Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration was rightfully tossed today:

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove and former White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby.

The judge probably saw that Plame claimed "invasion of privacy" and when he stopped laughing decided that was enough to send the case to the dustbin where it belongs. It's amazing the ultimate media whores, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, even thought anyone would buy the invasion of privacy complaint. If Plame wants to sue someone for invading her privacy, she ought to start with the guy she lives with. She'll find solace in her private little world through profits on her book, movie and other intimate things.

I wonder if she'll sue Richard Armitage as he was the one who leaked her name to Novak.

This should bring a merciful end to the whole sordid mess in which a good man had his career ruined and the government spent untold millions prosecuting a case when the prosecutor knew full-well before the trial started who the leaker was. How sad for the sullen libs, no Karl Rove, no Dick Cheney and no Fitzmas after all.

Perhaps now it's time for the next prosecutor to aim their firepower at Valerie Plame who has lied more times than Scooter Libby.

The lefty blogs are all full of themselves today because a man that rode his wife's coat tails to notoriety endorsed Hillary Clinton. Here's the take from Taylor Marsh:

A conference call announcing the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Joseph Wilson was just held with bloggers to hear the breaking news. This is a huge deal for Candidate Clinton and a big endorsement for her candidacy. That it was broken on the blogs sends a powerful signal. I'll provide the transcript as soon as it is available.

Yeah, it sends the message that Joe Wilson is a loser who can't announce his endorsement anywhere else that will publish it.

Let's be straight about this; Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, have a lot of explaining to do. Why was Wilson sent to Niger in the first place when he didn't have the experience? Why did his wife recommend him and then say she didn't before she said she didn't remember? Why did they claim Valerie Plame was covert when she wasn't and why did they pose for Vanity Fair when she was supposedly a covert agent?

With the shining hypocrisy and chutzpah that we would expect from a Clinton, Bill says his pardons were totally different. From the NYT (sub required):

In Iowa to promote the presidential candidacy of his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Mr. Clinton was asked by a radio host, David Yepsen, "You had some controversial pardons during your presidency; what's your reaction to what President Bush did?"

"Yeah, but I think the facts were different," Mr. Clinton said. "I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

"It's wrong to out that C.I.A. agent and wrong to try to cover it up," Mr. Clinton added. "And no one was ever fired from the White House for doing it."

Wow, that's pretty bold coming from Mr. "I did not have sex with that woman." Apparently in Bill's world, the power of the pardon is appropriate for campaign contributors, but not appropriate to reduce a sentence to be more in line with the punishment for stealing top secret documents.

It appears that unless President Bush does something, Scooter Libby is going to jail for real.

CNN:

A federal appeals court Monday rejected former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby's request to remain free on bond while appealing his March conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

In an order handed down Monday, a three judge panel wrote Libby "has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question" that regular appeals court will consider when its next term begins in September.

I believe that this means that Libby has run out of process options to stay out of jail. His last hope is a pardon or commutation from Bush. This would ignite an uproar among the usual suspects, but let's face it, Bush's popularity isn't going to go any lower, and it would be a strong signal that the president won't throw his friends and loyalists under the bus when the going gets rough.

On the other hand, letting his vice president's personal assistant sit for thirty months would send another signal, one of weakness and faithlessness. A pardon or commutation shouldn't surprise anyone.

Scooter Libby is going to jail in just a few weeks unless he wins an appeal from a higher court in that short time. It's not likely. Here's more from the NYT:

Mr. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was temporarily released after surrendering his passport and completing forms. He will have to report to a federal prison sometime in the next several weeks to begin serving his sentence after his conviction in March on four felony counts for lying in a C.I.A. leak investigation that became part of an intense debate over the war in Iraq.

In effect, the ruling means that the only thing standing between Mr. Libby and prison is a pardon from President Bush, which Mr. Libby and his supporters are avidly seeking. But Mr. Bush has so far shown no inclination to intervene. In answer to a question about a pardon, Tony Snow, the presidential spokesman, said Thursday: "What the president has said is let the legal process work itself out. We're just not engaging in that right now."

Well, they'd better start engaging because in a few weeks every staffer in Bush's administration will start thinking, "make one wrong phone call, and that could be me."

A top lawyer for Barack Obama went off the reservation yesterday and published an article at HuffingtonPost.com calling for the pardon of Dick Cheney's assistant Scooter Libby, who was recently convicted in a perjury trap.

The Hill has a report:

Obama general counsel Robert Bauer did not ask his boss, a presidential candidate, for permission to write the article, published on HuffingtonPost.com.

But Obama's campaign said the senator would not ask for Bauer's resignation, adding that he is "still our lawyer."

Obama's campaign and Bauer told The Hill yesterday that Bauer was not speaking on behalf of Obama when he wrote the piece, and the blog entry carries a disclaimer to that effect.

So far it sounded like Bauer went out and became a GOP supporter, but then I actually read the article.

...So far.

Lots of folks have called for President Bush to pardon Scooter Libby after Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury. So far it appears that no pardon is coming.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, traveling with Bush in Europe for the Group of Eight summit, said Bush felt sorry for the family of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was sentenced to 30 months in prison for lying and obstructing an investigation related to the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war.

"The president said that he felt terrible for the family, especially his wife and his kids," Perino said.

But she noted that the appeals process, which could prove lengthy, was just getting under way.

Interesting. Bush is not saying there will be no pardon ever, but no pardon now, especially in light of the appeals process. Which leads one to believe that a pardon might happen once real jail time is involved.

I stand by my earlier post. And now that the prospect of real jailtime is involved, I think it's even more appropriate. Scooter gets thirty months and a $250,000 fine while Bill Clinton lost his law license and paid a $50,000 fine for actions resulting from his perjury. But I guess that was just about sex so it was OK.

There are relatively few news stories about the very different accounts that Valerie Plame told different investigators about events surrounding the CIA leak. It's important, because Plame was apparently under oath during all of the interviews. Lying under oath is usually a big deal, except for Democrats. That's what Scooter Libby was convicted of, after all. Scott posted here last night about the unmistakable conclusion that Val lied to at least one of the investigators, and quite possible to all of them, but I don't expect anyone to pursue her for perjury or obstruction of justice, certainly not in this Congress.

There's another important aspect to this case that just came to light, however. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in an exhibit to his sentencing memorandum for Libby, stated categorically for the first time that Valerie Plame (who he refers to as Valerie Wilson) was a covert agent at the time of Bob Novak's original column.

...When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity--sometimes in true name and sometimes in an alias--but always using cover--whether official or non-official cover (NOC) --with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14th July 2003, Ms., Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.

He's essentially arguing that since that was the case, Scooter Libby should be sentenced not for perjury, but as if he did violate the law concerning the disclosure of covert agents. Remarkable.

As a result of the Valerie Plame "outing," Scooter Libby was convicted of no other crime than perjury. While serious, it was far from being malicious and the man who actually did "out" her is facing no trial, no media scorn and no time in jail.

Now certain facts are coming to light. Valerie Plame and her wretched husband and chief media face may have flat-out lied on several occasions:

Here are Plame's three versions of how Wilson was sent to Niger, Bond said:

•She told the CIA's inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.

•Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn't remember whether she had suggested Wilson.

•She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney's office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, "Well, why don't we send Joe?" Plame told the committee.

CIA officials have been unable to verify Plame's March version, Bond said. Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, said the "public record on the matter is extensive, and, at this point, I can't add anything to it."

So, in essence, Plame can't get her story straight, two of the three stories indicate that she was involved in at least the discussion of sending her husband and the third was she couldn't remember.

Big in the news this evening is George Tenet, who headed up the CIA when the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq and largely supported President Bush with assurances that Iraq was involved in WMD research. Now things have changed, ant it turns out there is little evidence of an active nuclear program in Iraq (although plenty of chemical weapons have been found, in violation of UN resolutions). Tenet has written a memoir and appeared on 60 minutes to explain himself and his actions.

Among the interesting things he said:

• The Bush administration wanted to take out Iraq from Day one and never had a serious discussion about the Iraq threat;
• He's sorry he used the words "slam dunk" in reference to WMDs in Iraq and that that phrase was taken out of context;
• The covert detention program that used "enhanced interrogation techniques (i.e. torture) was more productive than all the other terrorism related intelligence gathering options;
• The Bush administration ruined his reputation;
• It was 'big time wrong' to out Valerie Plame

Watching today's Plame testimony makes me wonder why we still have the CIA. The CIA used to be referred to as preppies with security clearances. And that was a compliment! Nowadays, it's just another politicized bureaucracy, trying to cover its butt more than do its job. Whatever the CIA is, it's a far cry from the days of Wild Bill Donovan and the OSS, from which it was hatched.

Let's look back on a few very public CIA intelligence "accomplishments" since the late 1979:

1. The Fall of the Shah of Iran
2. The Rise of the Iranian Mullahtocracy
3. Soviet Sponsorship of the Anti-Pershing Movement in Europe
4. The Iran-Iraq War
5. Indian Nuclear Program
6. Pakistani Nuclear Program
7. Fall of the Soviet Union (that's a biggie!)
8. A.J. Kahn
9. North Korean Nuclear Program
10. Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait
11. Extent of Saddam's WMD Programs in the early 90s
12. Extent of Saddam's WMD Programs in the late 90s
13. The Assassination Plot Against Saddam by Anti-Saddam Iraqi Forces (the CIA, upon learning about it, actively argued against this)
14. Expansion and Funding of Wahhabism Worldwide by Saudi Arabia (the rise of Islamic Extremism)
    
15. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida (biggie!)
    
16. Coalescing of Islamic Extremists Against the West
    
17. 1993 World Trade Center Bombing
18. Various Intifadas and Such
    
19. 9/11 (another biggie!)
20. Extent of Saddam's WMD Programs before the Iraq War in 2002/3
    

The CIA and its intelligence product was on the wrong side of all of the above (they either missed them totally, or came to conclusions that were the exact opposite from what actually occurred or was occurring). And that's just the public ones that I can come up with off the top of my head. God only knows what else they screwed up. Couple those mistakes with the current constant leaks to the media, designed to make the CIA look good and the Bush Administration look bad, and we have a pretty embarrassing picture.

Having Valerie Plame as an employee, and sending Joe Wilson to investigate the yellow-cake claims, goes a long way in explaining why we have the above list, and today's situation.

First and most lasting impression - if Plame (and her appendage Joe Wilson) are examples of the type of people the CIA and the State Department have handling our national security, we are all doomed.

I'm actually waiting for a transcript on Waxman's show trail, but figured I might as well jump into this now. I was watching as much of the testimony as I could and was struck by several things. I simply don't believe Henry Waxman because he said several different things at different times and the terms he used all have very different legal meanings. In his opening statement Waxman said that Plame was 1. undercover, was 2. covert, and was 3. classified. The "covert" statement is the most troubling, since that is the term that was first thrown about by David Corn, and is the subject of the law that Plame and Wilson claim was broken. Unfortunately, after a few years and several million dollars, Patrick Fitzgerald was unable to find out that a "covert" agent was "outed," even though he knew that Richard Armitage had told Novak about her.

I have no doubt that at one time Valerie Plame was covert -- a long time ago. It is a published fact (in the New York Times and elsewhere) that Plame and her cover, Brewster & Jennings, were blown -- but way back in 1994. Who tells us that? Liberal blogger Kevin Drum and liberal New York Times columnist and friend of the Wilsons Nicolas Kristof (they went to a Democratic Policy Committee meeting together in May 2003, according to Vanity Fair -- a strange thing for a covert agent to do). They inform us that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. In addition, also during the 90s, the CIA sent Plame's name and information, among other secrets, to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana. Cuban Intelligence read it all. So her status as a covert agent, in any reasonable definition including legal, ended in the mid-90s when she was called back to Washington by the CIA for her safety, who acknowledged that her cover had been blown. She could never be used as a covert agent again.

This will be a bitter pill for some conservatives to swallow. CIA Director Michael Hayden personally reviewed and okayed Henry Waxman's opening statement for Valerie Plame's testimony today. Furthermore, Hayden took pains to set the record straight: Plame was indeed a covert agent up until the day Robert Novak revealed as much to the public.

You see, many on the right (including some here at The Stump) have spent a lot of time trying to convince us otherwise. They never fail to use quotation marks when referring to the administration's "outing" of Plame so as to suggest that no such undercover status ever existed. While Patrick Fitzgerald may not have believed he had enough evidence to prove that a crime was committed, there was really never much doubt that Plame had covert status.

In fact, Plame's testimony proved illuminating on a number of fronts. Under oath, articulate, and forceful, she laid to waste a veritable forest of myths that the right has erected against her. No, she wasn't a mere pencil pusher, she'd undertaken undercover missions to foreign countries over the past five years. No, she hadn't been the one to select her husband to go to on his fact-finding mission to Niger. No, she didn't talk to Nicholas Kristof (or others in the media) about her job at the CIA. But most importantly, in the words of the man who now heads the CIA, she was very much a covert agent.

Via OpinionJournal.com's Best of the Web, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff is reporting that Valerie Plame's big-money book deal is in danger of falling apart, thanks to the CIA's refusal to grant her the authority to write about her undercover exploits. Plame, of course, is crying "foul," although it is presumed that she was well aware when she joined that being a Democrat operative while at the CIA and getting rich by publishing a book after retiring wasn't part of the job description.

Meanwhile, Scooter Libbey's trial gets under way this month. It promises to be a lot of fun. There's an article on today's Wall Street Journal Online, Fitzgerald's Wild Source Chase (sub. req., but it will probably be free later this week), that decries the damage that the politically motivated witch hunt did (and is doing) to the journalistic profession.

The WSJ (Dow Jones), along with the Associated Press, filed a motion requesting the release of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's "affidavits that he filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to justify his motion to compel two reporters to testify about their conversations with Mr. Libby". Remember, these are why Fitzgerald was able to throw Judith Miller in jail for 82 days. All this after Fitzgerald had discovered that Richard Armitage, who was an active opponent of the Bush Administration even though he served in it, was the original "leaker" and "outer," and that no crime had been committed.

Finding the leaker was Mr. Fitzgerald's main charge from the Justice Department, so why did he keep pursuing reporters with such hyper-zeal for another two years? His pursuit led to a constitutional showdown over the media's right to protect sources, going all the way to the Supreme Court. And the precedent -- a bad one for the press -- may well encourage a wave of attempts by prosecutors across the country to force journalists to betray their sources. The press and public both have a right to know what evidence was so compelling that Judge Tatel and Mr. Fitzgerald thought it warranted such a legal collision. All the more so now that Congress is also debating a "shield" law to protect media sources.

Where's the outrage?