anchor link to jump to start of content

The Seattle Times Company NWclassifieds NWsource Home delivery Contact us Search archives
Your account  Today's news index  Weather  Traffic  Movies  Restaurants  Today's events

Between the Lines

March 05, 2004

Plame investigation reaches top levels of the White House

It’s the scandal that just won’t die. The federal grand jury investigating who leaked the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame has now subpoenaed the telephone records of Air Force One, the presidential jet, for the week before Robert Novak outed Plame in his column.

“The subpoenas underscore indications that the initial stages of the investigation have focused largely on the White House staff members most involved in shaping the administration's message on Iraq, and appear to be based in part on specific information already gathered by investigators, attorneys said Thursday,” reports Tom Brune of Newsday.

Translation: they know who did it and are looking for further information to bulk up their case.

It is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine, to intentionally or knowingly disclose the identity of an undercover agent. Intent and knowledge are difficult concepts to prove legally, so investigators are most likely looking everywhere they can for evidence of it. The scuttlebutt from the beginning has been that Bush administration officials had called a half-dozen reporters to circulate Plame’s name in an attempt to discredit the criticism of the administration's Iraq policy by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. In 2002, Wilson went to Niger at the behest of the CIA to check out reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium "yellow cake" to develop nuclear weapons. He reported that Iraq sought commercial ties but that businessmen said the Iraqis didn't try to buy uranium.

Wilson, by the way, has written a book scheduled to be published in May that he says will disclose who leaked his wife’s name.

Besides the Air Force One phone records from July 7-12, when Bush was on a tour of Africa, accompanied by Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and then Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, the grand jury subpoenas sought other information that points to high-level involvement in the Plame matter:

-- The complete transcript of a White House press “gaggle” – an informal briefing – by Fleischer on July 12 in Nigeria. It is missing from the White House web site that normally posts the transcripts. During this session, Fleischer discussed Wilson and his Niger report. (There is a transcript from a day earlier, in which Rice also touches on the Wilson mission.)

-- A list of those who attended a White House reception on July 16 for former President Gerald Ford's 90th birthday.

-- All documents from July 6 to July 30 of the White House Iraq Group, whose existence has only been publicly discussed once, in this Washington Post story. The group met weekly in the Situation Room, the Post said, and its regular participants included senior political adviser Karl Rove; communication strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; policy advisers led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen J. Hadley; and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

After this investigation runs its course it will be interesting indeed to get the story behind the story. Even without all the underlying detail, two things seem clear: The administration has tried to minimize this scandal since day one and the CIA has pushed hard to have it pursued to the end. So far, the CIA seems to have the upper hand.

Posted by tbrown at 12:29 PM

Bush’s TV ads

I’m not going to get into the detail of the good taste/badtaste, sensitive/insensitive, acceptable politics/slimy politics arguments about Bush’s new TV ads, which you can watch here. What I wonder is why the Bush campaign decided to make images from 9/11 part of its first TV blitz. Someone – Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, for instance – had to have known that the ads would be controversial. So Bush and his aides must have calculated that a little controversy would on balance be more of a plus than a minus.

Were they right? Or was this a substantial miscalculation?

I think they were right. I’ve watched the ads and they just don’t strike me as the kind of thing most Americans are going to think is outrageous. (I readily admit I might feel differently about this if a family member or friend had been killed in the 9/11 attacks). Some viewers may, perhaps, be aggravated that one of the disasters of our age is being used for blatant politics, but those folks are probably Democrats anyway.

So I expect it’ll be kicked around for a few days and then will slide into the big, public memory hole and vanish. And if Bush gets away with it this time, it will help clear the way for what the Republicans apparently really want to do: use Ground Zero as a backdrop for some really blatant politicking during the GOP National Convention.

Footnote: I will say that Bush’s use of these images is quite hypocritical for two reasons: his stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation and the administration’s ban on photographing flag-draped caskets of dead GI’s as they arrive at Andrews Air Force Base. But, then, campaigning and hypocrisy all too often stroll hand in hand.

Posted by tbrown at 12:23 PM

Jim McDermott on Biblical marriage

I missed this, but last week, after President Bush advocated passage of a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage, U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle had a little to say about marriage as it is outlined in the Bible. Here’s the text of his brief presentation on the House floor:

“Mr. Speaker, the President's presidential prayer team is urging us to ‘pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles.’

“With that in mind, I thought I would remind the body of the biblical principles they are talking about.

“Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. That is from Genesis 29:17-28.

“Secondly, marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. That is II Samuel 5:13 and II Chronicles 11:21.

“A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. That is Deuteronomy 22:13.

“Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. That is Genesis 24:3.

“Finally, it says that since there is no law that can change things, divorce is not possible, and finally, if a married man dies, his brother has to marry his sister-in-law.”

Posted by tbrown at 12:20 PM

 February 2006
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28        

November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003

Plame investigation reaches top levels of the White House
Bush’s TV ads
Jim McDermott on Biblical marriage


Blogs to watch

Abu Ardvark
Andrew Sullivan
Atrios Eschaton
Best of the Web
Drudge Report
Joe Conason (subscription required)
Josh Marshall
Kaus files
No More Mr. Nice Blog
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
The Volokh Conspiracy
The Whiskey Bar

Mideast blogs

Salam Pax (Iraq)
G. in Baghdad
L.T. Smash (U.S. military in Iraq)
Lady Sun (Iran)

City blogs

L.A. Examiner

Africa blogs

Cathy Buckle

Media blogs

Dan Gillmor's eJournal
Media Whores Online


Newspapers online (guide to papers on the web)
International Herald Tribune
The Guardian U.K.
New York Times (free registration required)

Economy blogs

Brad DeLong

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2 home
Home delivery | Contact us | Search archive | Site map | Low-graphic
NWclassifieds | NWsource | Advertising info | The Seattle Times Company


Back to topBack to top