|
story lede: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the chief of staff to
Vice President Dick Cheney, has told federal investigators that he met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July
8, 2003, and discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to legal sources familiar with Libby's account. The
meeting between Libby and Miller has been a central focus of the investigation by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald
as to whether any Bush administration official broke the law by unmasking Plame's identity or relied on classified information
to discredit former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, according to sources close to the case as well as documents filed in federal
court by Fitzgerald. The meeting took place in Washington D.C., six days before columnist Robert
Novak wrote his now-infamous column unmasking Plame as a "CIA operative." Although little noticed at the time,
Novak's column would cause the appointment of a special prosecutor, ultimately place in potential legal jeopardy senior
advisers to the President of e United states, and lead to the jailing of a New York Times
reporter. story lede: White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove did not disclose that
he had ever discussed CIA officer Valerie Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper during Rove's first interview
with the FBI, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter. The ommission
by Rove created doubt for federal investigtors, almost from the inception of their criminal porbe into who leaked Plame's
name to columnist Robert Novak, as to whether Rove was withholding crucial information from them, and perhaps even misleading
or lying to them, the sources said. Also leading to the early skepticism of Rove's account
was the claim that although he first heard that Plame worked for the CIA from a journalist he said he could not recall the
name of the journalist. Later, the sources said, Rove wavered even further, saying that he was not sure at all where
he first heard the information. story lede: The special prosecutor investigating whether any Bush administration
official may have violated federal law by leaking the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak recently
informed a federal court that his investigation has been “for all practical purposes complete” since October 2004.
The disclosure by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that he completed virtually all aspects of his federal grand jury
investigation as long as six months ago was made in court papers the prosecutor filed on March 22. Despite the fact that the
filing has been on the public record since then, it has previously been unreported. Fitzgerald made the disclosure
in explaining why he considered the testimony of reporters for The New York Times and Time magazine so essential
to his inquiry. Reporters Judith Miller of the Times and Matthew Cooper of Time have already been found to be in
contempt of court for refusing to testify before the special prosecutor's grand jury. Attorneys for both news organizations
have appealed the contempt citations. story lede: Attorney General John Ashcroft received numerous detailed briefings
last year regarding the criminal investigation of the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA agent's identity, during which
he was told specific information relating to the potential culpability of several close political associates in the Bush administration,
according to senior federal law-enforcement sources. Among other things, the sources said, Ashcroft was provided extensive
details of an FBI interview of Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's chief political advisor. The two men have enjoyed
a close relationship ever since Rove advised the Attorney General during the course of three of Ashcroft's political campaigns.
The briefings for Ashcroft were conducted by Christopher Wray, a political appointee in charge of the Justice Department's
criminal division, and John Dion, a 30-year career prosecutor who was in charge of the investigation at the time. Neither
Wray nor Dion returned phone calls seeking comment for this story. The briefings raise questions about the appropriateness
of Ashcroft's involvement in the investigation, especially given his longstanding ties to Rove. Senior federal law-enforcement
officials have expressed serious concerns among themselves that Ashcroft spent months overseeing the probe and receiving regular
briefings regarding a criminal investigation in which the stakes were so high for the Attorney General's personal friends,
political allies, and political party. One told me, "Attorneys General and U.S. Attorneys in the past traditionally recused
for far less than this." story lede: Upon a first reading, the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigatory
report on Iraq seems certain to be a document of seminal and historical import; even in the present day, it may transcend
our penchant for 24-hour news cycles, our increasingly truncated attention spans, and our capacity to be inured to any new
disclosure of deception by our government. That is because, simply, the magnitude of the deception recorded
therein may have led the nation to fight a war it might otherwise not have fought had the truth been known. The Senate
report concludes that every rationale advanced by President George W. Bush -- before the American people; before the Congress
that authorized him to go to war; and before the international community, most notably in the February 5, 2003, address by
Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council -- was based on either faulty or exaggerated intelligence,
outright fraud, or deception. In some instances, if the report is correct, blame falls squarely on the CIA; its “group
think,” as the Senate report describes it; its risk adverse insular culture; and its reluctance to challenge not only
its own longstanding notions but also those of a president so intent on war. In other instances, it is open to interpretation
as to who was more at fault: our intelligence agencies, President Bush, or a too credulous Congress and news media. Unfortunately
a second phase of the investigation, which will examine the role of the Bush White House in pressuring the CIA and other agencies,
the misuse of intelligence by the White House, and whether senior administration officials misled Congress, will not be completed
until well after the November elections.
|
