Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Calling Leakgate buffs >> NYSun has obtained the 7/7/03 State Dept. Memo

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:42 AM
Original message
Calling Leakgate buffs >> NYSun has obtained the 7/7/03 State Dept. Memo
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 11:44 AM by sabra
Grant it they are trying to spin at as Plame/Wilson wasn't "secret"

http://www.nysun.com/article/31062

No Hint Seen in Memo that Plame's Role Was Secret


Contrary to published reports, a State Department memorandum at the center of the investigation into the leak of the name of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, appears to offer no particular indication that Ms. Plame's role at the agency was classified or covert.

The memo, drafted by the then head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and addressed to the then secretary of state, Colin Powell, was carried aboard Air Force One as President Bush departed for Africa in July 2003. A declassified version of the document was obtained by The New York Sun on Saturday.

...

An attorney representing a White House official under scrutiny in the investigation said yesterday that the broader context of the document undercuts the idea of a deliberate campaign to expose Ms. Plame.

"It's something that people got very excited about," the lawyer, Robert Luskin, said about the earlier reports on the memo. "The fact that the whole memo was marked this way further substantiates that nobody involved in discussions of her or her role in sending Mr. Wilson had the slightest inkling she was in classified status."

Leaking any information from a classified document is a security violation and sometimes a crime, but deliberately disclosing the identity of a covert operative is a far more grave offense, according to intelligence and legal experts.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. The CIA said she was and THAT is why they forced the case - and what about
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 11:46 AM by blm
the company she worked for WHILE she was active? Brewster-Jennings' role could NOT have been an open book no matter HOW BADLY the RW rags want to spin it for BushInc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. So, the Dictator's henchmen were not venial in outing Plame,
just sloppy? Oh, that's so much better...:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
41. Ignorance is no excuse.......
If I were to make a mistake on my income tax, deducting something that wasn't allowable but thinking it was, do you think the IRS would understand and just forget about it? NOT! I was always taught that ignorance of the law was no excuse for breaking it. So....BushCo. didn't know she was a covert agent, nobody told them that she was a valuable asset in the "war on terra". :eyes: That's supposed to make it OK now? These bastards knew exactly what they were doing and why. All of the "newly" found "evidence" to the contrary are just misdirection from the real subject: the Bush White House's retaliation for Joe Wilson's article calling them exactly what they really are. Liars. Liars of extraordinary proportions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #41
49. Actually, one of the laws--the one that's
usually cited, not the more problematic all-purpose 'treason' one--specifically says you must know the agent's status. In other words, for that law, ignorance is the excuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #49
60. I think a former Public Prosecutor disposed of that one
conclusively in an article quoted here and elsewhere. The lady in question has a Spanish name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #60
71. Perhaps.
But the only way to dispose of it is to either redefine "knowingly" or to prove that they knew. The text is actually fairly clear, if dense.

But that ignores the point about 'ignorance' not being a defense.


The law where ignorance is irrelevant was danced around--intentionally, most think--by Fitzgerald. It's a snakepit of a law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-19-06 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #71
75. I wish I could find that PP's name and look up the article she
wrote. It was quite clear, but evidently she adduces something you haven't taken account, either wittingly or unwittingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. Laughable attempt to spin the story.
It's clearly marked S/NF, meaning "Secret/No Foreign" eyes.

The fact that it doesn't come out and say that Valerie is a NOC in this particular document is of no import.

And the redactions just add to the suspicion about what's missing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. YES YES YES
Sorry for the shouting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. the Sun accepts the Spin that we outed her but it was in innocent mistake
Wonder who de-classified this document...the Presnit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. if it was an innocent mistkae then why
did they lie and deny? Why the need for the special prosecutor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. Precisely. Oh, and Karl, nice try dude ....
Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. yep - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. there you are, was hoping for your feedback :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Yep it's spin, but the more important questions are
who and why was this memo ALL of Sudden declassified?

They are really getting desperate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
33. according to the NYSun they made a Freedom of Information Act
request in July of 2005....


http://www.nysun.com/article/31062?page_no=4

The State Department documents were released to the Sun in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed in July 2005. A spokeswoman for the department said no one was available to discuss the matter yesterday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. self delete
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 01:27 PM by stop the bleeding
sorry I screwed up - researching something before I post

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. first, who knows what redactions said, and second...
...the memo may not say it, but that doesn't mean they didn't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Scooter knew. The memo wasn't the only source for their info.
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 12:18 PM by Garbo 2004
1. Cheney told Scooter she worked in the Counterproliferation Division in Directorate of Operations. Operations = where the operatives are.

2. Scooter talks to another aide on the phone, but says he can't discuss Wilson's wife on an "unsecured" line since that would make problems with CIA.

3. During Scooter's second chat on July 8 with Miller, he tells her that Wilson's wife works at the CIA's WINPAC. (In his June 23 meeting with Miller he'd said that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.) That's intentional misdirection since he knew that she didn't work in WINPAC. WINPAC is where the analysts are and was not in the Directorate of Operations. Then he tells her to cite her source as a "former Hill staffer" to draw attention away from the real source of info. More misdirection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
5. Um, NYSun, THE MEMO IS CLASSIFIED... that makes her ID SECRET
IDIOTS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
6. eju od yjrtr Secret/ at top amd bottom of pages?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evermind Donating Member (833 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
61. ^^ He means "why is there Secret ..."
Rodeodance is using the secret "misplaced keyboard fingers" code :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
7. SECRET is underlined. CLASSIFIED by Carl Ford. ORCON, NOFORN.
Not a whole fucking lot of gray area there, New York Sun!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
8. The memo itself was definitely classified....the markings of....
..."Secret", and "S//NF" ("S//NF" stands for "Secret//No Foreign dissemination"), "ORCORN,NOFORN" are all over that document except for the big "UNCLASSIFIED" stamp at the top.

My questions are as follows:

1. When was the big "UNCLASSIFIED" added to the document?

2. Plames name was in a paragraph, some of which has been redacted, marked as "S//NF"...doesn't that mean that the ENTIRE paragraph is classified?

3. The stating of "Plame" and "WMD manager" in the same pragraph as noted above should have alerted all who read that document that her role was classified, despite the lack of detail about her exact role for the CIA.

My conclusion?: More attempts at splitting hairs to attempt to impart a false spin to the Plame story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. me thinks this was Rove's doing - with his lawyer trying to show
that this some how helps his cause...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Based on previous leaks, it appears Libby's camp pipelines info to Sun.
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 12:51 PM by Garbo 2004
The last one to NY Sun and the accompanying Sun article that caused the media firestorm served Libby's interests, not Rove's or the White House. Remember it directed attention away from Libby and to Bush. That was the intention.

This too is more distraction: Focus on July, increase the range of "suspects." Focus on Plame's status. Anything. But forget Libby leaked about Wilson's wife to Judy Miller first on June 23, a meeting he didn't disclose to the grand jury. Forget that Libby's not charged with leaking but with lying.

(But of course, Rover has a vested interest in covering his butt when it comes to whether or not he knew Plame's true status.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. It appears it was classified when it was authored and unclassified
on March 31, 2006 (see lower left part of first page).

The leak occurred on or about the 8th of July so it is beyond reasonable doubt that the memo was declassified less than a day after it was released (the declassification process takes time).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. June 23: Libby tells Miller that Wilson's wife works at CIA.
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 12:20 PM by Garbo 2004
There's a purpose in Libby's camp focusing attention to July and away from Libby's chat with Miller in June.

Remember Libby didn't disclose to the grand jury that he'd met with Miller in June.

Miller herself in her first testimony didn't mention that she and Libby met in June. After her initial testimony, Fitz had to encourage her to refresh her memory. (He had the OEOB building visitor logs.) Miller then "discovers" her notes of that June 23 meeting with Libby and testifies again to the grand jury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. That is correct and as of July 7 (the memo's date) it was still
Secret. The memo is quite plain as to both the classification and date..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. "Declassified" status seems tyo date from 3/31/2006
per status review note at the bottom of the first page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
26. Look at the left hand botton of the 1st page
There is a stamp dated March 31, 2006 about the same level and the unclassified stamp, could this be when it was declassified?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
62. Someone whose job title is "WMD manager"
is no pencil pusher and the Bush WH damn well knew that revealing her identity was a big no no.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
14. The paragraphs marked S/NF are "Secret, No Foreigners"
And the paragraph that mentioned Plame was marked S/NF, and the part that mentioned her is redacted from this unclassified version of the memo!!!!

Are the wingnuts still saying Plame was not covert? They are just effing nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
22. WHO or WHY was this unclassified ------ ROVE???
I know that team Libby is leaking again and this is an attempt to spin this story, but I am wondering WHY, WHO and the other W's as to the declassification of this memo.

Thank you in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Delete - I screwed up my dates have to go back and re-research
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 01:26 PM by stop the bleeding
Sorry :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. The other W's?
Who, What, When, Where, Why, and Dubya!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
25. guess what- all this is bullshit
fitzgerald has everything he needs to brings charges to those who deserve it. this is spin from the players that are looking at going to jail
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
28. WMD manager...
I'm just going to GUESS here that by definition that's a covert position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
30. Just one more thing....
to piss off the judge to get that gag order put in place. Talk about declassifying information for purely political purposes! What a bunch of hypocritical asshats. IMO, Dubya, Rove, Cheney and the whole freaking WHIG group all have their butts on the line here, and desperate people are doing desperate things. Fitz will see through the BS. Nothing to worry about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Delete - I screwed up my dates have to go back and re-research
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 01:25 PM by stop the bleeding
Sorry :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Okay, I'm confused
The declassification stamp on the document dates it as 3/31.

But you are saying it was declassified on 4/31. I'm not understanding where you are getting that date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Your right - I rushed this and screwed up
I need to re-research my dates, will not have time today but maybe someone else will comment on this

Sorry :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. I feel like I'm late to the leak-gate party
I never have enough time online to get fully up to speed.

I am in awe of the good information you always provide on this site - thanks for all of your hard work! I'll be interested in your conclusions whenever you get back to this....

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. It's unreal what a person facing indictment...
will do! All this crap plays right into Fitz's hands, though. They are already trying to taint the jury pool!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
31. That's a damned STATE DEPARTMENT MEMO!!
Secretary of State: Condi Rice.
POTUS: George W. Bush.
Bush's Brain: Karl Rove.

Now you know who declassified it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
39. LOL: Luskin says...
Attaway to spin the obvious, NY Sun. Doc says classified. That means ALL the information in the doc is classified.

How hard is this for douchebags to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
40. The French control the uranium operations there and are very
strict when it comes to accounting the movement of the uranium. If there was a sale of uranium to Iraq, there would have been a record of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Witch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
42. hey, it's Carl Ford's memo-haven't seen him since the Bolton confirmation!
How's that working out for you man?

:hi: :hi:

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
43. Note: the July memo is a repeat of a June 10 memo just btw. Libby
knew Plame's identity in June from various sources, including Cheney, and leaked it to Miller in June.

Why does the NY Sun want to focus on the July memo? The leaking began in June.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. trying to emphasize that the doc wasn't "Secret" just because of
Plame/Wilson, but of other info too. Wow, talking about desperation...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. slight update here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Also includes what they didn't tell the public: State Dept intelligence
also said back in 2002 that the Niger claims were baloney. They were trying to discredit Wilson in 2003 when they they already knew it was the position of other intel units in the Administration in 2002 that the Niger claims were hooey. And they knew it was hooey too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
many a good man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
47. Outing Plame led to Iran going nuclear
Valerie Plame Wilson's work concentrated on Iran. Joe Wilson's trip to Niger revealed it was Iran, NOT Iraq, that was trying to buy yellowcake.

Its on p54 of the Senate Select Committee's report: http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. Yep. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
48. S/NF says it all: it was classified & so was her identity!
and it's all over the memo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
50. One should look
closely at this, to get a full appreciation for how weak it is.

First, this is an unclassified version of the original document. But let's not worry about what else was in it. Look at this, and tell me how the WHIG came up with their theory that Valerie Plame was the person who sent Joe on a fun-filled vacation to Niger.

What does it say about Ms. Wilson? "In a February 19, 2002 meeting convened by Valerie Wilson, a CIA WMD manager, and wife of Joe Wilson, he previewed his plans and rationale for going to Niger."

That hardly translates into Valerie Plame, does it? Any mention of her sending Joe?

Malcolm X used to tell us he could gage how well he was doing by listening to how loud his opponents were squealing. I think that Mr. Fitzgerald must be making Karl & Co. pretty uncomfortable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. considering that there are quotes from Luskin (Rove's lawyer)
in this report is very telling...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. A Luskin inoculation ....
he is hoping that a small, nearly dead piece of the "truth" injected into the public's consciousness will serve as a vaccination for what is coming very soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. I think we are about to see a "call" in this grand game of poker
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 03:11 PM by stop the bleeding
people like Luskin, the NYSun, Rove, Team Libby are running out of cards to play.

I think you reference to Malcolm X is right on the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. I'm sure Fitz
convened the new grand jury in Washington for nothing. LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #55
65. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
56. You know what jumps out at me
It's a small thing, but....

SUBJECT: Niger/Iraq Uranium Story-

STORY! The whole war is a STORY. It's a fable. Certainly Niger/Iraq Uranium was a STORY. And using that word story just says it all to me.

And well, you know nowhere does it say DON'T Give the name Plame and Valerie Wilson (ooooh how did they find the name Plame then?) to Time Magazine. (sure it has those little S/NF initials-but who can read those..tee hee) I mean, it's practically a carte Blanche to trounce the CIA Mrs. Wilson, right? Oh for fuck's sake. IT's either classified or it's not. It was.

Next up, it's raining but it's not really rain. Afterall, we call it liquid sunshine. Welcome to the nightmare that never ends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. liquid sunshine - don't let them hear that
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. hehehehehehehe
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
59. The document is stamped with B1,B2,B5 & B6
These refer to sections of the FOIA law that allow exceptions. They are:

(b)(1) EXEMPTION - Protects Classified Matters of National Defense or Foreign Policy

This exemption protects from disclosure national security information concerning the national defense or foreign policy,provided that it has been properly classified in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements of an executive order.

(b)(2) EXEMPTION - Internal Personnel Rules and Practices

This exemption exempts from mandatory disclosure records "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency." Courts have interpreted the exemption to encompass two distinct categories of information:

(a) internal matters of a relatively trivial nature--sometimes referred to as "low2" information; and

(b) more substantial internal matters, the disclosure of which would risk circumvention of a legal requirement--sometimes referred to as "high 2" information.

(b)(5) EXEMPTION - Privileged Interagency or Intra-agency Memoranda or Letters

This exemption protects "interagency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party ...in litigation with the agency." As such, it has been construed to "exempt those documents and only those documents that are normally privileged in the civil discovery context."

(b)(6) EXEMPTION - Personal Information Affecting an Individual's Privacy

This exemption permits the government to withhold all information about individuals in "personnel and medical files and similar files" when the disclosure of such information " would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." This exemption cannot be invoked to withhold from a requester information pertaining to the requester.


Hope these offer a clue to what was left out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
64. Where is the outrage from the American people!
When are the majority of Americans going to wake up and revolt against this administration!

What does it take to get thru to them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 04:40 AM
Response to Original message
66. 3 interesting notes - Code B5 is exempted in line with civil discovery
and that is the reason for the redacts in the paragraph naming Valerie Wilson - not B1, the exemption for National Security. Really does make you wonder what they decided to keep hidden when their justification isn't because of security - but because it can't be subpeoned if the Wilson's file a civil lawsuit.

So this is the July 7 memo - where is the June 10 memo that everyone was reporting on?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517_pf.html
Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

<snip>

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.


According to this news report (by Walter Pincus in July 2005), only 2 sentences out of the 7 mention Wilson's wife. Not only did Walter have some pretty accurate info about this memo's contents 8 months before it was declassified - but I only see 1 sentence remaining not redacted that mentions his wife - so what's in the second sentence? Apparently the Sun just doesn't care. They have a story to get out, damn the facts, full speed ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #66
69. BR - about the extra versions of this memo - goto Dailykos and read
the Diary entry by Emptywheel from yesterday in regards to the NY Sun and memo article, leveymg pointed me to this post and in addition to the post being very interesting, the comments are worth reading as well.

There may be 3 versions of this memo according to the post.

I would have posted the link but I have wasted about 10 minutes looking for it, but I know it's there cause I spent about 30 minutes reading it last night.

also there is another DU thread on this here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x952493
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caretha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 05:29 AM
Response to Original message
67. Robert Luskin said....
Hmmmm....who you gonna believe, your lying eyes or Robert Luskin - Rove's attorney. Yeah, right numbskull! This is so much horse shit, don't they ever stop?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
68. Which reporters went to Africa?
Gannon claimed to "have seen a memo" when he posted at FR? Did HE go to Africa?

I maintain that the long flight to Africa was the "scene of the crime".. Key players were there.. Ari, Bush, and who else.. Did Judy go? Is there a roster somewhere that tells who was on the manifest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #68
70. I can't answer the reporter part of your question, but here is an
article that gives you a good idea about everything including what admin officials were on the plane.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:RajaUXFaeDcJ:www.counterpunch.org/morris07272005.html+counterpunch+rice+INR+NIE+plame&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-19-06 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #68
72. There were three planes
Edited on Wed Apr-19-06 01:17 AM by chill_wind
and some plane changing going on --according to this (TalkLeft- July 15 06):



"The Chicago Tribune (March 5, 2004, scroll down) reported on the subpoenas and the fact that the White House has refused to release the names of those on the Africa trip to the media. News reports have put Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Ari Fleisher and Andrew Card on the trip. Also, there were three planes that went on the trip: Air Force One, a second plane with reporters and other White House officials, and a third plane.

Whose conversations on Air Force One was Fitzgerald after? Here are some news reports with details of those on the Africa trip and the planes. There seems to have been some plane-changing at different stops among officials between Air Force One and the second plane:"

(snip)

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/011506.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-19-06 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #72
74. Here's a pic of some of them boarding AF1 in Africa


W and Laura are at the top of the stairs.

Condi Rice, Colin Powell and Andy Card are on the ground saying their goodbyes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-19-06 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #68
73. July 11 AF1 press gaggle transcript- *Condi* talks about declassifying INR
Edited on Wed Apr-19-06 02:25 AM by chill_wind
Condi Rice and Ari Fliescher.

Almost the whole thing ("David") grilling Condi about the niger claims and the SOTU. Condi says they were looking at what parts they could possibly declassify selectively of the NIE... ie the INR

"Q But isn't it slightly strange that you have different agencies with different reports and different sentences? I mean, not everyone is singing from the same song sheet here.

DR. RICE: But let me just go through the process, because it's not at all unusual. We have several intelligence agencies, not just one. We have the Central Intelligence Agency, a Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department has its own intelligence agency. And there is a process which the Director of Central Intelligence, who is the coordinator for all of those agencies, runs which is called the National Intelligence Estimate. The National Intelligence Estimate is supposed to come to a conclusion that is the considered, joint opinion of all of those intelligence agencies. If at the end of that process, a particular agency still has a reservation, they take a footnote. And so the INR took a footnote in this case.

Q But it's in the Estimate?


DR. RICE: It's in the Estimate. It's, by the way, in another section, but it is in the Estimate. But the DCI is responsible for delivering a judgment, a consensus judgment of the intelligence community, which is called the National Intelligence Estimate. And that's what the President --

Q Is there a chance that that particular citation could be declassified, so we could see it?

DR. RICE: You know, we don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification, but we're looking at what can be made available. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030711-7.html

(bold emphasis mine)

But we know what they ultimately did all along was declassify the harem scarem sexed up glossy brochure stuff instead... the paper thin version of the NIE... their selectively chosen and peddled version...sans "footnotes".... at least up until then.

Reading all this again will make you really angry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-19-06 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #68
77. John Dickerson of Slate
check out his side of the story: http://www.slate.com/id/2135554/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-19-06 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
76. The stuff with Luskin pegged my BS meter
Quote:
An attorney representing a White House official under scrutiny in the investigation said yesterday that the broader context of the document undercuts the idea of a deliberate campaign to expose Ms. Plame.

"It's something that people got very excited about," the lawyer, Robert Luskin, said about the earlier reports on the memo. "The fact that the whole memo was marked this way further substantiates that nobody involved in discussions of her or her role in sending Mr. Wilson had the slightest inkling she was in classified status."

-----
Oh we're very excited mr luskin. I'm interested in how you think you will fool the jury?
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC