Roger L. Simon: Scenes from the Mainstream Media

From MSNBC: In an interview aired Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," Wilson said that Plame, 42, was in shock when she saw her name and that of her fictitious employer published in a syndicated column by Robert Novak.

"She felt like she'd been hit in the stomach. It took her breath away," Wilson said.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

When you're reduced to stealing lines from Hillary Clinton, we know you're lying, sweetie...

It's also worth nothing that 60 Minutes showed footage of Bush's so-called lie about buying yellowcake from Niger but used Bradley's paraphrasing instead of Bush's actual 16 words.

I started to watch 60 minutes and it became clear they are in some alternate universe--Fortunately the mud wrestling world championships were also on, so I rapidly switched channels--

I have not been able stomach "60 Pravdas" for some time now, so I don't know all that was said. But I have to agree with Wilson's statement that what was done ruined his wife's career at the CIA. I think he's being a big man for admitting what his actions did to her. I hope he has asked her for forgiveness and turns himself into the appropriate authorities for punishment.

Vanity Fair? I’ve got a better one than that. It was common knowledge among Wahinton insiders that Valerie Plame was employed by the CIA. Please scroll down to see the much clearer photo of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame taken at the local elite restaurant, Nathan’s Lunch:

"She felt like she'd been hit in the stomach. It took her breath away," Wilson said.

If it was really that bad shouldn't she have reacted like that Harvard Lady who on learning of her mathematical shortfall, almost threw up and feinted?

She knew BEFORE Novak printed that it was coming it. They gave the CIA heads up that Novak would be calling.

Hypocrisy. Fine. We should have no laws against leaking classified information, not so fine.

We have a problem if we think there would never be a reason to punish someone who does so.

What I see from leftists, ACLU types, and some libertarians is a striving for a utopian ideal where all information is free and there are no consequences nor are there any responsibilites.

I'm slow sometimes, and this didn't really hit me until fairly recently when I heard someone from the ACLU talk about the Patriot Act in terms of what he claimed our civil rights are.

I used to think ::embarrassed: that the ACLU was honestly attempting to protect our civil rights vis-a-vis our constitution. No. Their ideals go way beyond our constitution into some abstract reality which they use for their analogies.

Hypocrisy. Fine. We should have no laws against leaking classified information, not so fine.

We have a problem if we think there would never be a reason to punish someone who does so.

What I see from leftists, ACLU types, and some libertarians is a striving for a utopian ideal where all information is free and there are no consequences nor are there any responsibilites.

I'm slow sometimes, and this didn't really hit me until fairly recently when I heard someone from the ACLU talk about the Patriot Act in terms of what he claimed our civil rights are.

This formerly covert agent whose present job was classified was present during two of the interviews her husband conducted with journalists. (May 2003 - Kristof & July 2003 - Pincus)

Are there any armchair pscyhologists who can explain her inability to see that she was placing her career at risk? Was she complacent, overconfident? Did her marriage to The Ambassador require she subsume her ability to gage risks to that of her husband?

Expect to hear during the trial, I didn't recall my earlier conversations between X and Y, and hadn't reviewed my notes of said meetings. I was operation off of what I remembered, and not what was real. Or some such waffling. Is mearly telling falsehoods enough to convict on the charges, or is proving "MOTIVE" behind the falsehoods also needed? If not, then Scooter can here-by be charged with criminal stupidity, and we can be done with it.

The indictments will not satisfy the usual suspects of the left/liberal/democrat establishment (nor their nastier, loonier echo-chamber.) Without even looking I can already guess cries of conspiracy, and needing to get to the bottom of who was really pulling Scooters strings. They'll completely ignore what little is known in order to conflate their mythology of the event. Ignoring for instance, that Joe Wilsons editorial had little in the way of truth, and should have been discredited, (as they themselves would have done had it been a Democrat sitting in the White House who made the same decisions.)

In the midst of all the talk about democracy and freedom in the Arab world, one crucial issue still remains an untouched hot potato which is the call to reform the religion Islam. I believe this issue remains the most central and supercedes the importance of democracy and political reform in the greater Middle East region.

What makes matters worse is that many in the West, in their attempt to search for Muslim reformers, describe a person as "moderate" or "reformist" just because of the mere fact that he condemned violence or rebuked Bin Laden on September 11th.

Right after 911, many Islam haters started quoting the "violence verses" in the Quran in an attempt to prove that the 19 hijackers were carrying out Allah's orders. Muslims responded by saying that such verses should be taken "within their historical context." I am wondering why we can't take the saying of the prophet, the actions of his companions, and Shariah law in their "historical context" as well.

Islam is currently in a crisis and it is sad that very few Muslim thinkers and leaders are noticing it.

In a recent conversation, we started talking about Shariah law and I was stunned when he told me that he believes Shariah is divine and Allah's answer to all our ills. He then started bombarding me with absurd justifications for stoning, whipping those who drank a bottle of beer, and executing those who converted out of Islam. When I cornered him by detailing how his current life will change if Egypt adopted full fledged Shariah law, all what he said was "I'll give it a try."

I don't see how anybody can still believe what Joe Wilson says. Starting form his African trip report, to claiming Dick Cheney recommened him for the job which he was not qualified to go, to subsequent interviews with MSM for > 2 years now. He has ZERO credibility!

Of course, he's always been the darling boy for the MSM because he stood up to the evil Bush empire.

David:
I couldn't help noticing that:
A the caption of the picture that you link to doesn't identify Plame professionally, and
B Mr. Wilson's book is in the picture, and It was published long after Novak's column.

Statements of interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not deliberately. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate. Like all other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury you have to have had the intention (the mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (the actus reus).

"Now, there's no suggestion the vice president is guilty of any crime here whatsoever. But if our standard is just criminality, then we're never going to get to the bottom of this," Dodd said.

"If it was really that bad shouldn't she have reacted like that Harvard Lady who on learning of her mathematical shortfall, almost threw up and feinted?"

Making a deceptive show of is the left's game plan. I wonder that Roger posts speculation when all he has to do is ask his new friend, David Corn, for the real skinny. He's credited as the first to oust Covert Agent Plame and is rumored to be among those who helped orchestrate the CIA's attempt to sabotage Bush's foreign policy.

Did Fitzgerald give Scooter an opportunity to recant, like he presumably did for Rove?

Will Scooter's lawyer as part of his defense demand all CIA files on the Ambassador, his non covert operative wife and his holiday in Niger, and will the Agency cough them up?

Of ocurse I have been listening to Joe Wilson for some time now and I have a pretty good idea what he said. bitch bitch bitch.......

As for his wife's shock, shock I say...she should be fired.... as in out of a job. I hope her career is over for sending her husband off to Africa and starting this whole ridiculous farce.

Who outed Valerie? Her husband. His desire for attention trumped her need for privacy.

When the call for the investigation started it was because of the possibility of criminal activity by the Bush White House. I am fine with that. If Libby or anyone else intentionally outed a covert agent there should an investigation. And even though the underlying crime was not proven if Libby lied about a material fact he should be punished. But now that Fitzgerald has finished his two year investigation, an investigation where the White House cooperated fully and no one took the fifth, unlike some administrations we can remember, and has stated that no one is being charged with conspiracy to out a covert agent, and that the only indictment is not connected with outing a covert agent, Dodd and the Dems are changing their tune. "We must have further investigations."

Actually, no we don't. The White House was not out to slime the Wilsons. There was no version of the "nut's and slut's" team of the Clinton era. They were countering the political attacks of Wilson and they were trying to correct the misinformation that Wilson was peddling and getting complete and non questioning acceptance from the MSM. Yes, it was a propaganda war, from BOTH sides. Wilson's attempt to put on the innocent victim uniform doesn't fly. What the White House put out about Wilson's Niger trip was far more accurate then Wilson's fable. If the White house had released private medical info, or phoney tales of Wilson's pecadillo's, or private medical records with embarrasing info, then comparisons to character assination would be true. They were trying to correct the misinformation of Wilson, plain and simple. We have already had the 9-11 commission that investigated the Niger trip.If anyone read it they would find that Wilson's numerous versions of his trip do not add up. We had Fitzgerald's two year criminal investigation. He is still operating, if there is more he will find it.

The Dem's and the MSM can't stand the fact that they did not get the results that they had planned for. They can't stand the fact that Fitzgerald did not find the grand Rovian criminal conspiracy that they had wished for. So now they are trying to find a reason to start the whole investigation over again. Not because new astonishing info has come out. But because they live for scandal and can't stand it when what they dreamed of turns out to be more fantasy then reality.

When I first read the Times Op Ed I wondered who they hell this guy was. How could someone who was hired by the CIA to do an investigation go public with his findings? Wasn't he under some secrecy injunction? It hit me as rather stupid for the CIA to send out an investigator who then publishes his report in a newspaper. I thought that is must have been SOP for the CIA to have any contractor sign some sort of non disclosure agreement. Then again, have we ever learned that Wilson was HIRED for pay by the CIA or was this some sort of non official, expenses only junket? There is so much we don't know and never will.
If the CIA doesn't have a procedure for confidentiality by contractors, then some Intelligence committe should find out why. And, if they do, then someone should find out why Wilson wasn't covered by such an agreement.
Another thing bothered me. If I was Wilson and reported back my findings to the CIA I would know that my information was just one little piece of a bigger picture. And I wouldn't know what else the CIA knew. For all I knew, they already had two or three agents talk to the same people I did and they were backchecking them. In other words, just because I didn't come up with an iron clad case that Iraq never in any way tried to procure yellow cake from Niger, how could I know if there was other evidence that they did. Wilson went public because 1) he figured the CIA couldn't publicly refute him or 2) he knew the CIA had no evidence to refute him. If that were the case, how would Wilson know that? From his wife??? Hmmm.
I have read that Wilson gave a verbal briefing on his trip. That annoyed me too. It seemed to me that the CIA would require a detail written report from a contractor. Maybe I just hoped that they would. Or maybe they just take notes and have the contractor sign off on the notes of the debriefing. Sounds sloppy to me in either case. Or, maybe no report was required because this wasn't an official mission. How will we ever know?
The whole thing stunk from the very beginning and hasn't improved with age.

That said, I wonder what Libby really was up to. My own guess is that he was trying to shield Cheny from a subpoena. Time will tell.

Libby, who resigned as soon as the indictment was handed up, was operating amid "the hectic rush of issues and events at a busy time for our government," according to a statement released by his attorney, Joseph Tate.

"We are quite distressed the special counsel (Patrick Fitzgerald) has now sought to pursue alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's recollection and those of others and to charge such inconsistencies as false statements," Tate continued.

"As lawyers, we recognize that a person's recollection and memory of events will not always match those of other people, particularly when they are asked to testify months after the events occurred."

The lack-of-memory defense has worked with varying degrees of success in controversies from Iran-Contra to Whitewater.

Only one person went to prison in the Iran-Contra affair, although several people pleaded guilty to making false statements. President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, were cleared in the Whitewater investigation of fraudulent land deals in Arkansas, a subject well-suited to a lack-of-memory defense. The land deals took place a decade before they came under criminal investigation.

I don't know if anyone linked to Austin Bay. There are parts of the Senate Intelligence report in it that clarify some of the story.

It seems pretty clear that Wilson misinterpreted himself (smile) in the op ed. Or he lied.

I wonder what Valerie Plame thinks of her husband running around shooting his mouth off?

It would seem to me that if she is really all that damn worried about her job she might have had a problem with Joe Wilson making claims that not only were suspect but which would have come back on her.

What did she think when she read that Wilson said Cheney sent him when she knew full well that was a lie?

She had to know that a lot of what he said was not true. What kind of an agent does that make her? Why did she not stop him?

This is how prosecutors get their ham sandwich indictments from grand juries. Compound questions that simply would not be allowed at trial. The GJ's don't have a clue what the prosecutor is asking, they don't have a clue whether the answer is in fact responsive to at least part of whatever the hell the prosecutor asked - but they believe the nice smiling prosecutor when he tells them the answer was definitely perjury.

Reading the indictment has cost Mr. Fitzgerald a great deal of respct in my eyes. It's also the best reason I've ever seen to reinforce a decision on any witnesses part to contract Arkansas Alzheimers upon entering a court room or giving a deposition. This type of indictment does not serve our justice system well at all.

Why did Wilson go to Niger when what he wanted could be found here?
COGEMA Resources Inc. Head Office
P .O. Box 9204
817 45th Street West
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7K 3X5

Please would someone answer me a question is it legal for the CIA to operate in the US,where did Plame reside when she was allegedly outed?

Why did Wilson go to Niger when what he wanted could be found here?
COGEMA Resources Inc. Head Office
P .O. Box 9204
817 45th Street West
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7K 3X5

Please would someone answer me a question is it legal for the CIA to operate in the US,where did Plame reside when she was allegedly outed?

Are you people stupid, or is it just your blind loyality to Bush that makes you perform logical contortions?

Appearing in public as Mrs. Joe Wilson --- including society photographs --- PRIOR to her being outed as a CIA agent isn't outing herself as a CIA agent. It's simply showing that Joe Wilson had a wife.

The Bush administration blew her cover AS A CIA AGENT, not as Joe Wilson's wife.

You have absolutely no proof/evidence as to 'who' blew her cover, if anyone. Absolutely none. If you do, perhaps you should contact Fitzgerald. He would be most interested in hearing from you, I am sure.

You presume that our stupidity is that any counterspy/foreign country /terrorist/former Stasi/KGB would know the moniker of "Valerie Plame" as a person when in fact she may have used a false name backed up by a false passport in distinction from the name of "Mrs. Joe Wilson." A point you don't know, nor do we. The appearance of a name in a Novak column means nothing unless associated with a face. Since, it is known that she worked for a front organization, one might presume - in one's cupidity - the aforementioned "Valerie Plame' used a false name or maybe she is not the aforementioned "Valerie Plame," but a cartoon character invented by Stephen Spielberg in one of his more creative moments. But then, the Ambassador supplied the photo to Vanity Fair, and conspired by placing his body in the car for the pose, which made all the difference to any would be former Stasi/KBG operative. In that event, the Ambassador tied the knot, belled the cat, made the danger all the more real for the woman. You do read Le Carre, Ambler, Ludlum, don't you?

Wilson was making the T.V. pundit rounds telling everyone what great danger his covert wife was facing because of the Bush Administration. Then he plasters her face on a national magazine that is read all over the world. Either the "danger" was a figment of his imagination or he has a serious deathwish for his beloved, or he is just stupid. A covert agent that was in fear for her life would not allow her self to be photographed in a cover spread and a husband of a spy would put aside his tremendous mania for publicity and not allow her to be photographed in such a fashion. His ego trumped his fear for her safety.

Point of information: If a crime was committed, it was unauthorized disclosure of classifed information not outing a covert agent. Plame had been already outed by Aldrige Ames and therefore had lost her covert status. The fact of her employment by the CIA may have been classified but that does not necessarily imply she was a covet agent. There are admins in the Agency who have classified association. We will find out her actual status at discovery.

If her association with the agency was common knowledge then it would be very difficult to obtain a conviction on either the non-applicable Intelligence Identies Protection act or the Espionage Act.

Despite the high dungeon of the MSM about the damage done by leaking Plame's status it is far less damaging to the national security then another unauthorized handling/release of classified information. Sandy Berger walked despite stealing SCI information from the National Archives. Despite his silence, it is very likely that he carted off and destroyed his personal copies of critical memos which had hand written notes showing his personal malfeisance in CT policy. This affected the outcome of the 9-11 Commission report which has led to a fatally flawed Intelligence Reform Act.

What has come out with the indictment? Libby spoke with three reporters and according to the reporters' testimony:

(3)Miller
Well, hmmm, I'm not sure if he told me that or I told him that or I heard it from someone else.

That's all Wilson has to claim his wife was outed in retaliation for his criticism of the administration.

IIRC Plame had for over five years prior to 2003 been working at CIA headquearters outside Washington, in Langley, Virginia. She would still have been under cover, though apparently she was a "NOC", ie a pseudo-businesswoman unaffiliated with any US government organ and operating "Not [under] Official Cover." Which is an extremely dangerous, no-safety net assignment abroad, but meaningless at home. The bottom line is that Plame was by the end of the 1990s safely ensconced in American suburbia facing no threat to her personal safety and seeking the quiet of non-NOC married life. Neither the CIA nor her husband was at pains to conceal their ties to her, though technically her identity still was covert.

The principle here is important-- don't out any CIA employee, be he/she in Virginia or Africa or wherever-- but the specific instance of Plame and her fabulist husband is a tempest in a teapot.

jerry -- any evidence for your claim that Berger's pilfering of documents "affected the outcome of the 9-11 Commission report which has led to a fatally flawed Intelligence Reform Act"?

Here is what Byron York had to say about the single document, dealing with Clinton Administration's response to Al-Qaeda's attempt at a new millenium attack, which he removed and, in part, "accidently discarded":

"It is not clear how many copies of the report exist. Nor is it clear why Berger was so focused on the document. If he simply wanted a copy, it seems that taking just one would have been sufficient. But it also seems that Berger should have known that he could not round up all the known copies of the document, since there were apparently other copies in other secure places. Whatever the case, the report was ultimately given to the September 11 Commission."

Previewing your Comment
Syl -- what notes? Were they an official part of the report? If they were, they should also be on other copies. If they were not, who wrote them, what did they say, were they fair comments, etc.?

Berger's chance of getting any sort of position in a future Democratic administration is effectively destroyed as a result of what happened. This is probably the way it should be. Democrats aren't allowed to restore a disgraced former official to a key government post, as Republicans did with Poindexter. Berger was caught, plead guilty, and there is no reason to think that the slap on the wrist that he received, which the Bush Justice Department agreed to, was not commenserate with the actual damage to national security that he was responsible for.

Berger's crime was his lame attempt at airbrushing his (the Clinton' Administration's)
feckless and insipid response to the rise of
IslamoFacism in the 90's. He did'nt endanger national security by stealing the documents. He was just trying to sanitize his history.

The damage done to the Defense Intelligence Community by the misnamed Intelligence Reform act is significant. It is a virtual certainty that we have another massive military intelligence failure in the future because of the Act. It is a also a virtual certainty that Berger stole and destroyed SCI memo with his hand written notes implicating him in malfeasance. If the commission knew what he had written they may have come to a different conclusion, i.e., that the intelligence community, while not perfect, did its job while the political authorities failed to mind the store.

jerry -- I think your argument is pretty transperantly lame. As York says, and you do not refute, there were other copies of the report. Any "notes" written on the side of the report EITHER WERE NOT A PART OF THE REPORT, or they were also included in other copies. Unless you can show me otherwise.

The theory is that Berger wanted to make sure nobody saw those handwritten margin notes.

Sure, they weren't part of the official record. That makes such notes all the more interesting.

1) Berger did not endanger national security by destroying notes allegedly scribbled by unknown individuals on the side of an official document of which other copies existed.
2) Gonzalez Justice Department acknowledged as much when it agreed to the plea agreement.
3) Jerry's original point -- that Berger's actions caused more harm to national security than exposing Plame and revealing that the energy firm that she and other operatives pretended to work at was a front -- remains a slur in search of a shred of supporting evidence.

Why do you insist there were other copies with the notes? As far as I know none were found.

Copies are given to each participant. They scribble their own notes on their own copies. Then all copies are retrieved and kept in a secure location.

you said: "Any "notes" written on the side of the report EITHER WERE NOT A PART OF THE REPORT, or they were also included in other copies. Unless you can show me otherwise."

Your statement is incorrect. As a governement employee and a member of the IC I can assure you that any notes made on official correspondence or copy of that correspondence are part of an offical document.

Second, Libby is alleged to have revealed her connection with the CIA at the Langley HQ not as part of the firm as you assert. Since Valarie Plame was outed by Aldridge Ames, she had no further value as a covert operative in the DO. If the Russians knew her idendity then every other possible opposition service knew who she was. Just because you association with CIA may be classified it doesn't mean you are an "agent". I happen to know several people who work with Valarie Plame and I know for certain she was not an "agent" If she were a covert operative she would not be hanging around Langley.

I have traveled "under cover" on several occaisions when my status with the Department of the Navy was classified and I wasn't even in the intel world. I was in the naval operations world. I just happenned to be working on a "black program." The damage done by Libby's alledged leak did not even make blip on the security threat scale.

Berger's destructiion of the official record severely effected the outcome of the commission but his actions and those of the Clinton adminstration led directly to 9-11.

Markus, by trying to argue that Berger could not have destroyed the official report, you revealed yourself as an unserious troll.

I called you on that, to redirect your attention to the actual argument, which now you are addressing.

Your point 1 is mere assertion. You cannot possibly know what the effects of Berger's actions were. The only people who could possibly determine that are the people who saw the margin notes, if there were any.

Point 2) We really can't be certain that there was no political motivation in letting Berger walk. The Bush admin has a habit of letting crooks and liars off the hook, if they're also political opponents. Torches me no end.

Point 3) Jerry's guess is as good as anyone's.
Berger got those papers out secretly, at great risk. It's a reasonable inference that he took such risks because the stakes were high. So we wonder, what *were* the stakes?

***
And whitewashing a previous administration does indeed jeopardize us. If we don't know what was done and what actually happened, how can we prevent ourselves from doing the same damned fool things?

Joe Wilson's 'Secret' Wife
As we noted yesterday, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby does not allege that Valerie Plame, the long-suffering wife of Bush-hating egomaniac Joe Wilson, was a covert CIA agent. It does, however, claim that Plame's "employment status was classified" and that before July 14, 2003, when her name appeared in a column by Robert Novak, her "affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

We guess that depends what you mean by "common." It seems that at least two journalists knew that Plame worked for the CIA long before the kerfuffle that bears her name was a gleam in the eye of Angry Leftists. From the New York Sun, July 6, 2005:

Among the letters submitted by [Time's Matt] Cooper [to the judge considering whether to compel his testimony] was one from a former Time White House correspondent, Hugh Sidey. "In this case it seems to me the protection of a source transcends the other considerations,which do not seem to threaten national security," he wrote.

Mr. Sidey said in an interview that the identity of the CIA operative, Ms. Plame, was widely known--well before Mr. Cooper talked to his sources. "You know this game as well as I do," Mr. Sidey said. "That name was knocking around in the sub rosa world we live in for a long time."

And this is an exchange between host Alan Murray and guest Andrea Mitchell on CNBC's now-defunct "Capital Report," Oct. 3, 2003 (transcript not available publicly online):

Murray: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

In fact, Novak did not report that she was covert; Fitzgerald did not allege it; and the factual assertions Joe Wilson makes in his own book, if accurate, prove that she was not. It's further evidence that this "scandal" is about nothing, and that Libby's indictment--even if he turns out to be guilty--is a tragedy.

The press knew who Plame was before Novak did.
To be fair, it is still unlawful to confirm classified information that appears in the press.

If the documents were not incriminating or damaging in some way why did a grown man steal them and smuggle them out in his socks?

The margin notes often include telling remarks and often indicate what someone knew, when they knew it, what they suggested to do about it. Yes, the original copy is preserved but whatever was written on the margins by the receiver of the note is gone forever. If I recieved a copy of a memo about a terrorist and I wrote on it "ignore this, we don't have to worrry about it" and the warning turned out to be accurate, then the evidence of my bad judgement would be erased if the margin notes were destroyed with the copy. Why else would he have destroyed multiple copies of the same memo. Because of the margin notes. Berger took those copies out and he destroyed them. Why would he risk what he did if he wasn't try to save somebodies butt? Ask Ollie North? You destroy records to hide information.Ask Rosemary Woods. You erase tapes to erase history that is embarrasing.

Peter UK -- "If the documents were not incriminating or damaging in some way why did a grown man steal them and smuggle them out in his socks?"

I tend to agree with Vegitus' explanation: "lame attempt at airbrushing his (the Clinton' Administration's) feckless and insipid response to the rise of IslamoFacism in the 90's."

I'd agree for the most part, and add, "...in some cases almost as lame as the Bush administration's response in the eight plus months leading up to 9/11, and without the excuse that this was a new administration."

Bostonian -- "Markus, by trying to argue that Berger could not have destroyed the official report, you revealed yourself as an unserious troll."

Oh yes, the good 'ole ad hominem, served with a smile to any critic of the partyline who dares to post at this site. FYI -- I didn't argue he COULD NOT destroy the report, I noted that he DID NOT destroy it, and my evidence was leftist troll BYRON YORK's (!) statement that the 9/11 Committee RECEIVED ANOTHER COPY OF THE REPORT despite Sandy Berger's best efforts.

Then it was brought to my attention that it was some notes scribbled on the side that were the likely source of Berger's interest. I ask again: how do we know these notes exist, who wrote them, what authority did that person have to scribble on them, did the other copies include these scribblings, etc... Kevin P says that stealing notes or erasing tapes means you have something to hide. OK, fine, but then who wrote them?

Jerry seems to imply that the notes were written by Berger himself. Is this correct? Berger wrote notes to himself at the National Archives on the margins of a report about HIS actions as National Security chief, and it is THESE NOTES that the 9/11 commission needed to see? Why would such notes contain anything relevant? So far nobody has answered any of these questions, or provided me with links to any source that might.

So I'm still left with Jerry's assertion that Berger compromised national security, even though there were several copies of the report he tried to steal. And when I ask for evidence that he did, people here respond by asking ME to provide evidence that he's didn't!

"And whitewashing a previous administration does indeed jeopardize us. If we don't know what was done and what actually happened, how can we prevent ourselves from doing the same damned fool things?"

Again, the 9/11 Commission RECEIVED THE REPORT, along with other evidence of institutional shortcomings in our response to terrorism UNDER CLINTON, and included such criticism in its report.

Jerry -- You're obviously more up on the details of the Libby/Plame case than me. What grabbed my interest and prompted my initial post were your Berger accusations, not your ones related to Plame. But when you say "Libby is alleged to have revealed her connection with the CIA at the Langley HQ not as part of the firm" isn't this irrelevent if revealing only her present status, in order to explain why Wilson was in Niger, results -- intentions notwithstanding -- in also exposing that firm and everyone else pretending to work for it? Or are you saying that the firm's cover was blown by Aldrich's revelation, not Libby's?

Let me explain what Libby is alleged to have done. He allegedly told Miller, Cooper and maybe Russart that Plame worked at CIA Headquarters in Langley Virginia. He made no mention of any cover operations that she may have been involved in. If you had bothered to have read the Best of the Web citation you will see that other people in the press knew of Plame's status before Libby alledgedly revealed it. I don't know how her association with a cover firm was revealed but Libby is not alledged to have revealed it. Wilson may have revealed that part the story.

Once again, read more carefully what I wrote. If you make notations on an official document or any copy thereof, those comments become part of the official record. That is why investigators of security leaks, or crimes as for all copies and notes. Classified information is the property of the United States Government. If you write notes on a classified document or copy of said document those notes become part of the official record. To say that 9-11 Commission received the memorandum and nothing was lost would be wrong. Berger's or other officials notes on the copy tell part of the story. Often the most important information on the document are the notes because those notes give indications of intended actions and decisions. So yes, Berger could have seriously effect national security by covering up malfeaseance in the Clinton admistration.

I wonder what Valerie Plame thinks of her husband running around shooting his mouth off?

What did she think when she read that Wilson said Cheney sent him when she knew full well that was a lie?

She had to know that a lot of what he said was not true. What kind of an agent does that make her? Why did she not stop him?

Sometimes to go forward, you have to go back. There has been so much to this story. Much more than a "blog" can contain in a single, or even a group of postings. Yet as I said before, the past sometimes becomes clearer via hindsight.

In this case I go back to a story printed in Capital Hill Blue, dated 6 January 2003. This story is no long on the Capital Hill Blue's website, but was captured by some posters on Free Republic at the time. For those who missed it here it is again.

"Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President George W. Bush by challenging his credibility and raising doubts about America, sources within the party tell Capitol Hill Blue.

A multi-pronged attack against Republicans and the President will focus not only on economic issues, but question American values, raise doubts about how this country is viewed by other nations and question the patriotism of Bush and his party.

The extensive campaign, developed by senior Democratic consultants and party leaders, was launched last week with attacks on the Bush economic plan by Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Richard Gephardt.

In coming weeks, Democratic elected officials will question the President’s intentions on the pending war with Iraq. Writers and broadcasters friendly to the Democratic cause have already been provided talking points suggesting the war is about oil, not terrorism. “The talking points were developed before the end of last year and sent out to operatives and friendly media,” one Democratic consultant confided. “No Democratic member of Congress will question the President’s patriotism openly but we will use the media and other surrogates to raise doubts.”

Capitol Hill Blue obtained a copy of the talking points when the Democratic National Committee sent them to a news outlet recently acquired by CHB’s parent company. The talking points outline a strategy to raise public doubts of the President’s real intentions, including: --Saying the war is about oil and will be fought to benefit oil companies that have long supported Bush and the Republican party;

--Claiming the Bush administration has “manufactured” evidence against Saddam Hussein and used that evidence to encourage Britain and other allies to join the American fight against Iraq;

--Suggesting a wartime economy is the only way the administration can revive the country’s lagging economic situation.

“It is clear that the current approval ratings of the administration are tied directly to strong American feelings toward traditional values,” the talking points say. “To counter this, doubt must be raised as to America’s true position within the world community and the true intent of the Bush administration in waging war.”

Some Democrats admit privately they are uneasy with the party strategy to undermine American values in an attempt to get Bush.

“My boss doesn’t want anything to do with it,” one senior Senate aide told Capitol Hill Blue on Monday. “You don’t undermine this country to win elections.” Others, however, are willing to try anything to put the White House and Congress back under Democratic control. “The real war isn’t in Iraq,” one Democratic consultant said. “It’s right here at home, at the ballot box in 2004.”

--Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are controlled by oil and defense industry special interest groups.

--America is unprepared for another terrorist attack because of White House preoccupation with Iraq. --War will increase the country’s economic woes. --Bush will be forced to raise taxes to finance the war.

“It’s time to take the battle to the people and make them understand just how dangerous George W. Bush’s policies are to the future of America,” the talking points conclude.

Democratic sources say the talking points were developed by Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, Senate Majority Leader Daschle and former House Democratic Leader Gephardt.

“This is a classic, Jim Carville, scorched earth campaign,” crows one DNC staffer. “Take no prisoners. That’s how you win elections.” Democratic party spokesmen would not return phone calls seeking comment on this report."

Interesting enough that this story came out nearly a month before the President's SOTU speech and the infamous "16 words". In addition, though I noted that Mr. Wilson seemed totally unconcerned with WMD and his speeches, while viewed by some as "anti-war" were actually more along the lines of a "difference of opinion" - almost a "gentleman's quarrel" approach".

However, they were far removed from the rhetoric we would see beginning with the Kristof article of May 6th, 2003 and beyond. There is no mistaking that from that point on it was a totally different Wilson with a completely different, but familiar set of talking points at his disposal.

Yet with every race there is a start, and the "starting gun" was fired on March 7th, 2003 by the IAEA and their 'discovery' that the Niger documents were forgeries- convieniently a week after the SOTU speech, and from there Wilson and the DNC were off to the races.

Wow, I can't believe I'm wasting my time researching and debating this stupid Berger story. But that's what I'm doing. And as I suspected, Jerry, you're full of it.

The "notes" were written by Berger himself at the Archives, NOT on the documents themselves, but on a seperate piece of paper. They were HIS notes that he took as he read the classified material in the archives. They were nothing more than the "THOUGHTS OF SANDY", or perhaps written transcriptions of the material. It was, however, against the law to take ANY notes out of the room. THEY WERE NOT PART OF THE REPORT, any more than notes I take when reading a book are somehow PART OF THAT BOOK.

And regarding the idea that he took this material because he was trying to hide something, take it away Bush appointee Hillman:

"Noel L. Hillman, who leads the Justice Department's public integrity section, said after the hearing on Friday that the department's investigation had found no evidence that Mr. Berger had intended to hide anything from the Sept. 11 commission. Indeed, the commission had access to all the original reports on the 2000 threat assessment, Mr. Hillman pointed out."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/politics/02berger.html?ei=5090&en=144290c629197d69&ex=1270098000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&adxnnlx=1130908324-CQQrmtRng1U28Fe35X/IRw

Sandy Berger did not own his notes. He was national security advisor, his notes are extremely important and belong to us, the people. His comments, ideas as to what was important and what could be ignored, his suggestions as to what to do, his disagreements, his opinions on which parts of the assessment took priority over all others.

Because of his position, his reactions to the assessment affected his advise to the POTUS.

And you think it doesn't matter because they were written on a separate piece of paper?

No evidence was found because Berger shredded it.No evidence is not the same as "Berger definitely didn't do it".
If Berger merely wanted to create an aide memoire why did he subsequently destroy it,had he memorised the information,made another copy or passed on the information?
If it was all so unimportant why did he bother with the whole juvenile hole in a corner enterprise? Berger put his career and reputation on the line for something.

The WAPO revealed a classified government operation using spare GULAG space in the old Eastern Bloc as interrrogation and detention of AQ
operatives.
I bet all the folks that were worried about outing a six year cold former CIA operative won't even bat an eye lid about compromising on-going operations. So much for their concern about national security.

I'd like to see a referral of this leak to Justice be leaked to Andrea Mitchell.

And the New York Times demand an investigation because the leak is a scandal of monumentous importance!

I think both Wilson's need to be "hit in the stomach". No wonder our intelligence on Iraq was as bad as it was, with dummies like Ms. Plame doing the analysis.

October 31, 2005: Scenes from the Mainstream Media

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post