Leaking Scandal Encircles More Administration Officials Than Previously Believed
Leaking Scandal Encircles More Administration Officials Than Previously Believed
Today, Time magazine reports that White House official Karl Rove and others may have learned “about Plame from within the Administration rather than from media contacts.”
Recall that for weeks, Rove, Libby, and company have been hiding behind reporters. It has been suggested to the special prosecutor that Rove first learned the identity of Plame from journalists.
A source says presidential confidant Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he learned the identity of a C-I-A operative originally from a journalist. He then informally discussed the information with a Time magazine reporter days before the story broke.
And remember Rove’s own attorney said:
“[Rove has] told [investigators] that he believes he may have heard it from a journalist.” Asked who it was, the lawyer said, “I don’t think he’s able to identify that, or to identify precisely when he may have heard it.”
These assertions have forced the special prosecutor to threaten reporters with jail time if they did not come clean (NYT reporter Judith Miller, of course, currently sits in jail because, as her lawyer stated, “most likely somebody testified to the grand jury that he or she had spoken to Judy.”).
Now we’re learning that Rove, Libby, and others learned of Plame’s identity well before journalists knew who she was. The newest information asserts that White House officials learned of Plame after Walter Pincus of the Washington Post wrote an article on June 12, 2003 detailing evidence that existed prior to the State of the Union which should have prevented the President from suggesting Iraq was acquiring uranium from Africa. This information corroborates Robert Novak’s claim in his infamous July 14, 2003 column that outed Plame which said the White House sprung into action after “Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report.”
A former intelligence officer tells Time that after the damaging Pincus article was written:
“[T]here was general discussion with the National Security Council and the White House and State Department and others” about Wilson’s trip and its origins.
If these revelations are true, the least of Rove and Libby’s concerns is perjury. Today’s disclosure adds further evidence that the White Hose consciously dug out Plame’s identity, used it, and then engaged in a massive cover-up by pinning blame elsewhere. Moreover, it appears far more players were involved in this orchestrated, administration-wide effort than previously believed. The key question, if these revelations are true, is why did these administration officials lie so overtly to the special prosecutor? Knowing hard evidence would come out sooner or later against them (through leaks, emails, etc), the White House officials still chose to lie. What could they possibly be trying to hide? Perhaps this wasn’t just a “third-rate smear.”
- Comments
- 164
Santorum Stands Firm, Keeps Blaming Liberalism For Sexual Abuse in Catholic Church
Santorum Stands Firm, Keeps Blaming Liberalism For Sexual Abuse in Catholic Church
In July 2002, Santorum blamed sexual abuse in the Catholic Church on “academic, political and cultural liberalism.” Today on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos gave Santorum multiple opportunities to take it back. Santorum refused:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s move on to another controversy you stirred up, the question of the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church. You made a statement in July 2002 which has drawn a lot of fire.
You said, in a publication called Catholic On-Line, When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While there’s no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
You’ve reaffirmed that just a couple of weeks ago. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry say you have to apologize. Mitt Romney, Republican governor, says basically you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Do you still stand by that statement?
SANTORUM: Look, the statement I made was that the culture influences people’s behavior…
[snip]
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re standing your ground…
SANTORUM: And I’m standing my ground because I tried to fight to change the church.
I don’t care what Jon Stewart says. Santorum is a “bad dude.”
By popular demand, we’ve posted the full transcript of the interview.
Frist: Science Passing Bush By
Frist: Science Passing Bush By
At today’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked about Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s statement today on stem cell research. McClellan took issue with a reporter’s characterization of Frist’s release: “the president is stuck in a 2001 decision when the science is passing him by.” It makes sense that McClellan doesn’t want to admit that even Frist, who is usually a loyal ally of the President, is starting to waver. But, in the statement, it’s clear that Frist has finally accepted the fact that the President’s stem cell research policy is failing:
On August 9, 2001, shortly after I outlined my principles (Cong. Rec. 18 July 2001: S7846-S7851), President Bush announced his policy on embryonic stem cell research. His policy was fully consistent with my ten principles, so I strongly supported it. It federally funded embryonic stem cell research for the first time. It did so within an ethical framework. And it showed respect for human life.
[snip]
While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases. Therefore, I believe the President’s policy should be modified. We should expand federal funding (and thus NIH oversight) and current guidelines governing stem cell research, carefully and thoughtfully staying within ethical bounds.
Then again, maybe Frist is just trying to prove he still deserves that MD degree.
The Missing Link, Part II
The Missing Link, Part II
Another bold prediction from ThinkProgress:
In the weeks to come, we’ll hear plenty more about this…
Three weeks after rejecting the pollution-cutting ideas the PM put forward at the G8 summit, [President Bush] signed up to a rival treaty with Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea.
But the new plan has none of the tough targets to reduce emissions which Mr Blair wanted – and which were first put forward in the Kyoto treaty on climate change.
…and see several more stories like this one…
At least 37 people have died in a severe heat wave that has been spreading eastwards across the US.
Heat warnings were issued in nine eastern states and in the cities of Philadelphia, Washington and Baltimore.
and yet you’ll probably never see anyone draw the connection between the two, which is this: a recent study in the journal Nature showing “that severe heat waves are now four times as likely to occur because of increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.”
I’ll Take My Future on Red
I’ll Take My Future on Red
When we think about addictions that plague college students, we generally think about crystal meth, alcohol, and sex, but Lauren Patrizi has shed light on a new college addiction: online gambling. As an online gambling addict herself at 19 (because these online gambling firms are registered off-shore, where the 21 year age limit doesn’t apply), Patrizi wasn’t at all surprised to learn that college students are three times as likely as rest of the population to experience pathological gambling problems and twice as likely to experience sub-clinical gambling problems.
But students aren’t just finding internet gambling — internet gambling companies go out of their way to find them. Party Poker, one of the largest and best known online gambling firms, has begun advertising on TheFaceBook.com, the internet hub for college students (800+ colleges are registered, about 2.7 million users). In the ad, college students are hugging each other with the tagline, “Just wanna have fun?” Another site, Absolute Poker, has ads proclaiming, “College Students: Win Your Tuition.”
Ed Looney, the director of the New Jersey Council on Compulsive Gambling, explains, “I’ve been doing this for 35 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this Texas Hold ‘Em rage. When crack cocaine came out, the phenomenon was similar.” More »
McClellan: Spinning Out of Control on Bolton
McClellan: Spinning Out of Control on Bolton
At today’s White House press briefing, Scott McClellan was asked about the inaccurate information Bolton provided to the Senate:
QUESTION:…Is the president concerned about the apparent error on Mr. Bolton’s questionnaire to the Senate in which he said that he had not been questioned in a federal investigation in the preceding five years when now it has been revealed that, in fact, he was at least interviewed in the context of the inspector general’s CIA investigation of the uranium potential sale from Niger to Iraq?
MCCLELLAN: I think the State Department addressed that last night, and it was John Bolton who pointed that out.
Actually, that’s completely wrong. It was Sen. Joe Biden who pointed out that Bolton provided inaccurate information to the Senate in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday afternoon. It wasn’t until several hours later that John Bolton fessed up through a State Department spokesperson.
International Consensus: Bush Terrorism Strategy Failing
International Consensus: Bush Terrorism Strategy Failing
Increasingly, President Bush is becoming more isolated in his view that the Iraq war is stemming the progress of global terror. Three separate intelligence reports — the British intelligence agency, a Saudi intelligence analysis, and an Israeli report — contradict Bush’s view that we have to “defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.” The emerging consensus is that the occupation of Iraq is inspiring people around the world to join the ranks of the terrorists:
“A team of MI5 analysts concludes: ‘Though [terrorists] have a range of aspirations and ’causes’, Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.‘” [Sunday Times (London), 7/28/05]
“The findings of an investigation, to be published soon, into 300 young Saudis, caught and interrogated by Saudi intelligence on their way to Iraq to fight or blow themselves up, shows that very few had any previous contact with al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist organisation previous to 2003. It was the invasion of Iraq which prompted their decision to die.” [The Independent, 7/24/05]
“The Israeli Global Research in International Affairs Center reported earlier this year that Iraq ‘has turned into a magnet for jihadi volunteers.’ But not established terrorists. Rather, explains report author Reuven Paz, ‘the vast majority of Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq.’” [Copley News Service, 7/26/05]
Rosy Rhetoric Revisited
Rosy Rhetoric Revisited
Because it has been more than two years since the original invasion of Iraq, much of the American public has forgotten how easy Bush administration officials predicted the occupation of Iraq would be. The Washington Post reports the hard truth:
Efforts to rebuild water, electricity and health networks in Iraq are being shortchanged by higher-than-expected costs to provide security and by generous financial awards to contractors, according to a series of reports by government investigators released yesterday.
Taken together, the reports seem to run contrary to the Bush administration’s upbeat assessment that reconstruction efforts are moving vigorously ahead and that the insurgency is dying down.
Here are just a couple of instances of the Bush administration’s rosy rhetoric failing to meet the current harsh reality in Iraq:
CLAIM: Iraq Reconstruction Would Cost Only $1.7 Billion
TED KOPPEL: You’re saying the, the top cost for the US taxpayer will be $1.7 billion. No more than that?
ANDREW NATSIOS, director of U.S. Agency for International Development: For the reconstruction. And then there’s 700 million in the supplemental budget for humanitarian relief, which we don’t competitively bid ’cause it’s charities that get that money.
TED KOPPEL: I understand. But as far as reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes?
ANDREW NATSIOS: That is our plan and that is our intention. And these figures, outlandish figures I’ve seen, I have to say, there’s a little bit of hoopla involved in this. [ABC, Nightline, 4/23/03]
CAFTA: A New Front in the War on Terror?
CAFTA: A New Front in the War on Terror?
Strange things happened two nights ago before the House passed the CAFTA trade agreement. And even if one ignores the coercive way in which Republicans kept the vote open more than an hour, or the backroom bargains the administration made to get wavering representative on board, there is still something bizarre about the way President Bush himself promoted the bill. In a personal appearance before the vote began, the president stressed a novel point: CAFTA is a front in the war on terror. As the Washington Post put it:
Underscoring the importance that Bush attaches to the pact, he put his prestige on the line by making a rare appearance with Vice President Cheney at the weekly closed-door meeting of the House Republican Conference. Bush spoke for an hour, lawmakers said, stressing the national security implications of CAFTA, which are rooted in the concern that growing anti-American sentiment in Latin America would flourish if the United States refused to open its markets wider to the nations that negotiated the pact.
“Mothers and fathers in El Salvador love their children as much as we love our children here,” Bush said, stressing the need to look out for the young democracies in “our neighborhood,” according to lawmakers. He also noted that four of the six countries — the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua — have assisted the U.S. military effort in Iraq.
Setting aside the dubious claim that open markets lead to better relations (after all, isn’t the highly visible presence of US economic interests in the Middle East one of the things that Islamic fundamentalists have a problem with?), there is something very troubling about the last line in the above quote. Is the moral of the story, “put your lives on the line, and then reap the economic benefits”? Do we trade only with the nations that fall in line with our military interests?
– Conor Clarke
State Department Flip-Flops, Admits Bolton’s Form “Was Inaccurate”
State Department Flip-Flops, Admits Bolton’s Form “Was Inaccurate”
Today, at approximately 12:45PM, State Department spokesperson Scott McCormack said this about John Bolton:
Mr. Bolton, as part of the nomination process, supplied answers, supplied an answer to the question. They’d asked whether or not the nominee has been interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative, including an Inspector General, congressional or grand jury investigation within the past five years, except routine Congressional testimony. Mr. Bolton, in his response on the written paperwork, was to say no. And that answer was truthful then and it remains the case now.
Josh Marshall points to an AP story that just hit the wire. Apparently, before the day was out, the State Department has completely changed it’s story:
John Bolton, the nominee for U.N. ambassador, inaccurately told Congress he had not been interviewed or testified in any investigation over the past five years, the State Department said Thursday When Bolton filled out a Senate questionnaire in connection with his nomination, “he didn’t recall being interviewed by the State Department’s inspector general. Therefore, his form, as submitted, was inaccurate,” [State Department spokesperson Noel] Clay said. “He will correct it.”
What a difference a few hours makes.
BREAKING: Biden Questions Whether Bolton Testimony Was “True and Accurate”
BREAKING: Biden Questions Whether Bolton Testimony Was “True and Accurate”
The following letter was sent today from Sen. Biden to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
July 28, 2005
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Washington, DC 20520Dear Madam Secretary:
It has just come to my attention that then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton was interviewed on July 18, 2003 by the State Department Office of the Inspector General in connection with a joint State Department/CIA IG investigation related to the alleged Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Niger. This information would appear to be inconsistent with information that Mr. Bolton provided to the Committee on Foreign Relations during the Committee’s consideration of his pending nomination to be Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
The Committee on Foreign Relations expects all nominees to provide to it accurate and timely information. Indeed, in submitting the Committee’s questionnaire, all nominees are required to swear out an affidavit stating that the information provided is “true and accurate.” It now appears that Mr. Bolton’s answers may not meet that standard. I write, therefore, to request that you review this matter to determine whether incomplete or inaccurate information was provided by Mr. Bolton.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Sugar Land Celebrates Sweetheart Deal
Sugar Land Celebrates Sweetheart Deal
Yesterday on ThinkProgress, we wrote that, after the conference for the energy bill closed, Tom DeLay slipped in “a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas.” Specifically, the provision was written to benefit an consortium located in DeLay’s home district.
In today’s Boston Globe, Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, disagreed:
“We don’t see this as a sweetheart deal for anyone.” Wicker said.
In case you had any doubts, check out this article about the provision, just published by the Houston Business Journal:
The final draft of the energy bill expected to be approved this weekend by House and Senate negotiators contains a research funding provision long awaited by a Sugar Land energy consortium…The Sugar Land-based Texas Energy Center has been counting on this source of funding ever since it was established two years ago…In 2003, the consortium was awarded $31 million in state economic development funds, but that funding later evaporated under regulations that stymied the consortium’s access to the money. The TEC has been basically on hold since then, waiting and hoping for federal funding to revive its mission.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Tancredo’s Slap on the Wrist
Tancredo’s Slap on the Wrist
When asked for reaction to the comments of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) about the treatment of detainees held at Guanatananmo Bay, the administration did not hesitate to attack the statements:
Q How do you take Senator Durbin’s comments? What’s your response to his comments?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, this is, I’m sure, a family program, Steve. I have to be careful what I say. (Laughter.) I thought Durbin was totally out of line But I just — it was so far over the top that I’m just appalled that anybody who serves in the United States Senate would even think those thoughts.Q How is the President reacting to [Senator Durbin's comments]?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the Senator’s remarks are reprehensible simply beyond belief.
So the question at today’s press briefing about the remarks of Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) certainly seemed like a softball:
QUESTION: Representative Tom Tancredo recently suggested that taking out Muslim holy sites might be a good way to fight terrorism. Now, his statement has been showing up in newspapers throughout the Muslim world. Will the White House ask Mr. Tancredo to apologize and retract his statement as it did with Senator Durbin?
MCCLELLAN: Yes, I think the State Department actually addressed this issue right at the time and they expressed the views of the administration. The president has made very clear that it Islam is a religion that teaches peace and that it is a proud and great religion. And he stated his views on it.
A United States congressman calls for the bombing of Mecca and other Islamic holy sites, refuses to apologize, and this is the best McClellan could come up with. Bombing Mecca isn’t “reprehensible” or “simply beyond belief”?
The Right-Wing Backtrack on Deportation
The Right-Wing Backtrack on Deportation
On Tuesday, we released an immigration report that proved, for the first time, how financially reckless a mass deportation policy would be. We found that the cost of deporting 80 percent of the undocumented immigrants currently in the United States (we presumed 20 percent would leave voluntarily) to be at least $206 billion over 5 years. That’s $41.2 billion each year — more than the ‘06 budget of the Department of Homeland Security.
Already, the report has been forcing right-wingers used to whipping up anti-immigrant hysteria to finally face up to a bit of reality. For years, some of the most prominent figures in this debate, like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), have thrown around mass deportation as a reasonable solution to our immigration problems. But in the last two days, prominent figures on the right, including Tancredo, Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, and conservative immigration analyst Mark Krikorian have disowned their threats and blustering, and now deny ever supporting a mass deportation policy.
Perhaps these reformed voices will actually work towards a practical resolution of our country’s immigration issues. Maybe they can ask the White House to get off the sidelines and start doing the hard work to help forge a compromise between the McCain/Kennedy bill and Cornyn/Kyl for real immigration reform that will help our country?
– Raj Goyle
P.S. If you’re interested in this issue, I’ll be discussing it in a Moving Ideas discussion from 2-3 pm. Mark Krikorian will also be participating, so expect some fireworks.
Rumsfeld Let the Dogs Out
Rumsfeld Let the Dogs Out
If you were ever in need of stronger evidence linking Donald Rumsfeld to Abu Ghraib, look no further than yesterday’s court testimony provided by two Army dog handlers who stand accused of prisoner abuse at the detention center. At the hearing Maj. David DiNenna, the top military official at Abu Ghraib in 2003, testified that the former commander of Guantanamo Bay Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller came to Iraq to encourage new interrogation techniques.
As the Washington Post reports:
“We understood he was sent over by the secretary of defense,” DiNenna testified by telephone. DiNenna said Miller and his team were at Abu Ghraib “to take their interrogation techniques they used at Guantanamo Bay and incorporate them into Iraq.”
And when you remember that Rumsfeld approved the tactics at Guantanamo, the argument that he bears responsibility for the abuse at Abu Ghraib becomes more compelling. Just to review, we now know that:
1. Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of dogs for interrogations at Guantanamo.
2. Guantanamo commanders traveled to Abu Ghraib in 2003 and encouraged officers there to use dogs.
3. Officers at Abu Ghraib understood — and have now testified under oath — that the Guantanamo commanders’ visit was at the behest of Donald Rumsfeld.
And Rumsfeld persists in claiming that Abu Ghraib was the work of just a few bad apples. Huh… wonder why?
– Conor Clarke
VIDEO: Bush I Calls Leakers “Most Insidious of Traitors”
VIDEO: Bush I Calls Leakers “Most Insidious of Traitors”
GEORGE H.W. BUSH: “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.” [Speech at CIA, 4/26/99]
UPDATE: Link fixed for Firefox users.
Deja Vu: Secretive Nominee Becomes Right-Wing Justice
Deja Vu: Secretive Nominee Becomes Right-Wing Justice
The day of the Roberts nomination felt like one minute to Doomsday–until John Roberts’ name was announced. Washington was expecting a slash-and-burn conservative like Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown. Instead we got a tabula rasa, a man with virtually no record.
This is hardly an unfamiliar position.
Fourteen years ago, the last President Bush nominated an equally blank slate to sit on the Supreme Court. More »
Kristof Calls on Readers to ‘Be a Witness’
Kristof Calls on Readers to ‘Be a Witness’
In Monday’s New York Times, Nick Kristof blasted the television news media for their deplorable coverage of the Darfur genocide, directly comparing it to the time they spent covering Tom Cruise and the Michael Jackson trial. (Sound familiar?)
Naturally, reporters were aghast and outraged over the criticism — especially since it came from one of their own — but Kristof’s argument was rock solid. A taste of what he had to say:
Incredibly, more than two years into the genocide, NBC, aside from covering official trips, has still not bothered to send one of its own correspondents into Darfur for independent reporting. …
When I’ve asked television correspondents about this lapse, they’ve noted that visas to Sudan are difficult to get and that reporting in Darfur is expensive and dangerous. True, but TV crews could at least interview Darfur refugees in nearby Chad. After all, Diane Sawyer traveled to Africa this year – to interview Brad Pitt, underscoring the point that the networks are willing to devote resources to cover the African stories that they consider more important than genocide.
DeLay Still Up To Dirty Tricks
DeLay Still Up To Dirty Tricks
Tom DeLay thinks the federal treasury is his personal piggy bank. DeLay slipped “a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas” into the energy bill.
But this isn’t a normal case of government pork. DeLay has completely dispensed with the democratic process. From a letter Rep. Henry Waxman just sent Speaker Dennis Hastert:
The provision was inserted into the energy legislation after the conference was closed, so members of the conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this measure.
The $1.5 billion won’t be administered by the government by a private consortium in DeLay’s district:
The subtitle appears to steer the administration of 75% of the $1.5 billion fund to a private consortium located in the district of Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Ordinarily, a large fund like this would be administered directly by the government.
Hastert and DeLay need to explain themselves immediately. No member of Congress who takes taxpayer dollars seriously should vote for the energy bill until this matter is resolved.
Biden: Did Bolton Testify In Leak Investigation?
Biden: Did Bolton Testify In Leak Investigation?
The following is a text of a letter from Sen. Joseph Biden asking the Bush administration to clarify whether John Bolton has testified before the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame leak:
July 27, 2005
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Washington, DC 20520Dear Madame Secretary,
I write in connection with the nomination of John R. Bolton to be Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
On July 21, 2005, MSNBC reported that Under Secretary Bolton testified before the federal grand jury in Washington that is investigating the leak of the identity of Valerie Plame as an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.
I write to request that you or the nominee inform the Committee whether Mr. Bolton did, in fact, appear before the grand jury, or whether he has been interviewed or otherwise asked to provide information by the special prosecutor or his staff in connection with this matter, and if so, when that occurred. As you know, the Committee questionnaire, which the nominee completed in March, requires all nominees to inform the Committee whether they have been “interviewed or asked to supply any information in connection with any administrative (including an inspector general), Congressional or grand jury investigation within the past 5 years, except routine Congressional testimony.”
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll