Why Do You Support Treason, Fred Thompson?
by Brent Budowsky (posted on NO QUARTER) Dear Fred Thompson. You are one of America’s strongest public supporters of Scooter Libby in the CIA Leak case and, as a potential commander in chief, there are some questions you should answer for the Nation:
If you are commander in chief, would you believe it is proper for your senior White House staff to publicly identify the names of covert officers?
As commander in chief, don’t you feel a moral, military and patriotic obligation that is sacred to protect the lives and safety of those who serve under your command?
Don’t you believe that public identification of covert officers threatens our troops and our security by harming our ability to wage war when necessary, by weakening our intelligence capability? READ MORE…
May 31st, 2007 at 4:38 pm
I haven’t followed the Thompson/Libby deal so I don’t know if this blog is true, or just a bunch of leftist partisans. But if true, I would certainly agree with the posters questions. I don’t like Thompson - I recall being furious with some of his votes.
speaking of Treason and Traitors, when is John going to get something started on the Traitor in Chief we have in Georgia after his veto of Senate Bill 15?
May 31st, 2007 at 4:56 pm
It’s true:
http://scooterlibby.com/
Fred Thompson’s name is there along with others on the right side of the page. The list reads like neocon city. I guess Thompson is in tight with the neocons.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:49 pm
The last dem governor in GA while issuing a veto on SB15 along with redirecting (not cutting as is being reported) $142M in the 08 budget kept his $20M Go Fish Program and $40M.
Who vetoed tax cuts — Sonny did!
May 31st, 2007 at 8:30 pm
The blogger is Larry Johnson, former CIA agent. Thanks for supplying the backup captain!
May 31st, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Glad to help Al.
Not sure what I did, but I’ve got your back.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Al,
Get over youself. No matter how many times you or the media repeat the drumbeat –Plume was not a covert agent!!!!!!!! Plain and simple.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:02 pm
According to who hoads? Curious then that LIBBY’S LAWYERS DIDN’T OBJECT TO THE GOVERNMENT’S LAWYER REFERRING TO HER AS COVERT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TRIAL!
Maybe you’re the one who is really under the spell of your chosen brand of media. No?
Or did Libby’s lawyers just let Fitzgerald refer to Plame as covert so many times as part of some kind of legal strategy?
I know - I know - I’ve been brainwashed by the US legal system and need to tune into Limbaugh more often for the truth, right?
hoads, you are a living example of why the conservative movement is an anathema to generation Y, and will be for the generation that follows it as well.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
damn - that wasn’t captain, it was caroline…
fog of war, things happen
May 31st, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I’m voting for covert, well until she was EXPOSED BY THE NEOCONS!!!
May 31st, 2007 at 11:59 pm
You can rely on a NYT headline, I rely on the source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705.html
“The CIA is well aware of the requirements of the law protecting the identity of covert officers and agents. I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence community. Even if Plame’s status were “classified”–Fitzgerald never introduced one piece of evidence to support such status — no law would be violated.
There is no better evidence that the CIA was only covering its rear by requesting a Justice Department criminal investigation than the fact that it sent a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer’s disclosure.”
* * *
June 1st, 2007 at 12:03 am
From the link above:
“On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent’s identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.”
June 1st, 2007 at 12:40 am
I thought in the end of the fact finding effort, it was not Libby that outed Plame. It was at least one other WH official.
Libby was not tried on outing her, but rather did he lie (any worse that Clinton?) while under oath. Can anyone tell me “what is, is?”.
Libby is probably a fall guy, maybe a guy that really has a bad memory since he was involved in all kinds of stuff. I know if I don’t keep a journal, a week later I can not tell you what I worked on. Life has gotten that way.
I find it funny that it all started with the husband stating Chenney sent him on a mission, when he did not, but his wife did. Not to mention that it was pretty much known she worked for the CIA, because they themselves had loose lips.
Just another bash Bush, attack the administration campaign effort that has gone on since day one of his election.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:12 am
It was Richard Armitage who outed Plame.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:27 am
Don’t be too hard on Freddy, Al.
He’s an early 21st century Republican’t; treason’s in the genes.
.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:51 am
“A week after the Wilson editorial was published, some six journalists along with columnist Robert Novak received telephone calls from two Bush administration officials. The sum and substance of the calls: To inform the journalists that Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent.”
“In the end, the result was the same. Valerie Plame’s career with the CIA is over. Her network, the one that was working to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists, is destroyed. The members of that network are now in mortal peril. The front company Plame worked through, Brewster-Jennings, was exposed as well, destroying the networks of any and all agents besides Plame working from that cover. The American intelligence community is disgusted and furious.”
http://www.newsroom-l.net/blog/archives/000036.html
June 1st, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I don’t even have to read that article to know exactly who is saying those words…a woman named Toensing, right?
I saw her testimony in front of Congress, and if she’s right about this, then you’d think there’d be a JUDGE somewhere that would back up her version…no?
Face it - you right-wingers are having too many temper tantrums - like children who can’t do what they want. He was convicted, and she was covert. I have copies of the indictment of Libby, transcripts from the trial - AND - the judicial opinion regarding the jailing of Judith Miller and Matt Cooper, wherein each judge deciding on the case referred to Plame as covert several times.
You have a hack named Toensing who wrote an op-ed in the post…review, I’ve got ACTUAL COURTROOM MATERIAL and you’ve got an OP-ED PIECE.
Give it up. Or else…wait, I can’t wait to hear you guys’ version of how we were winning the Vietnam war before we pulled out. Cooking up some popcorn right now. Maybe you could follow that one up with an explanation of how global warming is a hoax.
My favorite though is that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer…I remember the logic of that right-wing argument vividly. The “Plame was not covert” one is good, but you guys have produced much more entertaining bulls*it in the past.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Who said Thompson had treason in his genes?
He was created not hatched!
High five to who ever said it!
June 1st, 2007 at 4:15 pm
AL,
Ya using real butter on your popcorn? From Wisconsin cows? If so, count me in on the whole sit back and be entertained by the song and dance show of the GOP.
Once Plame was outed, of course she was no longer covert. hoads in number 11.
Was Plame covert on that day that the investigation began? Hell no!
Was her covert career over the day her employment was revealed? Hell Yeah.
Had that employment been at time covert in international assignments? Yes.
Was Armitage the only leaker? Was he the first leaker? How and why did Armitage have the information Plame and why was he passing it around?
Did Libby have legal council prior to his sworn statements? Yes. The best that the GOP could find.
Was he jerked out of his life and put on the stand with no time to prepare? HELL NO!!!!!
He was prepped. He reviewed his notes. Legal council advised him. He and Armitage were “blow back” damage from an planned attack on public dissent. Cheney, Bush et al did not want to face the truth about unsubstantiated statements in the State of the Union address. Those 17 words.
Rice was pandering the Mushroom Cloud on the talking head circuit.
We don’t want the proof of Saddam’s nuclear weapons program to be a mushroom cloud!
(Yeah, but it’s okay for the Nuts in North Korea to have all the Pakistani mushrooms and pizza that they want.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Al & Mad Dog,
My “source” is the chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee who wrote the definition of covert agent–Victoria Toensing. (from link above) ” I know, because in 1982, as chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, I negotiated the terms of that legislation between the media and the intelligence
community.”
“Curious then that LIBBY’S LAWYERS DIDN’T OBJECT TO THE GOVERNMENT’S LAWYER REFERRING TO HER AS COVERT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TRIAL!” Allow me to allay your curiosity. Plame’s status was NEVER entered as evidence in the trial and Fitzgerald blocked defense requests for CIA documents that defined her status insisting that this was a “perjury” trial. So “covert” was never mentioned by any attorney in the Libby trial. Got it?
Now aren’t you curious why Fitzgerald BLOCKED documents that would have proven Plame’s CIA status?
How about a quote from Joe Wilson’s book on the matter: ” In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in JUNE 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm
June 1st, 2007 at 7:20 pm
hoads - If I pull up the word “covert” in the OFFICIAL trial documentation, will you lose any faith in Toensing?
AND - how come Fitzgerald referring to her as ‘covert’ in the pre-sentencing documents hasn’t led to a challenge of some kind being raised by his lawyers?
I’m 99% convinced that you’re going to latch onto whatever tells you what you’d rather believe, but maybe if you see the unchallenged mention of ‘covert’ in the trial, you’ll come around.
Hypothetically speaking…if I find 5 times where ‘covert’ has been used in reference to Plame during the trial, will that convince you that you’ve got it wrong?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Show me the money!
June 1st, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Pre-trial documents don’t count. But here’s a quote from Fitzgerald during one pre-trial hearing: it would make no difference “if [Ms. Wilson] turned out to be a postal driver mistaken for a CIA employee.” http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010154
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:27 am
Excuse me, hoads.
What if being covert meant not advertising international trips and dates?
Might you consider that while AL makes more popcorn for me?
Hoads, man, you’re arguing about the language in the legislation. Not at all about status within the CIA.
Could it be that what Plame has done in covert ops remains secret? Could our national and international security be damaged by giving locations and dates of her covert service?
Give it a think, will ya?
AL’s putting sea salt on the popcorn.
Pssst. AL didn’t say pre-trial. He said pre-sentencing hearings. That comes after the verdict.
You’re on stage!
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Still waiting for evidence that Plame’s “covert” status was presented at Libby’s trial. Neither of you has addressed my posts. Why do you think Fitzgerald BLOCKED the admittance of CIA documents that would have settled Plame’s covert status once and for all?
Why do you think we are here having this conversation? This should be cut & dry but, it is not.
Par for the course for the Democrats’ attempts at hyping Republican “scandals”. As always, they care nothing about the truth—the headlines tell the story and the details don’t matter and considering that most of America still get their news from MSM, it is proving to be an effective strategy for Dems.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Al,
Al–”AND - how come Fitzgerald referring to her as ‘covert’ in the pre-sentencing documents hasn’t led to a challenge of some kind being raised by his lawyers?” Here you go—–
DEFENDANT I. LEWIS LIBBY’S OPPOSITION TO
THE GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
ITS PROPOSED SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS
Defendant I.
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/070531_defense_presentencing.pdf
Pg. 6 “1. It Is Not Clear That Ms. Wilson Was a Covert Agent Under the
IIPA
The government has refused for years to take a position regarding whether
Ms. Wilson was a covert agent as defined under the IIPA. For example, in his October
28, 2005 press conference, in response to a reporter’s question, the Special Counsel
stated: “I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert.” Special
Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s Press Conference, Oct. 28, 2005 Tr. at 8.
Early in discovery, Mr. Libby sought discovery of documents relating to
whether Ms. Wilson’s status as a CIA employee was classified. See Mot. of I. Lewis
Libby To Compel Disc. of Rule 16 and Brady Material in the Possession of Other
Agencies at 2 (Jan. 31, 2006) (Dkt. 32). The government refused to provide the
requested discovery on the ground that it was irrelevant. It noted (correctly) that
Ms. Wilson’s CIA status was “not an element of any of the three statutory violations
charged.” Gov’t Consol. Resp. to Def. Mots. to Compel Disc. at 28 n.11 (Feb. 16, 2006)
(Dkt. 36). In fact, according to the government, it was “irrelevant whether Mr. Wilson’s
wife actually did work at the CIA” at all. Gov’t Resp. to Def. Third Mot. to Compel
Disc. at 11 (April 5, 2006) (Dkt. 80).
On June 2, 2006, the Court issued a discovery order “set[ting] forth what
this case is and is not about.” Order at 1 (June 2, 2006) (Dkt. 112). After noting that
Mr. Libby had not been charged with illegally disclosing Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with
the CIA, the Court explained that “the only question the jury will be asked to resolve in
this matter will be whether the defendant intentionally lied” to the grand jury and the FBI
about his conversations with three news reporters. Id. at 2. The Court made clear that the
actual status of Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment had nothing to do with answering that
question.” See (cont. in link)
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
What’s that I hear?…….Did you say…….. uncle…….?
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:19 am
uncle? hell no hoads, I’m just bogged down with school, twin 2 year olds and a bent lawn mower blade.
There aren’t enough hours in the day, but reviewing the Libby trial and presenting to you and everyone else here the reality of all this is on the to-do list.
Before that though, I’ve got a 12 slide project to finish, and hopefully enough spark left in my brain for this “covert” nonsense once that is done.
Stay tuned. Ask anyone here…ask John Konop about when I’m wrong, what I do. I ADMIT IT! Always have, and at least a 2-3 times on this site.
That said, I’m not losing any sleep over having to come up with references of “covert” within the transcripts or PRE-SENTENCING materials. I know it’s there.
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:51 am
Al,
Good enough! Looking forward to your contribution. Good Luck with your project.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 am
hoads,
high five
You’re looking however for limited and narrow definition of ‘covert.’ A legal techicality if you will.
The CIA is blocking Plame’s book on the basis of her being a covert agent.
You haven’t come back to me on my posts. Maybe you’re been busy like AL.
To add another question though, What reason did the court give for blocking evidence from the defendant?
As you know, defendants have a right of discovery. That right flows at trial from the judge, not from the prosecutor.
What were the documents being “blocked” as you say, and what were the objections from both sides?
Dipping into court TV and the O.J. trial … what did THEY say in that sidebar????
MD
p.s. Nice show of class towards All-American Liberal, aka AL
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
OPs,
Sorry, hoads, I missed your post about all that.
Her status was ruled irrevelant to the charges at hand.
Nothing in that says she was or was not covert.
Nothing in that says she didn’t travel outside the US under an official or unofficial cover. Meaning, she didn’t use her own passport, identification, or leave a trail back to her family.
Given that John rants about the ‘millions crossing the border everyday illegally,’ and the attorney with TB leaving and returning without being detained, is it possible a trained and semi-intelligent government employee could move over the border and back without a trace?
To put a fine spot on it, de jure vs. de facto.
I submit Plame was a de facto covert agent.
You’re submitting that Plame was not a de jure covert agent.
The CIA continues to maintain that Plame was covert and revailing additional details of her service would harm our country.
How about it?
June 4th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Mad Dog,
My contention is the fact that Fitzgerald did not want Plame’s status as covert or not to be admitted as evidence. If Libby was being tried for outing a covert agent, Plame’s status should have been the basis for the entire trial. Instead, Fitzgerald avoided her status and turned it into a he said/he said between Libby and reporters so that Plame’s covert status was not even presented at the trial.
The Wilsons have 5 year old twins and Joe Wilson stated in his book that neither of them had been working as covert agents since 1997.–see link above.