Posted on 12/05/2004 4:30:47 PM PST by Snapple
One intriguing possibility, noted by several lawyers familiar with the case, is that Novak may have invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and that Fitzgerald has not yet chosen to give him immunity from prosecution to compel his testimony.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And your point for that?
Let me make this plain: Facts matter not to the group trying to bring down President Bush.
My point remains: Someone at the CIA leaked the existance of the August 6,2001 PDB and furthermore they mischaracterized it as "Bush knew".
That is what happened.
Of course there is a record that completely debunks it. Enemies of the president chose to ignore that record in favor of the evil spin. And it persisted right up until Condoleezza Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission.
My point was to document the 1999 document as part of the Bush Knew argument and how it affected Hilary.
The 1999 Document could be said to prove that "Clinton Knew." So Hilary shut up. I have no problem with Bush knowing information that I don't know. He didn't have anything specific. He had the same sort of information that was in this open source 1999 report. So the government and politicians all should have known. The CIA told them in this document but nobody took it seriously. That is because a lot of the CIA experts on Osama are women. The government and Army blew them off.
1999 Report Warned of Suicide Hijack
By John Solomon
Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 17, 2002; 12:57 PM
WASHINGTON –– Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.
"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.
The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al-Qaida might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.
The report noted that an al-Qaida-linked terrorist first arrested in the Philippines in 1995 and later convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had suggested such a suicide jetliner mission.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33312-2002May17?language=printer
You say it is my error to blame the White House. The special prosecutor is questioning the people at the White House. I think the leaker was at the White House because of Novak's slips and becasue of whom the prosecutor is questioning. He questioned Bush, for example, and the President had a criminal lawyer with him when he gave evidence.
Fitzgerald, the prosecutor seems to be looking at some timing issues. The White House may have seen Novak's artile on line before it appeared in the papers and then told others what Novak wrote, since it was already published.
We all know how it affected Hillary. She knowingly lied and waved around the New York Post shrieking "Bush knew?! Bush knew WHAT?!"
The fact that later she was challenged with documentation showing she could well have leveled the same charge at her spouse does not change what she did or the calculated reasons she did it.
And btw, I've read all the articles that you keep posting. They are informative but off point from this particular discussion.
This shows how Robert Novak is a hypocrite:
When he was on Capital Gang, Novak said:
"I'd like CBS, at this point, to say where they got those documents [about Bush's National Guard Service] from....I think they should say where they got these documents because I thought it was a very poor job of reporting by CBS."
Resident liberal Al Hunt jumped in to clarify. "Robert Novak," he asked, "you're saying CBS should reveal its source?" When Novak replied that he was, Hunt pressed him further. "You think reporters ought to reveal sources?" In a flash, Novak realized he had made a mistake; he began to backtrack. "No, no, wait a minute," he said. "I'm just saying in that case."
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20663/
I have pointed out the WH was not told about Wilson's trip and therefore could not have leaked what they did not know.
You still haven't addressed that simple fact.
That Fitzgerald is speaking to people who have been smeared in the media as "possible leakers" does not demonstrate the baseless charge is therefore true. So far he is succeeding in clearing those who were lied about. Scooter Libby, for example.
I started this discussion. If you think it is off-topic, start your own thread. I am talking about what I want to talk about and I am going to do it for ever and ever and ever and ever.
Um, the CBS documents were shown to be FAKES, therefore the source would not be one that deserved protection.
I am the one keeping your thread on the original topic. You keep throwing in extraneous points that are irrelevent.
I'm not going anywhere (well, literally I do have some errands to run, but I'll be back!).
You are silly to claim the White House didn't know.
Maybe they didn't know when Wilson was picked, but after he started writing columns about how Bush was lying they would have found out pretty quick.
They would have called the CIA and asked why Wilson, a Democratic activist, was sent on a mission for the CIA.
I am quite correct per George Tenent and the 9/11 Commission.
Maybe they didn't know when Wilson was picked, but after he started writing columns about how Bush was lying they would have found out pretty quick.
Do I really need to point out that would be after Wilson's wife was referred to a mere week later?
Bush was in Africa that week (he left the weekend Wilson's op-ed was published---we immediately expected this was by design of Wilson and the Times--and returned the next week around the time Novak's first column was published), so you can be sure they had other things to deal with than worrying about the likes of Joe Wilson. Ari Fleischer's briefings were uncharacteristically lacking in information, buttressing the fact that the WH hadn't a clue as to what Wilson was yammering about.
In March, at the ultimate Washington insider event – the annual Gridiron Club dinner – Novak starred in a skit about the Plame leak. Dressed in a top hat and cut-away coat, the columnist hammed it up in front of an audience of his peers, crooning to the tune of "Once I Had a Secret Love." Novak sang off-key about outing "a girl spy" thanks to "a secret source who lived within the great WHITE HOUSE."
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20663/
LOL
He was joking about the CHARGES. He'd already said on tv his source was not from the WH (as you've been told repeatedly).
Were you there?
He has claimed White House in his own columns.
Prosecutor is investigating the White House
http://www.theocracywatch.org/cia_leak_times_apr2_04.htm
Mr. Fitzgerald is said by lawyers involved in the case and government officials to be examining possible discrepancies between documents he has gathered and statements made by current or former White House officials during a three-month preliminary investigation last fall by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. Some officials spoke to F.B.I. agents with their lawyers present; others met informally with agents in their offices and even at bars near the White House.
The White House took the unusual step last year of specifically denying any involvement in the leak on the part of several top administration officials, including Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, has repeatedly said no one wants to get to the bottom of the case more than Mr. Bush. (excerpt April 2, 2004 NYT)
Why are you so dead set on defending the CIA, anyway? You're their rah-rah gal/guy on every related thread. What's your interest there?
It's not like you can defend them based upon performance (they've missed every significant foreign event in history) or ethics (they leak like a sieve), after all.
The FBI is focusing on the White House as the probable source of the unauthorized disclosure of the identity an undercover CIA officer and has asked staffers to sign a form releasing reporters from any promises of confidentiality they may have made to their sources, NBC News has learned.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3840566/
Yes, I'm well aware of the conventional talking points.
I think I've made that plain.
Special counsel Fitzgerald has persuaded a federal judge to hold both Miller and Cooper in contempt of court for refusing to testify about conversations they had with WHITE HOUSE officials about Plame’s identify....In pressing his case that both Miller and Cooper should be jailed if they don’t testify, Fitzgerald has invoked the waiver statements signed by the WHITE HOUSE officials as evidence that whatever “reporters’ privilege” the journalists are claiming no longer applies.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6630166/site/newsweek/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.