« TPM Cafe vs. The Decembrist | Main | Now That Ms. Huffington Has Come Out and Said It... »

07/22/2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Neil the Ethical Werewolf

This is a spin that Rove's lawyer, the world's dumbest Luskin, briefly tried to use.

Man, that's harsh.

Kagro X

Even if we were to accept the notion that the IIPA was intended solely for Phil Agee types, the operative phrase is that such types seek to "impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States."

It's not what comes immediately to mind when thinking about the Cheney cabal, but take the special venom they reserved for intelligence community skeptics of their war plans and justifications (see Bolton's serial harassment, and the Plame outing), combined with the "stovepiping" allegations from Sy Hersh, and reconsider them in this light.

It doesn't look nearly as much like "just politics" viewed through the prism of Toensing's very own IIPA.

There are legitimate methods of restructuring and redirecting the intelligence community's mission. Bypassing them, dismantling the vetting process, and ultimately betraying covert operatives and entire cover operations should they present contradictory intelligence are not among them.

fnook

Hate to get all gratuitous and nasty, but these people are pathetic hacks. I mean, check out diGenova's mustache: http://www.digenovatoensing.com/bios.htm.

TomHilliard

Keep in mind that when a top official speaks on background, even "double super secret background," he's asking to be quoted without identification. If he wants to say "you can't use this," he'll ask to go off the record. While Rove did seem to be warning Matt Cooper off the Wilson story, he was also offering up blind quotes for that same story.

emptywheel

Mark,

Maybe you can help me out with a classification question. As I point out in this post, in addition to mentioning Plame's identity in his first column, Novak also identified the source of the Niger documents as SISMI. That information had appeared in a WaPo article the previous March, sourced to someone at the UN (and, interestingly, the GOP was trying to blame Wilson for being the source of that information). But the information was definitely considered sources and methods by the CIA; the classification of the Italian source--and not any squeamishness about the Niger claims themselves--is the reason Bush didn't name Niger specifically in the SOTU. And as recently as the SSCI report, CIA seems to be treating the Italy-as-source info as still classified.

So here's my question. The fact that a (presumably) non-US citizen identified the Italian source wouldn't affect that information's status as classified, would it? So if Novak's source knowingly leaked the Italian source to Novak (in addition to Plame), that would be another illegal leak, right?

Of course, there's a delicious irony here. The reason CIA would still treat that information as classified after it had been leaked by someone else is to maintain their credibility with their source, to stay on good terms with SISMI so they could continue to share information. This is the same reason journalists don't burn their sources. So Judy Miller and a bunch of other journalists have been protecting a source who by the act of leaking was burning his own source.

Cole

And so this parade of fools just goes on and on. I am incensed about the fact that this administration thinks that the public is so stupid as to believe the statements they are making. But then I remind myself that a lot of people are still proud that they voted for Bush. So there ya' go.
It's not a matter of one offense. When you add up all of the bad acts committed by this bunch, it's apparent that they hold Machiavellien principles dear. And they are hurting the country in the process.

lou carney

both of these clowns make me sick!!!!

DJBaker1537 (seeTPMCafe)

In the interview Toensing said this:"You know who's really responsible for this whole mess? The Press. It's the press that demanded an independent counsel." And independent counsels always make a big deal of things and seek indictments that aren't justified.
(Emphasis mine)

Someone in the blogosphere was limning Andrew McCarthy's article in NRO last Friday, 7//22, who was commenting on Cliff May's article in NRO that Matt Yglesias commented on on TPMCafe.
McCarthy's article is really a piece of work; he cites Cliff May's article, but interestingly, he also cites an Amicus Brief filed on behalf of "the media" I took the time to actually read who wrote the amicus brief on behalf of "the media", and gee, to my surprise it was [drumroll.....] Victoria Toensing.

McCarthy's article also quotes an article from "just the facts ma'am" [hah!] Bill Gertz of the Washington Times. Not surprisingly, his article is a thinly sourced piece of crap, quoting "anonymous administration sources." Not to my surprise, what does Toensing cite in the Amicus Brief as one of her sources to make the claim that "Plame was not covert" Why, yes, it would be Bill Gertz's piece in the Washington Times!

I hope that Scaife doesn't pay these guys by the hour because it seems like they all get their ideas from each other.

Zach

Thank goodness, I now have a source for two competitions that I've been trying to follwo "Worst partisan hack disguised as impartial legal expert" and my personal favorite "World's dumbest Luskin".

Who knew there would ever be a question as to who the World's dumbest Luskin is?

Zach

global yokel

It's becoming more obvious each day that the GOP strategy for dealing with Plamegate will be to try to cut Fitzgerald off at the knees. It looks to me like he has the goods on a group of high administration officials, and they know it. A continuing investigation will be a political and legal disaster for BushCo and the GOP.

I'm afraid that we are headed for a very serious constitutional crisis, in which the administration essentially tries to halt a legitimate inquiry into real crimes.

The comments to this entry are closed.