This is Chants's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Chants's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Chants
Recent Activity
"I don't know, but I do know that nobody at those meetings leaked to the press or reported that Valerie Wilson or Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. The first to do that was Novak." Looking for a Way Out That's really a "good leak vs. bad leak" argument in disguise, is it not? And it is not even a very good one. First, the press (Kristof of the NYT) was at those meetings. Second, it is just sloppy tradecraft if true, which it is. But what is more to the purpose, Plame was sloppy with her own status before those meetings. The nascent leak started with her, at the Feb 02 State/CIA meeting. I am certain she had no intention at all in revealing her affiliation with the CIA to unauthorized ears. But that is the funny thing about leaks. You never know HOW people interpret what they hear. After Wilson (anonymously) started telling tales out of school about how his dubunking was ignored by the VPO, he also implicated State. State put together a Memo. In that memo, Wilson's wife is mentioned, as background mostly, but she is mentioned. Armitage gets a hold of this tidbit, and the rest is history. Looking. There is a reason why the IIPA was not charged out. And it has a hell of a lot more to do with the "affirmative measures" factor than anything else.
Toggle Commented Jun 7, 2007 on Libby's Sentence at JustOneMinute
"What Jeffress ought to have been arguing is that no IIPA charge was possible regardless of Libby's lies or intent because the government never demonstrated that she was qualified as a covert agent under the statute." -- TM If Jeffries added that no IIPA charge was possible because the government did not want to litigate the reasonable "affirmative measures" factor, then I think he may have been even more effective.
Toggle Commented Jun 5, 2007 on Libby Sentencing at JustOneMinute
Whoa! I think you hit a very nasty nerve there in LJ, TM. But to debate Larry? We tried that, Cap'n, once before, on JOM Holodeck 9. As I recall, sir, it was....very loud. http://tinyurl.com/2n5v9s. (Sorry folks for my absence. I have had trouble logging into Typead. To make a long story short, I blame H&T, and the case of Maker's Mark he sent me).
I have done more research on the Raw Story report. After a few phone calls, two more facts seem to check out. There does appear to be a Time reporter named Viveca Novak. It also appears that an attorney for Rove is, in fact, named Robert Luskin.
Toggle Commented Dec 16, 2005 on Raw Story - They Got The Day Right! at JustOneMinute
What, exactly, were the Joe Wilson "findings" that the government official(s) in question purportedly wanted to disparage? Findings are fact determinations resulting from, among other things, a hearing or an investigation. Joe Wilson did conduct an investigation for the CIA. He issued his findings orally which were recorded in a report. I do not want to get too far into how well controlled and formal Wilson's investigation was, but "Clown Show" has been used to describe it. And the clarity and certainty of the report resulting from Wilson's findings has been described as a document vulnerable to wishful and subjective interpretation, (hat tip: Cecil Turner). Suffice it say that Wilson's investigation and resulting findings constitute exactly the sort of poor spy-craft that State and the INR found worthy of disparagement. He was not the "goal" and neither was his wife. They were collateral damage. What the NYT wishes its readers to beleive is that the "findings" that the government wished to "disparage" were the same as those expressed by Wilson (via Kristof) in May 2003 and Wilson himself in July 2003. But those were not at all findings. Those were Wilson's informal speculations based on a Clown Show investigation resulting in a meaningless report. So no, the NYT is not just repeating a "boiler plate" summary of the investigation. They are carefully crafting thier words to obliquely bolster the credibility of Wilson's speculations as they were printed in thier own pages. They also are crafted to deflect attention away from the CIA and to keep the story focused on an "Administration vs. Wilson" theme. As for the bipartisan team leading Libby's Defense Fund, it does not appear to be very bipartisan. I could not care less. Libby's trial is going to be the forum which will either prove or disporve much of the rampant speculation engaged in by all of us.