Posted on 02/13/2007 5:15:19 AM PST by IrishMike
WASHINGTON — The jury in the trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr., who served as Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, has heard powerful evidence that two other officials were responsible for disclosing the identity of a CIA officer, Valerie Plame.
Over a prosecution objection, the defense played an audio recording yesterday of a profanity-laden rant in which a former deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, told a prominent journalist, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, about Ms. Plame's ties to Langley a month before she was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert Novak. Mr. Novak also testified yesterday, recounting to jurors how Mr. Armitage's identification of Ms. Plame, and a subsequent confirmation from President Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, resulted in the July 14, 2003, article that prompted the investigation that ultimately snared Mr. Libby.
Another Post reporter who joined the parade of press witnesses, Walter Pincus, added more drama to the session by declaring that he was told about Ms. Plame's CIA connection by the White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, two days before Mr. Novak's column appeared. That aspect of Mr. Fleischer's role in the saga had not been made public previously.
Mr. Woodward testified that the disclosure from Mr. Armitage came in a June 13, 2003, interview as the pair discussed news reports that a former ambassador, Joseph Wilson IV, had traveled to Africa at the CIA's request to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Mr. Wilson later complained to reporters that the White House ignored his report that such a deal was impossible and deliberately inserted misleading language into President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
I don't take issue with any thing you've said.
The issue is that many - including OVP - took Wilson's statement as a claim of the kind of official directive or official request you are saying this is not. He didn't say that. He said that OVP asked CIA for more information, and CIA sent him to Niger. He never said OVP asked CIA to send him to Niger. It just didn't happen. Yet that contention was the basis for having to "rebut" his "inaccurate" statement.
Cheney may well have been surprised that CIA handled it this way. But that doesn't mean that what Wilson said about how CIA handled it is inaccurate. In fact, the statement quoted by Howlin' is pretty much how everyone involved says it happened.
What is the time line for the CIA's arranging for Wilson to go to Niger and for when Cheney asked for more information? 'Seems that I read that Wilson was contacted about the trip a day or so before Cheney asked for info.
I feel like Diogenes on a lucky night. At last, someone acknowledges that Wilson did not actually say what 99% of FR claims vehemently he did say.
Would you agree that the "innuendo" was brought to a screeching halt when Wilson admitted that he had no idea whether VP Cheney even knew that he was going to Niger?
Perhaps silverleaf can't, but I can. The following is an excerpt from Joseph Wilson's July 6, 2003 article in the New York Times entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa."
"It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me...In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the [CIA] that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake...by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. 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, himself, draws a direct line between the reason for his trip and the Vice President.
In the first half of 2003, Joe Wilson was running around Washington telling everyone who would listen that he went to Africa at the request of the VP. There is a mountain of evidence to this effect from a wide array of people.
In his 2003 NYT piece, Wilson couches the claim a bit more carefully than he was doing in what he thought at the time were private conversations he had with reporters. Conversations he thought would never see the light of day. Nevertheless, even while being a smidgen more circumspect in his NYT piece, Wilson publicly draws the direct line between his trip and the VP.
That's just fact. For some reason, many folks like to claim he did say exactly that. But he didn't - except, as I said, in these private conversations no one has seen recounted by the hearers.
Oh you mean because you are the only one here defending this utterly shameful prosecution and the incompetant scumbag FitzFong. Are you related to him?
Good info, thanks.
I seem to recall that last week we learned Wilson was tapped for this trip before the OFFICE of the VP asked about the info.
Such a slender thread to be used for so long, it must be getting quite tattered by now. But when that's all one has to hang a lie on... ;-)
A "uniformed"reporter??? Is that a reporter for the Stars and Stripes???
Thank you for the answer to my question to lugsoul about the time line of when Wilson was tapped for the trip to Niger vs the time that VP Cheney asked for more info. I find that very interesting and indicative of the CIA/Wilson deception in attributing the origin for the trip being Cheney's request.
Why would you consider being a stickler for facts - as opposed to just accepting and parroting completely fabricated charges - to be "defending the prosecution?" Are those who aren't "defending the prosecution" so inept that they must make up lies to attack the prosecution? Since it is so shameful and incompetent, why is it so difficult to rely on the truth in attacking the prosecution?
I haven't heard what you are claiming - but since everyone who has testified or made statements about the issue says that Wilson was sent in response to the inquiry - including the SSIC report that shreds Wilson - I'd question the premise of your question.
Just because YOU haven't heard it doesn't make it not true; in fact, your posts prove over and over you may be one of the most ill-informed posters on this site with regard to this, and many other, stories.
Or you are being deliberatly disengenuous.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781072/posts
Read it and weep.
I will find the article and get back to you.
You want me to "weep" because you are taking as Gospel truth a report which has it central premise qualifed by the phrase "Knowledgable sources speculate..."?
At least now I know what the difference is between speculation and evidence. If the outcome is the one you want, it is evidence. If it is the outcome you don't want, it is speculation.
If it is the article posted by Howlin', please note that it, on its own face, is based on "speculation."
Didn't Plame tell her then boyfriend Wilson that she was CIA on the third date?
Makes you wonder how many other boyfriends she told.
Your much vaunted speed reading skill seems to have over looked the fact that Plame's e-mail was dated February 12, 2002 and VP Cheney was informed of the African uranium matter a day later....February 13, 2002. Why did the CIA fail to turn over ALL pertinent information to the Senate committee? Hmmm?
What is your source for the assertion that the first the VP learned of all this was 2/13/02?
The DO had previously issued a report on 2/5/02. The INR had issues a report critical of the Niger reporting in October of 2001. This wasn't a brand new issue on 2/12/02.
In addition, I've seen the VP's request tagged as 2/12/02, and there are sources discussing earlier debate within the administration. Where is your definitive source that it didn't come up at all until a day later? Clarice's article states that, but doesn't refer back to anything at all. York's article refers to the morning briefing tasking - which simply does not establish that this was the initial discussion of the topic. Even York acknowledges that his theory - yes, theory - is based upon assumptions.
As should be obvious by now, I'm not a big fan of people treating assumptions as fact, and then drawing conclusions from "facts" which are not necessarily factual.
Why is it necessary to rely on assumptions and speculation to attack a liar like Wilson and a corrupt prosecutor like Fitzgerald?
You've asked us to assume that your statement that you are an attorney is true. Can you PROVE that you are?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.