It's Not a Game
The last few weeks, the headlines have finally been screaming the news regarding the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity, an ethical and moral crime (if not illegal) that took place two years ago, yet is just now receiving press. So much for the media... Still, it definitely deserves to be aired, despite the delay in coverage.
What with the maelstrom of coverage these days, I managed to get into a debate of sorts on another blog. I've thoughtfully pulled the entire debate and placed it here for you.
* * * * *
Ha, here are the facts we know:
-Matt Cooper approached and talked with Karl Rove
-Karl Rove warned him that Joe Wilson was a liar, and that the trip to Niger was not arranged by the top honchos at the CIA or the VP office, but by his wife, who he did not name specifically
-Wilson denied this point, saying that his wife had no involvement whatsoever, however, the Senate Intelligence Committee panel came up with a memo typed up by Valerie Plame encouraging that the CIA pick her husband, a Clinton administration holdover, for the trip, proving that Joe Wilson lied
-Rove did not know that Plame was a covert operative
-Plame was not working in the field for more than 8 years
-Plame's name was mentioned on Joe Wilson's website before Rove even talked with Cooper
What Rove did was tell Cooper that Time magazine should not go too far in taking Joe Wilson seriously, and Cooper's notes show just exactly that.
Also, Scooter Libby, VP Cheney's assistant, told Fitzgerald that he learned of Plame's name through another reporter.
My hunch is that Miller does not want to admit that she was the one who disclosed Plame's name to Libby. Why in the world would Miller, a partisan liberal, want to protect Karl Rove, the devil incarante?
Rove is being smeared for telling the truth?
A good deed does not go unpunished here in Washington, DC.
Christian | 07.13.05 - 12:05 pm | #
This whole bit about Wilson is a red herring. It's rather simple and comes down to this:
1) did Karl Rove leak information about Valerie Plame and her occupation?
2) If he did, it was admittedly for partisan purposes, and at best was totally unethical and unacceptable; at worst, it violated the law and put people's lives at risk. It also counteracted the whole purpose of intelligence: keeping spying and information-gathering secret.
3) the White House made it clear in 2003 that such leaking is unacceptable and whoever was responsible should no longer be a part of the administration. Even if Rove did not break the law, what he did was unethical and unacceptable; Bush's silence suggests that he condones the leak. Is that acceptable? I don't think so.
To wit: even if Wilson was totally wrong, it's a distraction from a very simple issue. Did a leak occur? Yes. Who was the leaker? Once that is firmly established, the leaker should be held responsible.
Mr. Sandman | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 1:51 pm | #
Mr. Sandman,
It may help you if you would refer to the law in question.
Ok, the law in question is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 USC 421 et seq.). It punishes one who 'intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States . . .'
Mr. Sandman, was that too obtuse for you? If so, let me further clarify this law. In order to convict someone under this law, i.e., Mr. Rove, the following elements must be met:
1.) Intentional disclosure
2.) any information identifying such covert agent
3.) knowing that the information identifies the agent
4.) the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to protect the identity
Do we know that Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent (notwithstanding the fact that Plame was not technically 'covert' at the time)?
Do we know that the information given by Rove identified Plame outright?
Were the United States taking affirmative measures to protect her identity? [Notwithstanding the fact that her name was on Joe Wilson's public website before Cooper talked with Rove.]
Furthermore, was Rove's disclosure an intentional act?
Again, Mr. Sandman, are ALL of the elements met?
If not, go away, and bring me a dream...
Christian | 07.14.05 - 12:50 pm | #
Christian,
no, I didn't find it obtuse at all. Attending and graduating from law school does not magically confer an individual with increased intelligence or some secret ability to comprehend legal language.
That said, let's go through your points:
1.) Intentional disclosure
As far as we know at this point, Rove was discussing Wilson, and either trying to discredit Wilson or, as the notes and e-mails indicate, "warning" Cooper not to go "too far out" on Wilson; if I really wanted to warn or discredit someone, I could do that without dragging that person's wife into it. There was no need under any circumstances other than retaliation to bring Valerie Plame into it.
2.) any information identifying such covert agent
The key word here is "identifying." Any protestations that Plame was not specifically *named* ring hollow; merely revealing that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent when Wilson is a public figure is an easy fact to follow up on and verify. In Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America," he is listed as having married Valerie Plame. While her occupation is (obviously!) not listed, verification of her IDENTITY is not impossible. You or I could have done it with the same helpful and leading indicators. Again, what need is/was there for Rove to do this?
3.) knowing that the information identifies the agent
This can be a little tricky, and this is where a lot of people are going to get thrown. But it's not that tricky, really. Let's look at it. Rove can and probably will deny that he knew Plame worked for the CIA, let alone undercover. Yet he is high enough in the administration he probably had knowledge of that information. But let's be charitable and assume he didn't have firsthand knowledge of that information. Who then told Rove about Plame? If this is true, then that person is equally culpable for this whole mess.
Now, whether Rove had firsthand or second-hand knowledge of Plame's identity, it still comes back to this: why reveal it at all? Why put Plame's work in jeopardy? Why put her life in jeopardy? She was heading a CIA front company that was operating under a bogus cover as a legitimate company. That means all the people under her are at risk as well, and the company's cover is blown.
4.) the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to protect the identity
I would think being a NOC (Non-Official Cover) officer in the CIA, that the CIA and by extension the U.S. government has a vested interest in taking affirmative measures to protect Valerie Plame's identity and the identities of the people under her. Whether she was working at Langley at the time or out in the field, she was *still* UNDERCOVER at the time she was fingered as CIA. In fact, it was the CIA that requested that this matter be investigated once her identity was revealed.
Again, what good did it do to reveal who Valerie Plame really was? Nothing other than retaliation for Wilson's findings regarding the manufacturing o
Mr. Sandman | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 2:57 pm | #
I knew it was long, but didn't realize it was THAT long!
--------
Again, what good did it do to reveal who Valerie Plame really was? Nothing other than retaliation for Wilson's findings regarding the manufacturing of WMD, which the administration didn't like.
So to recap: whether first or second-hand, Rove knew Plame was CIA; his only logical rationale for blowing her cover was political retaliation. Rove stated that Plame was "fair game." Even if he didn't break the law, he definitely violated ethical and moral codes. Why expose undercover agents and operations? Why undermine your own governments' intelligence-gathering efforts?
Sure, I'll bring you a dream-- nightmares okay with you? :)
Mr. Sandman | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 3:04 pm | #
Mr. Sandman,
Address this startling admission by Joe Wilson on the Wolf Blitzer Show yesterday.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANS.../14/ wbr.01.html
-----------
Key quote:
BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.
What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
-----
Pretty much makes everything moot?
In order to be a covert agent and make all of this applicable, one must have been out in the field within 5 years of the 'leak.' At the time of the leak, she was a desk worker at the CIA offices in Langley and was there since 1998.
Joe Wilson is leading you all on a frog march towards irrelevancy.
Christian | 07.15.05 - 9:06 am | #
Christian,
again, a red herring. Ultimately, this isn't about Wilson. It's about playing politics with national security. As I said before, even if no law was broken, it's still ethically and morally wrong to expose a CIA agent and CIA operations (which is what happened once the "company" Plame worked for was exposed as a bogus front for a CIA operation).
As it is, I read the transcript you linked to above. You're cherry-picking here.
Now, why do I say that? Because of one very important fact: the CIA requested this be investigated because they believe a crime may have been committed.
Based on this incident and the CIA's request, Fitzgerald was appointed as special prosecutor. He would not be continuing this investigation and maintaining the grand jury if there wasn't a case. Valerie Plame has to be an operative or there is no case.
Additionally, Fitzgerald would not have been pushing Cooper and Miller to reveal their sources and potentially destroying the prerogatives of the Fourth Estate without having a valid reason to do so; in other words, he must have a strong belief he has a solid case, or otherwise he wouldn't have taken the actions he did.
It's simple as that. Again, it's not about Wilson; it's about the exposure of the identity of a CIA agent, and in the process exposing and potentially harming the careers and lives of additional agents. This is an attack on national security for the sake of politics. Discrediting or warning about Wilson could have been done without mentioning Plame.
Since the last time I responded, Rove claims he obtained the knowledge of Plame and her status from Novak. However, Rove could have easily said, "No comment" to Novak, and not confirmed anything about Plame. He certainly did not have to repeat the same information to Cooper.
It's also entirely possible that Rove got his knowledge from someone else; Novak cites TWO sources; one was Rove, and the other is an as yet unnamed "senior official." I personally think Novak, Rove, and this third individual are all guilty to some degree and should be held responsible.
Since you wanted me to address this issue, I now am curious to see what your thoughts are on Title 18, U.S.C., Section 641. For those of you who aren't versed in law, this law prohibits the theft (or use for one's own purposes) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. A DEA agent named Jonathan Randel was convicted under this statute not too long ago.
It saddens me that you think it's okay to screw around with national security. I can understand other issues where we might debate and then agree to disagree; that's okay by me. But national security being compromised for no good reason? How can you be in favor of that?
Mr. Sandman | Homepage | 07.16.05 - 5:15 am | #
* * * *
For those of you keeping score at home, Christian never responded, and that was the end of our debate. Those of you who attended Gallaudet fairly recently will certainly know who Christian is. Though, apparently, he doesn't have any clue who *I* am. *snicker*
Back to the matter at hand: I don't know what's going to happen next, but I really hope that Rove and Co. are found guilty and appropriately punished. Despite Karl Rove stating to Chris Matthews that Valerie Rove was "fair game," it's not a game at all. It's a betrayal of national security, all in the name of fomenting a war that should never have been started.
Despite any concerns about Wilson, his trip to Niger, his findings, and the subsequent disavowal of the famous "sixteen words" from the State of the Union, I think it's worth reading the following analysis to understand a bit better just what's happening here.
Meanwhile, the White House, of course, is going to try to drag this out until the press goes away.
As for Plame herself, her colleague had this to say, and I really wish Christian and those who think like him would read it: a lot more has been damaged here than people are willing to admit.
Think about it: the CIA recruited her, spent thousands of dollars and months, if not years, training her. Then she was placed into the field, cultivated contacts, built up a network, honed her skills, acquired knowledge that would benefit her employers and ultimately the rest of us.
Now it's all gone. For what? So some political operative with a massive ego could destroy a potential enemy? So an administration could march to war under questionable circumstances? This isn't even the first time an agent has been exposed. Ostensibly we're in the mess we're in because we're fighting terrorism; we're going after Al-Qaeda, right?
Well, then, explain this to me: when you finally find someone within Al-Qaeda, after a lengthy search, who is willing to turn and be a mole for you, and you cultivate this and hope that you will gather enough intelligence to counteract potential or actual acts of terrorism, why on earth would you casually expose this agent, destroy all the work you've put into it, and possibly endanger said person's life, not to mention the lives of others? This is a case the press pretty much ignored as well. Makes me wonder just *what* would constitute a five-alarm fire for the press? Oh, silly me-- of course. The breakup of Jen and Brad. Or a certain trial that's been taking place north of here. The newest fad diet.
The next big question here, really, is this: Where is Smirk? He and his flunkies stated a while ago that:
McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration." [White House Press Briefing, 9/29/2003]
Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [President Bush, Chicago, Ill, 9/30/2003]
So why hasn't he taken action yet? More importantly, either he knew or didn't know about the leak. If the former, it's definitely a replay of Watergate, and he should be impeached. If it's the latter, then he's even more of an incompetent fool than he already is, and should be brought to account for negligence. He's supposed to be running the country, and he doesn't know what's going on?
I'll stop for now, since all of this is a lot to chew on. But for the country's sake, I hope the Corporate Media develops a conscience and a spine and follows up on all of this. I also hope Fitzgerald is allowed to do his job properly. At the very least, I expect indictments.
What with the maelstrom of coverage these days, I managed to get into a debate of sorts on another blog. I've thoughtfully pulled the entire debate and placed it here for you.
* * * * *
Ha, here are the facts we know:
-Matt Cooper approached and talked with Karl Rove
-Karl Rove warned him that Joe Wilson was a liar, and that the trip to Niger was not arranged by the top honchos at the CIA or the VP office, but by his wife, who he did not name specifically
-Wilson denied this point, saying that his wife had no involvement whatsoever, however, the Senate Intelligence Committee panel came up with a memo typed up by Valerie Plame encouraging that the CIA pick her husband, a Clinton administration holdover, for the trip, proving that Joe Wilson lied
-Rove did not know that Plame was a covert operative
-Plame was not working in the field for more than 8 years
-Plame's name was mentioned on Joe Wilson's website before Rove even talked with Cooper
What Rove did was tell Cooper that Time magazine should not go too far in taking Joe Wilson seriously, and Cooper's notes show just exactly that.
Also, Scooter Libby, VP Cheney's assistant, told Fitzgerald that he learned of Plame's name through another reporter.
My hunch is that Miller does not want to admit that she was the one who disclosed Plame's name to Libby. Why in the world would Miller, a partisan liberal, want to protect Karl Rove, the devil incarante?
Rove is being smeared for telling the truth?
A good deed does not go unpunished here in Washington, DC.
Christian | 07.13.05 - 12:05 pm | #
This whole bit about Wilson is a red herring. It's rather simple and comes down to this:
1) did Karl Rove leak information about Valerie Plame and her occupation?
2) If he did, it was admittedly for partisan purposes, and at best was totally unethical and unacceptable; at worst, it violated the law and put people's lives at risk. It also counteracted the whole purpose of intelligence: keeping spying and information-gathering secret.
3) the White House made it clear in 2003 that such leaking is unacceptable and whoever was responsible should no longer be a part of the administration. Even if Rove did not break the law, what he did was unethical and unacceptable; Bush's silence suggests that he condones the leak. Is that acceptable? I don't think so.
To wit: even if Wilson was totally wrong, it's a distraction from a very simple issue. Did a leak occur? Yes. Who was the leaker? Once that is firmly established, the leaker should be held responsible.
Mr. Sandman | Homepage | 07.13.05 - 1:51 pm | #
Mr. Sandman,
It may help you if you would refer to the law in question.
Ok, the law in question is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 USC 421 et seq.). It punishes one who 'intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States . . .'
Mr. Sandman, was that too obtuse for you? If so, let me further clarify this law. In order to convict someone under this law, i.e., Mr. Rove, the following elements must be met:
1.) Intentional disclosure
2.) any information identifying such covert agent
3.) knowing that the information identifies the agent
4.) the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to protect the identity
Do we know that Rove knew that Plame was a covert agent (notwithstanding the fact that Plame was not technically 'covert' at the time)?
Do we know that the information given by Rove identified Plame outright?
Were the United States taking affirmative measures to protect her identity? [Notwithstanding the fact that her name was on Joe Wilson's public website before Cooper talked with Rove.]
Furthermore, was Rove's disclosure an intentional act?
Again, Mr. Sandman, are ALL of the elements met?
If not, go away, and bring me a dream...
Christian | 07.14.05 - 12:50 pm | #
Christian,
no, I didn't find it obtuse at all. Attending and graduating from law school does not magically confer an individual with increased intelligence or some secret ability to comprehend legal language.
That said, let's go through your points:
1.) Intentional disclosure
As far as we know at this point, Rove was discussing Wilson, and either trying to discredit Wilson or, as the notes and e-mails indicate, "warning" Cooper not to go "too far out" on Wilson; if I really wanted to warn or discredit someone, I could do that without dragging that person's wife into it. There was no need under any circumstances other than retaliation to bring Valerie Plame into it.
2.) any information identifying such covert agent
The key word here is "identifying." Any protestations that Plame was not specifically *named* ring hollow; merely revealing that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent when Wilson is a public figure is an easy fact to follow up on and verify. In Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America," he is listed as having married Valerie Plame. While her occupation is (obviously!) not listed, verification of her IDENTITY is not impossible. You or I could have done it with the same helpful and leading indicators. Again, what need is/was there for Rove to do this?
3.) knowing that the information identifies the agent
This can be a little tricky, and this is where a lot of people are going to get thrown. But it's not that tricky, really. Let's look at it. Rove can and probably will deny that he knew Plame worked for the CIA, let alone undercover. Yet he is high enough in the administration he probably had knowledge of that information. But let's be charitable and assume he didn't have firsthand knowledge of that information. Who then told Rove about Plame? If this is true, then that person is equally culpable for this whole mess.
Now, whether Rove had firsthand or second-hand knowledge of Plame's identity, it still comes back to this: why reveal it at all? Why put Plame's work in jeopardy? Why put her life in jeopardy? She was heading a CIA front company that was operating under a bogus cover as a legitimate company. That means all the people under her are at risk as well, and the company's cover is blown.
4.) the U.S. is taking affirmative measures to protect the identity
I would think being a NOC (Non-Official Cover) officer in the CIA, that the CIA and by extension the U.S. government has a vested interest in taking affirmative measures to protect Valerie Plame's identity and the identities of the people under her. Whether she was working at Langley at the time or out in the field, she was *still* UNDERCOVER at the time she was fingered as CIA. In fact, it was the CIA that requested that this matter be investigated once her identity was revealed.
Again, what good did it do to reveal who Valerie Plame really was? Nothing other than retaliation for Wilson's findings regarding the manufacturing o
Mr. Sandman | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 2:57 pm | #
I knew it was long, but didn't realize it was THAT long!
--------
Again, what good did it do to reveal who Valerie Plame really was? Nothing other than retaliation for Wilson's findings regarding the manufacturing of WMD, which the administration didn't like.
So to recap: whether first or second-hand, Rove knew Plame was CIA; his only logical rationale for blowing her cover was political retaliation. Rove stated that Plame was "fair game." Even if he didn't break the law, he definitely violated ethical and moral codes. Why expose undercover agents and operations? Why undermine your own governments' intelligence-gathering efforts?
Sure, I'll bring you a dream-- nightmares okay with you? :)
Mr. Sandman | Homepage | 07.14.05 - 3:04 pm | #
Mr. Sandman,
Address this startling admission by Joe Wilson on the Wolf Blitzer Show yesterday.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANS.../14/ wbr.01.html
-----------
Key quote:
BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.
What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
-----
Pretty much makes everything moot?
In order to be a covert agent and make all of this applicable, one must have been out in the field within 5 years of the 'leak.' At the time of the leak, she was a desk worker at the CIA offices in Langley and was there since 1998.
Joe Wilson is leading you all on a frog march towards irrelevancy.
Christian | 07.15.05 - 9:06 am | #
Christian,
again, a red herring. Ultimately, this isn't about Wilson. It's about playing politics with national security. As I said before, even if no law was broken, it's still ethically and morally wrong to expose a CIA agent and CIA operations (which is what happened once the "company" Plame worked for was exposed as a bogus front for a CIA operation).
As it is, I read the transcript you linked to above. You're cherry-picking here.
Now, why do I say that? Because of one very important fact: the CIA requested this be investigated because they believe a crime may have been committed.
Based on this incident and the CIA's request, Fitzgerald was appointed as special prosecutor. He would not be continuing this investigation and maintaining the grand jury if there wasn't a case. Valerie Plame has to be an operative or there is no case.
Additionally, Fitzgerald would not have been pushing Cooper and Miller to reveal their sources and potentially destroying the prerogatives of the Fourth Estate without having a valid reason to do so; in other words, he must have a strong belief he has a solid case, or otherwise he wouldn't have taken the actions he did.
It's simple as that. Again, it's not about Wilson; it's about the exposure of the identity of a CIA agent, and in the process exposing and potentially harming the careers and lives of additional agents. This is an attack on national security for the sake of politics. Discrediting or warning about Wilson could have been done without mentioning Plame.
Since the last time I responded, Rove claims he obtained the knowledge of Plame and her status from Novak. However, Rove could have easily said, "No comment" to Novak, and not confirmed anything about Plame. He certainly did not have to repeat the same information to Cooper.
It's also entirely possible that Rove got his knowledge from someone else; Novak cites TWO sources; one was Rove, and the other is an as yet unnamed "senior official." I personally think Novak, Rove, and this third individual are all guilty to some degree and should be held responsible.
Since you wanted me to address this issue, I now am curious to see what your thoughts are on Title 18, U.S.C., Section 641. For those of you who aren't versed in law, this law prohibits the theft (or use for one's own purposes) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. A DEA agent named Jonathan Randel was convicted under this statute not too long ago.
It saddens me that you think it's okay to screw around with national security. I can understand other issues where we might debate and then agree to disagree; that's okay by me. But national security being compromised for no good reason? How can you be in favor of that?
Mr. Sandman | Homepage | 07.16.05 - 5:15 am | #
* * * *
For those of you keeping score at home, Christian never responded, and that was the end of our debate. Those of you who attended Gallaudet fairly recently will certainly know who Christian is. Though, apparently, he doesn't have any clue who *I* am. *snicker*
Back to the matter at hand: I don't know what's going to happen next, but I really hope that Rove and Co. are found guilty and appropriately punished. Despite Karl Rove stating to Chris Matthews that Valerie Rove was "fair game," it's not a game at all. It's a betrayal of national security, all in the name of fomenting a war that should never have been started.
Despite any concerns about Wilson, his trip to Niger, his findings, and the subsequent disavowal of the famous "sixteen words" from the State of the Union, I think it's worth reading the following analysis to understand a bit better just what's happening here.
Meanwhile, the White House, of course, is going to try to drag this out until the press goes away.
As for Plame herself, her colleague had this to say, and I really wish Christian and those who think like him would read it: a lot more has been damaged here than people are willing to admit.
Think about it: the CIA recruited her, spent thousands of dollars and months, if not years, training her. Then she was placed into the field, cultivated contacts, built up a network, honed her skills, acquired knowledge that would benefit her employers and ultimately the rest of us.
Now it's all gone. For what? So some political operative with a massive ego could destroy a potential enemy? So an administration could march to war under questionable circumstances? This isn't even the first time an agent has been exposed. Ostensibly we're in the mess we're in because we're fighting terrorism; we're going after Al-Qaeda, right?
Well, then, explain this to me: when you finally find someone within Al-Qaeda, after a lengthy search, who is willing to turn and be a mole for you, and you cultivate this and hope that you will gather enough intelligence to counteract potential or actual acts of terrorism, why on earth would you casually expose this agent, destroy all the work you've put into it, and possibly endanger said person's life, not to mention the lives of others? This is a case the press pretty much ignored as well. Makes me wonder just *what* would constitute a five-alarm fire for the press? Oh, silly me-- of course. The breakup of Jen and Brad. Or a certain trial that's been taking place north of here. The newest fad diet.
The next big question here, really, is this: Where is Smirk? He and his flunkies stated a while ago that:
McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration." [White House Press Briefing, 9/29/2003]
Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [President Bush, Chicago, Ill, 9/30/2003]
So why hasn't he taken action yet? More importantly, either he knew or didn't know about the leak. If the former, it's definitely a replay of Watergate, and he should be impeached. If it's the latter, then he's even more of an incompetent fool than he already is, and should be brought to account for negligence. He's supposed to be running the country, and he doesn't know what's going on?
I'll stop for now, since all of this is a lot to chew on. But for the country's sake, I hope the Corporate Media develops a conscience and a spine and follows up on all of this. I also hope Fitzgerald is allowed to do his job properly. At the very least, I expect indictments.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 10:34 PM
<< Home