New! Jason Leopold: BUSH & CHENEY DISCUSSED PLAME PRIOR TO LEAK!

[kpete]

Bush and Cheney Discussed Plame Prior to Leak
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 10 April 2006

In early June 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney met with President Bush and told him that CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson and that she was responsible for sending him on a fact-finding mission to Niger to check out reports about Iraq's attempt to purchase uranium from the African country, according to current and former White House officials and attorneys close to the investigation to determine who revealed Plame-Wilson's undercover status to the media.

Other White House officials who also attended the meeting with Cheney and President Bush included former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, her former deputy Stephen Hadley, and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

This information was provided to this reporter by attorneys and US officials who have remained close to the case. Investigators working with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald compiled the information after interviewing 36 Bush administration officials over the past two and a half years.

The revelation puts a new wrinkle into Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's two-year-old criminal probe into the leak and suggests for the first time that President Bush knew from early on that the vice president and senior officials on his staff were involved in a coordinated effort to attack Wilson's credibility by leaking his wife's classified CIA status.

much more at:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041006Z.shtml

[stop the bleeding]

1. you are killing me this morning

thank you:yourock:

[panader0]

2. Pray for Fitz..........

[rodeodance]

3. Here are his other stories

I may have missed a few;

Jason Leopold's Articles on the CIA Leak Case:

03 April 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040306Z.shtml

21 March 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032106J.shtml

20 March 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032006J.shtml

18 March 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031906Z.shtml

17 March 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031706Z.shtml

06 March 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030606Z.shtml

01 March 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030106J.shtml

24 February 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022406Y.shtml

20 February 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022006Z.shtml

15 February 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021506J.shtml

09 February 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020906J.shtml

03 February 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020306J.shtml

23 January 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012306Z.shtml

13 January 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

10 January 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011006Z.shtml

05 January 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010506I.shtml

17 December 2006
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121705X.shtml

09 December 2005
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120905I.shtml

04 December 2005
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020306J.shtml

22 November 2005
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112205Y.shtml

[Sydnie]

22. Thank you rodeodance

As usual, you are right there with the timeline!

[babylonsister]

4. Sure they did; they are both complicit up to their

lying little brains and got caught, finally. Their teflon is wearing off!

[kpete]

5. more from article:

...........
A more aggressive effort would come a week or so later when Cheney - who, sources said, was "consumed" with retaliating against Wilson because of his attacks on the administration's rationale for war - met with President Bush a second time and told the president that there was talk of "Wilson going public" and exposing the flawed Niger intelligence.

It was then that Cheney told Bush that a section of the classified National Intelligence Estimate that purported to show Iraq did seek uranium from Niger should be leaked to reporters as a way to counter anything report Wilson might seek to publish, these sources said.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041006Z.shtml

[warrens]

56. I'm paying top dollar for good seats the hangings.

This is treasonous. It sounds exactly like what Nixon and Hoover used to do.

[H2O Man]

6. I think today

is the new version of March 21, 1973.

Thank you for this post. And thank Jason Leopold for these hard-hitting reports.

[July]

9. Do you, H2O Man? Can we feel optimistic yet?

I enjoy your posts very much; they are very clear. How long do you think we'll wait for a correction of some of the damage these clowns have done?

[H2O Man]

14. The damage done

to this country by the Bush-Cheney group will take at least 20 years.

We should feel optimistic every day. We have a disease, as a nation. We have an infection on the body politic which is actually far more serious than that cancer on the presidency. Just as attitude plays a significant role in an individual's ability to survive and heal, this county -- this world -- needs people to be optimistic. We will survive this. And we can heal. We will become stronger, not because of this, but despite it.

[leveymg]

30. One small debate point. I think Watergate was one of the best things

that ever happened to America. The only problem was, we soon forgot the lessons. Perhaps the injuries to the body politic brought by BushCo are so serious, that we can't heal. That would be the worst-case outcome.

But, I think this is a wonderful time to be an American. This is our chance for progressives to make a difference, remake the Democratic Party, and reform our country. Wow!

[H2O Man]

39. I do not think Watergate

was in any way good for the country. The series of criminal events that have been lumped together as "Watergate" posed a serious danger to the democratic state, and the Constitution.

The investigation of a number of those events was, on the other hand, a good thing. The investigations, and indeed prosecutions, should have gone a good bit further. By not completing the cure, the "virus" that had infected the federal system was able to survive and mutate into Iran-Contra.

Iran-Contra was an even larger series of criminal activities hat damaged the country. It was in no way good for the country, at least not in my opinion. The investigation and prosecutions that followed were, of course, good. Again, they should have gone further. By not doing so, that virus again survived and mutated, becoming the Bush-Cheney administration. The series of closely related scandals that have happened aren't good for the country. The investigation and prosecutions are.

[leveymg]

40. Watergate was awful.The investigation was wonderful.

Sorry, I was using short-hand there. I tend to think of historical events in terms of outcomes. Not entirely pleased with the compromise outcome -- pardon and then two years of Gerry Ford (and Rummy and Cheney), but, oh well

This time, we need to clean sweep. If we don't, the Yoos will come back in 20 years to really screw us.

[KoKo]

41. ".....by not completing the cure." Well said....we will live for decades

with misery because we didn't complete the cure. I have little faith we will "complete the cure" this time, either. And we desperately need a purge and folks in Fed Prisons. But there are too many of them to be able to clean it out in most of our forseeable future.

I appreciate your optimism though...and we should keep doing all we can to work for positive change with accountabilty.

[leveymg]

44. Resignation deals are easily made when there's something worse

than the prospect of just losing power to theaten them with.

I'm not sure if they'll ever tell us about the deals being made, but I know there are things these guys have done that are far worse than revealing the identity of Valerie Plame. Think about Abu Ghraib and Falluja and 9/11 and New Orleans. Think about 4,500 counts of negligent homicide pressed by the States of New Orleans and New York. What about the World Court at the Hague? Think about the death penalty under the Torture Act.

The only thing that stands between these guys and becoming the next Malosovich dying in jail is the U.S. Army. It was the Pentagon and CIA IGs who started this process of prosecution. They could let it go a lot further, if necessary.

So, I think Fitz has leverage here to make a deal because he has the Joint Chiefs and the Old Spooks behind him.

[xxqqqzme]

69. '...the "virus" that had infected the

federal system was able to survive and mutate into Iran-Contra...
Iran-Contra....virus again survived and mutated, becoming the Bush-Cheney administration...'

And these folks don't believe in evolution - they are living proof.

[DemReadingDU]

49. at least 20 years, or longer

There are some dense people who refuse to even think that this Administration has caused any amount of damage. They will always support Bush & Cheney and this entire Administration. They will even continue to vote for the same Republicans in the next election. As long as the same people keep being voted into office, the damage will take longer than 20 years to fix.

[cassiepriam]

77. You can see it is the American people who are the problem then.

Not just the con artists in power.

[July]

54. I'll try. But the 20 years (I tend to think it will be even longer,

not to mention the time lost NOT doing things that would have been good for the country)of cleanup are discouraging. You know that as soon as the Republicans are a minority again, we will go back to the incessant carping-on-steroids that we experienced during the Clinton years, since it's the only thing the GOP does well.

[cassiepriam]

61. Bingo, the cancer is in the American people. Bush is a

reflection of our pathology. God help us.

And the first step in any healing process is an ability and willingness to face reality.

And 20 years is the minimum amount of time it will take
to undo the damage BushCo has done. Most likely will take longer.

[Raksha]

65. Oh, I get it...I think.

"Whatever doesn't kill us makes us strong." Is that it?

[stop the bleeding]

12. 04/02/1973 was the start of something better

me

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

23. H2O - What is the significance of the date

I was in college at the time and must have killed those brain cells.

[NewJeffCT]

25. and I was 6 1/2 at the time

so, I will have to look it up

[mia]

33. The "Cancer on the Presidency" - The Watergate Tapes

Richard M. Nixon
The Watergate Tapes

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/watergate.html


Wednesday, March 21, 1973
Cassette E - 7 Segment: 1 (37 minutes)
Cassette E - 8 Segment: 1 (3 minutes)

ABSTRACT:The "Cancer on the Presidency" conversation: Dean recaps the history of the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up for the President. They guess at who was responsible for setting the break-in in motion. Dean tells the President that the cover-up is "a cancer on the Presidency" that must be excised or his Presidency would be in danger. Also discussed: references to blackmail, perjury; discussion of paying the burglars off with one million dollars.

[EVDebs]

43. Whitehouse timeline on its website. Interesting. June 9, 2003

""Q Sir, is U.S. credibility on the line over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not exactly sure what that means. I mean, Iraq had a weapons program. Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program. The credibility of this country is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful and the world is now more peaceful after our decision; the strong desire to make sure free nations are more secure -- our free nations are now more secure; and the strong desire to spread freedom. And the Iraqi people are now free and are learning the habits of freedom and the responsibilities that come with freedom.

I read a report that somehow, you know, that there is no al Qaeda presence in Baghdad. I guess the people who wrote that article forgot about Al Zarqawi's network inside of Baghdad that ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen named Foley. And history will show, history -- time will prove that the United States made the absolute right decision in freeing the people of Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein.

Kyle, last question.""

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030609-4.html

Unfortunately, going to war on a whim isn't part of the War Powers Act of 1973 that would qualify as a 'justification' for war.

Commondreams article from two years later on the status of the WMD hunt

WMD Hunt Ends, Bush's Spin Goes On
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0113-29.htm

not to mention Bush's parody of that hunt, "no WMD's here, none under there...", remember, tells us all we need to know:

Bush's Iraq WMDs joke backfires - Mar. 26, 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3570845.stm

"One pictured Mr Bush looking under a piece of furniture in the Oval Office, at which the president remarked: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere." After another one, showing him scouring the corner of a room, Mr Bush said: "No, no weapons over there," he said. And as a third picture, this time showing him leaning over, appeared on the screen the president was heard to say: "Maybe under here?"

The audience at Wednesday's 60th annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association obviously thought the quips hilarious - there were laughs all round - but the next morning, in the cold light of day, things looked far less amusing.""

Indeed.

[Connie_Corleone]

34. Nevermind.

Someone posted above.

[leveymg]

36. What do you make of the middle paragraph?

It tells me that Fitz is going to let this play out a while so that the political process takes care of the removal of Bush and Cheney, so the court doesn't have to be the instrument that does it. I think there's already a deal to replace them, and we'll see it soon. Perhaps as early as by the end of the month.

According to four attorneys who last week read a transcript of President Bush's interview with investigators, Bush did not disclose to the special counsel that he was aware of any campaign to discredit Wilson. Bush also said he did not know who, if anyone, in the White House had retaliated against the former ambassador by leaking his wife's undercover identity to reporters.

Attorneys close to the case said that Fitzgerald does not appear to be overly concerned or interested in any alleged discrepancy in Bush's statements about the leak case to investigators.

But "if Mr. Libby continues to misrepresent the government's case against him ... President Bush and most certainly Vice President Cheney may be caught in an embarrassing position," one attorney close to the case said. "Mr. Fitzgerald will not hesitate to remind Mr. Libby of his testimony when he appeared before the grand jury."

[LunaC]

59. Fitz is going to let this play out a while

…so that the political process takes care of the removal of Bush and Cheney.

That was my interpretation as well. Stay focused on presenting the case against Libby, let the facts about Bush and Cheney come out in the Discovery process and the court of public opinion will take it where it needs to go. It’s a brilliant strategy - Fitz gets to stay non-partisan and while he’s trolling for the little fish, a few big ones get caught in the net.

[stop the bleeding]

7. funny how those emails keep coming up

Throughout the second half of June, Andrew Card, Karl Rove, and senior officials from Cheney's office kept Bush updated about the progress of the campaign to discredit Wilson via numerous emails and internal White House memos, these sources said, adding that some of these documents were only recently turned over to the special counsel.

[leveymg]

38. Fitz has had all the e-mails for many months.

There's a backup server. Hard to believe, though, that they would put anything incriminating onto their computers and then lie about it to Fitz.

That doesn't make sense!!!!!!!

[YDogg]

8. Please let this be true, and let it be shouted from every rooftop.

:patriot:

[Canuckistanian]

10. What did * know and when did he know it?

Apparently , the answers are "Plenty" and "Early".

Is that toast I smell?

[TacticalPeek]

11. Release the transcripts! Release the transcripts!

Leaker-in-Chief!

[speedoo]

13. I believe this is the final big piece of the puzzle.

If Jason is right, we now know that the conspiracy to discredit Wilson and his wife goes all the way to the top of this criminal enterprise, and that Cheney was the architect (no big surprise). We have an approximate timeline, we have motive, and I am certain Fitz has all the details just about wrapped up.

Any informed person able to think this through knows that starting a war with lies and conspiracies is an impeachable offense (of both * and Cheney).

Unfortunately, we do not have a congress that will prosecute.

Yet.

[Betsy Ross]

15. K&R

:kick:

[peacetalksforall]

16. Notice that Libby isn't in the list. The words say "Other

White House officials who also attended the meeting ...". No Libby.

[peacetalksforall]

19. All people mentioned are member of the WHIG. Therefore, we can

presume that this was a WHIG meeting?

[susu369]

70. It was a "hastily arranged meeting"

"the hastily arranged meeting was called by Cheney to "brief the president" on Wilson's increasing public criticism about the White House's use of the Niger intelligence and the negative impact it would eventually have on the administration's credibility if the public and Congress found out it was true, the sources said."

Imagine the pure vengeance that prompted that evil meeting.


:loveya: Jason!

[berni_mccoy]

17. K&R

:kick:

[yodermon]

18. Confused about this line:

Attorneys close to the case said that Fitzgerald does not appear to be overly concerned or interested in any alleged discrepancy in Bush's statements about the leak case to investigators.

Fitz just being coy?

[peacetalksforall]

21. If the sentence had ended two words short of the above, I would assume

he was not concerned about the public statements to the world about prosecuting leakers. But the last two words say 'to investigators'. What could he (Fitzgerald) have meant?

[speedoo]

24. Maybe * took the fifth, or some alternative?

Is that permitted in these investigations?

If that's the case, * would still be vulnerable to obstruction charges.

on edit: After all, he did have a very good criminal attorney with him.

[leveymg]

51. If he'd taken the 5th, we'd have heard about that.

That would've been the only safe response, except for the truth, and nothing but the truth. We know it wasn't either.

[speedoo]

53. How do we know what * said to Fitz?

Did I miss something?

[Norquist Nemesis]

26. Maybe Fitzie knows that statements Bush makes to the public

are not under oath with penalty of perjury. It's what he has said to investigators vs. evidence and testimony from others to corroborate that he can take into court.

[myrna minx]

20. This is getting interesting. n/t

:popcorn:

[leveymg]

27. This sets them all in line for indictments for OOJ, perjury, & conspiracy

If this is true, they're all gone. This fills in the evidentiary gap needed to charge the gang under the Intelligence Agents Identities Protection Act. See, http://www.dailykos.com/admin/story/2006/4/8/165035/8373

Cue the Ding-dong song!!! Munchkins, arise!!!

[kpete]

29. They are BOTH under the bus

[leveymg]

31. I love Kpete's leaker photo. Take a look, everyone!!!! A keeper.

[stop the bleeding]

32. no doubt we have some talented people here

it is funny

[Patsy Stone]

28. Thanks for posting

another of Jason Leopold's great pieces. I don't know about you, but I want to read every one of those e-mails.

K&R.

[dooner]

35. my theory....

In order to protect Cheney from his key role in the Plame leak, the decision was made (by Cheney/Rove) to make Bush a partner in the crime.
That way, Cheney/Rove etc. could say (as they are saying) that the President can declassify whatever, whenever, however he wants.
They pulled in Bush as protection for their crime, slightly after the fact.

Of course I'd like to see Bush implicated, but do you think Cheney really runs to George every time he hatches an evil/illegal plan? I say no, only if he needs cover, and then everything is highly selective. Bush might have been interested in getting Wilson from the start, but I doubt he would have needed to have meetings and email conversations about it. "They" always try to protect the prez from knowing the details of the dirtiest deeds. And George goes to bed very early.

If it's all a big cover-up and bringing in Bush is an attempt at protection, and Fitz is on to their evil plan, it could explain why Fitz isn't concerned about Bush's earlier statements. Maybe he knows Bush is just a willing dupe in the Cheney/Rove master manipulation plan,
and he ain't buying.

[leveymg]

37. It would be irresponsible of Fitz to let Bush slide.

As I indicated above in my response to H20 Man -- What do you make . ..? -- there's likely some kind of resignation deal that's already been worked out. Fitz has known these facts for a long time, and they all needed room to agree to a formula for transition. That's why this has taken so long.

[KoKo]

42. My goodness.....you are optimistic, if you think that could happen....

I might go for Cheney having to go....but I can't see ANY way that Bush would accept any transition nor his party. We've already got the Repugs trying to knock off Dems who would favor impeachment...just in case we take back the House....

Well...it's good to have some optimism...

[Catherine Vincent]

46. No matter what happens, Fitz and company are screwed.

He said so himself.

[leveymg]

47. When?

What do you think that means?

[Catherine Vincent]

57. He said this last year sometime at a speaking engagement he attended

According to Fitz, it's one of those damned if we do and damned if we don't situations. He told his staff that. I read this bit of info on a law student's blog.

http://www.brendanloy.com/index.php?s=Patrick+Fitzgerald
# November 6, 2005 at 7:06 pm EDT
Posted by Brendan Loy
Today at the Chicago Athletic Association building, during our Federal Criminal Practice forum featuring special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, rainwater started dripping into the room through a crack in the ceiling. When one of the other panelists pointed it out, Fitzgerald quipped, “I’m in charge of leaks.” Heh.

Later, in response to a question from fellow 2L David Mathues regarding how he handles being potentially criticized by both sides regarding his investigation — caught between a political rock and a hard place, as it were — Fitzgerald said that at the very beginning of the investigation, he told his staff (close paraphrase): “We’re going to be damned if we do anything, damned if we don’t do anything, and probably damned by both sides if we do some combination of the two. We’re screwed.”:)

[stop the bleeding]

60. Figures you would have every piece of documentation on Fitz that

is available.

Great research.


Better watch out Fitz she's coming for ya!!! :rofl:

[cassiepriam]

63. But it has never stopped him from doing the right thing.

He will take plenty of heat from both sides, but he has stayed right on course. No man will own his soul, and he can sleep at night.

Let's all say a Hail Mary for Fitz that he stays safe.

[leveymg]

68. That's someone who understands how things work.

It's so refreshing to encounter a real realist.

Thanks for posting that. I'll save it.:hi:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

71. IMHO, that statement doesn't mean what you apparently think it does.

[Catherine Vincent]

73. Okay, what do you think he meant?

I know he says not to read the tea leaves....but whatever. It's a free country.

[Me.]

45. My Take Is Different

Rove & Cheney are not pals. Rove has always been B***'s man which is why he was so furious when he found out he had been led into breaking the law and why it's daggers drawn between the two offices. I think Rove could care less about Cheney and is only concerned about him to the extent that what affects him affects the rez.

I don't think B*** will be indicted except in the court of public opinion and I think Cheney, ala Nixon, will resign. Whether or not he is indicted will depend on the deal struck for his resignation.

What I do hope is that the American people are given a full report of what actually happened,that the story makes it way into the history books. I would like to see B*** marched off but I think there will be some, worried for the stability of the country, will stop at the edge of that.

One bright thought, mentioned by someone on another thread, is that maybe they will be indicted by the Hague, both of them.

[leveymg]

50. There are very few things at that level that aren't planned months in

advance. We're approaching end-game, and the basic terms of surrender were worked out a long time ago.

I doubt that either Bush or Cheney are going to do any time. But, the deal is, they've gotta go.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

52. I hope you're right about resignations

President Hastert would have to be an improvement.

[KansDem]

55. "there will be some, worried for the stability of the country..."

I remember this concern emerging soon after the Warren Commission report on JFK's assassination. "Worried for the stability of the country" seems to be the mantra of the "let's put this all behind us" crowd--usually those with the most to lose. So questions regarding that day in Dallas are overlooked in favor of a one-size-fits-all "magic bullet" theory.

And thanks to Lee Hamilton, the Iran/Contra debacle was "put behind us for the good of the country." And now, many of those SOBs came back and caused the current mess!

No, thanks. Those thugs and cutthroats need to be put in prison this time! Impeachment's too good for 'em!!!

[Me.]

58. I Agree With You

Though I do think that is the case that will be made. The difference between those times and this is that there was no INTERNET and an avenue for people seeking truth. We now have a way of publicly asking questions, disputing the accepted "conventional" wisdom. But until there is a complete turnover of the crowd who has been in power for so long, the "good of the country" will always be the argument for the status quo to continue. And until it's made plain as day to the "powers that be", both pug and dem, that the status quo no longer has any quo to it, the virus will continue to live.

[robertpaulsen]

64. Excellent point, Me.

I believe Joseph Wilson referred to the Rove & Cheney rift in his book. Rove would see Cheney roasted over a pit with buckshot in his face if it meant saving his boss. Fortunately, as Leopold points out, everyone has their hands dirty.

[dooner]

76. I'd settle for a Cheney resignation for now

of course he would only be replaced by someone as bad, like Condy.

[cassiepriam]

62. I think this is quite likely the real scenario, Bush the fall guy.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.

[Rose Siding]

48. Helen asked McC about this in Friday's gaggle-

snip>
Notice how Scottie does not answer Helen's simple yes or no question, but instead points her to the latest Fitzgerald filing which actually says nothing definitive about the President's knowledge of Plame's status.


Q Did the President know that Joe Wilson was married to a CIA agent before Novak revealed it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this goes to -- go back and look at previous comments, but this goes to an ongoing legal proceeding, and I would encourage you --

Q Did he know? It's a simple question.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- I would encourage you to go and look at the filing that was made just the other night, because Mr. Fitzgerald touches on that subject in the filing.

Q You mean the President did not know?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I can't get into discussing an ongoing legal proceeding, and that's a question relating to the ongoing legal proceeding.

Q I think it's a very simple, important question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Matt, did you have something?

http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5726&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&PHPSESSID=f93184a3b4e8c7c9d2dd1e38be599f9e

[robertpaulsen]

66. Kick this to the top!

:kick:

[symbolman]

67. Frankly it's the Leopold Leak a Day Program

and I've seen a LOT of conjecture and story telling and "sources say" sprinkled everywhere to the point where it looks like a rehash of a lot of known (maybe not by everyone) factoids mixed in with some fantasy..

Some of this could be called irresponsible journalistically, but for some reason when the left fills a page with "sources say, or an official who asked not to be identified" (which I ALWAYS discount a story for on the right), it's Okay.

I don't think it IS okay. I don't think it should be called "NEWS" when in fact it's editorializing.

Everyone jumps in to share their conjectures and that's fine, opinions are good and those who have done their homework add to a great POTENTIAL to the picture as to what MAY have happened.

But IMHO this isn't really 'news' like I said. Lots of rehashing here, looks like Leopold is trying to establish himself at Truthout using the plame/blame scenario, an easy call if you know anything at all.

I'd like to hear some real news, and to be honest the NYTIMES did an excellent job lately, tho some of their article contained a few bald faced lies and spin.

I'm going to start a journal here and cover this Plame "coverage" as people need to know what's OLD NEWS being rehashed and ACTUAL FINDINGS of Truth that NEED to be told and add to the Fact Pattern of this case.

Sorry Jason, too much too fast, and some of it makes it sound like you've got people "in the room" which with this admin is IMPOSSIBLE, not to say they're not stupid, but these stories SEEM to make it sound to me like there are folks he knows that I'm pretty sure he doesn't.

The right wing does that and I don't accept it from them, as part of Takebackthemedia.com I insist that WE tell the truth, and not engage in our own spin or sensationalism to PUSH our sites or egos or whatever - with so many sites competeing for so little money this is a real danger to the TRUTH.

The Truth may be the one thrown under the bus if we don't be careful about what we print/write.

Flame away, but I'm not the only site that knows that Leopold doesn't have the kind of access that say, Josh Marshall has, but seems to write that way. Sorry if there's some hero worship going on since he's connected to Raw Story, but while sensationalism sells "papers", it is STILL conjecture, and opinions are NOT fact.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

72. IMHO, I don't think you really know what sources Leopold has.

[symbolman]

75. How do you know I DON'T?

I have sources too, just like he does, very liberal ones (and who interview EVERYONE on the left & Right - you know like people that get personal blackberry notes from Joesph Wilson himself, then pass them along to those in the know), and they tell me that he doesn't have the clout he claims. Didn't want to go there, but there you are.

But you DO know? Then tell us, so we can attach some veracity to his stories, unlike the right wing media they so rail against, but use to "prove" they are correct in their own articles.

A strange way of convincing folks you have the Truth, or just another way to convince people you have clout, are an insider, etc.

[twaddler01]

74. Please tell me impeachment is coming soon!

:crazy:

[Lasher]

78. Nothing's going to happen in this respect until after November

And this assumes we shall have gained control of at least one house of Congress. Which I think we shall.