Fact-Checking Ruth Ann...And Her Tweets

In what I suppose is supposed to be a humorous satire on our twitter-infested political conversation, my friend and P-G columnist Ruth Ann Dailey makes a few, shall we say, mistakes of a factual nature.

Take a look:

The Benghazi story broke out of its Fox News ghetto last week as mainstream media biggies decided, months after it was fairly obvious, that the Obama administration had lied -- lied! -- about the tragic event.

Newly released emails show that White House and State Department officials extensively edited the "talking points" (TPs) provided to Congress and to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, insisting on removing from the CIA's original memo any reference to al-Qaida, its affiliates and previous attacks on "foreign interests" in Benghazi. Apparently, renewed terrorist attacks might not have gone over very well during the presidential campaign.

But, as Tommy Vietor, a former National Security Council spokesman, tweeted Friday: "The #Benghazi TPs were written at request of the House intel committee Rs so they could go on TV. Cong forced admin to do them now attack."

You follow? "By requesting information on the murders of four Americans, Republicans ("Rs") forced us to invent things to cover our political backsides! Then these snakes object to our lies!"

Let's start at Ruth Ann's first paragraph.  In this column, as you can see, she's talking about those talking points and how the White House "lied" with them.

But we can look back as far as late November, 2012 to see that this is simply untrue:

CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes. [Emphasis added.]

There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.

Republicans have accused her of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a "spontaneous" demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.

And about those changes - specifically about the removal of any reference to any specific terror organizations - we can turn to the reporting of a few days earlier:

David H. Petreus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

A few paragraphs later:

The talking points initially drafted by the C.I.A. attributed the attack to fighters with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North Africa franchise, and Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan group, some of whose members have Al Qaeda ties.

Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft and then circulated it to other intelligence agencies, as well as the State Department and National Security Council.

At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

But why?

Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.

Again this is all from last November.  So Ruth Ann, tell me again about the lies?

Especially in light of this 2008 report from CNN:

President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

For instance, the Center for Public Integrity wrote:

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

But as early as March 2002, there was uncertainty within the intelligence community regarding the sale of uranium to Iraq. That month, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research published an intelligence assessment titled, "Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely." In July 2002, the Energy Department concluded that there was "no information indicating that any of the uranium shipments arrived in Iraq" and suggested that the "amount of uranium specified far exceeds what Iraq would need even for a robust nuclear weapons program." In August 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency made no mention of the Iraq-Niger connection in a paper on Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Just two weeks before the president's speech, an analyst with the Bureau of Intelligence and Research had sent an e-mail to several other analysts describing why he believed "the uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax." And in 2006 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded: "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are 'highly dubious.'"

I include this lie because back then, Ruth Ann wrote about how in "political theatre" "the truth rarely matters." Specifically about the unveiling of Valerie Plame:

It didn't matter that her husband Joe Wilson's investigation and subsequent New York Times editorial had actually bolstered the claim of British and Italian intelligence that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium in Niger.

But we already know that that claim was "highly dubious" and that Joe Wilson's investigation did not "bolster" that claim anyway:

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq -- and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

You were saying, Ruth Ann?

They just can't help themsleves

Via Dana Milbank at the Washington Post:

When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIA’s cover.  

The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi last month of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. But in doing so, the lawmakers reminded us why “congressional intelligence” is an oxymoron.  

Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing.

Hmm, Republicans leaking classified CIA info will trying to smear the opposition. Where have I heard that before?

Ruth Ann Dailey On "Facts" and Facts

In today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, columnist Ruth Ann Dailey writes:

The Obama administration and its media partisans now navigating the "Fast and Furious" drama and looking ahead to the far more scandalous matter of classified intelligence leaks should remember this name: Valerie Plame.

And then a few paragraphs later:

The truth is in the details, but in political theater the truth rarely matters.

Which is followed by some examples, including this one:

It didn't matter that her husband Joe Wilson's investigation and subsequent New York Times editorial had actually bolstered the claim of British and Italian intelligence that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium in Niger.

Which is why, of course, that Joe Wilson wrote in the New York Times:

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq -- and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place. [emphasis added.]

So how does that bolster the (incorrect, as it turns out) claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger?  Dailey never explains, she just assumes that you, her loyal reading public, will assume that her incorrect claim is actually correct and, y'know, factual.

Then there's this:

It didn't matter that the source for Robert Novak's column identifying Ms. Plame as a CIA employee was the State Department's Richard Armitage, not vice presidential aide Scooter Libby.

You'd think that Libby was charged with leaking Ms Plame's identity and that the conveniently avoided "facts" showed otherwise.  That's certainly what Dailey is implying.

Except Libby wasn't charged with leaking Plame's identity.  He was charged with Obstruction of Justice, Perjury and Making False Statements.

For Ruth Ann Dailey to get some easily researched facts wrong in a column about how facts are ignored by the partisan media is both sadly humorous and completely unforgivable.

Perhaps Jack Kelly's fact checker is doing double duty as Ruth Ann Dailey's fact checker.

McClellan's Book

It's not even in the bookstores yet (that won't happen until June 2) and it's already creating a firestorm for dubya and his administration. I thought it might be good to take a look at some revelations from the book.

On the war

(From Washington Post):

In Iraq, Bush saw his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness. Intoxicated by the influence and power of America, Bush believed that a successful transformation of Iraq could be the linchpin for realizing his dream of a free Middle East. But there was a problem here, which has become obvious to me only in retrospect...Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitious purpose of transforming the Middle East.

[snip]

Rather than open this Pandora's box, the administration chose a different path -- not employing out-and-out deception but shading the truth; downplaying the major reason for going to war and emphasizing a lesser motivation that could arguably be dealt with in other ways (such as intensified diplomatic pressure); trying to make the WMD threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain, a little less questionable, than they were; quietly ignoring or disregarding some of the crucial caveats in the intelligence and minimizing evidence that pointed in the opposite drection; using innuendo and implication to encourage Americans to believe as fact some things that were unclear and possibly false (such as the idea that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program) and other things that were overplayed or completely wrong (such as implying Saddam might have an operational relationship with al Qaeda).

I'll take it one step further than McClellan here. By trying to make a case "a little more certain" they were lying. Even if everything they said was the absolute truth (which, as wel all know, it wasn't) by presenting something to be true when they knew it wasn't cleart that it was true, that's a lie.

A lie that lead to 4,000+ American servicemen and women dying.

On the leaking of Valerie Plame's name to the press

From the AP:

And McClellan recalled a day in April 2006, when the unfolding perjury case against Libby revealed that the president had secretly declassified portions of a 2002 intelligence report about Iraq's weapons capabilities to help his aides deflect criticism that his case for war was weak. Some of the most high-profile criticism was coming from Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

The president was leaving an event in North Carolina, McClellan recalled, and as they walked to Air Force One a reporter yelled out a question: Had the president, who had repeatedly condemned the selective release of secret intelligence information, enabled Scooter Libby to leak classified information to The New York Times to bolster the administration's arguments for war?

McClellan took the question to the president, telling Bush: "He's saying you yourself were the one that authorized the leaking of this information."

"And he said, 'Yeah, I did.' And I was kind of taken aback," McClellan said.

I was curious to see what event that was in April, 2006. As far as I can tell, it was this one at Central Piedmont Community College.

Curious thing happened at that Town Hall meeting - Harry Taylor happened:

Then came Taylor, 61, a commercial real estate broker, who got Bush's attention from the balcony.

"You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that," Taylor told him. "But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food."

Bush interrupted with a smile. "I'm not your favorite guy," he joked, provoking laughter.

"What I want to say to you," Taylor continued, "is that I, in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by, my leadership in Washington."

Many in the audience booed.

"Let him speak," Bush said.

"I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration," Taylor added.

Bush took it in stride but offered no regrets. In response, he dealt only with the National Security Agency program to eavesdrop without court approval on telephone calls and e-mails between people inside the United States and people overseas when one person is suspected of terrorist ties.

"I'm not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program, and I'll tell you why," Bush said, launching into his explanation of how he approved the program to avoid another Sept. 11. "If we're at war," he said, "we ought to be using tools necessary within the Constitution on a very limited basis, a program that's reviewed constantly, to protect us."

So in the same day he's crowing about committing a felony (and that is what he did by bypassing the FISA court with his warrantless wiretapping) he admitted to Scott McClellan that he authorized releasing Valerie Plame's name to the press.

On dubya's Coke use

From Time:

McClellan tracks Bush's penchant for self-deception back to an overheard incident on the campaign trail in 1999 when the then-governor was dogged by reports of possible cocaine use in his younger days.

The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.

"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"

"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?" McClellan wrote. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."

"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," McClellan wrote.

"And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."

So let's assume dubya was telling the truth there. That meant he was so drunk he had no idea he was committing a felony.

Now if only that information was known in 1999.

A Bad Week For Scooter

Earlier this week I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby decided to drop his appeal - this was for his part in the outing of Valerie Plame. From the AP:

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of perjury and obstruction for lying about his conversations with reporters about outed CIA operative Valerie Plame.

And yesterday was this:

President Bush granted pardons Tuesday to carjackers, drug dealers, a moonshiner and a violator of election laws, but not to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his vice president's former top aide who was convicted in the case of the leaked identity of a CIA operative.

This has gotta be pissing off the wingnuts. I can just hear them now:

• Scooter remains a convicted felon when that liar Joe Wilson remains free?
• But Armitage was the leaker!
• She was only a desk-jockey!
• She wasn't a covert operative!
• She was a soccer mom!
• Her cover had already been blown by Aldrice Ames!
• It was Wilson who lied about the Uranium in Niger!
• It's a coup attempt from within the CIA!
• Hey, Sandy Berger stole documents!
• In his socks!
• And Bill Clinton lied, too!
• Bill Clinton!
• Bill Clinton!
• Bill Clinton!

Wingnuts.

Bush & Cheney lied to public; implicated in Plame scandal

From former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new book:

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

"There was one problem. It was not true.

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff, and the president himself."

The CNN story on this helpfully reminds us that, "Rove, who left the White House staff at the end of August, was not charged in the case. But his lawyer has acknowledged he was one of two sources cited by syndicated columnist Bob Novak, who first reported in the summer of 2003 that Plame worked for the CIA."

Now here's where the Wingnuts will cry that Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage admitted to revealing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame COMPLETELY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE LEAKERS TO MULTIPLE REPORTERS/COLUMNISTS.

Is there anything about this was that Bush and Cheney haven't lied about?

IMPEACH
.

A New Wrinkle about Plame

I stumbled across this at TPMCafe yesterday.

Larry Johnson, the author, has worked for the CIA and for the State Department's Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism. So I think he probably knows what he's talking about.

He writes:

In 2004 the FBI received intelligence that Al Qaeda hit teams were enroute to the United States to kill Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Valerie Plame. The FBI informed Valerie of this threat. This was just more “good” news piled on the fact that her intelligence career was in shambles, that intelligence assets she had recruited/managed were destroyed, and that she was unable to rebut publicly false and malicious smears of her character and reputation by a bunch of partisan Republican hacks. As the mother of two pre-school children, her first thoughts were about protecting her kids. She took the threat seriously and asked for help.
When the White House learned of these threats they sprung into action. They beefed up Secret Service protection for Vice President Cheney and provided security protection to Karl Rove. But they declined to do anything for Valerie. That was a CIA problem.

Valerie contacted the office of Security at CIA and requested assistance. They told her too fucking bad and to go pound sand. They did not use those exact words, but they told her she was on her own.

Nice folks over there in the Bush Administration, huh? George Tenet doesn't come off any nicer. Larry Johnson, again:

[Tenet] refused to come to the aid of one of his CIA officers who faced a specific death threat. In fact, Georgie boy never once reached out to Valerie to provide any comfort or encouragement. He wanted to stay on good terms with the White House so he effectively cut her loose.

Nice guys over there. Not only do they initiate a policy resulting in the deaths of nearly 4,000 American servicemen and women, not only do they uncover the identity of a CIA operative (in violation of the law) who's the wife of a critic of that policy, they do nothing for her safety when receiving intelligence that her life may be in danger.

Karl Rove Update

I can remember hearing New KDKA radio guy, Kevin Miller, say on the air Karl Rove had nothing to do with the Plame case.

This clip should (SHOULD - but remember, we're talking rightwing talk radio where fact ne'er intrude) put that story to rest.

Here's the clip.

The important part happens at the end, with Matt Cooper. Here's a transcript of that portion (h/t to Crooks and Liars):

David Gregory: Matt Cooper, let’s pick up on an aspect of the interview with, with Karl Rove having to do with the leak case, the CIA leak case, that you were part of as well. And something’s that’s very interesting, he, he went out of his way to say, “I would not have been a confirming source on this kind of information” and taking issue with, with Novak’s testimony in his column that he knew who Valerie Plame was. He said he would never confirm that information. That’s different from your experience with him.

Cooper: Yeah, I, I think he was dissembling, to put it charitably. Look, Karl Rove told me about Valerie Plame’s identity on July 11th, 2003. I called him because Ambassador Wilson was in the news that week. I didn’t know Ambassador Wilson even had a wife until I talked to Karl Rove and he said that she worked at the agency and she worked on WMD. I mean, to imply that he didn’t know about it or that this was all the leak…

Gregory: Or that he had heard it from somebody else…

Cooper: …by someone else, or he heard it as some rumor out in the hallway is, is nonsense.

Gregory: But he makes no apologies to Valerie Plame.

Cooper: Karl Rove never apologizes. That’s not what he does..

For those keeping score at home, Robert Novak's column where we all read this:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

Was published on July 14th, three days after the phone call Cooper described. Three days after Rove leaked the information to Cooper.

For Kevin Miller (or for that fact for anyone) to say that Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak is just plain wrong.

How wrong? This wrong:

Good Morning, Pittsburgh.

Kevin Miller's in Good Company

The other day, I called into KDKA to try to convince Kevin Miller (who was sitting in for Fred Honsberger at the time) that he was wrong about Valerie Plame.

He said she was not a covert agent.

I amassed actual factual information to show him his obvious error. But as you well know, "facts" and "reality" have little sway on our nation's right wing pundits (and more than a few trolls here at 2PJ for that matter).

Well, Mr Miller's in good company. Wesley Pruden, writing in the moonie-owned Washington Times, said roughly the same thing (h/t to Mediamatters.org):

If anyone compromised "national security" by "outing" Valerie Plame as Mata Hari, it was not Scooter Libby. The special prosecutor knew all along that it was Richard L. Armitage, another government functionary, who had "outed" Valerie at the CIA, except that she was not really a covert agent, anyway, and even if she had been the law protecting covert agents did not actually apply to her.

Let's review.

According to this document filed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald:

The assertion that the collective facts known at an early point in the investigation warranted a summary termination of the investigation does not stand up to close scrutiny. First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.

I noticed this from the conclusion:

Mr. Libby, a high-ranking public official and experienced lawyer, lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation concerning the disclosure of a covert intelligence officer’s identity. He has shown no regret for his actions, which significantly impeded the investigation. [emphasis added]

And that, my friends, is what he was convited for - lying and obstruction of justice. Perjury is illegal and Scooter was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of committing it.

That Valerie Plame was covert is a point written into a sentencing memorandum filed by a US Attorney in a federal court. If that "fact" is incorrect, then why isn't Fitzgerald being hauled into court for perjury?

Simple. Plame was covert and anyone saying otherwise is lying.

Can you say "Hypocrites"

Mr. Law & Order, Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson

NOW:
"I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the President's decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life."

THEN:
In 1999 when Thonpson was a Senator, he voted "guilty" on article 2, the obstruction of justice article during the Clinton impeachment.

Mr. Tough On Crime, Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani

NOW:
"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct."

THEN:
(Giuliani in 1987) The United States Attorney in Manhattan, Rudolph W. Giuliani, declared yesterday that the one-year prison sentence that a Queens judge received for perjury was ''somewhat shocking.''

''A sentence of one year seemed to me to be very lenient,'' Mr. Giuliani said, when asked to comment on the sentence imposed Wednesday on Justice Francis X. Smith, the former Queens administrative judge.

The Man Who Promised to Bring Back "Honor and Integrity" to the White House, Republican President George W. Bush

NOW:
"I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

Bush will also not rule out a pardon down the road.

THEN:
"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own." [From Bush's autobiography, "A Charge To Keep," 11/99]

"I will swear to uphold the laws of the land. But I will also swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God," said then-Governor George Bush [CNN, “Inside Politics,” 8/11/00]

"Americans are tired of investigations and scandal, and the best way to get rid of them is to elect a new president who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and dignity to the White House." [Then-Governor George Bush on CNN’s “Burden of Proof,” 9/15/00]

"Americans want to be assured that the next administration will bring honor and dignity to the White House." [Then-Governor George Bush on CNN’s “Capital Gang,” 8/13/00]

"A reformer with results. He will restore integrity and values to the White House." [2000 Bush Campaign Ad aired on CNN’s “Crossfire,” 2/17/00]

"Please thank the personnel of your departments and agencies for their commitment to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government as we serve the American people." [Memo from President Bush to Executive Officials, 1/20/01

"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." [White House Briefing, 9/29/03]

"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [Bush Remarks: Chicago, Illinois, 9/30/03]

When the White House was asked specifically whether Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams or Lewis Libby told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands." [White House Briefing, 10/10/03]

Asked in June 2004 if he'd stand by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked, Bush replied "yes." [Bush Press Conference: Savannah, GA, 6/10/04]

The Dark Lord, Republican Vice President Dick Cheney

Oh, hell, c'mon, who cares what he has to say about this! Scooter is perjuring and obstructing justice for Dick Cheney!

Hey, MSM, here's a question to ask Bush:

"Is it fair that Scooter Libby will serve less jail time than Paris Hilton?"

.

Kevin Miller is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

I was just on KDKA. Kevin Miller (he's filling in for Fred today) had been saying about Valerie Plame that she was NOT covert. Therefore the whole Libby trial was somehow a sham.

He also said that Bush was right in commuting the prison sentence because (and I am NOT joking here) "rank has its privileges." So Kevin Miller, patriotic American, thinks that that the same laws that you and I have to abide by, the powerful don't have to.

Nice going, Kevin.

I had to call in and spank him. I just had to.

I pointed out that he was absolutely wrong about Valerie Plame. Congressman Henry Waxman opened a Congressional Hearing with a statement that he and his staff cleared with the CIA and Michael Hayden, head of the CIA where he said:

This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.

I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information.

I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. [emphasis added]

Patrick Fitzgerald filed papers saying that Valerie Plame was covert - MSNBC covered it here. The complete document is here.

Right now he's mixing in President Clinton's impeachment in order to muddy the waters.

He raised the question in regards to Libby, "What was the underlying crime?" Implying, I guess, that since no one was charged with an underlying crime, the real crime of perjury (for which Libby was convicted) should be ignored.

Of course when a caller brought up exactly the same argument about the Clinton impeachment ("What was the underlying crime in the Clinton impeachment?"), Kevin Miller dutifully pointed out that Clinton lied to the grand jury.

Since Kevin Miller is on NewsRadio1020, don't you think he should actually maybe you know read the news?

Pardon?

To pardon or not to pardon, that is the question...

On the one hand (and with juxtaposing metaphors) with tongue firmly planted in cheek, Marty Kaplan over at the Huffingtonpost says:

I want Bush to pardon Libby.

Yes, you read that correctly. Kaplan wrote that at the HUFFINGTONPOST. But you gotta see his reasons.

I want every Republican candidate running for President and Congress to be forced to applaud Libby's pardon and to inscribe their names alongside Scooter's other distinguished defenders, from Rumsfeld to Bolton.

I want American history to possess forever a crystalline illustration of Cheney's whack-ball theory of the unitary executive exempt from the rule of law.

I want the persistent presidential nullification of the Constitution to be perpetually exemplified by an unambiguous act of unmistakable arrogance.

I want Scooter Libby's fate to be be ironically and irrevocably linked to Paris Hilton.

I want Alberto Gonzales and Orrin Hatch to have their credibility fatally and eternally compromised by their fealty to an Administration which equates savage loyalty with justice.

I want every wingnut in the blogosphere to be forced to undermine their own credibility from here to eternity by endlessly recycling their lies about Valerie Plame not being covert, and by contending -- falsley, relentlessly and deliciously self-destructively -- that a pardon does not presume guilt.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see him do time. But even more than that, I'd love a Bush pardon to provide an incontestable X-ray of this crowd's sclerotic soul.

Ok, then.

By the way, the National Review's editorial spouts the same old same old deflections: No underlying crime (Nevermind that Libby was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice - which are crimes), Plame was not covert according to the IIPA (Which is, of course, irrelevant as Libby was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice) and so on. Of course The NR wants a pardon. Now.

But there's a problem. While the Constitution places few limits on the President's pardon powers (the case must be Federal and a pardon can't be used "in Cases of Impeachment"), according to Newsweek dubya was saying only last month on Fox "News" that there's a procedure in place at the DoJ to keep the pardon process "rational."

If that's the case, and he adheres to the rational process, Newsweek says, Libby can't be a candidate for pardon - not yet. Among the Standards outlined is this:

In general, a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence. The Department's regulations require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application (28 C.F.R. § 1.2). [emphasis added]

After that it has to be shown that the petitioner has accepted responsibility for the crime. I can't see Scooter doing that - indeed, his defense is that there was no crime committed at all!

Of course, dubya can pardon whomever he wants, but if he does he'd contradicting himself.

And gosh golly, that's never happened with this President, has it?

John Dean has another wrinkle.

If Watergate had any lesson, it was that when someone connected to the White House is heading for prison, it is dangerous for the president or those close to him to even think about - not to mention talk about - clemency.

After all, the March 1, 1974 indictment of Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Chuck Colson (who pled guilty, rather than risk a trial) charged each of them with a conspiracy to obstruct justice by offering to provide clemency to those involved in the Watergate break-in. In addition, as Nixon's tapes showed, the president discussed pardons on several occasions, and this abuse of power was included in the

bill of impeachment against him that was pending when he resigned.
If Libby had been acting on his own behalf, a pardon would present no problem; Bush and Cheney could feel it was the humanitarian thing to do, given his long service to the government. However, no one I know believes Libby was acting simply for himself, nor does the evidence suggest it.

Though he doubts that Cheney and Libby ever had a conversation about a pardon.

And as a pre-emptive strike, I'll quote (though I shouldn't need to) Fitzgerald's position about Plame's covert status and the illegality of exposing her identity. This is from the Government's Sentencing Memorandum (page 12):

The assertion that the collective facts known at an early point in the investigation warranted a summary termination of the investigation does not stand up to close scrutiny.

First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.

Here's the relevant statute. Go read it.

An Open Letter to the P-G

Dear Pittsburgh Post-Gazette;

Now that you have a new "co-publisher" I was wondering if you were planning on getting your former "National Security" Correnspondent Jack Kelly to issue a correction for some errors in his columns.

For example on June 17, 2006 he wrote:

Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed to determine whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act had been violated. The answer was no, because the law applies only to those who are working under cover overseas, or who have done so in the five years preceding disclosure, and Ms. Plame had been manning a desk at CIA headquarters for longer than that.

And on July 17, 2005 he wrote:

The law defines a "covert agent" as someone working undercover overseas, or who has done so in the last five years. Plame had operated under non-official cover, but was outed by CIA traitor Aldrich Ames, and has been manning a desk at CIA headquarters since 1997.

Never mind that Fitzgerald's investigation was not limited to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. In a letter to Congressman John Conyers dated January 30, 2004 X wrote:

By letter dated 30 July 2003, the CIA reported to the Criminal Division of the DoJ a possibile violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

It's Kelly's description of Valerie Plame's employment, published in your paper, that's at issue here.

It's wrong.

According to this recently released unclassified document, filed in a U.S. District Court:

On 1 January, 2002 Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When travelling overseas, Ms. Wilson always travelled under a cover identity--sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias--but always using cover--whether official or non-official cover (NOC)--with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.

So she had traveled overseas and the CIA had considered her covert - and all of this was considered classified by the CIA. The violation of the law was the unauthorized release of classified information. So Mr Kelly mischaracterized both the investigation and the facts pertaining to that investigation.

As he was writing as your "National Security Correspondent" at the time, had he not done his homework and checked this out? Or did he at the time have no contacts in the "National Security" community who could have told him what the facts were? Did he know all this to be true but decided to spread misinformation anyway?

And finally,

Can we expect a correction from him anytime soon?

More Proof Plame Was COVERT

Saw this in the news yesterday (or "yesstiddy" as we'd say in New England).

It should, though I know it won't, finally end the ruckus about Valerie Plame's CIA status. Turns out she was COVERT. The Reality-Based Community already knew that, but it's nice to see it in court documents filed by a US Attorney.

An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

Ok raise your hands, how many of you on the right are now blushing red out of embarrassment? How many made the charge in the news or on your radio shows that Plame wasn't covert because you could call her desk at the CIA? How many claimed she was just a soccer mom?

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

You can read the court document here. Again, show of hands. How many right wingers out there based at least part of their incorrect assertion that Plame was not covert on the "fact" that she hadn't travelled overseas? That "fact" isn't a fact at all is it?

Will you be apologising for your error? Will you at least be pointing out that you were in error?

We're waiting...

More on Valerie Plame's Status

I see that someone calling himself "Honzman" has wished the Other Political Junkie a Happy Birthday.

Let's hope that it IS Fred "The Honzman" Honsberger who's checking out the blog - if he sticks around long enough, maybe he'll learn something. Hahahaha!

Fred, if it is you, you need to take a look at the transcript from The House Commmittee on Oversight and Government Reform Hearing on CIA Identity Leak on Friday the 16th. Henry Waxman opened said this:

This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.

I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information.

I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, Step 6, under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.[emphasis added]

Here we have the chairman of a powerful House committee declaring, in statements cleared by the CIA and the head of the CIA (and Pittsburgh native, by the way) Michael Hayden, that Valerie Plame was "undercover" her employment status was "covert" and that that information was "classified."

Finally, releasing that information was a violation of Executive Order 12958.

Fred, will you be stating anytime soon how wrong you've been for these last few years when you repeatedly said in no uncertain terms that Valerie Plame was not covert?

I mean, the frickin head of the CIA just said she was. What that means to you is, you're just plain wrong whenever you said she wasn't.

Aren't you?