Joe Lieberman: A Horse’s Ass

Doug Mills/The New York Times

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, center, an independent, with two
Republican colleagues Wednesday: John McCain, left, and Lindsey Graham.

By KATE ZERNIKE

Published: February 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 — It came as little surprise that when Senate Republicans
blocked debate Monday on a resolution that would have opposed President
Bush’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, erstwhile Democrat, sided with them.

Skip to next paragraph

But Mr. Lieberman also went
further, accusing Democrats of giving strength to the enemy and
abandoning the troops, and arguing that an alternative resolution that
he and many Republicans backed was “a statement of support to our
troops.”

That was too much even for one Republican member, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, a sponsor of the bipartisan resolution against the president’s policy.

“I
forcefully argue that ours is in support of the troops,” Mr.
Warner said tersely. “And there is no suggestion that one is less
patriotic than the other.”

Defeated last year in the
Democratic senatorial primary in Connecticut but then elected as an
independent to a fourth term, Mr. Lieberman has kept a promise to
caucus with the Democrats, giving them a majority of only 51 to 49 and
earning for him a designation as “the most influential man in the
Senate.”

But on Iraq, the issue that made the last year the
most difficult of his political life, he has moved farther and farther
from the party, winding up to the right of many Republicans who now
embrace what six months ago was almost solely a Democratic position on
the war.

Mr. Lieberman’s enthusiasm for the troop
increase has become a talking point for Republicans trying to shore up
support for the president’s plan. It infuriates the bloggers who
first tried to defeat him. Some of his best friends on either side of
the aisle take issue with him publicly. But given his importance as the
lawmaker who ensures Democratic control of the Senate, members of the
majority say there is little they can do.

Joe Lieberman, independent, sees himself as Joe Lieberman unchained.

“I feel liberated, free somehow,” he said during an interview in his office.

“As
I look back,” he said, “I have always tried to do what I
thought was right, regardless of where a majority of members of my
party are. But there’s always pressure on you. I just feel free
of that pressure. And I think my Democratic colleagues know that
I’m not going to do — on this, of all questions which I
think is so important to our country’s future, to our success in
the war on terrorism — I’m not going to do anything here
just to be a good member of the team.”

His forays across
the aisle have begun to extend past the Iraq debate. When he was asked
on Fox News recently which Democrat he would support in 2008, Mr.
Lieberman, the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2000, offered
instead that he might vote for a Republican.

“I would not have said that three years ago,” Mr. Lieberman said. “No chance.”

Even
Democrats who have come to expect his siding with the president on the
war thought this was going a bit far. “Did you see that?”
one Democratic senator asked, incredulous. But he, like others,
criticized only privately. “The bottom line,” the senator
said, “is we need him.”

To those who supported Ned Lamont, the victor over Mr. Lieberman in the Democratic primary, this is an “I told you so” moment.

“He
was re-elected because he fooled enough people into believing he really
was against the war and not for an escalation, but I think this is his
true colors,” said David Sirota, a Lamont consultant who recalled
that during the campaign, Mr. Lieberman said he wanted to bring the
troops home “as fast as anyone.”

“It’s
everything Ned Lamont was saying: that you can’t listen to this
guy’s words, you have to watch his actions,” Mr. Sirota
said. “I think it shows a disdain for the public. It’s like
the public to him is just a nuisance, an obstacle for him doing what he
wants to do.”

Mr. Lieberman’s talk of supporting a
Republican in 2008, Mr. Sirota said, suggests that he is still toying
with the idea of switching to the Senate Republican Caucus.

Mr.
Lieberman could always prove to be an unpredictable ally for the
Republicans, too, as when he suggested last Thursday a “war on
terrorism tax” to make Americans understand the sacrifice that he
said the fight demanded.

Still, Republicans have missed few
opportunities to embrace his support. Mr. Bush said in a recent speech
that he was acting on “the good advice of Senator Joe
Lieberman” in proposing a bipartisan Congressional working group
on Iraq. (Democrats scoffed that the president had already had plenty
of ways to consult with Congress and had never shown much interest in
doing so.) The president and Vice President Dick Cheney also quote Mr. Lieberman in arguing the White House’s view on the troop increase, and the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, repeatedly notes how happy the minority is to have Mr. Lieberman’s backing.

“I wish I were being quoted by some Democrats, too,” Mr. Lieberman said.

But he does not seem very worried about appearing cozy with the other side. When one Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, squabbled with Senator Carl Levin
of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, at a hearing
about the troop increase, Mr. Levin abruptly walked out. Mr. Lieberman
walked over and chuckled with Mr. McCain, patting him on the back.

At
hearings on Iraq, Mr. Lieberman frequently leads witnesses to testimony
in support of the president. Isn’t it true, he asked Gen. George
W. Casey Jr., the departing commander of American forces there, that
over all, the policy in Iraq has been a success? Doesn’t Mr.
Bush’s strategy offer “a higher probability of working than
any other plan?”

Such arguments have prompted friends like Senator Susan Collins,
a Maine Republican who opposes the troop increase, to challenge him
publicly. Still, Ms. Collins said in an interview, “the fact that
he takes a position that’s contrary to the vast majority of the
members of his caucus I think speaks to his strong principles.”

“I
enjoy seeing him in this position of power, given the very difficult
political year he’s gone through,” she said. “I think
he’s enjoying this.”

The midterm election, Mr.
Lieberman argues, was a call to bipartisanship, and his mandate is to
get Democrats to look beyond party lines.

Yes, he concedes, the
election was also a call for a change in Iraq; he just believes the
president’s plan offers the best chance of that.

“I’m
a feisty, happy warrior,” he said. “And I’m going to
continue to fight for what I think is right for the security of our
country.”

New York Times

“Once Upon a Time”
with your host Arthur Silber:

The Trouble with Propaganda — Part 11,243

The trouble is that it works:

Many
adults in the United States believe their country will enter a conflict
against Iran, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 57 per cent of
respondents think it is very or somewhat likely that the U.S. will be
at war with Iran within the next year.

Note these other numbers from the poll:

How likely is it that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons?

Very likely 42%

Somewhat likely 33%

Not very likely 11%

Not at all likely 2%

“Soon.” Note that the word is very helpfully left undefined. In addition, no evidence whatsoever
has been presented, publicly or privately, that Iran is in fact
pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. To the contrary, all
knowledgeable experts agree that any “Iranian threat” continues to recede farther into the future. Well, never mind. We have a wider war to get started. No time to lose.

So more than half of Americans believe we may be at war with Iran within the next year, and three-quarters of them think Iran will “soon” develop nuclear weapons. Yet public life goes on in its uninterrupted stupor. As I recently wrote:

[T]he
war chants rise once again, this time directed at Iran. If we should
attack Iran in the near future, much of the world will treat us as we
will fully deserve: as a barbarian, pariah nation, which no one can trust and which will join the most monstrous countries in history.

Is
there a massive protest from Americans about the route we may follow?
No. Are the Democrats who now control Congress at least trying to avert this catastrophe,
which may be the last? No — because they fully share the belief in
American “exceptionalism” and in our “right” to worldwide hegemony. Is
there even one prominent voice in America regularly explaining the horror of what we have already done, and what we may still do? No.

If this remains unchanged, and if we launch another war of blatant, unforgivable aggression,
we will deserve everything we get — and more. Historians, if there are
any in the years to come, will see what we were and what we did, and
they will judge us accordingly.

It’s as if the last five years never even happened.

Remarkable. Horrifying. Stupefying. Utterly unbelievable.

And unforgivable.

See: Becoming a Barbarian, Pariah Nation: What Are You Waiting For?

Morality, Humanity and Civilization: “Nothing remains…but memories”

The Missing Moral Center: Murdering the Innocent

Time Has Run Out — and the Choice Is Yours

Alan Smithee

01/01/07 – 01/31/07

February 5, 2007

…from an Improvised Explosive Device…

…when an improvised explosive device…

…when an improvised explosive device…

…when an improvised explosive device detonated…

…when an improvised explosive device detonated…

…when an improvised explosive device detonated…

…when an improvised explosive device detonated…

…came in contact with enemy forces using small arms fire…

…when an improvised explosive device detonated…

…as a result of a road traffic accident…

…came in contact with enemy forces using small arms fire…

…a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device…

…a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device…

…a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device…

…vehicle rolled over…

…following a road traffic accident…

…a non-hostile cause…

…when an improvised explosive device detonated…

…in contact with enemy forces using small arms fire…

…sustained during route security operations…

…enemy forces using small arms fire…

…when an improvised explosive device detonated…

…enemy forces using small arms fire…

…when shot by small arms fire…

…when an improvised explosive device detonated…

…when an improvised explosive device detonated…

…improvised explosive device detonated…

…when an improvised explosive device detonated…

…when an improvised explosive device detonated…

…when an improvised explosive device detonated…

…when an improvised explosive device…

…came in contact with enemy forces using grenades…

…in a non-combat related incident…

…when an improvised explosive device……

[More]

Blog

Arianna Huffington

02.06.2007

READ MORE: Arianna Huffington, Iraq, Hollywood

I agree with Joe Klein’s assessment that there are “far more important
things going on in the world” than a clarification of his position on
the war in Iraq. But I can’t resist reacting to his seven-point response to my post on him:

1. Klein kicks off his seven-point defense (did I say seven-point?)
of his pre-invasion stance on the war by saying, “Arianna Huffington,
the doyenne of the Hollywood left, has taken time from her busy
schedule to attack me for something I said on Meet the Press three years ago.” Actually, Joe, I was taking you to task for something you wrote on your Time blog two days ago,
namely that you opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. I wasn’t
trolling around in Lexis Nexis looking for “stupid” remarks prominent
journalists made in support of the war. There aren’t enough hours in
the day for that (hell, there aren’t enough hours in the decade for
that). I only did my quick Internet search after reading your attempt
to rewrite history. Again.

2. Speaking of “the doyenne of the Hollywood left” (one of six times
in his post Klein spits out a reference to “the left”), isn’t it time
for him to stop looking at the world through his musty right/left
glasses, where triangulation between the two is seen as “delicious” and
the height of political sophistication?

3. As a student of the dark art of sophistry, I particularly loved
this Kleinian gem: “I had my doubts about my skepticism about the
war…” I know English is my second language, but let me get this
straight: you weren’t actually, as you have claimed,
“opposed to the war” since 2002 — you were “skeptical” of the war?
And, what’s more, you had “doubts” about your “skepticism.” Wow, talk
about taking a bold stand. Could you possibly cover all your bases any
more thoroughly (and inelegantly)?

4. While I’m more than willing to accept your claim
that, in October 2002, in the privacy of his Senate office, you told
John Kerry that you wouldn’t vote to give the president the authority
to invade Iraq, this only makes your unwillingness to say the same
thing publicly all the more cowardly, and your attempt to, in
hindsight, make it seem like you did, all the more pathetic. You had
the platform, you just lacked the spine.

5. This isn’t about what you dismiss as “a moment of stupid weakness
on the brink of war.” This is about a willful, ongoing attempt to claim
credit for insight you didn’t have and courage you didn’t exhibit.

6. Give it up.

Page 1 of 5 >
»

Newspapers

Editors at newspapers supervise journalists and improve their work. Newspaper editing encompasses a variety of titles and functions. These include:

• Copy editors
• Department editors
• Managing editors and assistant or deputy managing editors (the managing editor is often second in line after the top editor)
• News editors, who oversee the news desks
• Photo or picture editors
• Section editors and their assistants, such as for business, features, and sports
• Editorial Page Editor who oversees the coverage on the editorial page. This includes chairing the Editorial Board and assigning editorial writing responsibilities. The editorial page editor may also oversee the op-ed page or those duties are assigned to a separate op-ed editor.
• Top editors, who may be called editor in chief or executive editor
• Readers’ editors, sometimes known as the ombudsman, who arbitrate complaints
• Wire editors, who choose and edit articles from various international wire services, and are usually part of the copy desk
• Administrative editors (who actually don’t edit but perform duties such as recruiting and directing training)

The term city editor is used differently in North America,
where it refers to the editor responsible for the news coverage of a
newspaper’s local circulation area (also sometimes called metro editor), and in the United Kingdom, where (normally with a capital C) it refers to the editor responsible for coverage of business in the City of London and, by extension, coverage of business and finance in general.

Editing – Wikipedia

For what it’s worth, Joe Klein’s son Chris is a great guy. -ed

 “Listening to the leftists, though, it’s easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure.”

Ah yes…where have I heard that before? Let’s see…Hannity,
O’Reilly, Limpbaugh, etc? Outside of a few “I’m outraged Bush…” and
“I opposed the Iraq war…” you just parroted a bunch right-wing
extremist talking points about liberals. Saying I, as a proud liberal
or leftist even, am “rooting for an American” failure is an incredible
insult…much more than any juvenile name calling that takes place in
blog comments.

How’s this: You can support the troops, and also want them alive and
out of harm’s way. See how that works? It’s really quite a simple
concept if you think about it. We want our military strong so it can do
what it is supposed to do – defend our Republic. Most liberals I know
don’t feel the US Military should be invading countries that pose no
threat to us, and then stay there for 4, 6, 10+ years to nation and
base-build. God help us if an actual threat presents itself to America
while our troops are giving Iraq “peace and stability” through the
barrels of their guns.

So, does it ever cross my mind that General (du jour) Patraeus might
calm Baghdad? Of course that would be fantastic, and our troops can
come home and the Chimperor-in-Chief can eat pretzels all the way back
to Kennebunkport. Problem is…that’s not the point.

The point is that our troops are being killed everyday there. Do you
and Lieberman really think the McCain Doctrine can work? 140,000 troops
haven’t been even close to enough to bring stability to Iraq. Y’all
think 20,000-40,000 more will do it, and you’re willing to wager the
lives of potentially thousands more of our brave soldiers? Therein lies
the difference in opinion between “leftists” like me, and you Mr. Klein.

Notice how I haven’t questioned your patriotism. Please stop questioning mine.

Russert Takes the Stand at Libby Trial

I. Lewis Libby

By
E&P Staff

Published: February 07, 2007 9:50 AM ET updated all day

NEW YORK One of the most highly awaited
moments in the “CIA Leak” trial in Washington, D.C. arrived this
afternoon just before 2:30 when NBC’s Tim Russert finally took the
stand, after discarding crutches (he broke his ankle not long ago).

Almost immediately, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald
asked about how he learned Valerie Plame’s name and when. Russert said
that, indeed, he did talk to I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in early July
2003, but he did not — contrary to Libby’s claims — mention Plame to
Libby in this July 8 conversation. Libby, he said, had called to
complain about attacks on him on the NBC show, “Hardball.” Russert told
him he could not do anything about that.

Russert then said that he first heard about Plame in
the Robert Novak column about a week later, on July 14, and it was news
to him, and to others in office. He then said he had fought a subpoena
to testify originally.

Now Russert said it was “impossible” that he talked
about Plame with Libby “because I did not know who that person was
until several days later.” He said that if Libby had told him about
Plame, “I would have asked him how he knew that, why he knew that, what
is the relevance of that. And since a national security issue, my
superiors (would) try to pursue it.”

Russert added that there would be some question
whether they could broadcast the information, “because that would be a
significant story.”

The direct examination wrapped up quickly, and then
the defense questioning began with queries about how well Russert knew
Libby and if their phone chat was confidential or not.

Libby’s attorney, Ted Wells, repeatedly probed why
Russert did not, as he testified, take the opportunity to ask Libby
about Wilson at all at this time. Russert explained that this was
basically a “complaint” call and it wasn’t the time or place for it,
and he really did not have the opportunity. He said it was rare to get
this type of harangue from a top official.

He also said he was certain he did not mention Plame
in that call and was surprised to hear about it six days later after
the Novak column. The defense was clearly trying to suggest that
Russert, like Libby, simply forgot he had heard name before when Novak
column came out. Russert denied this.

Walls then went into an incident a few years back when
Russert had to apologize for forgetting about a phone call he made to
complain about an article in his “hometown” paper, the Buffalo News. He
also went back to Russert allegedly not honoring the allegedly
“confidential” conversation with Libby.

Earlier today, the marathon airing of Libby’s grand
jury testimony in the CIA leak case concluded in the Washington, D.C.
courtroom.

As the tapes played this morning, they again revealed
detailed questoning by prosecutor Fitzgerald concerning Libby’s
contacts with reporters — and Cheney — in July 2003, just before and
after Robert Novak’s “outing” column appeared. One area of interest:
the now famous clipping of former Ambassador Joe Wilson’s op-ed in the
New York Times that Cheney marked up in the margins, raising questions
about Wilson’s wife and so forth. The question was: When did Cheney do
that? How far in advance of Novak’s column, and what then followed?

Libby was also asked — when he told Judith Miller,
Matt Cooper, and Glenn Kessler about Valerie Plame working at the CIA,
did any of them say they already knew that? He said, after a pause,
“No.”

As in previous days, E&P will provide updates as
the day goes on, largely based on blogging from the courthouse by
bloggers at FireDogLake.com.

Just before noon, the FireDogLake blogger reported the
following from the 2003 tapes. “F” is Fitzgerald and “L” is Libby. ***
Note: This is paraphrasing, NOT a transcript.

F : So when October comes around and headlines are
saying two officials may have called six reporters, did VP understand
that you had called reporters and discussed Wilson’s wife?

L: (quietly) I don’t recall

F: In late September or October, did you bring it to VP’s attention?

L: Went to him and said I didn’t talk to Novak, added
I learned about it from Tim Russert. He tilted his head a bit. I may
have said that I talked to other reporters.

F: You’re not sure?

L: I don’t recall. What was important was telling him
I did not leak to Novak, and I heard it from Russert, who said all
reporters knew it.

F: You say VP tilted his head when you said you
learned it from Tim Russert. Did he say, “No, you learned it from me,
remember?”

L: No.

F: Did you tell anyone else about talking to those reporters?

L: Well, Cathie Martin knew about Cooper….

F: Did you tell President?

L: No.

F: As far as you know now, does President know you talked to those reporters?

L: I don’t think so

F: And you never told VP?

L: I’m not sure.

F: You were precise in telling him you weren’t source for Novak, but not precise saying you weren’t source for others

N: I’m not sure

F: Did you think this was something Pres and VP would want to know?

L: Did tell VP when investigation began

F: What did he say?

L: Didn’t say much. Something like, “From me?” and tilted his head.

F: Did you tell him about Cooper, Miller, Kessler?

L: No.

F: And you had another conversation after this?

L: Yes, and again offered to tell him everything, he said he didn’t want to know

F: Was this before you were interviewed by FBI?

L: Yes, think all conversations were.

F: Was investigation why Cheney didn’t want to know details.

L: Not what he said.

*** (Again, the above is NOT a transcript.)

---

CIA Leak Trial Summary

– – – – – – – – – – – –

By The Associated Press

February 07,2007 | — A summary of testimony from witnesses in the
obstruction and perjury trial of former White House aide I. Lewis
“Scooter” Libby:

MARC GROSSMAN: A former undersecretary of state, Grossman said he
told Libby on June 11 or 12, 2003, that Valerie Plame, the wife of a
prominent war critic, worked at the CIA. Under cross-examination,
Grossman acknowledged some inconsistencies in his statements, such as
whether the conversations were face-to-face or over the phone.

ROBERT GRENIER: The former No. 3 official at the CIA testified that
he told Libby about Plame on June 11, 2003. He originally told
investigators he did not recall such a conversation but said he
“developed a growing conviction” that he must have said it.

CRAIG SCHMALL: Libby’s daily CIA briefer, Schmall testified that
Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, were discussed
during Libby’s briefing on June 14, 2003. Schmall based that on his
notes from the briefing.

CATHIE MARTIN: Cheney’s former spokeswoman, Martin testified that
she told Libby sometime before July 6, 2003, that Wilson’s wife worked
at the CIA.

ARI FLEISCHER: A former White House press secretary, Fleischer
recalled Libby telling him about Plame over lunch July 7, 2003, and
saying the information was “hush hush.” Fleischer relayed that
information to reporters. He received immunity from prosecution in
exchange for his testimony.

DAVID ADDINGTON: A former counsel to the vice president who now
serves as Cheney’s chief of staff, Addington said Libby asked him what
documents would be available if a CIA employee’s spouse was sent
overseas. As the leak investigation began, Addington said Libby asked
how someone could know a CIA officer was undercover and told him, “I
didn’t do it.”

JUDITH MILLER: A former New York Times reporter, Miller says Libby
discussed Plame on June 23 and July 8 of 2003 — days before Libby says
he first learned about the operative. Miller acknowledges she spoke
with other government officials, has a spotty memory and cannot be
“absolutely, absolutely certain” she did not learn about Plame
elsewhere.

MATTHEW COOPER: A former Time magazine reporter, Cooper said he had
an off-the-record conversation in which Libby confirmed he, too, had
heard that Wilson’s wife was involved in sending him on the trip to
Niger. That appears nowhere in Cooper’s notes, however, and his
description of the ground rules of the conversation have changed.
Defense lawyers say Libby told Cooper only that he had heard that, too,
from other reporters and did not know whether it was true.

DEBORAH BOND: The chief FBI agent in the leak investigation
described the bureau’s two interviews with Libby, on Oct. 14 and Nov.
26, 2003. She said Libby said he first learned Wilson’s wife worked for
the CIA from Cheney about June 12, 2003, but forgot that conversation.
Libby told the FBI he thought he was hearing the information for the
first time from NBC reporter Tim Russert on July 10 or 11, 2003.

TIM RUSSERT: The host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Russert testified
that Plame never came up in a July 2003 phone call with Libby. Libby
says Russert told him “all the reporters know” Plame worked for the
CIA. Libby says he repeated the information based on Russert’s comment.

---

Salon provides breaking news articles from the Associated
Press as a service to its readers, but does not edit the AP articles it
publishes.

I have a feeling that THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITS AP’S FEEDS:(after reading that last story)

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The
information contained in the AP News report may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written
authority of The Associated Press.

Russert contradicts Libby in trial
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

---

---

ASSOCIATED PRESS

    NBC newsman Tim Russert testified yesterday
he never discussed a CIA operative with former vice presidential aide
I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Jr., contradicting Mr. Libby’s version to a
grand jury in the CIA leak investigation.

    The testimony came as prosecutors prepared
to rest their perjury case against Vice President Dick Cheney’s former
chief of staff.

    Mr. Russert, host of “Meet the Press,”
testified about a July 2003 phone call in which Mr. Libby complained
about a colleague’s coverage. Mr. Libby has said that, at the end of
the call, Mr. Russert brought up war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV and
mentioned that the former ambassador’s wife worked for the CIA.

    “That would be impossible,” Mr. Russert
testified yesterday . “I didn’t know who that person was until several
days later.”

    That discrepancy is at the heart of Mr.
Libby’s perjury and obstruction trial. He is accused of lying to
investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding former
CIA operative Valerie Plame.

    During Mr. Libby’s 2004 grand jury
testimony, he said Mr. Russert told him “all the reporters know” that
Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Mr. Libby now acknowledges he had
learned about Mrs. Plame a month earlier from Mr. Cheney but says he
had forgotten about it and learned it again from Mr. Russert as if new.

    Mr. Libby subsequently repeated the
information about Mrs. Plame to other journalists, always with the
caveat that he had heard it from reporters, he has said. Prosecutors
say Mr. Libby concocted the Mr. Russert conversation to shield him from
prosecution for revealing information from government sources.

    Mrs. Plame’s identity was leaked shortly
after her husband began accusing the Bush administration of doctoring
prewar intelligence on Iraq. The controversy over the faulty
intelligence was a major story in mid-2003.

    Given that climate, defense attorney Theodore Wells was skeptical about Mr. Russert’s account.

    “You have the chief of staff of the vice
president of the United States on the telephone and you don’t ask him
one question about it?” Mr. Wells asked. He followed up moments later
with, “As a newsperson who’s known for being aggressive and going after
the facts, you wouldn’t have asked him about the biggest stories in the
world that week?”

    “What happened is exactly what I told you,” Mr. Russert replied.

    Mr. Russert originally told the FBI that he
couldn’t rule out discussing Mr. Wilson with Mr. Libby but had no
recollection of it, according to an FBI report Mr. Wells read in court.
Mr. Russert said yesterday he did not think he said that.

    Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald
has spent weeks making the case that Mr. Libby was preoccupied with
discrediting Mr. Wilson. Several former White House, CIA and State
Department officials testified that Mr. Libby discussed Mrs. Plame with
them — all before the Russert conversation.

    Mr. Fitzgerald has said Mr. Russert would be his final witness.

At Libby Trial, Russert of NBC Gives and Gets

Doug Mills/The New York Times

Tim Russert Wednesday after testimony in which his demeanor was alternately confident and uncomfortable.

By NEIL A. LEWIS and DAVID JOHNSTON

Published: February 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — The prosecution in the perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr.
neared the end of its case Wednesday with a final dramatic flourish
— putting Tim Russert of NBC News on the witness stand to deliver
what could be a serious blow to Mr. Libby’s defense.

Diary of the Leak Trial

Did I Say That? Memory Proves Weak in the Libby Perjury Trial

Nevertheless, Mr. Russert,

 who is accustomed to asking tough questions of his guests on

“Meet the Press,” found himself in the clearly

uncomfortable role of being the subject of tough questions during a

cross-examination by Mr. Libby’s defense lawyer.