Looks like John Ashcroft agrees with 70% of the American people: October 4, 1997 CNN’s “Evans & Novak” JOHN ASHCROFT: The truth of the matter is that if the law’s been violated, we should be able to ascertain that. We can, if we have an independent person without a conflict of interest… ROWLAND EVANS: …The attorney general has shaved down all the allegations that Vice President Gore apparently down to one single allegation — which telephone he used to make these fundraising calls from. Do you really think that alone is worthy of a special prosecutor? ASHCROFT: …you know, a single allegation can be most worthy of a special prosecutor. If you’re abusing government property, if you’re abusing your status in office, it can be a single fact that makes the difference on that. So my own view is that there are plenty of things which should have caused [Attorney General Janet Reno], a long time ago, to appoint a special prosecutor, an independent investigator. We asked for that on March the 13th of this year in letters from Republican members on the Judiciary Committee. And she’s in a bad position… …The man who signs her check is the man that she’s investigating, and she hasn’t been very aggressive about it.
I'm not saying you're apologizing for slavery. I meant you were apologizing for Madison and Jefferson, stating that they were creatures of their time, and thus cannot be held responsible - a sentiment which I don't find acceptable. And I still don't think Jefferson and Madison should get all the credit for taking it further. Blackstone's legal commentaries in England two decades earlier were already laying the groundwork for freedom of the press in England, and in 1771 attempts by Parlaiment to ban printings of Parlaimentary debates were ignored by magistrates and roundly shouted down by the populace. Heck, when you get right down to it, the Constitution doesn't really deal at all with freedoms of thought or ideas, until you get to the Bill of Rights, which was for a large part, merely a modernization of the 100 year old English Bill of Rights, and was not even thought to be necessary by the founders, since the concept of freedom of speech and press was pretty much accepted by 1776 (and made it into most state constitutions at that time). Still, Adams' Federalists had great fun in the late 1790s with the Alien and Sedition Act, thus belying their enlightment when it comes to freedom of thought and ideas.
You wanna know how Traitorgate could get blown wide open? The Wilsons could file a civil law suit. I thought of this a few days ago myself, but it seemed too off the wall. But John Dean (yes, that John Dean) writes in Salon suggesting this. The USSC has already established that a president can't dodge a lawsuit while in office, so it goes without saying that all of his minions can't dodge it. Anyway, I'm not lawyer, but couldn't they depose Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc? What could stop them? And Joe Wilson seems pretty pissed off about the whole thing. He just might do it. I wonder if he'll be able to find a lawyer willing to take the case?
Of course I give also lots of credit to William Blackstone. Although he was a monarchist who thought 'the King could do no wrong', he did interprete John Locke's writings in a way that opened the door for a more expansive interpretation of human rights. Jefferson and Madison owe a lot to him in their interpretation of human rights. England was not ready at the time for Blackstone's radical ideas, and he died a frustruated man. But thankfully the founding fathers of America built on Blackstone's insightful ideas and began the experiment called the United States of America.
Unfortunately, someone let Dubya wander into the lab, and he knocked over all the beakers. No, I do not doubt that our country will weather this storm, because at its essence, the legal foundation will continue to support the house of state. But there sure will be a lot or repairs to be made after 2004, and a home owner's association that will have to be mollified.
Uh, yeah, that seems to be where the bulk of superdave's information comes from. I hope he's paying royalties to Josh. It's good to see Josh has hopped on this story with the same gusto previously reserved for the South Dakota voter registration fraud scandal. Wait, I thought the entire government was full of Bush clones who only act on orders from the White House? No? So, I'm sure that if you can admit to this "larger struggle", you can admit that there's probably people in Justice independent enough to conduct an investigation. Good to see you on board...
Where did I or anyone else say that the entire government was full of Bush clones, or use this as a justification for the naming of a special prosecutor? At first glance, the idea that the existence of conflicts between CIA people and the administration's hawks tells us anything about whether Ashcroft should direct the investigation is one the dumbest things I've seen posted here in a while. But, maybe there's some hidden logic behind this comment. Can you explain exactly what the relevance of conflicts between some members of the administration's foreign policy team and career intelligence professionals and diplomats is to the question of whether Justice should run the leak probe? Please be precise and specific. Anyway, the issue isn't whether there are independent people in Justice, obviously there are. The question is whether potentially putting the most important decisions about the investigation in the hands of Bush's political appointees creates conflicts of interest. As it happens, I have no strong opinion about whether a special prosecutor is needed. If, as I've heard, Ashcroft has been a close political associate of Rove, and Rove is a focus of the investigation, then I think Ashcroft probably should recuse himself. Other than that, I don't have a reason to favor one over the other - yet.
I wonder - maybe Ashcroft can investigate Rove? After all, Rove was the republican party political campaign godfather...and under his direction Ashcroft lost to a rotting corpse. Maybe Ashcroft has a point to prove?
Not you. Others have. Because you can be certain that if there are career intelligence professionals, then there are career Justice professionals. And until something indicates they are unable or unwilling to perform the investigation, we should lay off the independent counsels and special prosecutors. It's costly and lends itself to partisanship. Fair enough. I apologize for insinuating you'd made up your mind about the need for an outside investigation.
The WaPo has an article today that makes an obvious point none of us have thought of. The leak didn't just expose Plame, it exposed the entire CIA front company she worked for.
Here is a comment by Kerry: 'They cannot find Bin Laden, they cannot find Hussein, and they cannot even find a leaker in the White House.' And you say this is not about politics? Lets not be naive. 'In the White House?' Kerry, if you know something the rest of us don't, please make it public.
Why can't the Bush administration find out who leaked the information? If President Bush were as serious about getting to the bottom of this as you claim, asf, he would've done it by now. There can't be that many staffers that would know or have access to the information about Plame. Then it's a matter of going through the phone logs to find out who called Bob Novak. But he hasn't done that yet. I wonder why?
You are conviniently assuming that it was one of his staffers. Maybe it was somebody who has nothing to do with Bush. And I suppose that the implication by Kerry is that he also doesn't want to find Hussein and Bin Laden. This is a political issue.
Nice try at the spin. Sucks for you, though, that I could look up Novak's original column and find the following paragraph: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me. Oooops. How about just flat-out incompetent? Like the Republicans wouldn't have lynched Clinton already if he'd done something like blow a CIA operative's cover for political gain.
Yeah, I mean, this is so much worse than maintaining a database of FBI file information on your enemies.
My God you people are unbelievable. This woman was not only undercover, she was deepcover; the most dangerous kind of work the CIA does. She put her life on pretending to be an Energy Analyst for a CIA front company while secretly working keeping WMD's out of the hands of terrorists. If her cover was blown while she was out in the feild she would be dead. Killed. Immediately. And someone within this administration burned her cover; that is beyond question at this point. Someone put her life, the lives of other agents, and the national security of our country in peril by an act of pure political revenge and intimidation. I can't think of a worse crime. Yet when Democrats call for an investigation of this insidious act; they are accused of being partisan? What planet are we on? People keep talking about Clinton this and that as if it were somehow relevant, and Rush and Hannity refer to it as a "non-story". Are you people on crack? Whoever exposed Mrs. Wilson committed a traitorous act that has made us all less safe. Why would any American not want to expose this person and put them in prison regardless of who it is? Now, Bob Novak in part with right's sleazy and inaccurate attempt to attack Wilson as democrat partisan makes a big deal of his political donations through the Wilson's tax records. Patriot Bob then outs the CIA front company Mrs. Wilson worked for, compounding the damage done by his original article. Is he a traitor or just the dumbest person alive? In their pathetic attempts to discredit Wilson, the right has done even more damage to national security. Somebody needs to stop these people because it has become obvious they value their political agenda's more the safety and security of the American people
Then tell me, why did Joseph Wilson put his wife's name on his "Who's Who in America" biography more than a year ago? Everyone in Washington knew his wife worked for the CIA.
Umm...the fact that Wilson's wife existed was not the secret. The secret was that she was an undercover CIA operative. So unless he listed her occupation as "undercover CIA agent" it's not even close to being relevant. The CIA and the Justice Department have already determined that harm was cause by the leak. That is a necessary step before instigating an investigation. And that raging democrat John Ashcroft has already begun the investigation. This point is moot. It's over. Accept it.
www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-boot2oct02,1,1002955.story I cannot believe my eyes. For once, the L.A. Times printed something that I believe to be right. This is not an article by a writer who is friendly to the administration. He does take shots at Republicans regarding the Whitewater investigation, and he does make the argument that there is a real scandal in what he calls 'The failures of our intelligence community.' But it is an intelligent way to look at this issue. Because people need to register to read the story (and I don't necesarily like to encourage anybody to register to read the propaganda machine that the L.A. Times usually is), I have copied the relevant parts of the article that deal with the issues we are discussing here. I agree with its main points, and especially with the idea that these attacks are mostly politically motivated. I have been saying the same, but this columnist is more eloquent than I am and makes a better argument. But I'd like to hear the comments of those who dissagree with Max Boot. What is wrong with what he is saying, in your view? CIA Leak is a Poor Excuse for a Scandal By Max Boot Excerpts: The democrats seemed to have learned a valuable lesson from Republicans about how to attack a popular president. First, take some complicated incident that no one outside the beltway understands. Trumpet it as a 'scandal'. Denounce the president as the biggest scoundrel this side of Spiro Agnew. Demand that the FBI, an independent counsel, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and every gumshoe under the sun investigate this shocking breach of ethics. Then sit back and watch the election results roll in. It was a surefire winner for the GOP with Whitewater. That's how Bob Dole became president in 1996, right? No doubt this strategy will work equally well for the Democrats today as they desperately try to turn the tale of Joseph C. Wilson IV and his Mata Hari wife into a full-blown scandal. ....... At the request of the CIA, the justice Department is now investigating. But the media and the Democrats won't be satisfied until some sort of special counsel is appointed, even though the independent counsel statute was euthanized by both parties a few years ago. By all means lets have an inquiry. If in fact someone in the administration deliberately leaked the name of a CIA undercover operative, he or she is a creep who should go to the slammer. But it is far from clear that this leak was intended to 'silence' Wilson (which it certainly hasn't), much less to harm his wife, as he alleges. It is true that these kinds of revelations can cost lives, as they did in the 1970's when renegade CIA agent Philip Agee blew the cover of some officers operating abroad. But by all accounts, Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is not operating undercover abroad, at least not at the moment. She seems to work as an analyst at Spook Central in Langley,VA. Naming her is still wrong, but it is not the equivalent, as former Nixon councel John Dean suggested, of setting up a 'hit' on her. It may not even be illegal because the statute in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities protection act, covers only a 'covert agent' who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States.' It is not clear whether Plame fits that description. All this is murky, not nearly as clear-cut as the 'scandal' brigade would have us believe (sort of like Whitewater). ....... At worst, who said what about Joe Wilson's wife is a minor scandal. The failures of our intelligence community constitute a major scandal that is not getting nearly enough attention.
It is a felony, right? See, this is the same way I look at 9/11. Whether or not this is a scandal is, for citizens, wholly irrelevant. The question is "is there a crime here?" Likewise, the question surrounding 9/11 must be about the crime, finding the criminals specifically responsible, and bringing them to justice. Both the notions of scandal in the former, and the invasion and overthrow of two governments in the War on Terror in the latter have nothing to do with the question (and currently, the failed resolution) surrounding law that's already on the books, and needs to be *#*#*#*#ing APPLIED by the sham of an Attorney General we have...
Max Boot, the expert quoted by the L.A. times is saying that the leak may not even be illegal. Are you disputing his assertion because you know the law in question better than him (The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act) and you can prove that he is wrong? Or are you just typing a personal opinion in the internet based on your feelings of hatred towards Bush?
I'll take a stab at it. I'd disagree that this is a complicated issue that no one outside the Beltway understands. Blowing an agent's cover for political gain is a pretty straightforward charge. I agree with him on this. I was glad to see the Independent Counsel go and it would be hypocritical to demand on now. However, IF Ashcroft fails to fully investigate this, or god forbid tries to sugar coat it and cover up for the guilty parties I reserve the right to call for one in the future. Because he works for the same admistration he is investigating he will have to bend over backwards to prove he's doing his job and not being pressured to clear people prematurely. I kind of agree here to. I don't think it was done to silence Wilson so much as to silence others at CIA. Let's take a step back and look at the context here. Before the war the adminstration pressured the CIA to release an updated NIE to Congress. In that NIE all of the ambigous statements and reservations that analysts had about Iraqi WMD's were removed leaving only a bunch of worst case estimates and scenarios. This was done to scare reluctant Congressmen and the public into supporting the war. This summer, after the fact, this story started coming to light. There was a very real possibility that Wilson would be the first of many who had actual inside knowledge to come forward and reveal just what dirty tricks were played, or at least what information the administration held back from us ,(which in my mind is the same thing) to get it's war. In that it has been eminently successful. No CIA or other analysts have come forward publicly to say "here is the full picture as we knew it last winter", instead we've had to rely on off the record sources and hints from Congressmen who've seen both NIE's (full and doctored) but are prevented from revealing full details. This part is nothing but spin in my opinion. I've yet to see any kind of source to back up the "she's only an analyst" line. It seems to have appeared out of thin air as a post-hoc way to minimize the damage of revealing her name. I know very little about CIA but I don't think agents cross some line back and forth from Operations to Intelligence. If you are an analyst I'd think that you work for CIA at Langley looking at data, not for some other company doing their work and being a secret employee of CIA. None of us know for sure whether she was an analyst or an agent, but the fact that CIA asked Justice to look into it lends credibility to her being an agent. I'd call his interpretation of the law a best case defense. It relies on her being an analyst instead of an agent (to avoid the "hit") and not having worked undercover outside the US in five years. A worst case reading would have it that she is an agent, was out of the country very recently and now everyone she has met with along with her are targets for retribution from those she may have exposed as bad guys. I would say that at BEST what was said about Joe Wilson's wife is a minor scandal. At WORST her and many more lives have been put at risk and our national security may have been compromised by burning an agent and her sources, along with the front company they used and whatever sources & methods this knowledge will allow to be exposed. I'd agree that our intelligence failures are an issue, but I'm not sure it's a failure to find information so much as a failure to make sure those who act on the information are looking at all of the info not just that which they want to see.
I am glad that you agree with that. Other critics of the administration are already convicting Ashcroft on this issue before he gets a chance to do anything, based probably just on their personal dislike for the man. Let us wait, and if we ever see irregularities in the investigation, then that would be the time to criticize. That is why I believe the democratic leadership is wrong about this. They are convicting prematurely, and it is logical to conclude that it is being done just for political reasons. They are tripping over each other to see which of them can gain the most from this so called 'scandal'. Nate P, I think in general your criticism of Boot's article was fair. My only mild criticism of what you said is that I think you are only speculating about what her job at the CIA is, just as Boot himself is doing. We don't know if this lady's job is as an analyst in the US or as an operative in a place where she'd be in danger, (which would make the leak illegal). We'll probably never know what her job is, unless somebody else leaks more information, and I doubt the democrats who are throwing dirt know what her job is either. Obviously if somebody is charged, then we may use our deductive reasoning to guess about her job, based on the penalty that the leaker gets. But for now all we can do is speculate. My hope that we are not speculating merely for selfish partisan reasons.