I ask a question, and I am attacked from the extreme Left as a quote-unquote birther. I mean, what the hell is that? When you can create a controversy by asking what seems to me still a perfectly commonsense question? It has been used in the extreme Left to create a toxicity that is just unbelievable.

This past summer, Dobbs didn’t just question President Obama’s citizenship and promoted the bizarre right-wing “birther” theory, he also insinuated that Obama might be an undocumented immigrant. Many have speculated that Dobbs left CNN in part because his support of the “birther” movement incited conflict between himself and CNN’s leadership.

However, in the weeks preceding his departure, Dobbs claimed that the White House was conspiring with a number of groups, including ThinkProgress, to wage “insidious and sordid attacks” against him with the goal of intimidating him and his former network. After leaving CNN, he also blamed the “far left” for characterizing him as an “enemy of Latinos.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

GQ: That was my next question. Have you heard from the administration?

LD: Of course I have. Sure. Without question. They are coordinating with a number of groups, including the Center for American Progress. The usual suspects. To carry out constant and absolutely insidious and sordid attacks on me. And the reason they’re doing so, I’m the leading independent voice, and I am critical on their policies and intent, on unconditional amnesty, and leaving the borders and ports unsecure. They cannot, they’re. . .

GQ: They’re afraid of that point of view? They don’t think their point of view will carry against…

LD: Apparently not. Otherwise why would you do such a thing? But I will not be intimidated, and I understand that. Therefore they’re trying to intimidate my network and my owners.

For the record, neither ThinkProgress nor its parent organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, collaborated with the White House on our Dobbs coverage. However, Dobbs’ paranoid remarks did come around the same time ThinkProgress began promoting the efforts of progressive activists who were leading the Drop Dobbs, Tell CNN Enough Is Enough, and Basta Dobbs campaigns aimed at pressuring CNN to hold Dobbs to journalistic standards.

ThinkProgress has always focused on media accountability. Throughout the years, Dobbs has repeatedly left himself wide-open to legitimate criticism, not baseless attacks. Some recent examples:

– This summer, ThinkProgress reported that Dobbs had joined the birther movement and claimed President Obama might be an undocumented immigrant.

– The Wonk Room reported that the Lou Dobbs Show was promoting the myth that “people who break immigration laws” will be “rewarded” with free health care coverage.

– Shortly after we noted that Fox News’ John Stossel and Glenn Beck openly criticized Dobbs’ anti-immigrant “rants,” Dobbs proceeded to rip Stossel as a “self-important ass” with his “own brand of myopic idiocy.”

– ThinkProgress documented Dobbs slamming the “vile stupidity and ignorance” of “annoying” Geraldo Rivera, who had also denounced Dobbs’ immigration tirades.

– Most recently, Dobbs claimed that “ethnocentric interest groups” and Rivera himself were to blame for gun shots fired at his house. ThinkProgress called up the New Jersey State Police and broke the news that the shooting more likely involved a hunter’s stray bullet.

The efforts to get Dobbs off the air were not one-sided. Scott Stanzel, who used to work in President Bush’s communications shop, applauded the decision today in a statement to Politico: “I will not miss Lou Dobbs, his show or his ‘advocacy journalism.’ In recent years, the blurring of the lines between opinion and news reporting has damaged the credibility of mainstream reporters and news organizations. It’s refreshing to see CNN make a decision to fill the Dobbs slot with a respected and accomplished hard news journalist like John King. Maybe there is hope for the news business after all.”

Jones argued that the alleged gang rape was not related to her employment and thus, wasn’t covered by the arbitration agreement. Finally, two years later, a federal court has sensibly agreed with her. Tuesday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 ruling, found her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract.

One of the judges who ruled in her favor, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, is a West Point grad, Vietnam vet, and one of the court’s most conservative members, a sign, perhaps, of just how bad the facts are in this case. It’s a big victory, but a bitter one that shows just how insidious mandatory arbitration is. It’s taken Jones three years of litigation just to get to the point where she can finally sue the people who allegedly wronged her. It will be many more years before she has a shot at any real justice.

“We do not hold that, as a matter of law, sexual-assault allegations can never ‘relate to’ someone’s employment,” wrote the court. “For this action, however, Jones’ allegations do not ‘touch matters’ related to her employment, let alone have a ’significant relationship’ to her employment contract.

Last week, when conservatives first began freaking out about the speech, their main objection was to a line in the suggested classroom activities that said students could “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” After receiving complaints, the Department of Education changed the section to read, “Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals,” saying that wanted to make sure “the intent is clear.”

But on Fox News today, Rove said the provision was still insidious:

ROVE: I mean, look, this, the White House was tone deaf. They clearly had a purpose here, which was let’s have the president speak to every student in the country, let’s have a study guide, let’s have them write the president, then president can them back. In fact, they still have that in there. The president’s — the students are now being encouraged to write the president about sort of their life experiences, so the White House can then, you know, using the Department of Education budget, send out God knows how many, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of letters to students signed by the president, saying thank you for writing this. Clearly has a political import. It’s clearly using the government’s budget in a way to advance the president personally. It’s the kind of thing that makes all Americans uneasy about what the White House is doing.

Rove closed by saying that “the purpose” of the speech “was partly good, partly political. It’s now been turned a lot more good, less political, but there still is a political utility to this, which is have them write the president and then using the Department of Education budget have the president write them back.” Watch it:

Rove is lying when he says “students are now being encouraged to write the president.” In fact, the only letters mentioned in the suggested activities for either Grades preK-6 or Grades 7-12 would be addressed to the students “themselves.” “Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress,” says the Grades preK-6 packet.

Additionally, it’s ironic that Karl Rove would complain about “using the government’s budget in a way to advance” partisan politics. The Bush White House inserted politics into federal agencies in an unprecedented manner, using “asset deployment” to have administration officials boost GOP candidates with photo-ops and grants. For instance, in March 2008, then-Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced a pilot program for the federal No Child Left Behind law, even though Minnesota didn’t have enough qualifying schools to participate in the program. Spellings announced the program during an appearance with then-Sen. Norm Coleman, who was in a tough race against Al Franken.

Miller claimed that “liberals are trying to co-opt” the term, but they haven’t “completely commandeered it” yet, so conservatives should “start claiming progressivism on the right too.” Kristol agreed, citing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s frequent use of the phrase, “progressing Alaska forward”:

KRISTOL: And I agree with you. What’s progressive about heaping tax burdens and energy costs burdens on working class and middle class people in a tough economic time? I mean, who’s really for progress? People make fun of Sarah Palin, her grammar’s not so good some times and she’s always talking about “progressing Alaska forward.” It’s not a verb I usually use, but maybe she’s on to something in the notion that conservatives should not give up the notion that they’re the progressive force now in American politics.

Listen here:

Kristol and Miller’s musing about co-opting progressivism for the conservative movement will likely shock right wingers like Glenn Beck, who have sought to demonize the term. “I’ve been saying now for awhile, and it really has clicked in my mind, um, that it is the progressive movement, it is the cancer that is inside both parties,” said Beck last month. Citing the lessons he learned from Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, Beck is convinced that “progressivism” is the true insidious force threatening America:

BECK: We’ll come back with Jonah Goldberg. I want to make something real clear, though. It wasn’t just — don’t think that this is a Barack Obama or a Democrat-bashing thing. Because it’s not. Compassionate conservativism is the same thing. Progressivism is in both parties, and that is the cancer that you need to educate yourself on and know what it is so you can fight it and irradiate it. It is — and you can find the beginnings of it. A great place to start is a book, it’s just come out in paperback I think tomorrow, or maybe it was out last week. Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism.

But Miller, who raised the idea of re-branding conservatives as progressives, might not mind that his idea tramples on Beck’s paranoid shtick. Miller has mocked Beck as “a shaky cat” who “makes Howard Beale look like John Wayne.”

Transcript:

MILLER: Yes, if I was them, I’d start planting a flag — if I was Republicans right now or conservatives, whatever way you want to look at it — I would plant a flag on the phrase progressive. I think that the liberals are trying to co-opt that phrase because they want to get away from their past. And I think it’s still in play. I don’t think they’ve completely commandeered it. I would start claiming progressivism on the right too. I think Obama, he’s getting a big thumbs up, his issues not so much. What the gap right now in disparage between the, his approval rating and some of the ones for his issues.

KRISTOL: You know, its about ten points or so. But you know, what’s striking to me is people wish, obviously wish an American — Americans wish an American president well. He’s a new and popular president. He won the presidency with 53 percent of the vote. Even in the CBS/New York Times poll out today, which has always sort have been a better poll for Democrats than maybe some others, I think that Obama’s personal job approval is 56 percent. So, we’re now, he’s really, the honeymoon’s over. I mean, he’s back to basically the people who voted for him in November and I — you know maybe he’ll have a huge economic comeback. Maybe the Iranians will throw over their nuclear program. Maybe the world will fall at his feet. But if not, I’ve got to think his numbers continue down as those people take a close look, as you say, at these proposals. And I think it’s very important for the Republicans to define these proposals correctly. Health care, cap and trade, the huge tax increases. And I agree with you. What’s progressive about heaping tax burdens and energy costs burdens on working class and middle class people in a tough economic time? I mean, who’s really for progress? People make fun of Sarah Palin, her grammar’s not so good some times and she’s always talking about “progressing Alaska forward.” It’s not a verb I usually use, but maybe she’s on to something in the notion that conservatives should not give up the notion that they’re the progressive force now in American politics.

We know that this is probably — along with the ExxonMobil board room — the last place that sober people debate whether or not these problems are real, but we intend to work with you anyway, and we hope to give you strong legislative support if we can.

Watch it:

ExxonMobil, the world’s largest company, is still directing money to climate-denial front groups, and has spent more than $9.3 million lobbying Congress this year alone. Sen. Whitehouse has previously noted the insidious influence of polluter spending on the Senate’s willingness to take the threat of climate change seriously.

Apparently, maturity and nuance from a U.S. President gets interpreted as anti-American hatred to the radical right. On Friday night, Fox News’ Sean Hannity said Obama’s speech was evidence that “he harbors deep resentment” of America. The right wing continued its hysteria over the weekend and today:

KARL ROVE: There are ways to make the point that he made without running down America.

SEAN HANNITY: I am tired of Obama pandering to what I consider to be the worst instincts of those who hate this country.

NICOLE WALLACE: I think at his core he does not seem to believe in American exceptionalism, the way more Republicans define it.

Watch a compilation:

Not surprisingly, Hannity tied Obama’s comments back to his favorite topic: Rev. Jeremiah Wright. “Where did he get these ideas?” Hannity asked on Fox & Friends this morning. “Could it be that he sat in Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years? Could it be that he hung out with Father Pfleger? Could it be that he was hanging out with his buddy Tony Rezko?”

For months, the far right has sought to peg Obama as some sort of anti-American “Manchurian candidate.” In October, Michael Goldfarb said that “Obama has a long track record of being around…anti-American rhetoric.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) warned that an Obama presidency would turn America into a “totalitarian dictatorship,” while Tom Delay prided himself on being among the first to declare Obama a Marxist. Dispensing with nuance, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) proclaimed flatly last fall, “Barack Obama’s views are against America.”

CNBC: Some say that EFCA and card check would narrow the disparity [between the haves and have-nots]. In other words, having unions have more of a say, have more companies unionize. Is that a good idea, or do you think as a business owner, it would be a negative for the economy?

BUFFETT: I think the secret ballot’s pretty important in the country. I’m against card check to make a perfectly flat statement.

CNBC’s Joe Kernen gleefully declared that he “liked” Buffett’s answer. Butffett did concede, however, that “by and large, the people who are in unions have not been well-treated by the tax code that we’ve had over time.” Watch it:

Unfortunately, Buffett is adopting the right-wing’s misleading talking points on the Free Choice Act. The proposed bill — as the name indicates — would not end secret balloting in labor elections, but rather provide a choice. It would offer an alternative fairer path for workers to unionize by enabling them to form a union by getting a majority to sign cards of consent (the “card check”), instead of having to undergo a full unionization campaign (which are often subject to employer intimidation).

The importance of the legislation is simple and clear. Sixty million U.S. workers would join a union if they could because union workers on average make 30 percent in more in wages than non-union workers and are more likely to have health insurance.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and other business interests have spent millions of lobbying and advertising dollars to oppose the bill, disseminating false myths about its impact and claiming it would be a “job killer.” Unfortunately, the massive public relations spin effort is having some effect. “I’m not sure we have the votes” to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said yesterday.

This time, SCHIP advocates were joined by six Republicans who had voted against the bill last year. Interestingly, one of those lawmakers was Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI). So what changed?

After all, in 2007, McCotter not only voted against the legislation, he was a leading voice in arguing for its defeat. When Catholics United criticized him, he called the group the “devil.” On his blog on Oct. 3, 2007, McCotter argued that unless the GOP defeated SCHIP, it would “lose its soul”:

If our Republican Party is daunted by the politics of S-CHIP and shrinks from reaffirming its defining principles, social welfare programs will never help poor Americans escape governmental dependence. Instead, the Democrats will continue their push to shackle Americans with a bureaucrat-centered health care system and other insidious forms of governmental dependence; and our Republican Party — the party of the Great Emancipator — will not only lose the next election.

It will lose its soul.

McCotter faced enormous discontent from many of his constituents after his “nay” vote, as did many of his colleagues. In fact, 11 Republicans who voted against SCHIP lost their seats in 2008. McCotter held on to his seat, but just barely — he won only “51% against a Dem who raised just $29K.”

Yesterday’s SCHIP vote may be part of the new McCotter. After the sweeping progressive victories in the November elections, McCotter, said, “We’re rock bottom. We are now free to start thinking again, acting again, and doing the right thing by what our constituents and our country need.”

Given the standards that Bush has set for medals (see Norman Podhoretz, George Tenet, and Paul Bremer), it certainly wouldn’t be outside the bounds of White House ethics to find a way to reward “the most insidious of traitors.”

UPDATE: After revealing Bush was “involved” in distributing “false information” about who leaked Plame’s identity, Scott McClellan was doing some damage control today. Peter Osnos, the founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing McClellan’s book in April, told NBC that McClellan “did not intend to suggest Bush lied to him.”

When Snow revealed his plans to write a book on how to deal with cancer, O’Reilly responded:

O’REILLY: You know what you can do with all respect? You can combine how I deal with cancer with how I deal with the White House press corps. Because they’re both insidious, invasive. They both have to be wiped out.

Snow also informed O’Reilly that he’s considering returning to Fox News, but that he is also open to other networks that would give him the opportunity to do a “radio/TV piece.” O’Reilly responded:

O’REILLY: But you can’t go over to CNN. I mean, that’s the devil over there. You can’t. You know. You’re a religious guy. You can’t go into the pagan throne over there.

O’Reilly warned that if CNN put Snow on the 8 pm slot as a competitor to him, “it’s going to get bloody.” Watch it:

In the interview, Snow also said he “very well may” join a Republican presidential candidate’s campaign, though he said he “has no horses in the race” at this time.

Transcript:

O’REILLY: Now what is the career plan here? You’re a fat cat now, ex-White House spokesperson. You can make a lot of money bloviating like I do, give the speeches, I mean, you know, you can write a book. I assume you can do that, right?

SNOW: Yes, yes.

O’REILLY: But you’re not going to tell all in the book?

SNOW: No, as a matter of fact, I’m going to do – interested in two books. I’m going to do a lot of speeches, but also, I’m going to do a book about how you deal with something like cancer. You know.

O’REILLY: A new cancer book.

SNOW: Yes, well, it’s going to be with cancer and also how you deal with the unexpected, because it’s a lot broader.

O’REILLY: You know what you can do with all the respect?

SNOW: Yes.

O’REILLY: You can combine how I deal with cancer with how I deal with the White House press corps. Because they’re both insidious, invasive. They both have to be wiped out. And you know, you see the theme that I’m getting at here?

SNOW: Well, maybe I could thread it into.

O’REILLY: You know, you put little microbes and David Gregory’s face on the cover. You know, it’s huge. This is a high concept deal, I’m giving you, man.

SNOW: Oh, man. I’ll tell you what. I’ll let you have that one.

[...]

O’REILLY: All right, campaign ‘08.

SNOW: Yes.

O’REILLY: Are you going to try to be a partisan Republican in this? Are you going to try to get a Republican elected in ‘08?

SNOW: I very well may.

O’REILLY: Really?

SNOW: I’m not going to campaign, at least at this juncture, I don’t have any horses in this race. So I’m not supporting any candidates. The one thing I know to do between now and the races, talk about stuff I care about. I haven’t really figured out what I’m going to do in terms of whether there’s going to be extensive direct partisan activity or not.

O’REILLY: All right. So if the — whoever the nominee may be could call you and say would you work for our campaign or X, Y, and Z?

SNOW: Yes.

O’REILLY: And you would consider it?

SNOW: You know, again, I’ll have to figure it out. I’m more interested right now talking about things that I think are important . In many ways, the Republican party’s falling off the rails. It’s forgotten about.

O’REILLY: Tell me about it.

SNOW: It’s forget about fiscal discipline. It’s forgotten about the importance of liberty.

O’REILLY: I always think back. I was the guy hammering you because of that. Do you remember? Put yourself back six months ago. That was me, Snow. All right, any chance you come back to FOX News?

SNOW: Could be. Like I want to – I’m trying to get a radio TV piece in the career.

O’REILLY: Great, the mix.

SNOW: Yes. I just don’t know yet.

O’REILLY: But anything could happen.

SNOW: Anything can happen.

O’REILLY: But you can’t go over to CNN. I mean, that’s the devil over there. You can’t. You know. You’re a religious guy. You can’t go on into the pagan throne over there.

SNOW: I’m an open minded man. I’ll have to see.

O’REILLY: See, this is what I mean with Snow. He gives you the – like CNN’s says hey, no, wham. You’re out of here. O’Reilly who?

SNOW: Bill.

O’REILLY: If they put you at 8:00 up against me, Snow, it’s going to be bloody. You know what I’m talking about? All right.

SNOW: I know what you’re talking about.

O’REILLY: We wish you the best. We hope you come back to FOX News. And anytime you want, come on in here. And I’m glad you’re feeling well.

SNOW: I’m feeling well. It’s always good to be here.

UPDATE: Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority:

“Ledbetter should have filed an EEOC charge within 180 days after each allegedly discriminatory pay decision was made and communicated to her.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined Alito’s opinion. Lower courts were divided on the issue.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court’s only woman, took the unusual step of reading a summary of her dissent from the bench as she sat next to Alito. She said the majority “does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.”

UPDATE II: More from Scott Lemieux.

Radical right-wing groups have lobbied aggressively against this bill. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson called it “insidious legislation” that would “silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs.” (Listen to Dobson HERE.) The Concerned Women for America said the bill is meant to “grant official government recognition to both homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, and to silence opposition to those behaviors.”

Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated this far-right talking point. He claimed that under the hate crimes bill, you would be charged with a crime if you were “thinking something bad” before you committed a crime against someone. “I just think it takes us down a path that is very scary.” Watch it:

The right-wing is wrong. This legislation goes after criminal action, like physical assaults, not name-calling or verbal abuse. The bill clearly states that “evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.”

The hate crimes legislation is by endorsed by 31 state attorneys general and leading law enforcement agencies. Under current law, federal officials are able to investigate and prosecute “attacks based on race, color, national origin and religion and because the victim was attempting to exercise a federally protected right,” but unable to intervene “in cases where women, gay, transgender or disabled Americans are victims of bias-motivated crimes for who they are.”

Transcript:

BOEHNER: It’s yours, yes.

REPORTER: Hate crimes legislation?

BOEHNER: Hate crimes? Yes.

REPORTER: How do you feel about it? What’s going to happen?

BOEHNER: I’ve got to tell you, I really don’t understand it. We’re going to put into place a federal law that says, not only will we punish you for the crime that you actually commit — the physical crime that you commit — but we’re also going to charge you with a crime that if we think that you were thinking bad things about this person before you committed a crime.

I just — I just really don’t understand it. I’ve been opposed to this for a long time and I remain opposed to it.

I mean, it’s a crime on what people were thinking when they were committing an act of violence. How do you walk into court and make a case for a crime because someone was thinking something bad. I just think it takes us down a path that is very scary.

This loyal soldier in the War on Terror doesn’t have to go at it alone.

Scooter Libby knowingly exposed the cover of a CIA operative. He did it to exact political revenge on Joseph Wilson, who had revealed that intelligence was “twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” The damage from the leak was serious enough to warrant a CIA investigation. Arthur Brown, a CIA division chief who retired in 1995, described Libby’s action as the “moral equivalent to exposing forward deployed military units.”

Libby is no “soldier,” let alone a “loyal soldier.” A different label for him was offered by President 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.”

Cavuto saw the movie with his sons and found it “offensive.” Cavuto objected to the fact that penguins in the movie have trouble finding food because of overfishing and oil drilling. Cavuto called the film “an animated ‘Inconvenient Truth.’ I half expected to see an animated version of Al Gore pop-up.” Watch it:

Cavuto is objecting to introducing children to a real problem. A recent study in Science found “There will be virtually nothing left to fish from the seas by the middle of the century if current trends continue.”

(HT: NewsHounds)

Transcript:

CUVUTO: Well, those cute little penguins in “Happy Feet,” winning at the box office, earning more than $42 million. In the movie the penguins are starving, the fish are all gone and it’s clear human and big buisness are to blame. Is Hollywood using kid’s films to promote a far left message. Entertainment critic Holly McClure says “Yes, and it’s wrong.” Holly, so you though it was over the top?

MCCLURE: Well, I did, Neil. I tell you, I went watching this movie saying Ok, great, a light-harded fun film — love these animated pictures. And it’s interesting how realistic it looks. You get in there and you’re enjoying all the fun and frivolity and, yes, it’s a takeoff of the penguin documentary. And then along comes the subtle messages. One by one they come in. I felt like i was watching “Dirty Dancing” penguin-style. You know, the preaching against tap dancing and being liberal and stay conformed. And then it started to get into the other messages. Yes, we had that plastic ring around one of the penguin’s neck.

CUVUTO: Yes. Yes.

MCCLURE: From there it got worse.

CUVUTO: Holly, I saw this with my two little boys. What I found offensive — I don’t care what your stands are on the environment — is that they shove this in a kid’s movie. So you hear the penguins are starving and they’re starving because of mean old men, mean old companies, arctic fishing, a big taboo. And they’re foisting this on my kids who frankly were more bored that it was a nearly two-hour movie. And they’re kids!

[Snip]

My biggest thing was — you can make a political statement all you want — adult movie and all. I just think it’s a little tacky, and a big-time objectionable when you start foisting it on kids who don’t know any better.

[Snip]

Even more telling to me was the fact that — I though it was like an animated “Inconvenient Truth.” I half expected to see an animated version of Al Gore to pop-up. I must be the only one in the theatre having this reaction because, you know, my boys are just bouncing off the wall because it’s so damn long. But the other issue is that, you know, that is animated “Inconvenient Truth.”

Think Progress will continue to put out research on Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity and any ensuing indictments. Keep checking back at this site for updates.

Think Progress Resources

Documents

23 Administration Officials Involved In Plame Leak [Link]

Right-Wing Myths About The Leak Investigation [Link]

Why Wilson Was Smeared [Link]

Bush Administration Pledged The Highest Ethical Standards [Link]

Key Quotes In The Plame Leak Investigation [Link]

Videos

Bush I Calls Leakers “Most Insidious of Traitors” [Link]

Bush Video: “We Must Always Ask Ourselves Not Only What Is Legal, But What Is Right” [Link]

Other Resources

Key Sites

Office of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald

The F List: Figures who have testified or have been interviewed by Fitzgerald (or by FBI agents) in connection with the Plame probe.

Documents

Libby Indictments: 10/28/05

Office of Special Counsel Press Release on the Indictments:10/28/05

Forged Niger Documents: Allegedly documenting the sale of uranium materials by Niger to Iraq.

Speeches

Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address: 1/28/03

Articles and Op-Eds

“What I Didn’t Find in Africa“: Joseph Wilson, New York Times, 7/6/03

“Mission to Niger“: Robert Novak, Washington Post, 7/14/03

“A Personal Account; My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room“: Judith Miller, New York Times, 10/16/05

Reports

Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq: 7/7/04

Butler Report: Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, 7/14/04

Report to the President: Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05

Letters

Fitzerald Letter to Joseph Tate, Libby’s Counsel, on Judith Miller’s Waiver: 9/12/05

Libby’s Waiver Letter to Miller: 9/15/05

Think Progress has put together a fact sheet debunking the right-wing myths about the leak investigation. It contains everything you need to fight back against the right’s misinformation campaign.

Here’s what The Note has to say about it:

As part of its broader mission of holding the “brain-dead media” accountable, the American Progress Action Fund, the C4 arm of the Center for American Progress, is launching a Web site today designed to prebut what the group considers “right-wing myths” about the Fitzgerald investigation. LINK

The folks who created it want you to think of it as a handy-dandy guide for the Gang of 500.

When conservative “yappers” say things like “leaking classified information is no big deal” because that kind of thing happens all the time in Washington, the Web site directs readers to text — and video — of Bush 41 saying on April 26, 1999 that exposing an undercover CIA agent is “the most insidious of crimes.”

Or, if someone tries to paint Fitzgerald as a “runaway prosecutor,” the folks at the C4 arm of John Podesta’s shop want you to remember that Bush 43 said Fitzgerald was conducting a “very dignified investigation” as recently as October 11, 2005.

Check it out for yourself.

(Comment on this page here.)

CLAIM — FITZGERALD WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INVESTIGATING THE INTELLIGENCE IDENTITIES PROTECTION ACT (IIDA): “On July 30, the CIA referred to the justice department, the leaking of Valerie Wilson or Valerie Plame’s name, for investigation under the — what’s it called? (Brit Hume: “Foreign Intelligence and Identities Act, very odd name”) There’s almost no chance I think that Rove or Libby are going to be prosecuted for violating that act.” [Bill Kristol, Fox News Sunday, 10/16/05]

FACT – THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DELEGATION TO FITZGERALD DIDN’T MENTION THE IIDA: “By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.” [Letter from James B. Comey, Acting Attorney General, to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney, 12/30/03]

FACT – FITZGERALD WAS GIVEN THE SAME AUTHORITY AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROSECUTE ANY VIOLATION OF THE LAW: “The Department, in appointing Special Counsel Fitzgerald under “other law”, has afforded him independence by delegating all of the Attorney General’s authority with respect to the investigation and instructing him to exercise that authority independent of the control of any officer of the Department.” [GAO, 12/30/04]

FACT – THE CIA REFERRAL TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DIDN’T MENTION THE IIDA: ” But the CIA’s initial “crimes report” to the Justice Department requesting the leak probe never mentioned that law, says a former government official who requested anonymity because of the confidential material involved. Fitzgerald may be looking at other laws barring the disclosure of classified info or the possibility that current or former White House aides made false statements or obstructed justice.” [Newsweek, 8/1/05]

CLAIM – FITZGERALD IS A “RUNAWAY PROSECUTOR”: “I think it shows the danger of runaway prosecutors…you have is a system that essentially creates a crime in the search of a nonexistent crime. And that looks unjust to me.” [Charles Krauthammer, Fox News Sunday, 10/9/05]

FACT – BUSH SAID FITZGERALD WAS CONDUCTING A “VERY DIGNIFIED INVESTIGATION”: “The special prosecutor is conducting a very serious investigation – he’s doing it in a very dignified way.” [President Bush, 10/11/05]

CLAIM — LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NO BIG DEAL: “In today’s Washington, as has been true for decades, classified information is leaked by many different players in any given policy fight in the government.” [Weekly Standard, 10/24/05]

FACT – GEORGE H.W. BUSH SAID EXPOSING AN UNDERCOVER CIA AGENT WAS “THE MOST INSIDIOUS OF CRIMES”: “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.” [George H.W. Bush, Speech at CIA, 4/26/99; Video]

CLAIM – VALERIE WILSON WASN’T AN UNDERCOVER AGENT: “Now, look, Fitzgerald has had two years, two years to answer a simple question, and that is, was the law violated by someone having willfully exposed a CI — an undercover CIA agent? Now, we know that wasn’t true. The, Valerie Plame wasn’t even an undercover agent at the time.” [Fred Barnes, Fox News, 10/15/05]

FACT – CIA SAYS WILSON WAS UNDERCOVER: “But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had ‘nonofficial cover,’ and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create.” [New York Times, 10/5/03]

CLAIM – THE LEAK INVESTIGATION REPRESENTS THE CRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICS: “I am worried about what happens to the administration if Rove is indicted. I think it’s the criminalization of politics that’s really gotten totally out of hand.” [Bill Kristol, Fox News , 10/14/05]

FACT – BUSH SAID THE LEAK WAS A CRIME: And, you know, there’s a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It’s a town famous for it. And if this helps stop leaks of — this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked — and this is a serious charge, by the way. We’re talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth. [President Bush, 10/6/03]

CLAIM – PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ARE “TECHNICALITIES”: “Don`t you sort of feel a little bad that your side is winning on essentially what is a technicality?” [Tucker Carlson, MSNBC, 10/7/05]

FACT – PERJURY IS A FELONY: [Anyone who] is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [U.S. Code]

FACT – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A FELONY: “Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” [U.S. Code]

CLAIM — JOE WILSON LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING: “[V]irtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false.” [Weekly Standard, 10/24/05]

FACT – WILSON CONCLUDED IRAQ INTELLIGENCE NUCLEAR WAS EXAGGERATED: “I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” [Wilson, NYTimes, 7/6/03]

FACT – N.I.E. CONTAINED CLAIM THAT URANIUM EVIDENCE WAS “HIGHLY DUBIOUS”: The N.I.E. “noted reports that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Africa but included a warning from the State Department that the reports were ‘highly dubious.’” [NYT, 7/19/03]

FACT – THREE SEPARATE REPORTS CONCLUDED INTELLIGENCE ON URANIUM WAS WEAK: In addition to Wilson’s claims, former US Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, and her staff had already concluded the intelligence was false by the time he arrived in the country. Four-Star Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr. met with Niger president in February 2002 to check the security of the country’s uranium. Fulford reported that he was “convinced it was not an issue,” and passed his findings to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. [Washington Post, 7/15/03; NYT, 7/6/03]

FACT – FINAL WMD REPORT COMMISSIONED BY BUSH FOUND NO URANIUM WAS SOUGHT BY IRAQ: The final Iraq Survey Group report concluded, “ISG has uncovered no information to support allegations of Iraqi pursuit of uranium from abroad in the post-Operation Desert Storm era.” [Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD, 9/30/04]

CLAIM – WILSON LIED ABOUT HIS TRIP TO NIGER: Former Rove deputy Ken Mehlman: “What Joe Wilson alleged was that the vice president, then he said the CIA director sent him to Niger.” [CNN, 7/12/05]

FACT – WILSON NEVER SAID CHENEY PERSONALLY SENT HIM TO NIGER: Bloomberg reported, “Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president’s office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney’s questions. ‘The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office,’ Wilson wrote.” [Bloomberg, 7/14/05]

CLAIM – ADMINISTRATION WAS CORRECTING A FALSE REPORT: Mehlman: “He tried to discourage a reporter from writing a story that was false. He said it would be false. He said, ‘You shouldn’t write it.’ And the reporter wrote it anyway, even though it turned out to be false. I think what Karl Rove was saying was right; what Joe Wilson was saying was wrong.” [CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports, 7/12/05]

FACT – WILSON’S CLAIMS HAVE HELD UP IN THE FACE OF FIRE: Bloomberg recently reported, “Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove.” [Bloomberg, 7/14/05]

UPDATE: Link fixed for Firefox users.

GEORGE W. BUSH: “This is a very serious matter. And our administration takes it seriously… this is a serious charge, by the way. We’re talking about a criminal action.” [10/6/03]

ED GILLESPIE: “I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative — it’s abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.” [MSNBC Hardball, 9/30/03]

KAREN HUGHES: “President Bush has said — and I agree — there are too many leaks in Washington. We didn’t experience that kind of situation when we were here in Texas. I think it’s very disruptive to democracy Whoever did this leak obviously was not serving President Bush very well.” [Houston Chronicle, 10/2/03]

JOHN ASHCROFT: “Let me just indicate that this is a matter of great concern to me, that I have not ruled out any options. Leaks are a serious matter. When information is classified, it’s classified for a reason, and classified because it is in the national interest of the United States of America that the information not be shared. And anyone who purposefully leaks information that has been classified is, for some reason — it’s incomprehensible to me, but for some reason — subordinating a national security — if they purposefully leak information — suborting the national security in the interests of the United States to some interests of their own.” [News conference, 10/16/03]

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]

COLIN POWELL: “Not only do you put her at risk, or any undercover agent at risk, by letting it be known that they are an agent, but you also put the sources they have worked with over the years at considerable risk.” [9/30/03]