Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Rank amateur speculation

Libby Did Not Tell Grand Jury About Key Conversation

The previously undisclosed June 23 meeting between Libby and Miller, their telephone conversations of July 8 and 12, and Novak's July 14 column occurred during an intensive period in which senior White House officials were scrambling to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was then publicly asserting that the Bush administration had relied on faulty intelligence to bolster its case for war with Iraq.

How does this square with the "heard it from reporters" defense? Suppose that Cheney and Libby were the driving force in digging up info about Plame. Libby and Rove do the grunt work of spreading the info to reporters. Between the two of them, they play a game of "second sourcing." As in, "I don't know (wink, wink) who first told you about Plame, but I can confirm that, off the record of course."

That's when this First Amendment charade starts. Protecting sources, when those sources were playing the reporters for suckers the whole time.

Larger discussion point: Is "arrogant" the most appropriate word for this whole scandal? How else would one describe an illegal, yet petty and foolish, act of disclosing the identity of an undercover agent?

And will anyone be following up with any of the Kool-Aid drinkers who have said "it was only politics," or "she wasn't really undercover," or "Fitzgerald is an out-of-control prosecutor"?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just cruising the blogosphere and came across this great blog - excellent articles - Amon
If you have a moment please take a look at my site: Discount Cruises

Wed Oct 12, 09:01:00 AM EDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home