CIA seeks probe of White House

[zimv20]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CA00&cp1=1

high ****ing time


The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.


it's the joseph wilson, valerie plame, and robert novak deal.

****, meet fan.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CA00&cp1=1

high ****ing time



it's the joseph wilson, valerie plame, and robert novak deal.

****, meet fan.

Not that I have any confidence in the Justice Dept., but this is good. I'd love to find out who gave the orders in the WH to out Plame.

[IJ Reilly]

[list=1]
Justice Department agrees to look into allegations.
White House promises full cooperation.
Public report is issued in December 2004.
[/list=1]

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
3. Public report is issued in December 2004.


or: incomplete draft report w/ large sections redacted

btw, nice use of the list feature!

[Sayhey]

I think the Attorney-General is going to discover just how important shield laws are for reporters. I know Ashcroft will discover he can't violate the first amendment rights of the press. He couldn't threaten Novak with jail if he doesn't fess up, could he?;)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Not that I have any confidence in the Justice Dept., but this is good. I'd love to find out who gave the orders in the WH to out Plame.

Well we know it wasn't Cheney.... :rolleyes:
_ _ _ _MR. RUSSERT: Now, Ambassador Joe Wilson, a year before that, was sent over by the CIA because you raised the question about uranium from Africa. He says he came back from Niger and said that, in fact, he could not find any documentation that, in fact, Niger had sent uranium to Iraq or engaged in that activity and reported it back to the proper channels. Were you briefed on his findings in February, March of 2002?
_ _ _ _VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I’d heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, “What do we know about this?” They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, “This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know,” end of statement. And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.
_ _ _ _I guess the intriguing thing, Tim, on the whole thing, this question of whether or not the Iraqis were trying to acquire uranium in Africa. In the British report, this week, the Committee of the British Parliament, which just spent 90 days investigating all of this, revalidated their British claim that Saddam was, in fact, trying to acquire uranium in Africa. What was in the State of the Union speech and what was in the original British White papers. So there may be difference of opinion there. I don’t know what the truth is on the ground with respect to that, but I guess—like I say, I don’t know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn’t judge him. I have no idea who hired him and it never came...
_ _ _ _MR. RUSSERT: The CIA did.
_ _ _ _VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who in the CIA, I don’t know.

For a guy who ask a lot of questions, Cheney sure doesn't know much.

[Desertrat]

Whoever was the low-life that leaked the info, and all others involved, oughta do hard time.

When the folks on top don't protect their guys down the pecking order, loyalty goes out the window. In an outfit like the CIA, that's a truly Bad Scene.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I think the Attorney-General is going to discover just how important shield laws are for reporters. I know Ashcroft will discover he can't violate the first amendment rights of the press. He couldn't threaten Novak with jail if he doesn't fess up, could he?;)

That all depends on whether the AG really wants to know the answer.

[mactastic]

I think this is justification to have an investigation into the administration. Too bad it won't be a special prosecutor with unlimited time, money and scope of investigation. I bet we'd find more than just some material on a dress.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
That all depends on whether the AG really wants to know the answer.

IJ, I guess I didn't make my sarcastic point very well. I don't think Ashcroft has any interest in finding out the answer. I was only trying (not very well) to point out how an administration that is trying to take away many of our rights might "discover" the importance of some of those rights as an excuse to not be able to find the answer. Now I've probably made the point more obscure with this mess of an explanation. ;)

[Desertrat]

Novak's column, from this morning's WND.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34867

Once again, we're back to Jake's beer: "Much ado about nothing." Seems there's a bit of a credibility gap that's been created here...

'Rat

[Sayhey]

'Rat, it looks like spin control to me. The law was violated. That is a simple fact that the WH can't get around. If this information comes from "senior administration" officals, as even Novak admits, then those involved should at the minimum lose their jobs. If it was done as a political vendetta, which looks entirely possible - even likely, then those responsible should face jail time. This is hardly "much ado about nothing."

[IJ Reilly]

Sayhey, I think you're being too much of a nice guy on this issue. Even if no laws were violated, this is a clear example of the levers of government being manipulated to harass and silence political opponents. I don't think it's too soon to say that this is an abuse of power, a dirty trick, on a Nixonian scale. So I say, forget the law. The AG won't collar a miscreant because he has no incentive to do so, and the closer that person is to the top, the more difficult he would be to tag, even assuming a will existed.

What we know at this point is indictment enough. These people must go.

[wwworry]

And it's weird that Bush is saying how he will cooperate now, months after the story broke and only after the it hit the headlines again. Is this a case where they will comply with the law only if someone complains?

[IJ Reilly]

I believe the key was the CIA request for an investigation. Why that took two months to happen is not clear.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Sayhey, I think you're being too much of a nice guy on this issue. Even if no laws were violated, this is a clear example of the levers of government being manipulated to harass and silence political opponents. I don't think it's too soon to say that this is an abuse of power, a dirty trick, on a Nixonian scale. So I say, forget the law. The AG won't collar a miscreant because he has no incentive to do so, and the closer that person is to the top, the more difficult he would be to tag, even assuming a will existed.

What we know at this point is indictment enough. These people must go.

IJ, it's entirely possible I'm becoming a softie in my advanced middle age, but I'm with you that those responsible should lose their jobs, and maybe serve jail time. What I don't know is how you get there from here. I'd like to have a judge threaten Novak with jail if he doesn't come up with the names for starters, but I don't think that's likely to happen anytime soon. I say that as somebody who has always supported the shield laws, but Novak's hypocrisy on this issue (not to mention that he knew what role he was playing in all of this for the administration) makes me wish him a long stay in lock up.

[IJ Reilly]

To me, it doesn't much matter if any laws have been broken, of if anybody spends time in jail, because it isn't going to happen anyhow. Ashcroft will not appoint a special prosecutor in any likely scenario, and there's hardly a chance of anyone in the administration being fingered without one being appointed, and soon. Novak is protected by the First Amendment, and is loving every minute of this.

What we do know is this: Somebody in the administration is a dirty rotten trickster, and we should know from experience, that this kind of behavior doesn't happen in an environment where isn't condoned by the guy at the top. A peep-hole has been opened up into the Bush administration, and what we see isn't very pretty.

The more spin-drunk Republicans will howl like stuck pigs over this, but the more realistic Republicans will begin to reposition themselves as distantly as possible from the radioactive political monster this incident could become. The Bush administration deserves to grill like a greasy hamburger, and I hope the Democrats or somebody has the nerve to make them cook but good, without getting hung up over laws and jail time because that's just a non-starter.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I believe the key was the CIA request for an investigation. Why that took two months to happen is not clear.

the CIA request happened in july. i'm still trying to suss out why it took this long for the press, in the large, to notice.

nice town name, btw :-)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
nice town name, btw :-)

Thanks, I like it, but it's about to get very crowded. It looks like everybody California is preparing to move here.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Thanks, I like it, but it's about to get very crowded. It looks like everybody California is preparing to move here.

That is going to be especially true if today's LA Times article makes no difference.

[Rower_CPU]

Did anyone catch Bill Maher's diatribe on the last "Real Time" episode of the season. Great stuff concerning your hometown, IJ.

To paraphrase:
"What grows in Scranton, ****er?"