wasn’t all that covert…

I like that…sorta like “a little bit pregnant.”

Even if this was simply an egregious error, somebody should have been willing to accept the blame for it.

I’m willing to wait and find out what actually happened. Under some circumstances, but not all, I agree that an apology would be nice.

how often does it need to be noted that the CIA itself asked for the investigation into the leak? Why would they have done this if her status was public domain?

Well, for one, what do people on this site say when a Republican calls for an investigation involving the actions of any person or organization? What’s that guys name….Fitzgerald? What’s going on with him? They wouldn’t have said those thing if he wasn’t….? I don’t have a current roster of the CIA, but I’m certain there are plenty of people there who are no big fans of Bush and Cheney. It may be that Fitzgerald will make a finding about whether any rules were actually broken. Again, I’ll wait and see.

As for Plame, how often does it need to be noted that the CIA itself asked for the investigation into the leak? Why would they have done this if her status was public domain? The argument that she wasn’t all that covert fails to hold water.

Exposed a covert operative?  I didn t know she was covert.

Did you know that the CIA gift store sells ‘CIA’ t-shirts, along with a ton of other apparel? Plenty of employees of the CIA buy and wear that stuff. It may seem like a mystical, secret world to you, but the fact is that it’s not illegal to talk about someone who works there. Don’t forget that Plame had been at CIA headquarters for a few years at least. That’s exactly why the law SPECIFIED that the person doing the talking HAD TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE that the person was or had been undercover. Show me proof or evidence that they knew, and we can re-address that issue. Until then it’s speculation.

Heard the name Valerie Wilson?  I forget who I heard it from.

I addressed it earlier, but when a case like this is in the headlines, of course it’s easy to say, “Oh my gosh, they should have remembered that conversation.” Knowing at the time what you’re going to have to discuss with a grand jury is not so easy. It’s quite possible that this was just a routine discussion…unless you ASSUME that they were up to something. I take a lot of notes at work…conversations and phone calls, etc. Sometimes when I’m going through old notes, I find information that I knew quite clearly when I wrote it down, but would have no way of recalling had I not run across it. Ask me whether I talked to person A or person B first, and I may not be able to tell you, and if I don’t recall taking notes about it, then I wouldn’t know where or when to look it up.

By the way, it just never made sense to me that “outing” an operative made sense as a means of retribution. I think a far more likely scenario, assuming for the sake of argument that there WAS an interest in retribution, is that they wanted to make Joe Wilson look weak by suggesting that his wife nominated him for the trip, to make it look like a family favor or the act of an official who nominated him solely on the basis of a spouse’s say-so.

This administration has proven time and time again that they are willing to spout falsehoods to a national audience, news show or not.

Mostly what I hear is people shouting “LIES, LIES” when they hear something they don’t like. They then use that conclusion, which they themselves have drawn, as evidence for the next charge of lying: “Well, we know they’ve lied in the past, so…” How many times do we have to hear the unfounded but oft-repeated “truth” that Bush “lied” about WMD in Iraq, because he said the same thing that governments and intelligence agencies around the world–and indeed his own intelligence director–were saying?

I agree that “I didn’t know” or “I forgot” are not generally exculpatory, but I, er, don’t recall hearing that on many occasions, if any. But when I assess a political situation, I generally look for an answer among the least sinister of explanation, on both sides of the aisle. That’s just my nature.

Ah, but he was not under oath was he?

No excuse.

By the way, I find many of my arguments rebutted with explanations about how these clever pros know exactly what they are doing, and are not subject to common failings such as mis-remembering or even forgetting important details. I think that savvy also applies to the knowledge that an out-and-out lie almost never works. If Cheney was indeed knowingly up to something, I find it far more likely that he was/is using wordplay and semantics to stay within the confines of the law (though I have yet to see proof that he has either lied or done those other things.) I mean, earlier in this thread it was suggested that Libby went so far as to deliberately leave things out of his personal notes to avoid detection…then it’s suggested that Cheney lies on a news show with a national audience? I don’t think so.

You make a decent case, but I had to re-read this a few times:

Not a single word on whether or not either party was actually aware of her covert status…Thus they could have planned to do a  work up on Wilson without mentioning it on the notes.

Obviously the knowledge of her covert status is a key point. If they didn’t know, it wouldn’t have appeared in the notes. And the ABSENCE of mention of this detail suggests to you that they knew, and may have planned something against Wilson on the sly? So you’ve set it up so you can draw the worst-case conclusion whether the notes mention the critical information or not. You’re right: you broke it down like an attorney.

A ball that hits the foul pole is a home run.

Quite possibly the clearest rebuttal I’ve ever seen on this site! Thanks for the correction. Now that last Orioles game I went to makes more sense.

” it goes directly to statements made by Cheney on his Sept. 14, 2003 appearance on Meet the Press ”

Ah, but he was not under oath was he?

A ball that hits the foul pole is a home run. Much like this clear home run. Let’s break it down like an attorney.

Note that this is a leak from one of the attorneys in the case, probably Libby’s. That attorney will set conditions on the story in exchange for the leak. The fact that the document doesn’t indicate that doesn’t mean anything. Note what the story doesn’t say–that Cheney did not say she was undercover. It says the notes “contain no suggestion that either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby knew at the time of Ms. Wilson’s undercover status or that her identity was classified.” Not a single word on whether or not either party was actually aware of her covert status or whether her covert status was discussed by the parties to the conversation. Thus they could have planned to do a ‘work up’ on Wilson without mentioning it on the notes.

Plus it goes directly to statements made by Cheney on his Sept. 14, 2003 appearance on Meet the Press where he said that he had no idea who sent Joe Wilson to Africa. Cheney had a damn good idea months before.

Finally, if Cheney did not disclose in either his early interview, or an apparent under oath session with Fitzgerald, its lights out baby. 18 U.S.C. s 1001 does not allow a person being questioned by a federal employee in conjuction with government activities to make a material omission. No chance to hide behind the definition of what “is” is for Cheney. This is the big one. Hell, Howard Fineman was on MSNBC saying Cheney was done. Somebody like that who has thrived on White House access just doesn’t blurt that out–its for real. He’s done.

Now what about those Niger docs?

Not in or of itself. They both had security clearance. But it establishes a chain of custody for the ultimate outing to non-clearanced persons

Oliver : I would grant you the scenarios you describe may constitute a crime, however, nothing I have read indicates anything even remotely close to the scenarios you outlined.

It is precisely because the vp and his chief of staff have jobs “involving powerful people and a myriad of important and interesting things going on” that their time is so carefully managed and the events of the day — every phone call, meeting, voice memo, email — carefully logged. These people live on information, connections and contacts. Conversations and who gave them what information don’t just slip their minds because there’s so much else in the daily infrastructure of their jobs that’s designed to help them remember — precisely because such conversations and information are the lifeblood of their work. They’re politicians. But all that aside, this was not just one thing of many at the time. Joe Wilson’s op-ed cut to the core of the case for war, a case established and argued vehemently for by the VP and his chief of staff. You make it sound like, oh hum, just another work day in the VPs office. Not buying it. These guys knew the gravity of the situation as it was unfolding. This wasn’t something truly trivial like, say, ensuring that FEMA could respond to an emergency.