers to "fit" Diebold's and ES&S's "vote tabulation" (SECRET programming code--Bush won), in order to shut people up about election fraud. This, after acting in concert as the propaganda arm of the government, to force the U.S. into war in the Middle East. Never, never, never forget!

-------

P.S. I'm sorry to be such a sourpuss. It's not that I don't feel joy and relief and hope when the war profiteering corporate news monopolies tell a bit of the truth. I do! But we must keep focused. The great majority of Americans have been opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning (58% opposed to the war in Feb.'03, BEFORE the invasion--across the board in all polls), and furthermore, hold progressive views on all issues (in all polls!), and that great majority has been DISENFRANCHISED. We MUST attend to the mechanism of power--our vote--and the venue of propaganda--OUR public airwaves!

[glitch]

15. Too bad the LA Times doesn't do blogs to articles, these would make nice

addendums.

[Roland99]

14. Is this why/when Cheney was visiting the CIA so often?

A CIA Cover Blown, a White House Exposed
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-leak25aug25,1,2643475.story?page=5&track=mostemailedlink&coll=la-home-style

In the end, Powell agreed with Tenet to rely mainly on the national intelligence estimate on Iraq, which had been vetted by the CIA. Wilkerson came to believe that the Pentagon officials, and their allies in the White House, doubted what the intelligence community said because "it didn't fit their script" for going to war.

Wasn't the NIE the document that had been scrubbed of the doubts and qualifiers and notes of possible dual-use items? Is this why Cheney went to the CIA to have it "vetted" in a way to suit the rush to war?

Will we ever know for sure since this was supposed to be in the next phase of the Senate investigation. Whatever happened to that next phase?

[Alizaryn]

18. Great article!

Thank you.

[Peace Patriot]

22. Key pieces of info missing from the L.A. Times timeline...

I think there are key pieces of info missing from the L.A. Times timeline. See my amended timeline (*), below.


Here's the L.A. Times timeline...(2003)

March 20: The U.S. invades Iraq.

July 6: Wilson goes public on his Niger trip and findings.

July 7-8: Administration sources tell columnist Robert Novak about Wilson's CIA wife.

July 7: The White House admits to a mistake in citing the uranium claim.

July 11: Karl Rove tells Time's Matthew Cooper that Wilson's wife arranged the Niger trip.

July 14: A Novak column unmasks Valerie Plame.

July 30: The CIA asks the Justice Department to investigate the leak of the agent's identity.

(Page 9 of 9)
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-leak25aug25,0,3249357.story?page=9&track=mostemailedlink

-------

Here's how I would revise the L.A. Times timeline...(my additions = *)

(2003)

March 20: The U.S. invades Iraq.

*Circa late March '03: Reports in Iranian and Pakistani press of covert U.S. WMD shipments into Iraq (Iraqi Governing Council member, port of Basra; Pentagon debriefer turned whistleblower, a "bungled" covert WMD op in Iraq that met with "friendly fire".)

*Circa spring '03: Wilson calls Condi Rice, to get the regime to disavow the Niger claim; she tells him (through intermediaries) that she is not interested in his information, but, if he is so concerned about the matter, why doesn't he publish it? (Wilson interview.)

*Circa April-May '03: Judith Miller running around in Iraq with U.S. troops "'hunting" for WMDs, on a special "embed" contract signed by Donald Rumsfeld--though all the Bushites know that their WMD intel was fabricated. No WMDs found.

*May 22: David Kelly, Brits chief WMD expert, begins whistleblowing anonymously to the BBC, about the Brits "sexed up" (exaggerated) Iraq intel docs that had led them all to war.

July 6: Wilson goes public on his Niger trip and findings.

*July 7: After Kelly is identified and interrogated, Tony Blair is informed that Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things" --"COULD say," not HAD said. (Hutton report.)

*July 5-12: Bush regime Africa trip; top secret Plame memo circulated on AF-1 (all eyes that see it risking treason charges from this point on). My spec: directives to Libby and Rove in U.S. to out Plame immediately at any cost; involvement of at least 6 reporters (journalist witnesses to treason) and numerous top Bushite officials, putting everybody at max risk of treason charges. (Why the panic--if Wilson article was expected?)

July 7-8: Administration sources tell columnist Robert Novak (*and other journalists) about Wilson's CIA wife.

July 7: The White House admits to a mistake in citing the uranium claim.

July 11: Karl Rove tells Time's Matthew Cooper that Wilson's wife arranged the Niger trip.

July 14: A Novak column unmasks Valerie Plame.

*July 17: Judith Miller receives an email from her friend and book collaborator David Kelly in which he states his concern about the "many dark actors playing games." He is nevertheless looking forward to his daughter's wedding and returning to Iraq.

*July 18: David Kelly found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances; his office and computers searched.

*July 21: Judith Miller news article on Kelly's death (NYT) in which she fails to disclose the "dark actors" email and her close connections to Kelly, and has HIM saying "to his associates" (not in quotes) that U.S. troops were not looking hard enough for the WMDs in Iraq. (Paragraphs 15-16.)

*July 22: SECOND Plame outing (also by Novak), of the entire CIA WMD monitoring operation--front company Brewster Jennings--disabling all projects and putting all covert agents at extreme risk (and also putting all involved Bushites and others at increased risk of treason chargers for no apparent gain in "punishing" Wilson for his article.)

July 30: The CIA asks the Justice Department to investigate the leak of the agent's identity.

------------

What do I think happened? I suspect that David Kelly found out about a covert Bushite effort to PLANT nukes or other WMDs in Iraq (the ones Judith Miller was hoping to "get the scoop" on?). That's what started him whistleblowing after the invasion (such a plot would have outraged him--my read on his character). Kelly had supported the invasion (wanted Saddam toppled), but something turned him around about the war after the invasion, in the March-May 2003 period. I suspect that this was it--a deceptive (not to mention dangerous) use of WMDs for political gain--to fool the public--and that this was the "uncomfortable things" that Blair was informed (on July 7) that Kelly "could say." (They weren't worried about what Kelly HAD said--mere "sexed up" intel; they were worried about something worse that he knew). This Kelly knowledge sent panic through Bush and Blair circles.

The Blairites had been in a panic since late June, when someone had informed Kelly's bosses who the whistleblower was--their chief WMD expert and Iraq inspector David Kelly. (It seemed to catch Kelly by surprise; he then wrote a letter to his bosses admitting it was him.) They subjected him to a "security style" interrogation, resulting in the report to Blair on July 7 regarding what he "could say."

The Bushites likely feared that Plame (who had extensive covert WMD contacts throughout the world) would find out about the WMD-planting plot, already knew, or had actually helped foil it. Thus the foolish and risky contact with at least 6 reporters, and involvement of top Bushites, to get her outed and disabled immediately (July 14, mission accomplished). This Kelly knowledge would have been strong motivation to murder him, but whether he was murdered (probably) or committed suicide (seems very unlikely, given the known facts), his death provided access to his office and computers, where--if this scenario is what happened--they found links to Brewster Jennings (knowledge of the plot or involvement in foiling it), and then outed the entire CIA front company (July 22).

I do think they had a long term plot to "get" the CIA--involving the Niger forgeries, Wilson and all that--but I think that the highly risky WAY that they outed Plame and Brewster Jennings points to haste and panic, and to something UNEXPECTED happening. (Wilson's article was expected.) And it looks like these two events--Kelly whistleblowing (and the great tither it caused among the Blairites), and the long term Bushite plot to destroy the CIA as a "check and balance" on Cheney arms dealing and other Bushite evil--intersected on July 7, when the Blairites informed the Bushites that David Kelly had the goods on them.

I also suspect that Judith Miller may have played a part in Kelly's demise. Possibly she is the one who outed him to his bosses (while playing her 'Mata Hari' games with Libby, to get Plame outed, in the same couple of weeks). It would be ironical, indeed--and so typical of this whole sad story--if he had trustingly sent his warning to her about the "many dark actors playing games," not knowing that she herself was one of the "dark actors."

Whatever the truth of my scenario--as outlined above--the coincidence of the Plame dates and the Kelly dates is too much to be ignored, and needs thorough investigation.

[norml]

23. Recommended

I've got to print this to use on my show.

[Rose Siding]

24. A CIA Cover Blown, a White House Exposed -LAT, Wilson/Plame in *depth*

A harbinger of impending things to come, I hope!

WASHINGTON — Toward the end of a steamy summer week in 2003, reporters were peppering the White House with phone calls and e-mails, looking for someone to defend the administration's claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

About to emerge as a key critic was Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who asserted that the administration had manipulated intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion.

At the White House, there wasn't much interest in responding to critics like Wilson that Fourth of July weekend. The communications staff faced more pressing concerns — the president's imminent trip to Africa, growing questions about the war and declining ratings in public opinion polls.

Wilson's accusations were based on an investigation he undertook for the CIA. But he was seen inside the White House as a "showboater" whose stature didn't warrant a high-level administration response. "Let him spout off solo on a holiday weekend," one White House official recalled saying. "Few will listen."

In fact, millions were riveted that Sunday as Wilson — on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post — accused the administration of ignoring intelligence that didn't support its rationale for war.

Underestimating the impact of Wilson's allegations was one in a series of misjudgments by White House officials.

CONTINUED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 next >>
Single page

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-leak25aug25,0,61238.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[rodeodance]

25. "Underestimating the impact of Wilson's allegations" by the WH--I sure

do hope so. It has been a long wait to hear what Fritz will say.


.....Wilson's accusations were based on an investigation he undertook for the CIA. But he was seen inside the White House as a "showboater" whose stature didn't warrant a high-level administration response. "Let him spout off solo on a holiday weekend," one White House official recalled saying. "Few will listen."

In fact, millions were riveted that Sunday as Wilson — on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post — accused the administration of ignoring intelligence that didn't support its rationale for war.

Underestimating the impact of Wilson's allegations was one in a series of misjudgments by White House officials.

[rodeodance]

26. Yes, lets hope this great headline is a sign of things to come.

....A harbinger of impending things to come, I hope!...

[realFedUp]

27. It almost reads like a history textbook now....

While I applaud the Times for writing everything
that's been written before and printing it in whole,
it's LAte again, with facts that we've known for
more than two years.

[HereSince1628]

28. It's a nice summary, but says nothing new

nor raise any new questions.

In my mind the story is pretty clear.

The Bush administration misled the country into a war, driven by people like Cheney (think 1970's Team B exercises) and Rumsfeld with a history of over-estimating risks, and always choosing to error in favor of the absolute worst case. People thinking this way eagerly accepted outright lies about Saddam's WMD capability by the likes of the INC and Chalabi, and stretched all possible evidence into interpretations at the very point of breaking. They also created a confusing cycle of _we said that they said_ information releases in which it became impossible to tell which country actually had intelligence findings and which country was talking about the other country's talking about the other's intelligence findings.

When no evidence for the Bush administration over-estimates could be found their strategy was to generate confusion by making claims that things had been found...remember the "mobile bioweapons lab" and the gas centrifuge parts in the flower bed fiascoes.

And then out comes Wilson with comments that suggested the claims of WMD might not be simple mistakes. The yellowcake claims in Bush's speech were known to be untrue before the speech was written. The implication was clear, the WMD claims weren't just unfortunate intelligence errors they were downright deceptions. The political and legal threats this posed to the Bush administration were (and remain) real.

When Wilson's story couldn't be ignored, it had to be buried, and so was born a conspiracy to discredit Wilson and forestall others with inside information from coming forward. And they opened up a second front that became the shifting of blame onto George Tenet and the weeding out of service those pesky intelligence analysts who weren't "go along" sorts of fellows. A strategy that is still bearing fruit, as demonstrated in the recent showing of CNN's "Dead Wrong."

[KoKo]

29. and, there's only one slight reference to the intelligence from Italy

being forged in the article. There's no questioning of the link that British intelligence was based on the same forged documents from Italian Intelligence that was leaked to the Italian journalist. Remember when Josh Marshall and Linda Rozen brought the Italian man who leaked the documents to the journalist over to the US twice and the FBI never bothered to interview him? Sixty Minutes was scheduled to do a report on this and it was cancelled when Rather got in trouble for Bush AWOL story. Salon Magazine printed the 60 Minutes piece with Ed Bradley but the real segment never was aired by CBS and after that Marshall and Rozen dropped the story.

Who forged the documents that were given to Italian Intelligence which both Cheney's back room shop and Blair used to get us into this Invasion of Iraq? It still hangs out there...and LAT's didn't pick up on it.

[Carla in Ca]

31. Glad this article was posted

Very important reading. Thanks:-)

Chronology of events:

2002

February: Vice President Dick Cheney asks whether Iraq sought uranium from Niger.

Feb. 12: The CIA sends Joseph Wilson to Niger.

March 9: Wilson says he finds little evidence for such claims, but notes a prior visit to Niger by Iraqi officials.

Aug. 26: Cheney says: "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."

Oct. 5-6: CIA Director George Tenet persuades the White House to remove the uranium claim from a Bush speech.

2003

Jan. 28: President Bush's State of the Union cites a British report that Iraq sought uranium.

March 7: A U.N. nuclear agency finds uranium documents are "not authentic."

March 20: The U.S. invades Iraq.

July 6: Wilson goes public on his Niger trip and findings.

July 7-8: Administration sources tell columnist Robert Novak about Wilson's CIA wife.

July 7: The White House admits to a mistake in citing the uranium claim.

July 11: Karl Rove tells Time's Matthew Cooper that Wilson's wife arranged the Niger trip.

July 14: A Novak column unmasks Valerie Plame.

July 30: The CIA asks the Justice Department to investigate the leak of the agent's identity.

Sept. 16: The White House says suggesting Rove leaked her identity is "ridiculous."

Sept. 29: A White House spokesman says the leaker will be fired.

Sept. 30: Wilson endorses John Kerry for president.

Dec. 30: Patrick Fitzgerald is named special prosecutor.

2004

Jan. 23: Weapons inspector David Kay says there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

July 10: A Senate panel faults prewar intelligence and calls Wilson's report inconclusive.

Nov. 2: Bush is reelected.

2005

Feb. 15: A court orders journalists Judith Miller and Cooper to cooperate with a grand jury.

July 6: Miller refuses to testify and is jailed; Cooper agrees to testify after getting express permission from his source, Rove.

July 18: Bush says the leaker will be fired if a crime was committed.

[giant_robot]

33. Great!

I was hoping somebody would do a Plamegate article to keep the story alive. Nothing new, but it keeps the story from vanishing down the memory hole.