Who are the journalist who could step forward and be influential in pursuing the truth? Any names you wish to share?

Let's cut the bullshit.

The Rove-Wilson-Plame thing is just the cover-up of the underlying crime of fraud.

The underlying crime were the lies used to push the Iraq War.

What was the relationship between the NYT & WP and the underlying crime?

The NYT and WP helped create and push the lies. They were co-conspirators in the original crime.

So let's not act surprised when the co-conspirators act as partisan spinmeisters when talking about the cover-up.

And Judith Miller has strong self-interest to make Fitzgerald's investigation die with the minimum number of casualties. She could be destroyed if Fitzgerald hits a homerun. And in any case every indictment and conviction shortens her rolodex of contacts by one. 

I'm going to have to take a bit more time posting rather than rish in between things.  Sorry.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/bush-admin-may-be-responsible-for.html

On the Reader's Blog "Rove's Story Hits the Papers," Foxhunter made a very interesting find (sorry I don't know how to link to his comment).  He found the following web sites that show what the White House was saying on July 9, 2003 about Wilson and the fake Niger evidence used in the State of the Union:

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/2003/july/071002 .html  --or--

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/07/wh070903.html
Some of the most intersting quotes from Ari Fleisher include:

FLEISHER:  "But there's a bigger picture here, and this is what's fundamental--the case for war against Iraq was based on the threat Saddam Hussein posed because of his possession of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological, and his efforts to reconstitute a nuclear program."

and

"But, again, this is why I go right back to the bigger point, why did we go to war.  We went to war because of chemical weapons, biological weapons."

(Hmmm.... That isn't what the White House has been saying recently about why we went to war)

FLEISHER:  "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."

(Shouldn't the ones proposing to go to war be the ones to have proof of the reason they are claiming to base their case for war on?)

FLEISHER:  "It's important to understand whether one specific sentence based on yellow cake was wrong, that does not change the fundamental case from being right."

(Actually, when the evidence is fake, that may be a good indication that maybe your case for war is fake too).

Holy smokes. Is this correct? I remember the scandal that some felt the US admin leaks sort of blew the british operation. If so, and the British media cover it..... that's going to get UGLY. The Brits are already pissed off enough.

BTW, off topic but anyone notice that the early British denials of AQ involvement, sophistication of attacks, etc was a lot like Spain's conservative Govt initial denials? Wonder if a political shit storm is brewing over that in London.

David Brooks claimed again tonight on the Lehrer News Hour that Joe Wilson had been going around claiming that the Vice President sent him to Niger.  I expected Mark Shields, who is usually right on point, to correct him, but he let it slide right by without a comment.  How can we ever win a point if we concede every slander made against us.

The Judith Miller confusion is amazing, and quite systematic to progressives.  I posted something saying that much of the left, who -- condemning Miller as a sellout and/or law violator -- decide that it isn't the progressive position to oppose forcing the divulgence of sources.  This is Uttar Pradesh, as they say in the Himalayan foothills.  It doesn't matter what a shill or media whore or traitor or tool of Bush or whatever you think she is.  Progressives supported the incitement case that let a KKK mad dog off the hook for incitement, because of the precedent issue.
This also happened when the NAACP Legal Defense Fund rightly wrote a brief supporting a white woman alleging reverse race discrimination against the University of Florida, supporting her on the issue of not being blocked by the 11th Amendment from bringing her noxious case into federal court.  YOU MUST LOOK AT THE RULE AND PRINCIPLE INVOLVED NOT AT THE PARTIES.
This isn't rocket science.  I posted this point at DU and got 14 people all hollering at me that I had my head up my W on this issue.  Bob Fass at WBAI repeats the same nonsense about what a slime Judith Miller is -- 'she's no Peter Zenger' he tells me last night on WBAI.  These are often sophisticated  arguments put forward by sophisticated people who have had this point  just made as clear to them as it is here.  MANY PROGRESSIVES, IN A PATTERNED CHORUS LIKE ON TAWANA BRAWLEY, HIV NOT BEING A VIRUS RELATED TO AIDS ETC also do the same about the idea of forcing a reporter to reveal her confidential sources.  THIS IS A DAGGER AIMED AT THE HEART OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!

    In another post, I argued with Gitlin that we can't consider TIME to be craven as they are up against the entire state.  If they are brave enough to do the right thing and put their institution on the line, good -- but that can't be considered the minimum ante, given how courts fine unions etc.  It's not that I wouldn't like to see TIME and Cooper stand up, or that I believe this disclaimer stuff (that can be forced on everyone in a department, crushing whistleblowers).   It's that we permit in our society much higher levels of cravenness that I DO condemn than this instance of judging when to hold em and when to fold em.  It was unconscionable that liberals were unwillling to expose the flipflop spin or the lie of Matt Bai or to make like clams and up during the lockdown of Votergate.  But this?  Hey -- show us all how brave you are!  I'm "cloudy" and I'm the real cloudy (etc), and I have a list of 'bravery' chores for you -- guaranteed you'll get both vilified and screwed for telling these truths.  And ain't no one with the courage to stand up and be counted when and where it matters -- take it from moi, that much I know.

OK, but who's got the bravery to expose this chorus of protestation coming from ostensible leftists, selling the Tory politics of the doctrine of seditious libel or picking it up from their sophisticated colleagues and not looking deeper.  Sure, some will argue, and well, that Judith Miller is right to defend a reporter's right to shield sources, or that HIV is indeed a virus.
But who has got the courage to point out the phenomenon of the chorus of protestation on these issues, and not just to protestate otherwise.   Bravado and cravenness go together like toasted poppy seed fresh bagels and unsalted lox & nice REAL cream cheese.  YUMMMMMMMMMM

<i>I consider it remarkable that a Republican prosecutor (Fitzgerald) is actually moving forward with his investigation,</i>

You and Karl Rove both.

Leave-no-finger-prints Rove must be shocked, just shocked that Cooper recorded and stored his comments on his computer, that Cooper caved on revealing his sources and that Fitzgerald does not know his place.

 Sorry Karl, some things are beyond your control.

I have a "moderate submissions" area but none to see "hidden comments".

you used to be able to at least view them.  That way one could confirm that they are indeed crap.  I don't doubt that posting is a privilege, but that is something where transparency wouldn't diminish the quality of the board, if the comments are placed and kept in a special "hidden" box, you have to be curious and want to see to open.

Personally I trust the host of this site and the mods. I hope they streamline the experience. Not to make it an echo chamber, but to keep trolls and generally unintelligent comments off. I don't want to see, hear, or smell them.

I REALLY don't need another place to see lots of random opinions. There are plenty of those, and a large part of posts in most fora are just redundant, knee jerk garbage that's a waste of time for each reader to puruse.

I want a place to see some good opinions and plenty of weeding is fine and even appreciated by me. And no that doesn't mean I think my posts are all brilliant and will always qualify. =)

If the hosts of TPM Cafe let it turn into a another forum haunted by trolls and Freepers, I'll be very dissapointed becasue they let it. They're too internet savvy to be unaware of the liklihood. The only thing stopping that is active moderation.

The NYT and WaPo need to redeem themselves because they haven't had a real Watergate, since well Watergate. 

Well, I ain't holding my breath that they are going to redeem themselves on this case Nick.  The press has been beaten down over the years by the Right and don't want the beatings to continue.  As far as I can see they (the MSM) have collectively lost their heart to fight.  We need media Pitbulls but in reality have Yorkshire Terriers in the "Press Corpse" (as Todd so aptly referred to them in his post).

True, and beleive me I'm not holding my breath. I can't tell you how much I loathe most of the MSM as vapid, lazy, over-fed, bums.

However, I'd be negligent if I didn't mention FOX, Limbaugh and such are far worse, being additionally nihilistic, and rotten to the core.

If the MSM is bad becasue they're lazy, FOX is bad because they're truly sick individuals gathered by Murdoch, Mr. Rt Wing Fanatic and Remoreless Plutocrat Baron Himself. (do you know the lobby to FOX HQ in LA has a 30 foot tall image of his thumbprint hanging over everyone in the lobby. No kidding, I've been there, it's nuts.)

The reason why FOX is effective is simple: they know where thier allegience lies: Big Bussiness.

They're bought, they're paid to lie, they know it, and they have no regrets.

By comparison people at the NYT actually have some journalism ethics, and want to be "good" but just don't have the back bone in this corrupt system. Some of them aren't exactly hungry, they're living the good life with a lot of access to power and glamour, and don't want to rock the boat or jeopordize that for abstaract concepts they barely remember from journalism school.

It's easier to gain access to the powerful by being a mouthpiece, puch the clock and collect paychecks. Take Judith Miller. What a tool!

However, my point was that ultimatly they stop doing good journalism and they lose value. So, ultimatly with some nudging from the consumer public, they do have to shape up. 

You wrote ... "I was a registered Republican till '89. I don't recognize the party of my youth any more."

Don't feel bad. I became a Democrat in 1960, and I don't recognize the party of my youth either! :(

At that time the WH press corp should have been badgering and jeering Fleisher and saying what David Gregory said to McClellan this week "C'mon Ari, this is ridiculous!"

So far I am very pleased with this blog. I have little time for reading pure partisan ranting covering the same old ground. (we know Bush, Cheney and Rove are lying scumbuckets. tell us something new or tell us something old in a clever way)

I see that commenters here generally tend to add a bit more thoughtful insight than you tend to get in other venues. And often, there is a good bit of sharing of solid facts and evidence. In that sense it tends toward being more of a wiki than most forums.

Todd,

I'm not a partisan hack rushing to Rove's defense for pay.  I'm just a lawyer who tries to look at the available evidence and apply legal training and experience to evaluate it regardless of where that may lead.  First of all, we do not have knowledge of all of the evidence or even potential legal issues that the Special Prosecutor is finding and evaluating.  Given that, everyone should be circumspect in their conclusions, take a deep breath and refrain from hyperventilating.

However, based on available information, the biggest attack on Joe Wilson's credibility comes, not from Karl Rove and his supporters, but the Report of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.  It points to a number of instances in which his description of his findings to Committee staff differed from that of the CIA's accounts of those findings. (Report, p. 44)

"Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled the former ambassador (Mr. Wilson) saying 'he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on." (Report, p. 42)

The bottom line in the controversy between the CIA interpretation of Mr. Wilson’s report to them and Mr. Wilson’s personal conclusions and that of the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) seems to be the following.

CIA concluded that a visit from an Iraqi ambassador to Niger indicated an attempt to purchase uranium. Mr. Wilson reported discussions with the former Prime Minister of Niger as confirming that the Iraqi delegation wanted to expand commercial relations with Niger. The former Prime Minister "interpreted ‘expanding commercial relations' to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." For the CIA this confirmed their conclusion that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium in Niger. (Report, p. 43)

 

The Select Committee concluded that "The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal ...." (Report p. 73)

On the other hand, INR analysts believed that Mr. Wilson’s report “supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.” (Report p. 73) This arose from a belief in the State Department that France adequately controlled the sale of all uranium from Niger and would not allow sales to rogue states such as Iraq. State also believed that Niger would not trade with a country under UN sanctions. (Report, p. 44)

"Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled the former ambassador (Mr. Wilson) saying 'he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on." (Report, p. 42) Thus, INR and Mr. Wilson had such faith in France and Niger that they would prevent any sales of uranium to Iraq.
Of course, this does not speak to the issue of whether Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger, the concern of CIA.

Mr. Wilson’s report of his conversations with the Prime Minister confirmed the CIA that Iraq had, in fact, attempted to purchase uranium from Niger regardless of whether an actual sale occurred or whether Niger could deliver uranium if a contract were entered into.

It seems to me that in assessing the risks of Iraq, the more critical issue is whether Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger rather than whether it could have, in reality, done so. Thus, the CIA conclusion more specifically speaks to the real issue rather than the INA assessment and the personal conclusion of Mr. Wilson.

Why is this the case? If Iraq were seeking uranium from Niger, it indicates an active nuclear program and a desire to have nuclear weapons. Niger was not the only potential source for either. Even if the French were successful in closing the door in Niger, Iraq could have purchased uranium elsewhere and conceivably could have been seeking to buy a nuclear weapon from someone.

One may quarrel with the conclusions of the CIA and INR. One may suggest that the Administration overreacted to the CIA reports.  One may also suggest that State's suggested reliance on the good offices of France and Niger to prevent sales of a profitable product may have been misplaced.

However, as fully recognized by the bipartisan Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the British report of Lord Butler Committee, both the CIA and British intelligence found that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium in Africa. That may or may not have been correct, but no one lied regarding the intelligence findings.


Cheers.

I assume you are referring to my comment.  With respect, you need to read the Senate Select Committee Report and Lord Butler's report.  They clearly conclude that the CIA and British intelligence fully supported the President's State of the Union address and PM Blair's statements.  In fact, according to the Senate Report, Mr. Wilson's findings supported the CIA opinion regarding Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium in Niger.

The intelligence agencies' assessments may or may not have been wrong.  However, they fully supported the statements of the Administration that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium in Africa. Neither the President nor anyone in the Administration lied.  Again, because they made their statements based on CIA conclusions, they may or may not have been wrong, but they did not lie.

If you want to dispute the findings of the bipartisan Senate Seclect Committee on Intelligence and Lord Butler's Committee, you need to bring forward real evidence and not merely shout, "Liar, liar, pants on fire" as you seem to be doing now.

Cheers.

Dear Abu:

Do see Josh Marshall's post at http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/16/131822/358.

TG