Sponsors

Haven't We Been Here Before? Email Print

By sdf
11/17/2005 02:05:55 AM EST

So we can follow the timeline:

  1.  Late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning the news comes out that Woodward had, in fact, heard about Valerie Plame's working for the CIA from a Non-Scooter Admininstration Official (for which I would love to coin the acronym NSAO, but it now appears that it was Stephen Hadley, which consigns my not so clever acronym immediately to the dustbin of bloggery).

  2. In the original WaPo story from Wednesday morning Libby's lawyer is quoted already trying to use this to discredit the prosecutor, saying that Fitzgerald had claimed in his press conference on indictment day that Scooter was the first administration official to talk to reporters.

  3. Said talking point makes its way quickly into the SCLM Day 2 round of stories on the new development. Tony Locy and Pete Yost of the AP declare Woodward Claim on CIA Leak Disputes Charge:

Bob Woodward's version of when and where he learned the identity of a CIA operative contradicts a special prosecutor's contention that Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide was the first to make the disclosure to reporters.

The WaPo itself, in an article by Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei, explains that Woodward Could Be a Boon to Libby:

Woodward testified Monday that contrary to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's public statements, a senior government official -- not Libby -- was the first Bush administration official to tell a reporter about Plame and her role at the CIA.

And USA Today chimes in a similar Reporter's account could help Libby's defense.

There's only one problem with all this wonderful stenography.  

As Josh Marshall points out, it misses something pretty important:

But look what Fitzgerald actually said (emphasis added) ...

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Fitzgerald chose his words carefully. He didn't state as a fact that Libby was the first government official to leak Plame's identity. Nor did he hang any of his indictment on Libby's having been the first.

What he said is that Libby's was the earliest instance he'd found of an official leaking Plame's identity.

So, in essence, Booby's revelation contradicts nothing Fitzgerald said.  Remember, sand in the umpire's eyes?

I imagine that the AP, Washington Post, and USA Today will be running comprehensive corrections of this glaring error directly ...

-- Stu


KEYWORDS: , , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Alito Against Democracy | Woodward & Downie Think We're Stupid >
 Display:
Haven't We Been Here Before? | 7 comments (7 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Right-wingers always resort... (none / 0)
to the Chewbacca Defense when their backs are against a wall.

by S M Dixon on 11/17/2005 02:44:57 AM EST

Indeed they do (none / 0)
And, to mix wildly different metaphors/sayings, in this particular case they are feeding Chewbacca a mouthful of red herrings.

Or, I suppose I should say,  Why am I feeding Chewbacca a mouthful of red herrings?

-- Stu

by sdf on 11/17/2005 10:44:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It makes no SENSE! (none / 0)
If Chewbacca and the red herrings lived on Endor, you must acquit!

by S M Dixon on 11/17/2005 05:48:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You nailed it, Stu. (none / 0)
Wouldn't it be nice if the media understood its job to fact check?

Oh, wait. That's what responsible political bloggers do.

Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle. FDR

by btyarbro on 11/17/2005 09:16:46 AM EST

This is being hevily chewed over at dKos (none / 0)
and as I said over there, it really matters not one bit, because...

A: regardless of who leaked first, they both leaked.

B: Libby was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice -- NOT for leaking classified information.

Visit

by Timroff on 11/17/2005 09:53:02 AM EST

What I'm wondering (none / 0)
is whether this bit about Woodward's source came into Fitz's possession the night before the indictments.  In fact, could it be that this morsel was what delayed the axe falling on Karl?

If so, perhaps this explains why Fitzgerald held off on the indictments accusing Libby of outing Plame precisely because he knew someone else might have outed her first.

It's even possible that Fitzgerald was trying to telegraph to this someone else that they'd better come forward or else.

And it seems to have worked...

by katerina on 11/17/2005 10:42:31 AM EST

juan and josh (none / 0)
juan cole, once again, keeps us grounded...

   

The defense lawyers for Libby immediately claimed that the new information helped their client. The trick about this sort of thing is that you have to understand that for attorneys, any proposition may be put forward as long as it has not been explicitly rejected by the relevant court. That is, lawyers would be perfectly happy to argue that water is dry, and has not been ruled wet by any court of law, and that moreover anyone who criticizes them for so alleging is guilty of libel and very possibly also of sodomy, until that allegation is ruled on in court.

    [...]

    It does not matter to those folks that their assertions are false; they are speaking instrumentally, for the accomplishment of some purpose, not to express the truth.

    [...]

    In fact, the rather bizarre world of political discourse in Washington, DC, in which all sorts of untrue and faintly ridiculous allegations are routinely made, grows directly out of the unreal discourse of trial lawyers. So politicians (mostly lawyers) alleged to us that Iraq was on the verge of having a nuclear bomb, while in fact Iraq was not even on the verge of having one of those old Mickey Mouse watches that glowed in the dark because they were painted with uranium particles.

    Libby has been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice among other charges. He lied to the grand jury on more than one occasion. He said that a journalist told him that Plame Wilson worked for the CIA. This allegation was not true, and nothing Bernstein said on Wednesday changes its falsity. Fitzgerald did not charge Libby with speaking to Woodward, or with being the first to leak Plame Wilson's name, or anything else affected by Woodward's trivial revelation.

except you've now got the entire right wing noise machine trumpeting that fitzgerald's case has collapsed and the allegations against libby are false and politically motivated...

josh weighs in with a strikingly similar point...

Virtually all of the arguments the White House is now advancing are transparently ridiculous on their face to anyone who has closely followed this evolving debate over the last three years.

But that doesn't matter. The White House doesn't need to win any debates. What they need is for their core supporters to have something to say. Anything. And to be able to say it loudly. The one thing that would be fatal for the White House from its defenders would be silence.

i'm with josh on this... the talking points circus has to have new material...

And, yes I DO take it personally

How do I get a transfer out of this chickenshit outfit?

by profmarcus on 11/17/2005 01:19:31 PM EST

Haven't We Been Here Before? | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
 Display: