Did John Kerry and Richard Lugar just pull a Bob Novak and out an agent? This report seems to suggest that they did:
Mr. Smith came to Washington again Monday, as an alias for a Central Intelligence Agency officer who works covertly. Senators, however, may have blown his cover.
During questioning on John R. Bolton’s nomination to be President Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton and members of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee referred to “Mr. Smith” as one official among several who were involved in a dispute over what Democrats asserted was Bolton’s inappropriate treatment of an intelligence analyst who disagreed with him.
“We referred to this other analyst at the CIA, whom I’ll try and call Mr. Smith here, I hope I can keep that straight,” Bolton said at one point.
Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., both mentioned a name, Fulton Armstrong, that had not previously come up in public accounts of the intelligence flap.
It is not clear whether Armstrong is the undercover officer, but an exchange between Kerry and Bolton suggests that he may be.
In questioning Bolton, Kerry read from a transcript of closed-door interviews that committee staffers conducted with State Department officials prior to Monday’s hearing.
“Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed from his position? The answer is yes,” Kerry said, characterizing one interview. “Did John Bolton share that view?” Kerry said, and then said the answer again was yes.
“As I said, I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that,” Bolton replied evenly. “I thought that was the honest thing to do.”
Valerie Plame all over again? Does anyone know more?
*** Update ***
Nope. Just the lazy media again.
It seems that this isn’t exactly a Novak, in that this seems to be just an apolitical, bipartisan, accidental cluster-f**k.
I doubt they were doing it to, say, harass the agent’s spouse…
If by “Valerie Plame all over again” you mean “much ado about nothing”, then it probably is: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10035.
No. See Michelle Malkin:
Yup, this one was debunked almost as soon as the badly researched story came out.
The media wasn’t lazy; the blogger was.
This might be off comment but it really does worry me..It should worry you guys too.
During the democrats time in power in the early ninetys the republicans used the filibuster many times. Specifically to stop Hillary
The media wasn’t lazy; the blogger was.
Hunh? I post an AP story without any speculation, ask more people if they know anything else about the issue and whether it is credible, and then when I find out immediately it is not a credible story, I correct the record.
That is lazy?
Some history on cloture and judicial nominations.
There were unsuccessful filibusters during the 90s against Clinton judges, but Republicans generally stuck to less visible tactics.
Is Drudge double lazy because his headline only asked if Kerry outed the agent?
Well rick maybe you are not as smart as you think you are.
Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy:
So my orginal question.
Since Republicans ALSO HAVE USED the filibuster, why on earth would they destroy a useful minority tool when they may one day
be in the minority themselves??
Was Armstrong even undercover? I can see that he was an analyst, but I’m not seeing anything written anywhere that he was undercover. Frankly, I think the confidentiality of employee records was at play here more than the undercover issue, but I’d love to hear different if I’m wrong.
when they may one day be in the minority themselves??
They don’t expect to ever be in the minority themselves again, obviously. I guess they know something we don’t.
You gotta read down the list of Dem Senators denouncing filibusters to find him, but he’s there.
There is no filibustering in committee. Either you win or lose a vote, or no vote is taken at all (fillibuster to the incredible dullard, Senator Leahy, I guess). That tactic remains in the Senate arsenal, which certainly has been employed against the nominees of Presidents of both parties.
His cites of Barkett and Sarokin are odd, since they were confirmed.
The only thing approaching a judicial filibuster was a bipartisan opposition to lame duck LBJ’s attempted elevation of a questionable Abe Fortas to Chief Justice. Four days of real speeches in opposition. It to 67 votes then to invoke cloture (Sen. Byrd helped change that–OMG! The Nuclear Option), and there were 36 pubbie Senators at the time.
But opposition came from quite a number of Democrats, mostly from the South. The nomination was quickly withdrawn (@ Fortas’ request), since it was becoming percieved that he wouldn’t win the vote, even if debate (filibustering) ended.
Note, this wasn’t ideological bitching: he was already a Justice, and quite enough Dems joined the fili-debating, in the event.
Well, Ron, maybe Pat Leahy just isn’t as smart as you think he is.
So is anyone calling for John Kerry, best buddy of Joe Wilson (when he needed to be), to be “frog-marched” to prison? Anyone? Wow, guess not.
Well obviously Rick you should be a senator.
Why hold back such a glowing intellect?
The critical 3 words in that piece are in the title..
….in the Past.
We are discussing RIGHT NOW.
I didn’t say both republicans and democrats had not fillibustered or that both may or may not have during the last 40 years played around with the rules.
My response was to your line saying….
by Rick-I believe you’re wrong about the first instance, (which I wasn’t) I know you’re wrong about the 2d, (which I wasn’t) and I know of no legislation in that time that died via fillibuster.__
(Republican) Senate used the filibuster to block key pieces of President Clinton’s legislative agenda, including an economic stimulus package, campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, health care reform, a bill to prohibit hiring permanent replacement workers for striking employees, and racial justice provisions in a crime bill.
You said they didn’t and I was wrong.
I wasn’t…they did…You shot this question off on a tangent..
I think we can say both parties have fillibustered.. both parties have bickered over the rules..
But that aside….
I guess what I really am asking..
Neither of us
would throw away something this week knowing full well that fortunes change and we may need what we threw away next week.
that’s common sense…seems to me.
Don’t burn your bridges.. etc..
It just seems really crazy..
America needs jobs, better health care, lots of things need to get better.
why in the world are we fooling around with these dime a dozen judges when there is REAL WORK to be done?
That’s what I don’t understand. Seems to go against common sense.
Hell, maybe I should be a senator too!