LA Times Editorial: Operation Coverup

[understandinglife]

EDITORIAL

Scandals metastasize. That is the pattern since Watergate. What starts out looking like a small, isolated incident gradually reveals itself to be part of a larger abuse of power. Meanwhile, an unraveling coverup adds new elements. Is that happening now with the scandal over White House leaks of the identity of a CIA agent?

<clip>

Some folks say that as we learn more, the scandal is getting smaller, not larger. Valerie Plame was a CIA functionary commuting openly to agency headquarters, not a spy working behind enemy lines. The law against revealing the identities of intelligence agents is complicated and probably wasn't broken in this case. And the story line gets muddier: Journalists may have revealed Plame's identity to White House honchos.

We don't buy it. However they came to learn about this juicy factoid, people in the Bush administration misused an intelligence secret to discredit a critic of its Iraq policy. And outing Plame, whether illegal or not, did harm to our national security. Plame may work in Langley, Va., but she worked with others who work in more dangerous locales. You only need to imagine how Republicans would have treated such a leak in the Clinton administration to dismiss their protestations that it's all no big deal.

<clip>

The coverup, in short, is going well.

More at link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-rove27jul27,0,3614014.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

Zero ambiguity.

The truth is finally being spread.

WATCH IT; SPREAD IT http://www.bushflash.com/right.html

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - How ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists their cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."

[Justitia]

1. "Some folks say"....this is always followed by bullshit isn't it? -eom

[kestrel91316]

2. I can't believe my own LATimes is actually taking a ..................

liberal stand when it comes to something in Washington!! I always get the impression they pander to the left locally, but when it comes to national issues they lean VERY right.

[goclark]

3. I'm in shock too! LA is my hometown . nt

[bliss_eternal]

13. Another shocked one here--

:hi:

I tend to avoid the LA Times like the plague when it comes to National issues, and instead look at the LA Weekly. Though the Weekly recently pissed me off, but that's another subject for another thread. lol.

[jackstraw45]

11. NOT a liberal stand...a PATRIOTIC stand

These criminals in the White House committed TREASON.

I know it's hard, but party and political belief should have nothing to do with it.

[Eloriel]

20. Maybe it's a principled stand,

not just a liberal stand??

[kestrel91316]

23. Just seems like it has taken them a long time to

come up with a "principled" stand on the Rove/treason affair, and didn't take any time at all to come up with a "principled" stand about Clinton and his personal sex life.

[damntexdem]

4. Legs, legs, legs -- the scandal continues to have legs.

Those legs need to grow and grow, and walk the Bushistas right out of power.

[understandinglife]

5. CIA's Bill Harlow makes Plame's covert status clear, ....

... once again.

<clip>

"Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

With that information in mind, ask yourself just how big a putrid traitor Novak is, as you read his drivel once again:

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

Harlow was also involved in the larger internal administration battle over who would be held responsible for Bush using the disputed charge about the Iraq-Niger connection as part of the war argument. Based on the questions they have been asked, people involved in the case believe that Fitzgerald looked into this bureaucratic fight because the effort to discredit Wilson was part of the larger campaign to distance Bush from the Niger controversy."

<clip>

From Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net: White House Effort To Discredit Critic Examined in Detail

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei

July 27, 2005

Link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html

".... distance Bush from the Niger controversy." In other words, COVER-UP THE FACT THAT BUSH LIED TO THE CONGRESS, THE NATION, THE UN, AND OUR ALLIES.

Glad that's settled.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

6. "it is already evident that they have caused a great deal of harm."

So, the Editors of the Boston Globe mince no words, either:

WHATEVER THE legal outcome of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of officials who disclosed the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, it is already evident that they have caused a great deal of harm.

They have surely compromised intelligence sources and methods, but that is not all. In carrying a bureaucratic feud to excessive lengths, they also fritter away the unity of purpose that President Bush has properly invoked as a necessity in combating international terrorism. And the shifting strategems of an attempted coverup have begun to inflict harm on Bush's presidency.

<clip>

Such betrayals might have been expected in the Cold War. They should not occur because political operatives in the White House want to tarnish the reputation of a critic or settle scores with a CIA they may regard as too reluctant to tailor its analyses to the talking points of a vice president or a president.

Still ahead is the harm that disclosure of Plame's cover could do to Bush. Did Bush know that Rove and Libby -- or whoever the sources were -- betrayed Plame's cover and with it the CIA front company that supposedly employed her? Or was the president oblivious? Bush may soon have to choose between the role of participant in a coverup or an out-of-the-loop chief executive.

From A dangerous leak: an Editorial in the Boston Globe

July 27, 2005

Link:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/07/27/a_dangerous_leak?mode=PF

Reflecting on the events in the Summer of 2004, Bush's decision to retain external legal council is ever more indicative of how culpable he may well be. As opposed to "Bush may soon have to choose between the role of participant ...." mentioned in the Boston Globe editorial, it is way more likely that Bush has been an active participant in the cover-up since he likely was very much in-the-loop, on AF1, in the outing, itself.

<clip>Why might the grand jury wish to hear Bush's testimony? Most of the possible answers are not favorable for Bush.

<clip>

But from what I have learned from those who have been quizzed by the Fitzgerald investigators it seems unlikely that they are interviewing the President merely as a matter of completeness, or in order to be able to defend their actions in front of the public. Asking a President to testify - or even be interviewed - remains a serious, sensitive and rare occasion. It is not done lightly. Doing so raises separation of powers concerns that continue to worry many.

Instead, it seems the investigators are seeking to connect up with, and then speak with, persons who have links to and from the leaked information - and those persons, it seems, probably include the President.

<clip>

On this subject, I spoke with an experienced former federal prosecutor who works in Washington, specializing in white collar criminal defense (but who does not know Sharp). That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush's move - unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. "It would not seem that the President needs to consult personal counsel, thereby preserving the attorney-client privilege, if he has no knowledge about the leak," he told me.

<clip>

I raised the issue of whether the President might be able to invoke executive privilege as to this information. But the attorney I consulted - who is well versed in this area of law -- opined that "Neither 'outing' Plame, nor covering for the perpetrators would seem to fall within the scope of any executive privilege that I am aware of."

From The Serious Implications Of President Bush's Hiring A Personal Outside Counsel For The Valerie Plame Investigation

by John Dean

June 4, 2004

Link:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20040604.html

I wonder what John Dean's conversation with his lawyer friend (as well as the speculative content of his article) might have been had they known of the Top Secret memo being discussed on AFI in July of 2003.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

7. Froomkin: Deflecting Responsibility

Ever since it started becoming clear that the war in Iraq was based on exaggerated and inaccurate assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, the Bush White House has found itself, every once in a while, furiously trying to deflect the blame.

The effort has not been entirely successful. Polls show that a majority of Americans now believe the Bush administration intentionally misled the public about WMDs.

<clip>

No official body has thus far investigated the White House's use of intelligence in the run-up to war, or whether it was fair for the White House to blame the CIA and other agencies, instead of taking the blame itself. The Senate intelligence committee chose to put that issue off indefinitely and the Silberman-Robb "WMD Commission" was explicitly not authorized to do so.

But now comes today's news from Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei on the front page of The Washington Post: "The special prosecutor in the CIA leak probe has interviewed a wider range of administration officials than was previously known, part of an effort to determine whether anyone broke laws during a White House effort two years ago to discredit allegations that President Bush used faulty intelligence to justify the Iraq war, according to several officials familiar with the case. . . .

<clip>

There's lot of new details there, including this one: "Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published.

<clip>

Froomkin then covers "Novak Speaks, Says Nothing (Again)", and more in Deflecting Responsibility.

July 27 2005

Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/27/BL2005072701212_pf.html

Georgie, you and Dickie really do need to resign. Spend some quality time with the wifie and kids before the trial(s), because I do think you have a fairly complete understanding of your crimes - otherwise why all the lawyers when you could have just fired a few traitors.


Raw Story photo


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

8. Josh Marshall: "And all of this, of course, meant to cover up the big lie"

Josh Marshall comments on the Pincus/VandeHei article:

As Pincus and Jim VandeHei rightly say, twin attacks -- one aimed at Wilson for blowing the whistle, the other at the CIA, an elaborate fraud perpetrated upon the American people (and perpetuated through last year's SSCI report) in which the CIA, which had repeatedly tried to prevent the president from publicizing and validating the bogus Niger uranium claims, was forced to take the blame for not warning the president of their falsity. (As this ball of yarn unravels, remember the name Alan Foley.)

And all of this, of course, meant to cover up the big lie -- the administration's knowing use of bogus WMD reports to convince the country to go to war.

More at the link:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_24.php#006165

Alan Foley remains an enigma - I wonder if he was questioned by Mr Fitzgerald and the grand jury and, if so, I wonder if he clarified why he said one thing on July 16, 2003 and other things, subsequently.

Some have speculated on how much pressure Mr Foley expeienced from Cheney well before Bush and Cheney's numerous lies about Iraqi WMD.

One can well imagine how much pressure he experienced after his comments on July 16, 2003 - two days after Novak's traitorous actions. In any case, he certainly 'fluctuated' --(see, for example, Isikoff and Hosenball's article from Jan 2004; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4088146/site/newsweek/) -- and resigned, after more than 20 years, from the CIA.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

9. Senator Biden: "Did Bolton Testify"?

July 27, 2005

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Madame Secretary,

I write in connection with the nomination of John R. Bolton to be Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

On July 21, 2005, MSNBC reported that Under Secretary Bolton testified before the federal grand jury in Washington that is investigating the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame as an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.

I write to request that you or the nominee inform the Committee whether Mr. Bolton did, in fact, appear before the grand jury, or whether he has been interviewed or otherwise asked to provide information by the special prosecutor or his staff in connection with this matter, and if so, when that occurred. As you know, the Committee questionnaire, which the nominee completed in March, requires all nominees to inform the Committee whether they have been “interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), Congressional or grand jury investigation within the past 5 years, except routine Congressional testimony.”

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member

Link:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/BoltonLetter72705.pdf

Comments at Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/27/biden-did-bolton-testify-in-leak-investigation/

The interactions of Bolton with Foley and Plame should make for interesting reading, someday.

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

10. Raw Story: Karen Hughes refused to answer questions about Plame outing

As John Byrne reports, "Senior Bush adviser Karen Hughes, headed to confirmation in the full Senate for the State Department's top public relations post, provided a terse two sentence answer to questions submitted by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) about her role and knowledge about the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, RAW STORY has learned."

<clip>

Here's one of the two pages of questions posted at Raw Story:



Link to the other page of questions and Ms Hughes foolish non-answers:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Karen_Hughes_refused_to_answer_questions_about_Plame_outing_during_confirmation_he_0727.html

Please consider the following:

As I posted yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4196003&mesg_id=4198176

July 26, 2005

Good afternoon ....,

In an exchange at DU, rumpel noted something so glaringly obvious, that I needed to be sure that it is both highlighted and spread far and wide -- reason being, the obvious is often missed.

In the letter from Stanley Moskowitz, Director of Congressional Affairs, CIA, to Congressman Conyers on 30 January, 2004, the first paragraph explicitly states "... to request an investigation of the disclosure earlier that year of an employee operating under cover."

That is an unambiguous statement by an official of the CIA that the "employee" for which the CIA had been attempting to convince the DoJ to open an investigation, was "operating under cover."

Senator Pat Roberts and all the other folk, who persist in obscuring the nature and scale of the crimes (destroying Ms Plame's cover, the intelligence infrastructure associated in any way with her and endangering her and anyone who ever was associated with her) by spinning the nature of Valerie Plame's CIA covert status are, thereby, actively aiding and abetting the perpetrators of those crimes.

They should be indicted, as well.

Peace,

Why would any of the Democratic Members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations bother with Ms Hughes when she clearly is willingly participating in the overt cover-up scam of 'ongoing investigation therefore I'm not talking.'

We know it's a scam because the RNC and all the GOP/neocon pundits and folk like Senator Roberts are willfully spinning and, in many cases, aiding and abetting those who committed the treasonous crime of exposing a covert agent.

What matters is exactly what Senator Kerry did - put the questions to her, in writing and for the record, and let her ensnare herself, further.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

19. NYTimes/AP: Rice Asked if Bolton Testified in Leak Case

Rice Asked if Bolton Testified in Leak Case

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 28, 2005
Filed at 9:16 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Democratic opponent of John Bolton asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday whether the nominee for U.N. ambassador had testified to a grand jury about the leak of CIA operative's identity.

<clip>

More at the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-UN-Ambassador.html?

Nice.

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[donkeyotay]

12. The Big Lie

The BIG lie. I like the sound of that. You mean the impeachable lie? The lie that if President Gore had told the GOPer outrage would have taken earth out of orbit? You don't mean the honkin' mofo of a lie that they've been lying ever since to cover up? You don't mean the BIG one that's cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars, destroyed America's standing in the world, divided our country and compromised our intelligence AND our military? That one?

The one that GOPers who put partisan party politics before our nation's welfare and honor think is no big deal?

[understandinglife]

14. Yeap. Yes sir. Indeed. That ONE. The only problem is finding it in ...

.... the vast forest of all the other lies these dudes have told.

As to horrorific consequences ... uncountable


http://www.newsparkproductions.org



Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

17. "Nothing happens around the president that Rove does not control."

<clip>Following the 2004 election the president announced that Karl Rove would be sorta like an “assistant president.” Rove loved that expanded role and made sure everyone knew how important he was.

<clip>

Rove was fired from President George H. W. Bush’s second campaign for the presidency for, get this, leaking information to columnist Robert Novak!

<clip>

Should there be any surprise or question about who leaked information to Robert Novak, Matt Cooper and Judith Miller about Valerie Plame? Remember in June of 2004 when President George W. Bush said, “I will fire anyone in administration who leaked information about Valerie Plame?” Seems that because it is becoming quite clear that Rove and Lewis Libby, vice president Dick Cheney’s chief of staff were involved in leaking information to the press, so the president on July 18th announced that he would fire any criminal who worked in his administration. Dah! How much lower can you place the “bar of justice” than that? Why hire those people at all?

Rove and Libby have dishonored the presidency, the vice-presidency and the CIA. How much worse can it be? It was President George H. W. Bush who said, “Anyone who exposed intelligence secrets is the most insidious of traitors.” I am sure that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney can’t get the picture out of their minds and Dean ended up telling the truth about Nixon. Would the firing of Rove and Libby cause them to tell the truth? We will see what happens. Only 75 percent of the American people believe the President and his administration are liars!

From “Rovegate” has now become the latest political scandal in Washington.

by Murray County News

More at the link:
http://www.murraycountynews.net/default.asp?storyid=22635&secid=105

The citizens of Murray County, MN are being well-informed by someone who demonstrates considerable snark skills - Hey Keith, check it out!!


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[understandinglife]

18. Pahrump Valley Times - Letters to the Editor (Keith and Jon, check'um out)

July 27, 2005

A few choice quotes:

MH in Little things castigates a reporter and concludes with -- "The fact that this piece contained so many errors lets folks assume that he only used the RNC Talking Points, which are available on many Neo-Con Web sites on the Internet in order to do this column."

JD in Tell it like it is quotes an article by McMurdo of the PVT - "To out an American spy, as Bob Novak did, is not the result of shoddy journalism; it is an act of treason. This fact begs the question: Why isn't Mr. Novak on the hot seat and why hasn't White House honcho Karl Rove, who apparently leaks secrets like cheap diapers leak urine, been jailed?"

to which JD adds:

"Thank you so much for telling it like it is. Keep up the good work."

DL in Bend over Rove(r) notes: "The Republican Party is defending Karl Rove for his crime. -- The Republicans spent $40 million chasing Bill Clinton for a personal mistake. They haven't spent a dime investigating this major breach of security."

and asks: "Where are our moderate Republicans?"

HT in Investigate Rove states "Bush and his cronies act as though they are above the law. We must hold their feet to the fire. Insist Bush keep his word."

Link:
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2005/07/27/opinion/letters.html

Our fellow Americans in Pahrump, Nevada, certainly seem to be getting their news from someplace other than Fox and CNN ... and you've gotta dig that "bend over rove(r)" bit of snark!!!


Peace.

www.missionnotacomplished.us

[scarletwoman]

15. A great thread! Full of excellent links and sources.

Recommended!

And kicked!

sw

[sunnystarr]

16. I don't know if this was an error or if it was meant as it was written

but it bothers me to see it printed.

It's a good bet that there has already been some lying under oath. One theory about the puzzling tenacity and ferocity of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald — why he is sending journalists to jail for refusing to provide information he already has about an activity that probably wasn't even a crime by people other than the ones he is persecuting — is that he's switched his attention from the leak itself to perjury by White House officials who were asked about it earlier in the investigation.

Personally I think they should issue a correction and not leave the image of Fitzgerald persecuting anyone in his investigation.

[me b zola]

21. recomended & kicked

UL, you continue to make outstanding posts. You are one of our gems!


Peace

[understandinglife]

22. Thank you; that's very kind of you.

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us