29.9.03
CIA "approached" DoJ in July over Plame leak
According to today's WaPo, the CIA had "approached" the Department of Justice over the Plame leak within one week after Novak's journalistic disaster was published in July. As TPM points out, exactly what "approached" means here is unclear - but it is safe to say in any event the CIA has been making some moves to get the DoJ to investigate this issue for over 2 months, without satisfaction. Cover-up?
The WaPo article provides a clear picture of Bush's idea of responsibilty:
Rice, almost certainly unintentionally, gave a clear indication in a Sunday morning interview with Fox's "Git" Hume of how the White House expects the DoJ - led by Bush appointee John "No Tits, Please" Ashcroft - to deal with the investigation:
So much for the WaPo and Fox - let's see how our buddies at the NY Times, the "Newspaper of Record", covered this major story today. Oh! My goodness! What a shocker! Not at all in their print edition - there's no article in the Washington/Politics, National, or International sections! We do, however, find this dinky little AP article on the website.
UPDATE: Ok, I see that the NY Times does have an article on the issue, which has been combined with the House Intelligence Committee's review of Iraqi WMD intelligence. But something like this should have its own article, with a clear headline - which the Times does not feel it merits. It seems they are trying to pass this under the radar.
Good job, guys. If you aren't getting a check from Bush and Co., I suggest that you get in touch with them posthaste. Service like this should come at a price.
According to today's WaPo, the CIA had "approached" the Department of Justice over the Plame leak within one week after Novak's journalistic disaster was published in July. As TPM points out, exactly what "approached" means here is unclear - but it is safe to say in any event the CIA has been making some moves to get the DoJ to investigate this issue for over 2 months, without satisfaction. Cover-up?
The WaPo article provides a clear picture of Bush's idea of responsibilty:
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on "Fox News Sunday" that she knew "nothing of any such White House effort to reveal any of this [Plame's identity], and it certainly would not be the way that the president would expect his White House to operate."A noble sentiment - according to Rice, Bush expects his underlings not to fuck with other people's lives and endanger national security through criminal leaks revealing the identities of undercover agents. But compare Rice's vision of an ethical White House to this:
... [White House] aides said Bush has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role in revealing the name of an undercover officer [Plame] who is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, one of the most visible critics of Bush's handling of intelligence about Iraq.So... on the one hand, Bush expects that White House staff members won't act in underhanded, criminal ways - but, on the other hand, if they happen to do so, he has no plans to find out about it, much less hold the responsible parties accountable for their actions.
Rice, almost certainly unintentionally, gave a clear indication in a Sunday morning interview with Fox's "Git" Hume of how the White House expects the DoJ - led by Bush appointee John "No Tits, Please" Ashcroft - to deal with the investigation:
But let's just see what the Justice Department does. It's with the appropriate channels now, and we'll see what the Justice Department - how the Justice Department disposes of it.(Emphasis added)Right... "dispose of it" right into the memory hole.
So much for the WaPo and Fox - let's see how our buddies at the NY Times, the "Newspaper of Record", covered this major story today. Oh! My goodness! What a shocker! Not at all in their print edition - there's no article in the Washington/Politics, National, or International sections! We do, however, find this dinky little AP article on the website.
UPDATE: Ok, I see that the NY Times does have an article on the issue, which has been combined with the House Intelligence Committee's review of Iraqi WMD intelligence. But something like this should have its own article, with a clear headline - which the Times does not feel it merits. It seems they are trying to pass this under the radar.
Good job, guys. If you aren't getting a check from Bush and Co., I suggest that you get in touch with them posthaste. Service like this should come at a price.
