Ari Speaks; Scooter ScramblesÂ
Ari Fleischer, former White House Press Secretary to George W. Bush, testified in court today that I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby told him that former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA operative three days before Libby admits to learning the information himself.  Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is on trial for five felony counts including perjury and obstruction of justice. Last week, I questioned the reasoning behind Fleischer's grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony. "Immunity from what and why?" I wondered. Well, now we know: Fleischer has been sitting on a bombshell.
Fleischer testified that Scooter Libby invited him to lunch (for the first time despite both having worked for the Bush administration for years) on July 7, 2003. The two discussed benign matters including the Miami Dolphins before the conversation turned to the growing controversy over then-Ambassador Wilson. The Ambassador had come under fire from the White House after discovering and reporting that there was no truth to their report that Saddam Hussein sought to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.  In a previous article published on gather.com, I outlined some of the events leading up Libby's trial where opening statements were made on Monday, January 22, 2007, including the July 6, 2003 publication of Wilson's New York Times op-ed entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa."
Ambassador Wilson's op-ed piece (full text here) was highly critical of the administration's rationale for going to war in Iraq:
"Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice to conlude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."
Wilson's findings on his trip to Africa and subsequent publishing of the op-ed allegedly sparked a campaign on the part of Vice President Dick Cheney, his aide Scooter Libby and others to discredit him. Part of the alleged plan involved the purposeful outing of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who was an undercover CIA agent working in the Agency's counterproliferation department.
On July 7, 2003, largely due to Ambassador's revelations in the op-ed piece, the White House was forced to admit that "accusations included in the President's State of the Union address have turned out to be inaccurate." These "accusations" include the damning words, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," which has since been proven to be untrue. Coincidentally, July 7, 2003 was the very day Libby invited Fleischer to lunch, discussed "the Wilson controversy," and revealed that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. According to Fleischer's testimony under oath today, Libby not only used Valerie Plame's name, but said the information was "hush-hush."
Fleischer's testimony, given in exchange for immunity, directly contradicts Scooter Libby's claim that he first learned who Valerie Plame was and that she was a CIA operative from Tim Russert of NBC's Meet the Press on July 10, 2003. Libby's claim is not only uncorroborated by Russert, but Russert denies it altogether. Russert says, "I was not and never have been the recipient of the leak" and that he did not know the name of Ambassador Wilson's wife or that she worked for the CIA until he read it in Robert Novak's column of July 14, 2003.
If Russert is called to testify in the Libby trial, which he undoubtedly will be, Libby's lawyers will seek to discredit his memory. Who would you believe: Scooter Libby or Ari Fleischer and Tim Russert?




Comments: 45
You are well informed about this case and maybe you can clarify the issue. Thanks.
I concluded that it's ok to out covert agents is that's what Mr. Bush wants to do to get even with Wilson for daring to actually tell the truth and put it into print.
With regard to Plame's "covert" status, skilled lawyers could probably argue her exact status either way (if it ever came to that), but this is the language used by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in his indictment of Libby (page 3):
At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson
was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to
July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common
knowledge outside the intelligence community.
Andrew makes a good point - that this grand jury trial diverts attention from Iraq. However, the manner in which the Bush administration handled "the Plame Affair" speaks to the way they operate in general. That includes the handling of the war in Iraq - past and present.
"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."
Nixon was about to be impeached for the Watergate coverup, not for the secret bombing of Cambodia which was the highest of his many high crimes. Clinton was impeached for obfuscating whether he had consenting sex with an adult who was not his wife. I don't quite remember the rationale the now-sainted Gerald Ford used in trying to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
I was shocked by Fleischer's admission, but again, I saw it all in terms of what Cheney ordered, and the Machiavellian plan the Vice President concocted to smear Plame and her husband.
Can't argue with that....
Why is President George W. Bush surprised most folks distrust him and his administration?
Thanks Diana.
This article brings clarity to the trial for me. Thanks so much
If you had a column in the L A times I would be your biggest fan.
Does Bush's threat to fire anyone involved with the leak still stand???
Very nice article
I, too, believe that Bush admitted to distrust in Washington -- I'm sure he feels he was again not informed by his Generals...is there a reason they keep him in the dark?
I also believe Cheney was the one!!
Diana, you have my vote for political reporter. I can always count on you to keep us inform
& updated as to the important issues of the day. You are fair, accurate and a great writer.
Thank you, for another wonderful piece & a very thought provoking article.
I found this quite readable and engaging. The article was concise and I wasn't bludgeoned with partisan rhetoric; I do so appreciate that! I haven't thought about this trial much. To me, it felt like mud slinging, a political strategy meant to distract the public from larger issues and politicians wrangling to consolidate clout.
After reading some of the comments however, I find the case more intriguing. For instance, Stephen M said, The answer is none of them. That no one has been indicted yet for revealing Palme's covert status (which endangered many OTHERS who worked for/with her) is largely because it is necessary to knock down the stonewall first. Then, Rove and/or Cheney may be visible.
Wow! If some actual truth and revelation can come from this trial I would begin to have a little faith in our [justice, political] system.
Thanks for starting the discussion and provoking some thought.
Thanks for all the comments. There's nothing wrong with expecting accountability from any White House administration.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008948
This an article by one of the writers of the law that controls the outing of CIA agents and explains why Ms. Plame was not covered and why no one was indicted for outing an agent. As you said, the charge was disclosing a "classified" person and that does not cover undercover agents as discussed in the article.
We have Toensing on one side making claims and a former agent on the other side making claims. We look for guidance at the court case and it is charging missstatements to an FBI agent almost like Martha Stewart did. The only time outing an agent is discussed is in the press and I am afraid the press has led us off in a tangent.
Ms. Miller is the first of many of reporters who the prosecutor has lined up to dispute Mr. Libby's account of his behavior in the investigation of who may have leaked to the press Ms. Wilson's identity as a C.I.A. officer. Beyond, the *drama* of yesterday's proceedings, the appearance of Ms. Miller's as someone forced by the government to testify against a source imo emphasizes -- how the case has changed the landscape of relations between journalists and government officials. It appears to me this case is now turning into an infringement of The First Amendment -- freedom of the press.
Do you think they may have a First Amendment collision at this point?
If Libby was, in fact, protecting someone else - say Rove or Cheney - he should have made a deal similar to Ari Fleischer's and exposed whomever he thought he should protect.
No one is above the law - not even the president.
All of this points to the fact that the Administration and its neocon allies lied about Iraq in order to manufacture consent to their plans. The war is now a horrid disaster for the U.S. and the world and has done nothing but stir up anger against our nation.
And now that we KNOW that the Administration cannot be trusted to protect Americans and world peace--it is essential that this NON-BINDING RESOLUTION concerning the surge be either swept aside or transformed into immediate action removing these criminals from power.
That's the nexus...enjoy.