Whistle Ass / George Bush 2004

Treasongate bigger than Watergate

URBANA, ILLINOIS--To weigh the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame against historical standards, consider that no leader of the Soviet Union--including that master of ruthlessness, Josef Stalin--ever arranged for the name of a KGB operative to appear in a newspaper. Adolf Hitler had countless millions murdered, yet getting at a political enemy by endangering agents of the Sicherheitsdienst, the Nazi intelligence service, didn't cross his mind. In this respect, not even the worst tyrants have stooped to the level of George W. Bush.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20051101/cm_ucru/biggerthanwatergate

!!!The Real Judith Miller: CIA or Israeli Intel?

It's been clear for some time who Judith Miller's real employer is. She is NOC CIA. Private citizens, even reporters, do not get attributable access to top-secret, codeword-classified material. Witnessing an actual interrogation brings up a number of security issues: the name and physical description of the subject, unfettered access to the rawest version of the intelligence gained, the codename of the subject, the classified codewords of the project/file, the physical description and worknames of the interrogators, the interrogation methods used, the location of the interrogation facility - and these are just a few. This level of access is usually only available to a case officer - even material classified top secret and higher contains redactions to protect the source of the intelligence. That she regularly gains this level of access makes it clear who her real employer is. Judy Miller is CIA.
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002423.html

Just like Judy "forgot" to mention her connection to dead British scientist Dr David Kelly
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=941
who sent Miller an email just before he supposedly walked off to kill himself: "Moreover, the email gave no indication that he was either depressed or contemplating suicide. He wrote that he was waiting "until the end of the week" before judging how his appearance before the House of Commons select committee had gone.
The email was sent to American author Judy Miller shortly before he left home for the last time. "
Miller had worked with Kelly previously on a book (!!!) but she mentions neither that nor the email in the article she wrote about his death.
The woman in a willing collaborator with the Bush White House, particularly Doug Feith's group. Her speaking bureau also handles these same worthless jerks.
"Journalist?" Yeah, and my cat can fart show tunes.

Who is in the WHITE HOUSE IRAQ GROUP?

KKKarl Rove

Condoleezza Rice R U the Devil?

Lewis "Scooter" Libby Libby's Libby's in the Clinker Clinker Clinker

Stephen Hadley

Mary Matalin

Karen Hughes

James Wilkinson

Nicholas E. Calio

Joseph Wilson: Comments on Democracy Now 08/04/05

JOSEPH WILSON:" ...My wife is a career civil servant. She's apolitical. She exercises her democratic rights like every other citizen, but she does not participate in partisan politics or these partisan political activities. She is not in the public arena or the public square. And how Mr. Rove could conclude that she is fair game is frankly beyond me. But what I will say is that this sort of attitude just has to stop. We don't accept it in our towns and our villages, we should not accept it in our political campaigns, because this is exactly the same thing they did to John McCain and John McCain's wife in South Carolina. And I go through that story, and I talked to John McCain the other day. And he thanked me. He thanked me for bringing that story out of what happened in South Carolina. This has got to stop. It is frankly un-American to decide that the way to get at somebody you determine is your political opponent, you have a dispute on ideas, or in this case on veracity, and you decide that instead of debating it, the truth in this case, the truth or lie issue, you are going to drag my wife out in the public square and administer a beating to distract people's attention from your lies..." http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/04/1357248

Grand Jury Hears Plame Case

Testimony begins in front of a grand jury in the investigation into whether the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame was improperly leaked to the press 
By JOHN DICKERSON AND VIVECA NOVAK

Thursday, Jan. 22, 2004
Sources with knowledge of the case tell TIME that behind closed doors at the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse, nearby the Capitol, a grand jury began hearing testimony Wednesday in the investigation of who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak and other journalists.

Prosecutors are believed to be starting with third-party witnesses, people who were not directly involved in the leak of Plame's identity. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, claims that the leak was an act of retaliation against him for undercutting Bush's weapons-of-mass-destruction rationale for going to war in Iraq. Soon enough, witnesses with more direct knowledge will be called to testify, and a decision to subpoena journalists for their testimony will also be made. In December, the FBI asked some administration staffers to sign a waiver releasing reporters from confidentiality agreements in connection with any conversations they had about the Wilson affair. Novak's attorney, Jim Hamilton, had no comment about the latest developments.

Grand juries aren't always used in criminal probes, but they are the preferred way to go in cases with potential political fallout, if only to lend credibility to the result. One conclusion to be drawn from this latest step, said one lawyer familiar with the case, is that investigators clearly have a sense of how the case is shaping up. "They clearly have a sense of what's going on and can ask intelligent questions" to bring the grand jury up to speed. A grand jury is not a trial jury, but is used as an investigative tool and to decide whether to bring indictments in a case.

Anyone who's subpoenaed in the inquiry, noted the lawyer, can be almost certain that prosecutors aren't contemplating indicting him or her. Subpoenas are rarely sent to the targets of an investigation, and if they are, the recipients must be told in advance that they are considered targets—at which point they would almost certainly cite the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions.

A huge unanswered question in this case is whether the leaker or leakers knew that Plame was undercover when they gave her identity away. That is a necessary element for any indictment for leaking the name of a covert agent. However, charges could also be brought for making false statements to the FBI, if a guilty party has falsely claimed innocence in interviews with government agents.

It's also possible that prosecutors will learn who perpetrated the leak but won't have enough to bring charges. But true to form, the Bush administration continues to be extremely tight-lipped about the investigation -- even internally. "No one knows what the hell is going on," says someone who could be a witness, "because the administration people are all terrified and the lawyers aren't sharing anything with each other either."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,581456,00.html

Ongoing WhiteHouse Investigations: Partisan?

Number of days between Novak column outing Valerie Plame and announcement of investigation: 74 days.

Number of days between O'Neill 60 Minutes interview and announcement of investigation: 1 day.

Having the administration reveal itself as a gaggle of hypocritical goons ... priceless.
-- Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Plame investigation gains momentum

Why Did Attorney General Ashcroft Remove Himself From The Valerie Plame Wilson Leak Investigation?
Signs that a Key Witness May Have Come Forward
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004
...The Recent Progress of the Plame Investigation
All signs indicate that the Plame leak investigation has been gaining steam.

As readers may recall, it was in a July 14 column that journalist Robert Novak revealed that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA covert agent. As I discussed in a prior column, the leak is potentially a felony, and could violate several laws.

According to The Washington Post, on December 23, minority leader Thomas Daschle, and the ranking Democrat of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, sent Ashcroft a letter. The letter demanded a status report on the Plame investigation, and urged the appointment of a special counsel. So Democrats have kept the heat on, but that does not strike me as the probable reason for Ashcroft's decision.

On December 26, the Post reported that the investigation was, in fact, gaining momentum, and the Justice Department had added a fourth prosecutor "specializing in counterintelligence" (which I translate as meaning he had all the security clearances needed to work on a case like this). It also reported that "FBI agents have told people they have interviewed that they may be asked to testify before a grand jury." Empanelling a grand jury empowers prosecutors both to serve subpoenas, and to gather testimony under oath.

On December 30, Deputy Attorney General Comey held a press conference to announce that Ashcroft had removed himself from the investigation. Comey said that the investigation would instead be headed by Fitzgerald. Of note to me, was Comey's comment that "this has come together really in the last week" -- meaning, apparently, the week of December 22-26 -- the Christmas holiday week during which the FBI raised the prospect of a grand jury.

As Comey explained, given Fitzgerald's U.S. Attorney status -- which will be continuing concurrent with his "special counsel" status -- there will be no interruption in the investigation. Comey noted that if Fitzgerald "needs to issue a subpoena involving the media, for example, or if he wants to grant immunity to somebody," he will not have to obtain approval of the Justice Department. (The reference to the media certainly hints at subpoenaing Novak's phone records, or calling him before the grand jury -- again suggesting progress in the inquiry.)

On January 2, NBC News reported that the FBI was focusing on the White House as the probable source of the leak. It also reported that the FBI had asked White House staffers "to sign a form releasing reporters from any promises of confidentiality they may have made to their sources."

Not only does none of this activity indicate an investigation that is being scuttled, but it clearly implies something noteworthy has happened in the investigation.

The New Phase Of the Investigation

Not wanting to hype the situation, all Comey said was that Ashcroft withdrew because, in an "abundance of caution," he "believed that his recusal was appropriate based on the totality of the circumstances and the facts and evidence developed at this stage of the investigation." He added later in the press conference that the "recusal is not one of actual conflict of interest that arises normally when someone has a financial interest or something. The issue that he was concerned about was one of appearance."

What facts would raise a serious questions of the appearance of a conflict of interest here? I'd bet that the investigation is focusing on at least one target whom Ashcroft knows more than casually, or works with regularly. After all, Novak did identify his sources as two "senior Administration officials."

What explains the timing of Ashcroft's removal? Recall that the removal occurred as a result of events occurring in the same week the Post reported that the FBI had told potential witnesses they might have to face a grand jury.

Some of those witnesses very probably hired lawyers as soon as they heard the news. Especially likely to hire a lawyer would be a middle-level person with knowledge of a leak by a higher-up. And such a lawyer would likely have gone immediately to the prosecutors to make a deal.

Who might the lawyer be? It's pure speculation, but former D.C. United States Attorney Joe diGenova, or his wife and law partner, Victoria Toensing, are likely candidates. Toensing, as chief counsel of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence worked on one of the laws that may have been violated -- the law protecting the identities of undercover agents. Who better to defend a leaker who might be subject to a law, than the person who drafted the law?

Moreover, Toensing was quoted in a recent Washington Post story explaining that it is possible that any leak "could be embarrassing but not illegal" -- suggesting that a leaker might have a possible defense. (Unfortunately for the leaker, however, as I noted in an earlier column, more than one law may have been broken.)

When the lawyer -- diGenova, Toensing, or someone else -- went to the government seeking immunity for his or her client, Ashcroft would have heard that the middle-level person was offering to finger the high-level leaker. At that point, he would have realized he himself knew the high-level leaker; and decided to recuse himself from the case, and let Fitzgerald take over.

After all, as Comey pointed out at the press conference announcing Fitzgerald's appointment, Fitzgerald -- as a U.S. Attorney -- would not have to consult with anyone at the Justice Department before making an immunity deal. Accordingly, Fitzgerald could "flip" the middle-level person -- offering him or her immunity to testify against his or her superior -- without the permission, or even knowledge, of Comey, let alone Ashcroft.

If There Is a Knowledgeable Witness, What Next?

If there is a witness willing to testify against one -- or both -- of the leakers in exchange for immunity, what then? It seems likely that Fitzgerald will move very quickly to find out if there is indeed a case to be made against the leakers. To bolster his case, he may call Novak and others to the grand jury or, as noted above, subpoena Novak's (and others') phone records over the relevant period. Even Ashcroft himself could in theory be called to the grand jury.

If this case does not make headlines in 90 to 120 days, it will be quite surprising. There has been too much high level action and Comey, a presidential appointee, knows that politically it would be better for Bush & Company to have the matter flushed out within the next few months, than to have it arise just before the November election. Needless to say, this could be an interesting year for the White House, with more than reelection to worry about.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040106.html

Novak: A Pawn in Denial

from CNN interview with Blitzer:

BLITZER: But the notion, even that she would never be able to have a foreign assignment, shouldn't that alone have been enough to maybe give you pause?

NOVAK: Oh, no. Let's read what I said, Wolf, not what you said.

BLITZER: This is in today's column.

NOVAK: Yes, read what I said.

BLITZER: "He asked me not to use her name saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment..."

NOVAK: Yes. That was not anything..."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/blitzer.novak/index.html

Letter to Journalist Novak: Report Source Identity Already Known by Many to be KARL ROVE

A BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY
by James C. Moore, Co-author of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W.Bush Presidential"

Mr. Robert Novak
Columnist
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Novak,

In your numerous interviews last week, you were quoted as saying, "If I gave up my sources, I would get out of journalism." I would like to suggest to you that it is time you do both. Kindly inform the CIA or the FBI who tipped you on the identity of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, and then leave journalism in steadier, less mercenary hands.

There is a higher ethic than source protection, Mr. Novak. You ought to be more concerned about the security of your country, and the safety of millions of your fellow citizens. As a result of your gratuitous insertion of Valerie Plame's name into your column, you have exposed her family, and our nation to unnecessary risk. I assume, as an experienced columnist, you gave some consideration to the potential harm you might have caused by using Ms. Plame's identity, which makes your actions all the more confounding.

During Ms. Plame's service to our country, she was placing herself in danger to apparently deal with people who might help us avoid being harmed by weapons of mass destruction. Undoubtedly, there are dozens of other operatives whose lives have also been endangered by this publicity. Since you are someone who has written about the challenge of WMDs and our national security, I find it disturbing that you chose to forsake your own patriotism in order to serve the political purposes of the White House. As a minimum, you have caused fear to enter the Plame-Wilson household every time a door bell or phone rings, and for this alone, you ought to feel shame.

During an interview on MSNBC's "Buchanan and Press" last week, I described you as a "hod carrier" for Karl Rove. In this particular instance, I prefer to be proved wrong. And there is one simple method for doing that. Speak to federal investigators, provide them the name of the individual, within or without of the White House, who gave you Ms. Plame's identity, and help those investigators to protect our country. The release of this information is of far greater importance than your journalist's obligation to protect sources. We are a nation at war, and our safety has been compromised by this leak. By naming your source, the FBI can easily determine how wide a treasonous web has been cast, and find anyone who offered assistance to facilitate the leak.

My own suspicions about Mr. Rove being the source of your information date back to the Bush/Quayle Presidential Campaign in 1992. As a Texas journalist, I had heard Mr. Rove's constant complaining about the state of the campaign in Texas. He was a consultant to Bush/Quayle, and was reporting to Rob Mosbacher, Jr. When you wrote a column about the campaign being in disarray, and poorly managed, those of us in the Texas press corps immediately suspected Mr. Rove as the source of your information While you have denied that is the case, your column sounded very much like the kind of carping Texas political reporters had been hearing from Mr. Rove for many weeks. Of course, we were not the only people who were suspicious. President George H. W. Bush, who cannot abide disloyalty, chose to fire Mr. Rove for the indiscretion.

Journalists in Texas are, not surprisingly, convinced that Mr. Rove gave you Ms. Plame's identity. We know how he works. Reporters in high-profile positions in Texas were constantly leaked information by Mr. Rove, and it always served his political or professional goals. In some cases, Mr. Rove used spurious rumor in attempts to try to destroy business competition, and even the reputations of former friends who had somehow aggrieved him. In Washington, Mr. Rove's motivations for such a leak were clear. The White House had kept a lid on data from the intelligence community, which contradicted the Bush administration's arguments for war with Iraq. Ambassador Wilson's refusal to countenance a lie likely prompted Mr. Rove and the White House to "out" his wife, and send a message to any intelligence officer who thought about going public with research that might undermine the Bush agenda for war.

And now, Mr. Novak, the resolution of this crisis is in your hands. Think about your country, not your career. Give up the leaker, and retire, ending your journalism career with the same honor you brought to your profession, before you made this terrible misstep.

Sincerely,

James C. Moore
Co-author of "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential"

ROVE & ASHCROFT POLITICAL TIES EXPOSED

NEW CALLS FROM DEMOCRATS
       ...Democrats stepped up their calls for an independent investigation of the leak of the CIA officer’s identity, charging that political ties between Attorney General John Ashcroft and White House senior political adviser Karl Rove represented a serious conflict of interest.
       A company controlled by Rove, whom the CIA officer’s husband has accused of at least condoning the leak, was paid more than $300,000 by Ashcroft’s 1994 Senate campaign in Missouri for direct mail work and other services, The New York Times reported Friday, citing campaign finance data.
       Rove, President Bush’s top political adviser, also played a role in two earlier Ashcroft campaigns for governor.
       Disclosure of the ties between Rove and Ashcroft has emboldened Democrats to push harder for a special counsel to investigate the leak.
“Given allegations about the involvement of senior White House officials and the past close association between the attorney general and one of those officials, the investigation should be headed by a person independent of the administration,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement issued Thursday. “If there ever was a case for the appointment of a special counsel, this is it...”

http://msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?0sl=-33&cp1=1