Blogcritics Comments on In the Middle: CIA Leak Case

Comment by Eric Berlin

Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:04:08 EST

Thanks Victor! It's like a good old fashioned gothic novel... or something. If we assume that Libby is guilty of at least some of that which he is accused, the question then becomes: was he a one-man band, or were there others involved in a systematic effort to destroy opponents to the administration's war policies?

Comment by Victor Lana

Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:55:00 EST

The epistolary method employed in this post makes it enjoyable to read. This is intelligent discourse. Wonderful! Thinking about all that has happened this week, it seems a given that Mr. Cheney knew what was happening; perhaps good old Dick even started by playing telephone. So it went from Dick to Scooter to Jane and Spot and then on to... If Cheney didn't know, then he's not the Darth Sidious I think him to be, yet that still doesn't stop W from being Anakin; but wait, his descent into a Mustafar-like hell awaits. I apologize to those who are not "Star Wars" fans.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:34:50 EDT

Based upon your thoughts, Phillip, I'll certainly be keeping a close eye on Clinton / Bayh / Kerry / Edwards / Richardson, etc. For the last few months up until now, the Dems have been in the very unusual position (for them) of sitting back and watching an unfocused, besieged administration spin itself out of control. Libby's indictment and Miers's withdrawal ended a phase. The next that comes will be fascinating to any student of politics and anyone interested in what's going on in the country.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:40:17 EDT

Almost all of the DNC's most likely candidates for 2008 voted in favor of invading Iraq. Howard Dean runs the risk of alienating the leaders of his party if he pushes the issue. They'll rely on certain quarters of the press to do the digging, I'm pretty sure of it.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:42:52 EDT

Ah, I see. I disagree though -- I think there will be many who will link them, including those who were against the war all along like Howard Dean, Russ Feingold (a pres. nomination hopeful, some say), etc. It *is* up in the air as to whether that argument will stick. I think it has stuck already -- particularly because things aren't going all that well over there -- and it will penetrate the conversation more over time.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:38:41 EDT

EB, I simply meant that many in the press seem to be the ones linking this story with Iraq specifically, which many Democrats aren't going to want to do.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:36:43 EDT

DJR -- You're right on in saying that no one really knows how all of this is going to play out. That's why I wrote here (I think) that the White House reaction in trying to start with a clean slate and teh mood of Washington, the media, and the public in allowing them to do that will be very very interesting. The White House has a large number of built in advantages in changing the story, of course. The new Supreme Court nomination will be very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if a super right wing conservative with top credentials gets picked so the mood gets changed to Repubs vs. Dems again. From a pure politics point of view, this would have been a smart move on the first go round with Miers.

Comment by DJRadiohead

Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:58:28 EDT

Interesting we mention Sandy Berger on this thread. Unlawfully removing classified documents? There is a story that slipped through the cracks. It's also ancient history, so I am going to stop banging those drums. I remember back to the first week when Drudge broke the Lewinsky story (or helped break it) and all of the DC-insiders were hyperventilating about how this administration might not last through the week. I remember that clearly- I think it was Sam Donaldson who might have said it. Anyway, the insider crowd got all in a tizzy and Clinton managed to navigate through an impeachment and trial in the Senate. People actually went to jail in the White Water scandal. Poor Webb Hubbell was in some kind of trouble every 12 minutes. Somehow, those scandals and the incarceration of the Clinton confidants didn't land on the Clintons. Should they have? I don't know. But they didn't and a lot of insiders were sure they would. Iran-Contra before that. DC reporters and insiders have a very different cadence than the rest of the country. Sometimes these things catch fire but they often don't.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:39:05 EDT

Phillip, what Democrats are involved in the outing of a CIA agent and possibly misusing documents and information in the lead-up to war? I think this is way way more than a "press story."

Comment by Phillip Winn

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:29:20 EDT

I think it obvious that many press sources are *hoping* it's the beginning a full-court press on the invasion of Iraq in general, but I don't think it will gain ground outside the press. Again, too many people on both sides of the aisle are involved.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 22:10:33 EDT

Phillip -- The more I think about it and listen to clips from the press conference, the more I'm convinced that we're seeing the beginning of a process, and not the end of it. That's not to say there's going to be indictment after indictment, but this is a guy who is absolutely hard-wired to get at the truth. And I think he's really pissed off that Libby lied and obstructed the investigation.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:24:28 EDT

By the way, listening to the press conference today, I was amused to note that one reporter asked about my first question today: "Did the withdrawal of Harriet Miers yesterday have anything to do with the timing of the indictment today?" (paraphrased) Fitzgerald said no. Honestly, I rather got the impression that Fitzgerald wanted more from the grand jury, but didn't get it. Just an impression.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:22:52 EDT

Indeed, oil company profits seem to underscore the fact that while markets may be efficient, they aren't so efficient in a timely matter -- or rather that they're efficiently separating us from our money!

Comment by Eric Berlin

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:41:51 EDT

Feel free to post the (clickable) link here, Nancy -- as you can see we have lots and lots of stories being posted everyday. And thanks!

Comment by Nancy

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:36:27 EDT

There already is a good one: "Exxon, Shell post record profits". Check out the listings of current blogs on this website.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:18:20 EDT

Oil profits could easily make for an entirely new post or three. (Hint!)

Comment by M. Jeffrey

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:12:35 EDT

I really must agree with Nancy and I believe her description is generous. The current hall of shame is a national embarrassment, and unnecessarily lowers our esteem in the rest of the world. This nation should not be a model for corruption! How can we take any kind of moral stand with this morass that is about us! I would like to read comments regarding the recent oil company profit declarations. Seems that in the "blind trust" department, at least the President and Mr. Cheney has more transparent instruments, as the quarterly profits are declared on the evening news, than as compared to Mr. Frist.

Comment by Nancy

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:20:40 EDT

In the interests of fairness, Eric, I would have been just as acerbic on Dems, & I have been, but the only one I can think of immediately who has run afoul of the law is Sandy Burger. & I consider him a slimebag, too. So they're equal opportunity slimebags. That's only fair. Thanks.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:57:59 EDT

Nancy, there was no bad language. Trail of slime comes close... but I was jumping the gun a little, you're right.

Comment by Nancy

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:55:47 EDT

I WAS civil; I used no bad language. Is it now politically incorrect to review how many republicans have been indicted or arrested for various offenses? If they can't stand the heat, maybe they shouldn't commit the crimes?

Comment by Eric Berlin

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:34:41 EDT

Nancy -- Once again, we're really trying to keep things civil here, and throughout the political section really. DeLay and Frist are not part of the Bush administration, but of course they share the same party. With what we know at present, I don't think Cheney can be charged as a leaker... but the continuing investigation into a possible conspiracy (Libby was charged with "conspiring to obstruct justice") could possibly end up tying in the Vice President.

Comment by Nancy

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:21:36 EDT

Let's see: let's tote up the Bush admin Hall of Shame, thus far, shall we? Abramoff, DeLay, Ellis, Frist, Libby, Safavian ... who else? I know I've missed some. The interesting thing is, that Libby wasn't even on the horizon (as far as the MSM & public were concerned) until the last minute, so to speak. Now, Libby's notes stated that he got his info on Plame from Cheney, which certainly implicates Cheney as the actual source of the info, if not the actual leaker. Mmmm ... and the trail of slimie leads right up into the W.H. ... dare we speculate, right into the Oval Office itself? Sic semper tyrannis.

Comment by Eric Berlin

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:13:08 EDT

To respond to both of your comments, DJR, I think things are just beginning. Rove is still under investigation, and the media focus will only intensify now that the Vice President's top aide (!!!) has been indicted. The White House will try desperately to "turn the page" -- and the Miers withdrawal was likely part of that -- and we'll see if that works. In any event, the Bush administration is retreating on multiple fronts after four plus years of drubbing everyone and everything that stood in its way.

Comment by DJRadiohead

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:20:09 EDT

Oh I think it has now turned into something. Now we'll see what that something is.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:09:00 EDT

Libby was indicted, so we'll see if this turns into anything.