Part one here.
R. Jeffrey Smith wrote back with this:
it's not an allegation on the part of Fitzgerald. it's an account of testimony by a senior White House official, which the White House did not dispute (and does not dispute). in fact, you might have noticed a companion
article quoting a White House official defending what Libby asserted was
done. a second companion piece delved into the issue of the legality of
what was done (my piece was intended to recount it, not judge it). finally,
there really is no debate, as i understand it, that the nie sentence cited
in your letter below remains unproven. feel free to contact my colleague
dafna linzer (her addy included here) if you want to contest the point. but
you'd be going out on a limb, i think.
To which Hubster responded:
Mr. Smith,
Thank you very much for taking time to respond to me. I know you must
have a hectic schedule and I really appreciate your feedback. If I may
impose on your good nature a bit more, I would like to respond to what
you said.
First, I must apologize for not choosing my words more carefully when I
first wrote to you with respect to the issue of the Bush
administration's motive for releasing selected parts of the NIE document
in question. I agree that the move was a calculated effort to rebut
claims made by Wilson and others, but what I should have said is that I
am uncomfortable with the characterization of it as a personal attack
against Mr. Wilson. This is not to say that it couldn't be for this
reason but merely that I haven't seen any incontrovertible proof that
this was a personal vendetta on the part of the Bush administration.
As far as the testimony by a senior White House official you referenced,
it appears that you are referring to Mr. Libby's testimony:
"Fitzgerald's new account is based on Libby's grand jury testimony that
Cheney told him Bush had authorized the declassification and disclosure
of some of the information."
If this is indeed the case, then I feel that we are getting closer to
the source of my frustration. Mr. Libby has been indicted for perjury
and obstruction-of-justice yet there seems to be a double-standard with
respect to judging the truth of what he has said. To rely on an alleged
liar as an accurate source for information on the motives of the Bush
administration seems ill-advised. Furthermore, consider Mr. Libby's
current predicament:
- resigned from his prestigious and well-paying career position
- indicted for perjury
- drowning in negative media coverage
- his former boss, Vice President Cheney, hasn't come to his defense
- financially draining legal expenses that continue to rise
If one takes the position that the Bush administration lashed out at Mr.
Wilson personally simply because of some bad press regarding the Iraq
War, then it only seems reasonable to apply the same logic to Mr.
Libby's situation and conclude that his testimony is a personal attack
against his former employer. After all, Mr. Libby's life is in disarray
over this issue to say the least whereas the Bush administration was
merely dealing with more of the same negative press they have received
since day one. If I were in his position, I would be extremely upset
with being left hanging by my former employer. I don't think it's a
stretch to conceive that Mr. Libby would do or say just about anything
to get himself out of this mess, especially if one gives merit to the
notion he lied and obstructed an official investigation to keep himself
out of it in the first place.
Aside from conjecture as to Mr. Libby's personal motives, there was also
this very interesting part of what I think you referenced as your
companion article:
"Libby, who was indicted last year for allegedly lying to the FBI and a
grand jury about what he said to reporters about his contacts with the
media, wants the materials because he thinks they will show that his
misstatements were innocent and did not stem from an orchestrated
administration campaign to discredit Wilson, according to his court
filings."
If I understand you correctly, Mr. Libby has gone on record as saying
that there was no attempt on the part of the Bush administration to
attack Mr. Wilson personally. If we compare this official statement to
the testimony you referenced in your article, then it appears that they
are at odds with one another. As a result, Mr. Libby appears to be
sending mixed messages if this is truly the case. Stating there was no
vendetta and then testifying that there was doesn't help his
credibility, nor does it help end the debate regarding the motives of
the Bush administration.
This is why I am uncomfortable with using Mr. Libby as a source for
pronouncing with certainty that the release of the NIE information was
merely an effort to smear Mr. Wilson. If someone would produce a
disinterested third party that had knowledge of the events surrounding
the information release that would go on record, that would be one
thing. Instead, I seem to be unable to find anything other than
references to an alleged liar, an arguably partisan Special Counsel, and
various unnamed sources.
This is why I wanted to write you. I feel it is important for every
citizen to hold all government officials accountable for their actions
regardless of political party affiliations. However, I want to be
careful not to unfairly criticize anyone without first possessing all
the facts. It's what I would expect from others if the roles were
reversed. If there is additional information that supports the notion
that the Bush Administration smeared Mr. Wilson for personal reasons, I
am very interested in hearing it. Any additional information you may
have that supports this view would be greatly appreciated.
As to the issue of how your article portrayed the legality of the
President's release of information contained in the NIE in question, my
only criticism, and it was really meant as more of a comment, was that
it seemed more ink was used outlining Democratic partisan posturing over
the incident than what I would've felt was appropriate given the
situation and your rationale for writing about it. Regardless, I
appreciate the clarification and understand better why you wrote what
you did.
Finally, with respect to the question of whether the CIA really believed
Iraq was trying to procure uranium, my original intent was to ascertain
the names of the sources you were citing in your piece. At the time,
from what I can gather, the CIA had an idea that it might be true but
was unable to make a definitive determination as to the authenticity of
the claim. In that respect, they did have cause to believe that the
report may have had merit. If memory serves, the British government
report provided the strongest evidence and that is what President Bush
cited in his State if the Union speech. In any event, according to the
CIA's web site, there seemed to be a collective belief within the agency
that Iraq was pursuing WMD whether or not they had actually sought
uranium in Africa. Here are some links:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr07112003.html
In my continued pursuit of more definitive information on this topic, I
will most definitely contact your colleague Ms. Linzer regarding this
issue and I want to thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I
just wanted to let you know why I said what I did.
As I said in the beginning of this letter, I am extremely grateful for
the chance to discuss these issues with you. As a student who is
currently taking a course in United States History covering modern
times, this exchange has definitely been very exciting. Talking about
current events that are shaping our history with a professional like you
is a rare opportunity and I hope I haven't consumed too much of your
time.
To which R. Jeffery Smith replied:
your letters are polite and thoughtful -- two rare qualities in most
of our reader mail. i do think you should not get hung up about libby's credibility
on this one issue -- the leaking of information to undermine wilson -- because the white house does not contest it. notwithstanding all the legitimate reasons to
question his remarks, this one has not been disputed. cheers, jeff smith
Hubster wrote a very eloquent letter to the Washington Post today regarding this article written by R. Jeffrey Smith. I liked it so much I asked his permission to post it here. Hubster said yes... so here it is:
Mr. Smith,
I read your recent article dated Friday, April 7th, 2006 entitled, “Bush Authorized Secrets’ Release, Libby Testified: Prosecutor Says Disclosures on Iraq Were Aimed at War Critic” and I wanted to ask for some clarification.
I noticed that the title of the piece clearly mentions that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald asserts that the “leak” of certain classified information from an NIE document was meant to directly undermine Ms. Plame’s husband, however I found it interesting that you seemed to regard this assertion as proven fact throughout the article. Here are examples of the kind of remarks to which I refer:
“But in the past 33 months the White House has never disclosed Bush's apparent involvement in the deliberate disclosure of information meant to undermine Wilson.”
“The revelation of Bush's role in the disclosure effort set off an intense political debate yesterday over the propriety of the White House's use of intelligence information to undermine a critic.”
“That NIE contained information that Bush and Cheney felt would rebut Wilson's claims about the exaggeration of Iraq's nuclear threat.”
In each case, you appear to be framing the allegation on the part of Mr. Fitzgerald as proven fact. To my knowledge, the assertion that this “leak” was meant to specifically discredit Mr. Wilson is nothing more than conjecture. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be very interested in hearing it. For the record, I am not trying to say that there isn’t the possibility of this allegation actually being true. After all, anyone can see that such a move would be beneficial to the Bush Administration’s position with respect to Mr. Wilson. I am simply hesitant to categorize this as fact until a substantive link is established. Right now, absent any further evidence that may not have been divulged in your article, it appears to only be an allegation that has been erroneously characterized as hard fact.
Another aspect of the piece I found worthy of mention is a slightly out-of-balance characterization of the release of previously classified NIE information on the part of the President and Vice President. In your article, I found only one sentence that spoke about the undisputed fact that the President and the Vice President have the authority to do exactly what they have done. This portrayal seems a bit lean on support of established law and a bit heavy on partisan noise-making. You and I both know the reasons why any administration would seek to alter the way in which information is released to the press and ultimately to the public. To leave the current administration undefended to such a degree on this issue is something I feel might have been a bit unfair.
The last point I want to raise is with regard to the following part of the article:
“Libby told Miller, among other things, that the NIE concluded Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure uranium,’ according to Fitzgerald's filing. In fact, the CIA did not believe this allegation, which came from the Defense Intelligence Agency and remains unproved to this day, according to intelligence analysts.”
It would be extremely helpful if you could name these intelligence analysts. You have done an excellent job of providing details in the article which is what made this particular section stand out in contrast. I have heard there are some within the CIA who do would disagree with what you have written so if this is truly more than just the musings of some unnamed sources, I would be interested in some additional information in order to put the issue to rest with the help of some supporting facts.
Overall, I enjoyed your article and look forward to hearing from you with respect to my remarks. The Washington Post seems to be more balanced than many other media companies and for that I thank you and those who work to maintain the quality of journalism I have come to expect.
He of course signed it, but I'm going to leave that part off of it here. I'll let you know what the response is, if any.
It seems that my favorite kitty that I don't own is in need of positive thoughts and prayers again. This was left by Mrs. Catscape herself, Barb, in my comment's section:
"Just an update on Shamus for you. He had to go back to the vet's a couple of days ago. He's developed an infection in his urinary tract, plus he had an allergic reaction to something (not sure what) which we're treating him for with antibiotics and shots. Keep on sending those positive thoughts and prayers. He's a trooper. :)"
You can count on my get well vibes for Shamus. He's so cute I just want to give him many scritchin's. I am sorry I didn't get this up here sooner.
You scored as English. You should be an English major! Your passion lies in writing and expressing yourself creatively, and you hate it when you are inhibited from doing so. Pursue that interest of yours!
What is your Perfect Major? (PLEASE RATE ME!!<3) created with QuizFarm.com |
Apparently I could have a career in theater... Yeah, I can do self absorbed. :)
shamelessly stolen from Mad Mikey
Just in case someone has found themselves wondering why people are still making such a "big deal" over what happened that sunny day of September in 2001 - take a listen over here and tell me again how these people deserved what happened to them. I dare you to listen to these voices and tell me that they were all just "little Eichmanns." I dare you to tell that to the families that still mourn them.
Thank you Riehl World View for hosting these.
I will never forget.
Hubster pointed me to an article at Townhall written by Ollie North concerning the prejudicial non-hiring practices going on in this country towards the men and women that serve/served in our armed forces. Since I haven’t had any coffee yet and can’t work up a mean spirited rant against the stupidity against this sort of anti-military mentality… well, I will just give a little passage from Ollie:
"While preparing a documentary on the medical treatment our wounded warriors receive, a representative of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) told me that while health care and rehabilitation for those who have been injured has vastly improved since the Vietnam era -- the "real scandal is how many veterans of this war are unemployed." I initially thought he was referring to those who had been injured by enemy fire -- but he quickly educated me: "You don't have to be wounded in action to be 'unemployable.' Just to have served in this war makes it tougher to get a job."
Unfortunately, he's right. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the national unemployment rate is hovering around 4.8 percent. But for veterans of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), the unemployment rate is more than three times higher -- 15.6 percent. Why?
Part of the answer is found in the fact that so few corporate executives and personnel managers are veterans themselves. Couple that with a drumbeat of adverse publicity about the war, a mainstream media fixation on military "atrocities" and the constant harping about post-traumatic stress disorder -- PTSD -- and one has to wonder how any war veteran gets hired. On a recent flight to Texas, my seatmate, a corporate CEO, asked if "all the troops coming back from 'over there' were 'screwed up.'" He cited a study alleging that, "more than a third of those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan needed psychological treatment." The actual number -- according to the American Medical Association -- is 35 percent -- a figure compiled by psychiatrists who have made diagnosing PTSD a self-employment program."
I can't believe that after all the enlightenment about how horribly the Vietnam Vets were treating and how the civilians are so pro-military now, why this is happening. I've been fortunate in my life to have worked with many Vets and a majority of them are hard working no-nonsense nose to the grind stone folk. To deprive them of and opportunity to make decent money after their time served is just asinine. Anyway, Ollie says it much better than I ever could - so go read the whole thing. And then, if any of you are looking to hire someone or know of a business that needs people, direct them to this site: