Cheney and the leak? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 10-27-2005, 07:57 AM

Poppinjay, Yakk,

I did see her bio and noted especially that she worked for Reagan. I also note that her piece is likely a partisan piece as well as an op ed.

But I found her arguments that the intent of the law (of which she should be considered an authority on) did not match this case to be persuasive.

Contrary to what some apparently think, I haven't formed a concrete opinion on this whole mess and it may very well be that some folks end up serving some time for perjury. But I also don't like the partisan crap that is obviously mixed up in it.

If someone truly did out her maliciously (sp?) and it is a crime under the intent of the act, then I support prosecuting said individual. Otherwise, it is the same political bs that we deal with all too frequently.

Poppinjay · 10-27-2005, 08:29 AM

I honestly am not on this due to partisan feelings. I don't think this is something that should bring Bush down and that people who think he will be kicked out due to some sort of malfeasance are misguided.

What I do think about this episode, is that it looks bad, it was bad, people were jailed, the press was made a scapegoat due to a lie, and a coverup ensued. I think it all came about due to small, petty administration thugs who suffer from grand egos.

Yakk · 10-27-2005, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Poppinjay, Yakk,

I did see her bio and noted especially that she worked for Reagan. I also note that her piece is likely a partisan piece as well as an op ed.

But I found her arguments that the intent of the law (of which she should be considered an authority on) did not match this case to be persuasive.

If someone truly did out her maliciously (sp?) and it is a crime under the intent of the act, then I support prosecuting said individual. Otherwise, it is the same political bs that we deal with all too frequently.

Negligence or Maliciousness -- both are wrong.

I claim that the only reason why that article is worth reading is because, given her history, she has some authority on the subject. Because other than her opinion, no hard evidence is claimed or mentioned.

If her opinion isn't honest, then the piece is junk. Her political history places some doubt on her lack of bias, but doesn't mean she's dishonest. The blatant holes in her opinion piece, the lies by ommission I read in it, is why I believe she isn't giving an honest opinion, and is rather writing a dishonest adversarial piece.

1> I am pretty certain Plame was working for a CIA-shell company, not the CIA, at Langly. The CIA-shell company existed to make it difficult to determine the fact that Plame was a CIA agent. So the entire rant about "working at Langly" is dishonest -- as far as I am aware, Plame was covertly working for the CIA at Langly.

In fact, one of the pieces of harm caused by this link was the CIA shell company being revealed as a CIA shell company. This risks every CIA agent who recieved funds from the CIA shell company with exposure.

2> The "for some time" quote. She claims that breaking Plame's cover would be legal if Plame was a domestic agent for at least 5 years. Then she asserts that Plame has been working in the US for "some time". "Some time" is a null-statement. She doesn't assert that Plame has been working in the US for 5 years -- in fact, she says nothing hard about Plame's employment in the US or overseas, she simply slyly implies that Plame has been working in the US for so long that there is no crime here.

I see no evidence that the editorial writer even knows how long Plame has been working in the USA. What I see is mumbly-mouth evasions and empty implications.

3> It quotes something the CIA operative told Novak in their conversation. This implies the editorial writer knew about the conversation and has a transcript. It doesn't bother mention the fact that the CIA operative told Novak twice not to reveal Plame's identity. The CIA operative cannot legally tell Novak "Plame is a covert agent, do not report she works for the CIA", because Plame's covert agent status is by definition classified.

4> It never mentions the pile of classified evidence that the Judge in this case has examined that we have not, which convinced the Judge that the public interest overrides journalistic privledge.

All of these are flaws in the arguement and/or evidence that the author of the editorial isn't being honest with her readers. With no facts other than the author's opinion in the editorial, if the author is being dishonest her opinion is not worth considering.

host · 10-27-2005, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Poppinjay, Yakk,

I did see her bio and noted especially that she worked for Reagan. I also note that her piece is likely a partisan piece as well as an op ed.

But I found her arguments that the intent of the law (of which she should be considered an authority on) did not match this case to be persuasive.

Contrary to what some apparently think, I haven't formed a concrete opinion on this whole mess and it may very well be that some folks end up serving some time for perjury. But I also don't like the partisan crap that is obviously mixed up in it.

If someone truly did out her maliciously (sp?) and it is a crime under the intent of the act, then I support prosecuting said individual. Otherwise, it is the same political bs that we deal with all too frequently.

Lebell, I find your response to Poppinjay and Yakk even more curious than your assertion, when you reposted the link to Toensing's rabid repub disinformation "column", that

Quote:

The nice thing about this is that I don't have to argue a thing.

I assume, by your defense, that you either did not read the two posts that I put up in response to your assertion, or....if you did....you minimize the reaction by our fellow members to the following points....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...602069_pf.html
Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net
White House Effort To Discredit Critic Examined in Detail

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 27, 2005; A01

...........Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

Harlow was also involved in the larger internal administration battle over who would be held responsible for Bush using the disputed charge about the Iraq-Niger connection as part of the war argument. Based on the questions they have been asked, people involved in the case believe that Fitzgerald looked into this bureaucratic fight because the effort to discredit Wilson was part of the larger campaign to distance Bush from the Niger controversy.............

<b>Almost nothing that Toensing has emphasized in her year long, partisan media blitz is accurate. The spectacle of this well orchestrated, Bush regime driven disinformation, epecially in wartime, is a crime in itself.</b>

Toensing wants you to believe that Fitzgerald has improperly enlarged his investigative "mandate". The truth is that he was given wider leeway and the unprecedented authority previously restricted to the attorney general himself, so that he could keep the progress of his investigation secret even from the DOJ, in reaction to the potential conflicts of interest of the investigation's targets in the executive branch, which the DOJ answers to.

Quote:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...doj-pconf.html
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS CONFERENCE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
......Q: You mentioned that the -- you felt that Fitzgerald will have a broader -- actually a broader mandate, broader abilities than an outside counsel. Can you expand on that a little bit? In what respect will he have a --

MR. COMEY: Yes. An outside counsel has a -- the regulations prescribe a number of ways in which they're very similar to a U.S. attorney. For example, they have to follow all Department of Justice policies regarding approvals. So that means if they want to subpoena a member of the media, if they want to grant immunity, if they want to subpoena a lawyer -- all the things that we as U.S. attorneys have to get approval for, an outside counsel has to come back to the Department of Justice. An outside counsel also only gets the jurisdiction that is assigned to him and no other. The regulations provide that if he or she wants to expand that jurisdiction, they have to come back to the attorney general and get permission.

Fitzgerald has been told, as I said to you: Follow the facts; do the right thing. He can pursue it wherever he wants to pursue it.......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...uple022798.htm
The Power Couple at Scandal's Vortex

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 27, 1998; Page D1 .................

...........A classic Washington power couple, diGenova, 53, and Toensing, 56, occupy a strange, symbiotic nexus between the media and the law that boosts their stock in both worlds. They are clearly players, which gives them access to juicy information, which gets them on television, which generates legal business......

...."Dozens of Washington lawyers are trying to get on these shows," diGenova says. "I think it's very healthy. We can destroy myths and shoot down misunderstandings." Toensing sees televised debate as a good way of sharpening the old legal skills. "It's something that gets the body juices going," she says.....

.....<b>The two law partners not only talk about the Monica Lewinsky investigation -- they've been quoted or on the tube more than 300 times in the month since the story broke</b>........

..........Their television advocacy is hardly a state secret. <h4>As former prosecutors, both diGenova and Toensing have largely defended the aggressive tactics of independent counsel Kenneth Starr and repeatedly challenged the president's veracity.</h4>................

..........."They've become a public spectacle, which means they can't be impartial" in the Teamsters probe, says Missouri Rep. William Clay, the committee's ranking Democrat. "It's a payoff from Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party to both Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova. . . . They have been on television over 200 times and not once have they been talking about an issue we're paying them $25,000 a month to handle for the Congress. It's a hell of a part-time job."

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2304
.....Though both diGenova and Toensing are Republicans who are hostile to Clinton and supportive of Kenneth Starr, they usually argue against the independent-counsel law in general......

Quote:

http://www.yuricareport.com/Corrupti...veCIALeak.html
"We made it exceedingly difficult to violate," Victoria Toensing, who was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee when the law was enacted, said of the law........

.............Based on the e-mail message, Mr. Rove's disclosures are not criminal, said Bruce S. Sanford, a Washington lawyer who helped write the law and submitted a brief on behalf of several news organizations concerning it to the appeals court hearing the case of Mr. Cooper and Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times.

"It is clear that Karl Rove's conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into that category" of criminal conduct, Mr. Sanford said. "That's not 'knowing.' It doesn't even come close."

There has been some dispute, moreover, about just how secret a secret agent Ms. Wilson was.

"She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley."

Toensing did not disclose in the Jan. 2005 WaPo op-ed column, where she makes a point of defending her friend, Robert Novak, that she is his friend. Toensing has appeared on TV frequently since, and is documented as failing to disclose her relationship with Novak. This seems misleading and unethical.

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501140005
Press sightings of social interactions between Toensing, her husband, Joseph E. diGenova, and Novak abound:

* An October 1, 2004, <a href="http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/01/novak/index_np.html">article on Salon.com</a> reported that Novak was a guest along with Toensing and diGenova at a September 21, 2004, party in Washington to celebrate the success of the book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (Regnery, 2004).
* According to an October 17, 2001, "Reliable Source" column in The Washington Post, Novak was among "70 friends" hosted by diGenova to celebrate Toensing's 60th birthday at the Palm restaurant.
* A February 27, 1998, profile of Toensing and diGenova in The Washington Post reported that "[t]he couple retreat on weekends to their Fenwick Island, Del., beach house, hanging with such pals as Robert Novak and Bill Regardie." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...uple022798.htm

Novak has also defended or praised his friends Toensing and diGenova on at least three occasions in his nationally syndicated column:

* "DiGenova, a conservative Republican, would introduce something new at the IRB [Teamsters union Internal Review Board]. He might recommend that it is time to end the monitoring that has cost the union more than $75 million. [Federal prosecutor Mary Jo] White did her best to obstruct the 1998 congressional investigation of the Teamsters conducted by diGenova and his law partner-wife, Victoria Toensing. Nor is diGenova an admirer of Mary Jo White's glacial pursuit of the pre-Hoffa conspiracy between the Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and the Democratic National Committee as the statute of limitations is about to block further prosecution." <a href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2001/08/01/165366.html">[8/1/2001]</a>

I rarely post here at TFP lately because I find the resistance to in depth reading at a political forum, replaced with criticism that "long posts don't cut it", is an indication that my "contribution" will be better received elsewhere.
Consider that all of the thugs like the ones Mr. Fitzgerald is about to indict, have to do to insure success, is to make their illegal "Op" complicated enough that it won't compartmentalize in a "Mac News", USA Today style snippet, or into a Foxnews sound bite, and the perps are home free.

Consider that in a time of war, president Bush continues to allow high level aids who have admitted intentionally leaking classified information concerning confidential CIA business and personnel, to keep their security clearances and their high level positions in his government. Consider that Bush is the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S. and that he chose to retain a criminal defense attorney, Jim Sharp, to represent him when Fitzgerald interviewed him last year. Why would Bush not be leading the investigation, instead of defending himself from it?

Lebell · 10-27-2005, 11:17 AM

Yakk,

What you say may well be true. I'll be interested to see what the Grand Jury comes up with.

Yakk · 10-27-2005, 11:28 AM

Thanks host. Those quotes where surprisingly interesting! =)

In effect, there is lots of evidence that Victoria is being dishonest -- she has the means, the motivation, the oppurtunity, and there is circumstantial evidence of prevication in the few verifiable facts she makes in her opinion piece. This means that any statement she makes should be assumed to be an lie or a prevication, unless there is hard independant external evidence for it.

I have no reason to believe Plame wasn't a covert agent, because Toensing provides zero credible evidence that she hasn't been an undercover agent recently, and Toensing provides no credible legal advice on the interpritation of the law in question. All she provides is her own opinion, which has no value given her prevication, bias and adgenda.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, we have a Judge who has decided that this potential crime is important enought to violate journalistic privledge. The Judge in question has, in addition, access to classified information we are not privy to.

The Judge in question could be wrong. But there is no credible evidence that the Judge is wrong.

Lebell · 10-27-2005, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Lebell, in view of your decision to post links to the Toensing article on two threads, and your response and decision regarding my earlier Rove-Plamegate thread, made at a time when you admitted little knowledge of what was going on at TFP, I have to ask you if you have some kind of agenda, intending to steer our members away from more reliable information about "Plamegate"?

I can neither confirm nor deny this.

But please don't ask again...

docbungle · 10-28-2005, 10:06 AM

And down goes Libby...

stevo · 10-28-2005, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

And down goes Libby...

but they won't stop there. They want Rove's head and bush to resign.

After a 2 year investigation all they have is an indictment for Libby lying to investigators. Still nothing on who leaked plame's name...wonder why.

docbungle · 10-28-2005, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

but they won't stop there. They want Rove's head and bush to resign.

After a 2 year investigation all they have is an indictment for Libby lying to investigators. Still nothing on who leaked plame's name...wonder why.

Well, because it's not over yet. We'll find that out in due time. As for "Them" wanting Rove's head and wanting Bush to resign, I assume you speak of the ideological "Left", and I'm sure you're right (no pun intended). But what they want insn't really what's important. What they want isn't the issue. The prosecutor isn't one of "Them". What's important is what actually happened in this case and if it can be proven. And we're now a step closer to knowing the answer to that.

host · 10-28-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

but they won't stop there. They want Rove's head and bush to resign.

After a 2 year investigation all they have is an indictment for Libby lying to investigators. Still nothing on who leaked plame's name...wonder why.

stevo,

Your comments, seem truly bizarre, read in the context of a political status quo where Bush's party controls both houses of congress and is putting the finishing touches on a 25 year republican presidential effort to stack the SCOTUS with a clear, handpicked, majority, and where Bush himself promoted the special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, in 2001, and recently called his investigation of Bush's own administration, "dignified", and where it is clear that members of Bush's most senior administration staff were permitted to be uncooperative with Fitzgerald's investigation, and in an instance where the President and the VP reacted to Fitzgerald's direct questioning of them, by hiring criminal defense attorneys. Who is it that you suspect are Bush and Rove's antagonists of any stature or political power, outside of circumstances of their own making?

(I see how it's gonna go...now. Sen. Hatch is on CNN blabbering the TP's that if Plame has not served "outside the country" in the last five years, he (Hatch) does not see how Fitzgerald could bring an "obstruction" charge against Libby..... I suspect that we won't soon see the repub spin machine voice concern of the seriousness of deliberately "outing" the classified identity of a CIA staff member, during wartime, by a special asst. to the POTUS and the chief of staff of the "shadow POTUS", Cheney !)

This deserves it's own thread....but I'll initially ask here. What have you (and others who are sympathetic to the points that you've made on this forum about the integrity and effectiveness of the Bush administration, it's alliances, it's policies.....fiscal, social, domestic, foreign, defense, offense....Iraq invasion.....Saddam's WMD and Iraq's links to Al Qaeda....Plame's undercover status at CIA...) been <b>right or accurate</b> about? (Fitzgerald is on TV now, using the words that LIbby "compromiosed the identity of a CIA agent".)

Are you re-examing any of your opinions because of the news of the Libby indictment....or the Miers withdrawal...or the Flanigan DOJ asst. atty. general nomination withdrawal, or the air going out of Bush's SSI "reform" balloon, or the White House retrteat of it's suspension of Davis-Bacon federal wage regulations in NOLA?

Do you gain any recognition that those who disagree with you here seem to consistantly, on major issues...(existance of Iraqi WMD, Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda, Republican federal administration ethics, believability, fiscal restraint, Plame's actual classified employment status, the actual bias of MSM...) end up being more accurate about the actual agenda and in political analysis, and in predicitions, results, consequences, and outcomes, than those who have defended the political status quo?

host · 10-28-2005, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

but they won't stop there. They want Rove's head and bush to resign.

After a 2 year investigation all they have is an indictment for Libby lying to investigators. Still nothing on who leaked plame's name...wonder why.

Quote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006882.php
(October 28, 2005 -- 03:26 PM EDT // link)

Remember, I. Lewis Libby doesn't just work for the Vice President.

From the beginning of the administration, a key root of Libby's power at the White House is that he works both for the Vice President (as Chief of Staff and National Security Affairs Advisor) and the President (as Assistant to the President).
-- Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006881.php
(October 28, 2005 -- 03:04 PM EDT // link)

Overlooked in the current discussion.

Go to page 5 of the <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf">indictment</a>. Top of the page, item #9.

On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

This is a crucial piece of information. the <a href="http://www.cia.gov/employment/clandestine.html">Counterproliferation Division</a> (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but where the spies come from.

Libby's a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew. It's right there in the indictment.
-- Josh Marshal

If you consider yourself an American, why aren't you asking yourself why your president permitted Libby (and others....possibly including Cheney) to remain in his government, attending sensitive meetings in the White House, while retaining their access to secret information and their security clearances, right up until the day of indictment? In any other government department, suspicion of a serious security breach, especially coupled with recent news coverage, would have resulted in revocation of clearance and suspension of employment, long before an indictment was actually handed down.

This did not happen in the "War President's" White House !! How come?

djtestudo · 10-28-2005, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

If you consider yourself an American, why aren't you asking yourself why your president permitted Libby (and others....possibly including Cheney) to remain in his government, attending sensitive meetings in the White House, while retaining their access to secret information and their security clearances, right up until the day of indictment? In any other government department, suspicion of a serious security breach, especially coupled with recent news coverage, would have resulted in revocation of clearance and suspension of employment, long before an indictment was actually handed down.

This did not happen in the "War President's" White House !! How come?

Probably because they don't believe he did anything wrong.

But I guess an indictment=guilt right?

asaris · 10-28-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Probably because they don't believe he did anything wrong.

But I guess an indictment=guilt right?

This probably an important point. I mean, I believe that Fitzgerald is a conscientious prosecutor, and that if he indicts someone, it means he thinks that person is guilty, but as the old saying goes, "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor asked them to."

tecoyah · 10-28-2005, 01:21 PM

While I do find the indictment of Libby to be of little suprise....I must say I am interested in finding out why the Grand Jury is still open. The extension of its use ...may be quite telling. I dont think the white house is done sweating just yet.

maximusveritas · 10-28-2005, 02:42 PM

We don't know the truth because the White House has been covering it up. That's why this charge against Libby is so important. It'll serve as the impetus for putting public pressure on the White House to come clean, not just about the Plame leak, but about their handling of the WMD intelligence and the push for war.

Marvelous Marv · 10-28-2005, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

That's a technicality, and bullshit. As pointed out above to out an agent whether they are active or not puts lives at stake and is wrong for any reason.

And if our policy is now to out agents because they are not of the same political mindset as our president, then we are fucked as a country, because every 4 years we run the risk of having all our agents outed. The same with a policy of outing an agent because the spouse is critical of the president.

The administration can and probably will sit there and claim they did nothing illegal, but it is immoral, unethical and flat assed wrong in every aspect.

Those who condemned Clinton, should also condemn this action just as hard, if not moreso because the Right claim to be the moral and righteous and GOD driven party, yet say a word against the administration and watch them destroy you.

Funny you should bring up Clinton, the king of technicalities. When he was selling missile technology to the Chinese, I don't recall anyone being concerned about the risk to American lives.

Guess they were too busy discussing what the definition of "is" is. It also looks like Libby has a great deal more class than Clinton, even though he's not guilty, according to this:

Link

Quote:

CIA officer named prior to column
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.
Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.
The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said. The investigation into who revealed Mrs. Plame's identity publicly has reached the highest levels of the U.S. government. President Bush was questioned by investigators June 24.
Mrs. Plame is the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the Bush administration who has accused the president of misusing intelligence to go to war in Iraq. Mr. Wilson also accuses White House officials of deliberately revealing Mrs. Plame's name in an effort to discredit him.
In 2003, Mr. Wilson publicly debunked reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore from Niger. Mr. Wilson also said his report ruling out the attempted purchase was ignored.
However, recent reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the British government have undermined Mr. Wilson's charges. The Senate says Mr. Wilson's report, contrary to his charges, actually bolstered their view that Iraq was seeking uranium ore from Niger.
The British government said it believes intelligence reports obtained by the Joint Intelligence Committee that point to attempts by Saddam Hussein's government to buy uranium from Niger.
The White House announced last year that it erred in including a statement on the attempted ore purchase in Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech about the Niger-Iraq connection.
Mrs. Plame's identity first was revealed publicly by Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak in a July 14, 2003, column about Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore for a nuclear-arms program.
The Justice Department then began an investigation of the disclosure under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the name of a covert agent.
However, officials said the disclosure that Mrs. Plame's cover was blown before the news column undermines the prosecution of the government official who might have revealed the name, officials said.
"The law says that to be covered by the act the intelligence community has to take steps to affirmatively protect someone's cover," one official said. "In this case, the CIA failed to do that."
A second official, however, said the compromises before the news column were not publicized and thus should not affect the investigation of the Plame matter.

Indicting a man for "outing" an agent whose cover has been blown for ten years is certainly, to use your words, "bullshit and a technicality."

Rekna · 10-28-2005, 05:03 PM

Marv i'm going to have to call bullshit on both your points. First remember Clinton got nailed for lieing under oath and people were screaming for his head. Now that Libby and potentially Rove have done the same it is ok?

And on your second point having 2 governments that know about her identity is a lot different than the whole world (assuming the washington times report is true). And furthermore that is beyond the point. It is completly wrong for the administration to attempt to destroy a persons livelyhood because that person told the TRUTH to the american people. It is so morally unethical that it sickens me. Of course maybe ethics just arent important?

Elphaba · 10-28-2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

While I do find the indictment of Libby to be of little suprise....I must say I am interested in finding out why the Grand Jury is still open. The extension of its use ...may be quite telling. I dont think the white house is done sweating just yet.

For those that haven't yet found the Fitzgerald website, you can find it here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html

Tec, I just read in the indictment that "White House Official A" has involvement in this case, and there are a few other discretely identified individuals. My guess is that "A" is Rove, and he has already been informed that he may be indicted. As you said, the white house is not done sweating yet.

tecoyah · 10-28-2005, 05:18 PM

I read that as well....But, I will hold my guesses for a bit. There may be a few suprises hiding in this mans coat pocket.

host · 10-28-2005, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Funny you should bring up Clinton, the king of technicalities. When he was selling missile technology to the Chinese, I don't recall anyone being concerned about the risk to American lives.

Guess they were too busy discussing what the definition of "is" is. It also looks like Libby has a great deal more class than Clinton, even though he's not guilty, according to this:

Link

Indicting a man for "outing" an agent whose cover has been blown for ten years is certainly, to use your words, "bullshit and a technicality."

Marv, I'm gonna try to set aside my surprise and frustration resulting from reading your paste up of a Bill Gertz report from the Washington Times.
Marv, the times is not a real "news" paper, and Bill Gertz is not a real reporter. It's not just my opinion, Marv. Consider the following:
Here is a copy of Gertz's early "coverage" of the Plame leak story:

Quote:

http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/ring102403.html
Leak probe
FBI agents have conducted the first round of questioning at the White House, talking to senior officials who may have disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, the CIA unofficial cover case officer whose identity was disclosed in a syndicated column in July.

A source close to the White House tells us that the FBI agents conducted casual questioning apparently to entrap any leakers. The agents did not take sworn statements from the staff members because lying to an FBI agent during questioning is a crime.

Officials also tell us that Mrs. Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, had a party at their house in early July that included several members of the press. The party has raised questions among some officials about whether Mrs. Plame may have given up her covert status under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by mingling with reporters.

The FBI is not happy about hunting leakers in the White House. "We've got a lot of terrorists out there to look for," one agent noted.

Now that may seem like a legitimate, objective news filing to you, Marv, but I'm guessing that most members of this forum would not agree.....

No other reputable, MSM news organization distributed Bill Gertz's story that you cited. Gertz attributed no verifiable source, and it is reasonable to believe that the "facts" he quoted....Cubans intercepting and reading the material intended for the Swiss embassy in Cuba, Russian knowledge of Plame's identity...etc., would be classified information, Marv, since the CIA neither confirms or denies such matters, and illegal to disclose by CIA employees...to Gertz !

You may not be aware of this, Marv, but the same partisan hack who I posted about earlier on this forum, Victoria Toensing....led the "charge" with the filing of an Amicus brief to the very DC Circuit Court of Appeals, three judge panel, who ruled that Cooper and Miller must testify in Fitzgerald's inquiry, or go to jail for contempt!

Here is the rub, Marv. Toensing filed the brief with no accompanying affidavits. She cited Bill Gertz's article, the same one that you posted, as the heart of her argument that "no crime was committed", if Plame's name was leaked to the press by Novak, or by anyone else. Toensing made a less than convincing argument to the appeals court in defense of her friend, Novak, Marv. Here is the link to the PDF file of Toensing's brief:
http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF

Gertz's article is cited with footnote (7), on page 8 of the Amicus brief, (page 31 of the PDF file package.)
Toensing and her husband are law partners and former federal prosecutors. Is it not curious, Marv, that Toensing did not (or could not) support her brief with a sworn affidavit from....say....Bill Gertz....attesting to the accuracy of the information in his CIA/Plame story, since it is so important to what Toensing purported to convince the court of...that Plame's cover was already blown....due to CIA incompetence and lax security?

Toensing did not include an affidavit from anyone about any point that she made in her brief. An affidavit from one of Gertz's unidentified sources, or from anyone else...to coroborate the "facts" in his article, or of any others included in her brief, might have made it more difficult for the appeals judges to overlook it, and rule in Fitzgerald's favor.

It does not matter now if you think that "no crime was committed", Marv. Fitzgerald and the three judge panel of the DC circuit court of appeals disagree with your opinion. The ubiquitous and ultra partisan Toensing took her best shot and convinced the court of nothing, Why does she and Bill Gertz seem so convincing to you? Read the background that I posted about her and her husband and it is easy to see that she has no credibility.

If you really believe that Libby is "not guilty", Marv, you are in for a "no WMD were found", type of a let down. Remember how that one felt...or is it still slowly sinking in ?

Rove escaped indictment, Marv, because he agreed to be Patrick Fitzgerald's "bitch". Rove will testify against Libby to solidify Fitzgerald's case against him.
Fitzgerald is smart enough to know that if he had indicted Rove for perjury, as he easily could have, Libby's attorney would point out in court that Fitzgerald himself believes Rove to be an unreliable witness who has perjured himself on the witness stand, previously. The way Fitzgerald orchestrates Libby's prosecution, currently, he has given Rove every incentive to cooperate to avoid being charges, while maintaining Rove's credibility as a witness against Libby, and who can predict, who else. It's gonna be fun to watch Marv.

We get to see the enforcer of a criminal band of thugs, masquerading as the Executive Branch of the USA, be exposed for who he is and what he was doing. It's getting tougher to be on the wrong side of this, Marv, just as it was to defend the "mission" to invade and occupy Iraq. You advocate and apologize for thugs, Marv....war criminals, liars, torturers...traitors. You gotta start to wonder, at some point, Marv, what your advocacy says about you.

Marvelous Marv · 10-29-2005, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Marv i'm going to have to call bullshit on both your points. First remember Clinton got nailed for lieing under oath and people were screaming for his head. Now that Libby and potentially Rove have done the same it is ok?

Well then, I'm going to have to call bullshit on your calling bullshit.

Clinton didn't get "nailed," unless you call making a half-ass apology "getting nailed." Nixon resigned. Libby resigned. Clinton refused to resign, choosing instead to remain a national embarrassment until the final seconds, pardoning his buddies and trying to steal the limelight from the incoming administration.

Quote:

And on your second point having 2 governments that know about her identity is a lot different than the whole world (assuming the washington times report is true). And furthermore that is beyond the point. It is completly wrong for the administration to attempt to destroy a persons livelyhood because that person told the TRUTH to the american people.

If you do any research, you will find that other governments enter the name of any discovered agent into their databases, to determine who interacted with them. This was done with Plame ten years ago, so the whole world DID know. And where in the heck do you get your "attempt to destroy a persons livelyhood" (sic)? The whole question came up because some people (it's still being decided as to whom) were trying to figure out how Wilson was selected to investigate the Niger-uranium question. Wilson's "livelyhood" wasn't based on merit, but on nepotism.

Quote:

It is so morally unethical that it sickens me. Of course maybe ethics just arent important?

If you want to interpret it that way, fine. Selective ethics don't sway me("Yeah, he lied under oath, but lying wasn't important when MY president did it, but when a staffer for Bush does it, Bush should resign.")

You're not the only one who's sickened by politics.

Rekna · 10-29-2005, 07:36 AM

first clinton wasn't my president. I'm pointing out the hypocracy in your arguement by saying it was right to go after clinton but not right to go after libby. No one is calling for Bushes resignation. Now tell me this is lieing only wrong when it is under oath?

raveneye · 10-29-2005, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Wilson's "livelyhood" wasn't based on merit, but on nepotism.

So this whole sordid chapter in American history is all just a misunderstanding. Cheney was just taking a principled stand against cronyism. That's all.

Politics are truly wonderful.

host · 10-29-2005, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

.....If you do any research, you will find that other governments enter the name of any discovered agent into their databases, to determine who interacted with them. This was done with Plame ten years ago, so the whole world DID know. And where in the heck do you get your "attempt to destroy a persons livelyhood" (sic)? The whole question came up because some people (it's still being decided as to whom) were trying to figure out how Wilson was selected to investigate the Niger-uranium question. Wilson's "livelyhood" wasn't based on merit, but on nepotism............

Marv, you ignored my last post....presumably because the contents of it reduced your argument above to what it truly is....Rove/Libby/Cheney BS.....unsubstantiated.....found to have no merit by a three judge, federal circuit court appellant panel....in the Plame leak case,,,,the case that we are discussing here.

The fact that repub. shill Toensing advanced your argument....your Bill Gertz article.....to the court...with no accompanying sworn affidavits....not even one from "reporter" Gertz, himself, was already pointed out to you, and you ignore it and repeat the same, unsubstantiated misinformation, according to Gertz, from "unidentified" CIA sources, shows that you might not have anything else of substance to back you up.

Again, Marv....your "other governments enter the name of any discovered agent into their databases....this was done with Plame ten year ago....."
is unsubstantiated. No other "news" organization, other than the highly suspect Washington Times, carried Gertz's "story", that your cited. A federal appeals court was not swayed by it, in the least, They did not even mention considering it in their ruling that mandated jail time for Cooper and Miller.
Toensing could not even supply a sworn affidavit, attesting to it's accuracy, from Gertz himself, in the brief to the court that cited the "story" as evidence.

The bar here is raised, Marv. Rise up to it's level and stop repeating arguments that have already been unmasked as crap, or defend them with facts that others can examine for themselves, like I (and others here) regularly do......

pan6467 · 10-29-2005, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Funny you should bring up Clinton, the king of technicalities. When he was selling missile technology to the Chinese, I don't recall anyone being concerned about the risk to American lives.

Guess they were too busy discussing what the definition of "is" is. It also looks like Libby has a great deal more class than Clinton, even though he's not guilty, according to this:

Link

Indicting a man for "outing" an agent whose cover has been blown for ten years is certainly, to use your words, "bullshit and a technicality."

As pointed out above the Wash. Times is not a newspaper and I personally will never pay nor read ANYTHING from them as their Bush supporting owner the Reverend Moon has "sold" 12 (count them TWELVE) nuclear subs to North Korea and he funnels money to them. Sooooo why would I want to support or believe ANYTHING in a rag, where the owner gives money to an enemy that truly wants to destroy us.

Quote:

The Rev. Sun Myung Moon's business empire, which includes the conservative Washington Times, paid millions of dollars to North Korea's communist leaders in the early 1990s when the hard-line government needed foreign currency to finance its weapons programs, according to U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency documents.

LINK: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/101100a.html

A nice article here that there isn't room to print about how Moon has used the TIMES to spew Anti-American hatred among other juicy tidbits: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0ea3d54ee8.htm

Quote:

Moon Helps North Koreans Get Nuclear Missile Subs
Apparently, North Korea has the ability to launch nuclear missiles from submarines and strike the United States. The missiles are North Korea's project, but the ballistic missile submarines are from Russian and, it seems, were purchased for them by Rev. Sun Myung Moon - owner of the right-wing rag The Washington Times.

According to Reuters:

"It would fundamentally alter the missile threat posed by the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) and could finally provide its leadership with something that it has long sought to obtain -- the ability to directly threaten the continental U.S.," [Jane's Defense Weekly] said. ... "It's pretty certain the North Koreans would not be developing these unless they were intended for weapons of mass destruction warheads, and the nuclear warhead is far and away the most potent of those," he told Reuters. ... Pyongyang was also helped by the purchase, through a Japanese trading company, of 12 decommissioned Russian Foxtrot-class and Golf II-class submarines which were sold for scrap in 1993.
John Gorenfeld writes:

Where does Kim get those wonderful toys? Funny story: According to U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency documents ... they were furnished by Reverend Moon. ... [A] Times article, on May 24, 1994, downplayed the significance of the sale. Without disclosing that it was the newspaper owner's parent company that gave a Secret Santa gift of missile tech to the Kim empire, the Times reported that the subs were useless...
Is anyone else bothered by this? One of the biggest financial backers of American conservative ideas and movements has, in effect, made it possible for a brutal dictator to park ballistic missile submarines off the American coast and threaten nuclear holocaust if his demands aren’t met — and, even if they are, he might just go ahead and launch anyway because in addition to being brutal, he’s looney as well.

And what does the Bush administration intend to do about this? Nothing, I expect.

LINK: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/103671.htm

Quote:

August 04, 2004
The Rev. Mr. Moon and North Korean WMD
Is this a hoax? Or is it true that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church give North Korea the Russian missile submarines from which they have now successfully copied intermediate range ballistic missile launchers?

If it's not a hoax, why isn't it front-page news?

Given the new Messiah's power in American media and politics, I would have thought that his helping to give one of the Axis of Evil the potential capacity to deliver nuclear weapons against U.S. cities would have been worth a certain amount of attention.

[The New York Times reports, in Thursday's paper, that U.S. officials acknowledge that the North Koreans have developed the launchers, but are "unworried" because the North Koreans don't (yet) have submarines to put them on, and the officials "expressed doubts" (without giving reasons) that it would occur to the North Koreans to mount the launchers on freighters and thus gain the capability of attacking the U.S. mainland. No mention of Mr. Moon's role in the transaction.]

Again, I don't know how much of this to believe. That North Korea now has ballistic missile launchers based on designs from Russian subs acquired during the 1990s seems solidly established, unless Reuters is grossly misquoting Jane's Defense Weekly or someone sold Jane's a bill of goods and Jane's managed to fool the NY Times and the U.S. government.

So the open question (open for me: someone else may know the answer, and if so I'd love to hear about it, either way) is whether the Rev. Mr. Moon actually bought the Russian subs for the Beloved Leader.

John Gorenfeld links to these authentic-looking declassified DIA documents, which he credits to a FOIA request by Robert Parry. The smoking-gun sentences occur at the end of p. 2 and the beginning of p. 3 of Document 2:

In Jan94, a Japanese trading company "Touen Imoji" in Suginami-Ku, Tokyo, purchased 12 F and G class submaries from the Russian Pacific Fleet Headquarters. These submarines wer then sold to a KN [= North Korean] trading company. Although this transaction garnered a great deal of coverage in the Japanese press, it was not disclosed at the time that Touen Shoji is an affiliate of the Unification Church.

I don't know Gorenfeld's work or Parry's (that's no reflection on them, of course; I don't follow investigative journalism closely enough to know the players); Atrios links to the item as if it were the truth, and so does Nick Confessore at Tapped, but neither explicitly says that Gorenfield and Parry are to be relied on. If they are, this looks to me like a huge story.

I can understand why the daily press finds it a little bit hard to cover: the sale of the subs is ten-year-old news (note Gorenfeld's quotation from a contemporary Washington Times story pooh-poohing the theat). Jane's creates a current news hook by reporting that the fear at the time -- that North Korea would be able to reverse-engineer the missle launchers -- has proven to be real.

But to get the full story you need to take the step Gorenfeld takes: showing that the Rev. Mr. Moon -- friend of (Republican) Presidents, honored as the Messiah at a Capitol Hill shindig sponsored by the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, owner of the semi-official Republican organ in the capital -- was engaged in arming what may well be the most dangerous regime on Earth with delivery capacity for weaons of mass destruction.

The apparent complicity of the Washington Times with the plot raises some very difficult legal and Constitutional questions. Does the First Amendment make it impossible to prevent by law a hostile foreign power from wielding the political influence that comes with owning a major newspaper in the nation's capital? Perhaps it does. (Though the Foreign Agents Registration Act may criminalize some of these shenaningans.)

But nothing in the Constitution prevents patriots from refusing to (1) work for the Washington Times; (2) advertise in the Washington Times; (3) buy the Washington Times; (4) give press credentials to reporters for the Washington Times; or (5) give interviews, and especially leaks, to the Washington Times.

If this story proves to be false, I will quickly and loudly retract it. But it it does not prove to be false, it demands action. Mr. Moon, and his newspaper, must become and remain pariahs.

(And, in my view, now that the North Koreans have missile launchers, any further effort on their part to develop warheads demands a pre-emptive attack.

One of the many, many bad results of the foolishness about WMDs in the run-up to the Iraq War, and the quagmire the occupation has developed into, is that it has greatly weakened the hand of the US against Iran and North Korea. But no matter how much the South Koreans fear the results, from a U.S. viewpoint there is no objective in that part of the world nearly as important as making sure that Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego don't glow in the dark.

But that's a longer story, to be told by those who are professionals rather than amateurs: i.e., not by the proprietor of this space.)

LINK:http://www.markarkleiman.com/archive...korean_wmd.php

I can go on and on and on..... Needless to say, IMHO support the TImes and MOON = support to our dear close friends N. Korea....... I just can't do it but by all means there are those Neocons that can wave their flags and continue doing so.

tecoyah · 10-29-2005, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

If you want to interpret it that way, fine. Selective ethics don't sway me("Yeah, he lied under oath, but lying wasn't important when MY president did it, but when a staffer for Bush does it, Bush should resign.")

You're not the only one who's sickened by politics.

See....here is where the differences lay.....Dirty Dog Clinton Lied to cover up his sex addiction, a rather personal issue that may , or may not have had any effect whatsoever on how he functioned as President. Correct me if I am wrong but....It would seem we are dealing with a somewhat more impactful situation here, which may very well be tied to a string of lies that lead to the reasoning behind a war. If Bush was banging an intern right now....I would not be suprised, and in fact would likely do the same if I was married to a stepford wife. And to be honest....I wouldnt really care. What this looks like to me is a corrupt administration that purposefully Lied to its people to justify a war....and has since spent alot of energy to cover it up.
Mind you....I could be wrong in this, and so could half the citizens of this country. The Key here is....How are we supposed to Know one way or another when there is literally, No Transparency, and those that try to find information are consistantly blocked from doing so. The way my mind works follows Acoms razor for the most part....if you have nothing to hide....you wouldnt be hiding it.

Elphaba · 10-29-2005, 02:33 PM

The Associated Press believes that all by one of the unnamed witnesses have been identified by anonymous sources. Some are obvious, but there are others that I have not heard mentioned before.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102905B.shtml

Quote:

At Least 7 in Cabinet Knew of Plame's ID
The Associated Press

Friday 28 October 2005

Washington - At least seven Bush administration officials outside the CIA knew Valerie Plame was a CIA employee before the disclosure of her name in a column by Robert Novak in July 2003, according to the indictment Friday of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

In no case other than Libby's does the indictment claim that one of the government employees provided the name to reporters. And the indictment does not identify anyone other than Libby.

But some are easy to determine. Of course, the "vice president of the United States" is Dick Cheney, for whom Libby worked as chief of staff. Cheney told Libby that Plame worked at the CIA, information that Libby understood came from the agency, the indictment said.

And the person referred to as "then White House press secretary" is Ari Fleischer. Libby discussed Plame's employment at the CIA with Fleischer, noting "that such information was not widely known," the indictment said.

A person described in the indictment as "a senior official in the White House" and identified as "Official A" also talked with Novak about Plame's job and identity a few days before his column appeared. Three people close to the investigation, each asking to remain unidentified because of grand jury secrecy, identified this person as Karl Rove, President Bush's political adviser.

Names of two of the others were disclosed by a Justice Department official who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the identities have not been publicly released.

Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman also told Libby that Plame worked at the CIA, apparently in response to a request from Libby for details about a former ambassador's trip to Niger to investigate claims that Iraqtried to buy uranium yellowcake. The ex-diplomat was Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband.

The "assistant to the vice president for public affairs" is Catherine Martin. She learned that Plame was a CIA employee from yet another government official and advised Libby. The identity of the seventh government official remains a secret.

sprocket · 10-29-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

See....here is where the differences lay.....Dirty Dog Clinton Lied to cover up his sex addiction, a rather personal issue that may , or may not have had any effect whatsoever on how he functioned as President. Correct me if I am wrong but....It would seem we are dealing with a somewhat more impactful situation here, which may very well be tied to a string of lies that lead to the reasoning behind a war. If Bush was banging an intern right now....I would not be suprised, and in fact would likely do the same if I was married to a stepford wife. And to be honest....I wouldnt really care. What this looks like to me is a corrupt administration that purposefully Lied to its people to justify a war....and has since spent alot of energy to cover it up.
Mind you....I could be wrong in this, and so could half the citizens of this country. The Key here is....How are we supposed to Know one way or another when there is literally, No Transparency, and those that try to find information are consistantly blocked from doing so. The way my mind works follows Acoms razor for the most part....if you have nothing to hide....you wouldnt be hiding it.

Sorry for contributing to the threadjack in progress.. but... seriously how long is it gonna take before people realize that Clinton did far worse than lie about a blowjob... that little blowjob is still distracting everyone from all the corruption the clintons were involved with years after the fact. Karl Rove only wishes he could be that slick. It has been discussed over and over again, yet people continue to revert to "All clinton lied about was a blowjob yadda yadda yadda".

The most recent thread that comes to mind... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=95533

I'm not supporting bush here, but how can we take anyones crituque of the current administration seriously when you cant honestly look at the past.

host · 10-29-2005, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

Sorry for contributing to the threadjack in progress.. but... seriously how long is it gonna take before people realize that Clinton did far worse than lie about a blowjob... that little blowjob is still distracting everyone from all the corruption the clintons were involved with years after the fact. Karl Rove only wishes he could be that slick. It has been discussed over and over again, yet people continue to revert to "All clinton lied about was a blowjob yadda yadda yadda".

The most recent thread that comes to mind... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=95533

I'm not supporting bush here, but how can we take anyones crituque of the current administration seriously when you cant honestly look at the past.

sprocket,

This thread is a text book case for what ails this forum. Observe that one side regularly posts substandard reference material, intended to strenghten
an argument. When a thorough, well researched rebuttal is posted iin response, often discrediting the original reference, usually with multiple counter references from more credible sources, the rebuttal is often ignored, and the same, flawed, and now discredited citations are repeated again, in a followup post.

I would be happy to debate a point or several from the thread that you linked. Post what you believe are reliable references that back a given accusation about Clinton or his associates, and I will either attempt to counter with equally or more reliable reference material, or I will concede to your superior (as in better researched) argument.

What I won't do is concede to blanket, unsubstantiated, partisan talking points that masqerade as legitimate arguments. Some of us care deeply about the points we make, and exhibit a self imposed standard for what we post to back up the points we try to make. Too often, we are not even afforded the courtesy of a reply that concedes to, or challeges our postiing.

Instead, as this thread demonstrates, there is no response to our effort.Did the articles and arguments that I've attempted to rebut on this thread, rise to a level of reliability where it was better to leave them unchallenged? Maybe "better" for those who posted them, here....but in hindsight, what would that have indicated about the quality and reputation of this forum.

It is unavoidable that a "politics" forum will have passion and partisanshiip as some of it's hallmarks. I am much more troubled if there is more BS displayed here, than substance.

Rekna · 10-30-2005, 07:18 AM

Here is something interesting I just noticed. We have conservitives in this thread and the delay threads saying and indictment means nothing and people are innocent until proven guilty but then we have the same people saying guilty to things clinton was never indicted on let alone proven guilty on.

Can we all please stop with the double standards. If you hold one person to a measuring stick let's hold everyone to it. I believe that if we do that in a non-partisin manner we will actually get much better discussians.

Yakk · 10-30-2005, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Here is something interesting I just noticed. We have conservitives in this thread and the delay threads saying and indictment means nothing and people are innocent until proven guilty but then we have the same people saying guilty to things clinton was never indicted on let alone proven guilty on.

Can we all please stop with the double standards. If you hold one person to a measuring stick let's hold everyone to it. I believe that if we do that in a non-partisin manner we will actually get much better discussians.

A sitting president cannot be indicted by the courts, or so goes the constitutional theory based off the idea of seperation of powers.

At the very least, indicting a sitting president would generate a constitutional crisis (or a self-pardon).

Of course, Bill could have been indicted after he stepped down from his presidential position...

Rekna · 10-30-2005, 01:33 PM

but he wasn't now was he?

roachboy · 10-30-2005, 02:57 PM

even members of the rulilng oligarchy think that bush needs to get rid of some people over this scandal. apparently they are not persuaded by the conservative talking points that dominate the responses from the right in this thread, and which consist in trying to pretend that there is no scandal:

Quote:

Lawmakers From Both Parties Call for White House Shakeup
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 - Senior lawmakers from both major political parties called today for a White House shakeup in the wake of the C.I.A. leak case, and some urged an internal investigation into any involvement by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Democrats called on both President Bush and Mr. Cheney to apologize to the American people for the affair that led to the indictment on Friday of Mr. Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis Libby Jr. Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, remains under investigation by the special federal prosecutor.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney "should come clean with the American public," the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said. "The president, I guess, is still being driven by Karl Rove," he said on ABC's "This Week." Later, on CNN, he added, "He should be let go."

Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, a former Senate majority leader, urged Mr. Bush to bring "new blood" into the White House. Asked whether he expected Mr. Bush to forcefully address his problems, Mr. Lott replied: "I think he is a man that knows when there's a time to make moves and take actions. He will do that."

Mr. Libby resigned on Friday after being indicted on five counts, including perjury before a grand jury in the leak case, all involving false statements that investigators said he had made to them.

As the White House digested Mr. Libby's departure and sought to map a recovery from that and other recent setbacks, Mr. Bush met with advisers at his Camp David retreat, and senior administration officials stayed away from the Sunday morning news programs. But some Republicans who did venture into the spotlight sought to give the Libby matter the narrowest possible focus and to turn the page quickly.

"This is a serious matter," said Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, speaking on CNN, "but I think you go on with the agenda." And Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said that anyone trying to turn the scandal to Mr. Bush's political disadvantage is "going to be disappointed by the fact that this appears to be limited to a single individual."

Most immediate among the issues facing Mr. Bush is his next nominee for the Supreme Court seat now held by Sandra Day O'Connor. His initial nominee, his White House counsel, Harriet Miers, withdrew on Thursday under heavy bipartisan criticism. Mr. Bush is expected to announce a new nominee as early as Monday.

There was no consensus among political figures and pundits as to whether the combination of Ms. Miers's forced withdrawal and Mr. Libby's indictment would leave Mr. Bush seeking confrontation or accommodation with his next choice.

The case that produced Mr. Libby's indictment on Friday and continues to leave a cloud over Mr. Rove began with a column by Robert Novak in July 2003 that identified Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative. That and other news reports, identifying her as an undercover C.I.A. officer, were seen by some as retaliation for the vocal criticism of the Iraq war by her husband, a former ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had been dispatched to Africa by the C.I.A. in 2002 to investigate intelligence reports about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium.

In announcing the indictments on Friday, the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, emphasized that Mr. Rove remained under investigation, but he provided scant elaboration, leaving unclear the degree of Mr. Rove's continuing legal exposure.

But one senior Republican senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, himself a former prosecutor, went so far today as to say that "I think the likelihood of Karl Rove being indicted in the future is virtually zero."

He did recommend that Mr. Bush launch an internal investigation of any involvement by the vice president's office in the leaking of Ms. Plame's name.

Politically, however, Mr. Rove appears vulnerable. Mr. Lott , a former Senate majority leader, suggested that Mr. Rove's future in the White House remained unsure. "If this is going to be ongoing, if he has a problem, he's got to step up and acknowledge it and deal with it," Mr. Lott said on Fox-TV.

Asked if he was urging a wider shakeup, Mr. Lott said, "You should always be looking for new blood, new energy," but added, "I'm not talking about wholesale changes."

Democrats again sought today to frame the leak scandal as reaching beyond Mr. Libby and implicating Mr. Cheney , and therefore affecting the broader debate over how the administration moved the nation toward war.

"The vice president was the leader of the effort here to get us into this war in Iraq," said Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. To suggest that the Plame leak had nothing to do with the war "is to be terribly naïve," he said on Fox-TV.

But Senator Lott rejected this approach. Those who try to tie the vice president to the leaks, Mr. Lott said, were bound to "fail miserably."

Conservative commentators today emphasized that Mr. Fitzgerald appeared not to have found evidence to indict anyone on the underlying charge of knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert C.I.A agent, and even argued that the affair could soon slip from the public memory.

But Senator Dodd countered that Mr. Bush would make a mistake to assume that the leak problem would simply be forgotten with time.

"I think he makes a mistake if he minimizes it," he said. "Do not minimize this. This is very serious, and it's not going to go away."

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/po...rtner=homepage

and a summary of a recent opinion poll, solliciting public reactions to the scandal that the right would prefer simply went away:

Quote:

White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned
55% in Survey Say Libby Case Signals Broader Problems

By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 30, 2005; A14

A majority of Americans say the indictment of senior White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby signals broader ethical problems in the Bush administration, and nearly half say the overall level of honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen since President Bush took office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News survey.

The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found that 55 percent of the public believes the Libby case indicates wider problems "with ethical wrongdoing" in the White House, while 41 percent believes it was an "isolated incident." And by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under Bush.

In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans -- 34 percent -- think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton's standing on this issue when he left office.

The survey also found that nearly seven in 10 Americans consider the charges against Libby to be serious. A majority -- 55 percent -- said the decision of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to bring charges against Libby was based on the facts of the case, while 30 percent said he was motivated by partisan politics.

"One thing you can't ever, ever do even if you're a regular person is lie to a grand jury," said Brad Morris, 48, a registered independent and a field representative for a lumber company who lives in Nashua, N.H. "But multiply that by a thousand times if you have power like [Libby had]. And if anybody wants to know why, ask Scooter. He's financially ruined; he'll be paying lawyers for the rest of his life."

Taken together, the findings represent a serious blow to a White House already reeling from the politically damaging effects of the slow government response to Hurricane Katrina, the continuing bloodshed in Iraq, the ongoing criticism of its since-repudiated claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the bungled nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

The ethics findings may be particularly upsetting to a president who came to office in 2000 vowing to restore integrity and honor to a White House that he said had been tainted by the recurring scandals of the Clinton years.

On Friday, a federal grand jury in Washington indicted Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, on two counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice in the course of Fitzgerald's investigation into the disclosure of the name of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame to reporters. Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, has accused the Bush administration of going to war in Iraq based on intelligence officials knew was untrue.

The survey of 600 randomly selected Americans represents a snapshot of initial reactions to the Libby indictment. Those views could quickly change as the public learns more about the charges and as Republicans and Democrats mount competing campaigns to shape public attitudes. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus four percentage points.

Those campaigns may play an influential role in the public's final conclusions about the leak investigation. In the 24 hours after Fitzgerald's news conference, the survey and follow-up interviews found many Americans confused as to what, if anything, to make of the complicated indictment.

Ellen Mulligan, 34, a Republican and part-time art teacher who lives in Hamden, Conn., was one of these. "If I understood what happened, Vice President Cheney's adviser spoke to his wife and then she leaked the secret," Mulligan said.

That is not an allegation in the indictment, but though Mulligan may not know exactly what happened, the scandal for her is both typical Washington and part of a broader pattern of ethical challenges in this administration. "My actual opinion is more, 'Here we go again.' Every administration has their secrets and has some corruption," she said. But she is disappointed with Bush on the ethics front. "I think Bush's actions in certain situations are pretty much unethical, [though] not illegal. . . . He's definitely not his father. His father seemed more wholesome, more down-to-earth."

The survey found some areas of general agreement. Most Republicans, 57 percent, said that the obstruction of justice and perjury charges are serious, compared with 81 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents.

But once past the specifics of the charges against Libby, Republicans and Democrats differed dramatically. While a large majority of Democrats (76 percent) said the case is a sign of broader ethical problems in the administration, an equally large majority of Republicans (69 percent) said it was an isolated matter. Most Republicans continued to give Bush high marks for his handling of ethics in government, while Democrats overwhelmingly graded him poorly.

The survey also suggests the emergence of an appealing fresh face in public life: special prosecutor Fitzgerald. Fifty-five percent said Fitzgerald brought the charges against Libby based on the facts of the case and not for partisan political reasons. Less than a third -- 30 percent -- said Fitzgerald was politically motivated.

"I was very impressed by him," said Dorothy Harper, 56, an immigration lawyer and a St. Louis Democrat, who watched portions of Fitzgerald's news conference. "He was very impressive. He obviously knew what he was doing."

Many Americans believe that others may be involved in the disclosure of Plame's identity to the news media. Nearly half -- 47 percent -- believe that senior White House adviser Karl Rove did something wrong in connection with the case, including nearly a fifth who believe that Rove acted illegally.

On Friday, Rove was not indicted, though Fitzgerald's investigation is continuing.

A smaller but still significant proportion -- 41 percent -- believe Cheney did something wrong, while 44 percent believe he did not.

Most Americans believe Bush had nothing to do with the incidents that resulted in the indictment brought against Libby: 55 percent said the president was not at fault, while 12 percent said he probably did something illegal, and 21 percent said he did something "unethical but not illegal."

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102901223.html

apparently not everyone is as willing as are the conservatives in this thread to dissolve this bushcrisis.

comparisions to the clinton business are interesting only in the most superficial possible sense: it does not take a rocket scientist to note the difference between lying about a blow job and lying about the reasons to go to war.
you would think that folk on the right, who mostly fancy themselves the guardians of Morality (wasn't that a recurrent rationale for supporting bush in the first place, his "morality"?--well, this shows what that word actually means) would be able to sort out these differences.
from this thread, apparently expecting this sort of thinking is asking too much.

a graphic of bush's approval ratings from across the whole of his sorry presidency:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102901606.html

the right is at this point a clear minority position.
their arguments do not persuade.

host · 10-30-2005, 03:26 PM

Great observation...Rekna...
especially considering the length of the Ken Starr investigation and the other investigations. Add the Richard Mellon Scaife financed investigation and anti Clinton campaign...called the Arkansa Project and the highly partisan republican house majority that voted for impeachment and then tried Clinton in the senate....and do not forget the Dan Burton led chinagate investigation report.... and the anti Clinton folks will still claim that Clinton was too slick or that he was somehow protected. These folks are convinced that Clinton was not fully investigated. Their belief system is based on points of fact determined by rules that exist in their own parallel universe. Their seperate perception works for them when they talk among themselves.

It does not function so well when it is confronted by a question like the one you ask. They will probably answer that Clinton is in possession of powers so evil that no force of righteous repubkicans could bring any indictment against him. A lack of indictments is just more proof of his unprecedented criminality....not less proof...as you and I would suppose....

student · 10-30-2005, 05:12 PM

may i ask all who feel valerie plame's identity as a covert cia agent was already disclosed and was common knowledge and therefore no crime was committed what the intention of mentioning her name was? do you honestly believe it had nothing to do with the fact that her husband reported conflicting evidence that iraq had not tried to buy uranium from niger as british intelligence surmised. this is not an isolated incident. this white house is imbued with controversy, scandal, lies. here's my personal favorite...VOTER FRAUD search diebold and go nuts. but i guess what i am really seeking is edification. after reading these 2 pages of retorts, there is a clear consistency that correlates with every bush supporter i have ever conversed with. what has bush done that seems to make you refute evidence, logic, morals, common sense, decency, did i say evidence? please let me know.

Elphaba · 11-28-2005, 02:42 PM

It looks like this topic needs to be dusted off for Fitzpatrick's next round. "Sources close to the investigation" should always be taken with many grains of salt, but if true, we might learn something of Fitzpatrick's intentions regarding Rove sometime this week. New witnesses seem to be cropping up as well, including Rove's senior aide, Susan Ralston.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112805Z.shtml

Quote:

Fitzgerald Targets Rove Again
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Investigative Report

Monday 28 November 2005

Continuing his two-year-old investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will present evidence to a second grand jury this week that could lead to a criminal indictment being handed up against Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, sources inside the investigation said over the weekend.

For the past month, Rove has remained under intense scrutiny by Fitzgerald's office. During that time Fitzgerald, according to these sources, has acquired evidence that Rove tried to cover up his role in the leak by withholding crucial facts from investigators and the grand jury on three separate occasions, beginning in October 2003, about a conversation he had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, as well as not being truthful about the reasons that call was not logged by his office.

Rove's conversation with Cooper took place a week or so before Plame Wilson's identity was first revealed, in a July 14, 2003, column published by conservative journalist Robert Novak. Cooper had written his own story about Plame Wilson a few days later.

During previous testimony before the grand jury, Rove said he first learned Plame Wilson's name from reporters - specifically, from Novak's column - and only after her name was published did he discuss Plame Wilson's CIA status with other journalists. That sequence of events, however, as described by Rove during his grand jury testimony, has turned out not to be true, and his reasons for not being forthcoming have not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove had a momentary lapse, according to sources.

Still, Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, maintains that his client has not intentionally withheld facts from the prosecutor or the grand jury but had simply forgotten about his conversations with Cooper, the sources said.

Luskin would not return calls for comment.

Fitzgerald will present evidence to the grand jury later this week, obtained from other witnesses who were interviewed by the Special Prosecutor or who testified, showing that Rove lied during the three times he testified under oath and that he made misleading statements to Justice Department and FBI investigators in an attempt to cover up his role in the leak when he was first interviewed about it in October 2003, the sources said.

The most serious charges Rove faces are making false statements to investigators and obstruction of justice, the sources said. He does not appear to be in jeopardy of violating the law making it a crime to leak the name of a covert CIA agent, because it's unlikely that Rove was aware that Plame Wilson was undercover, the sources said.

However, according to the sources, two things are very clear: either Rove will agree to enter into a plea deal with Fitzgerald or he will be charged with a crime, but he will not be exonerated for the role he played in the leak, based on numerous internal conversations Fitzgerald has had with his staff. If Rove does agree to enter into a plea, Fitzgerald is not expected to discuss any aspect of his probe into Rove, because Rove may be called to testify as a prosecution witness against Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby was indicted last month on five counts of lying to investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice related to his role in the leak.

Moreover, a second high-ranking official in the Bush administration also faces the possibility of indictment for making false statements to investigators about his role in the leak: National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

Hadley had been interviewed in 2004 about his role in the leak and had vehemently denied speaking to reporters about Plame Wilson, the sources said. However, [/b]these sources have identified Hadley as sharing information about Plame Wilson with Washington Post editor Bob Woodward, whose stunning revelation two weeks ago - that he was the first journalist to learn of Plame Wilson's identity in mid-June 2003 and had kept that fact secret for two years - led Fitzgerald to return to a second grand jury.[/b] A spokeswoman at the National Security Council denied that Hadley was Woodward's source. Hadley, on the other hand, would neither confirm nor deny that he was Woodward's source when he was questioned by reporters two weeks ago. Woodward testified two weeks ago about what he knew and when he knew it. Woodward would not publicly reveal the identity of his source.

Rove had emailed Hadley following the conversation he had with Cooper in July 2003 regarding former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger to investigate allegations Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African country, which President Bush had referred to in his January 2003 State of the Union address, and which many critics believe was the silver bullet that convinced the American public and Congress to support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

Wilson, who is married to Plame Wilson, was a critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence. It was during Rove's conversation with Cooper that Wilson's CIA agent wife was discussed with the reporter, in an attempt to discredit Wilson and dissuade him from continuing to criticize the administration's rationale for war.

Earlier this month, the sources said, Fitzgerald received additional testimony from Rove's former personal assistant, Susan B. Ralston, who was also a special assistant to President Bush. Ralston said that Rove instructed her not to log a phone call Rove had with Cooper about Plame Wilson in July 2003.

Ralston previously worked as a personal secretary to Jack Abramoff, the Republican power lobbyist being investigated for allegations of defrauding Indian tribes and who was recently indicted on conspiracy and wire fraud charges. While working with Abramoff, Ralston arranged fundraisers and events at Washington MCI Center skyboxes for members of Congress. Ralston communicated with Rove on Abramoff's behalf on tribal affairs, though she is not accused of wrongdoing.

Ralston provided Fitzgerald with more information and some "clarification" about several telephone calls Rove allegedly made to a few reporters, including syndicated columnist Robert Novak, lawyers close to the investigation say.

Ralston testified in August that Cooper's name was not noted in the call logs from Rove's office, those familiar with the case say, testifying that because Cooper's call was transferred to Rove's office from the White House switchboard it was not logged. If Cooper had called Rove's office directly, the call would have been logged, Ralston testified.

But sources say that Fitzgerald has obtained documentary evidence proving that that scenario does not jibe with other unrelated calls to Rove's office that were also transferred to his office by the switchboard but were logged.

As Rove's senior adviser, Ralston screened Rove's calls. Her additional testimony may help Fitzgerald prove that there were inconsistencies in Rove's account of his role in the leak and assess why he withheld a crucial fact from the prosecutor: that Rove had spoken with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper as well as Novak about Plame and confirmed that she was an undercover CIA agent.

On Sunday, Time magazine reported that another one of its reporters, Viveca Novak, who bears no relation to Robert Novak, is cooperating with Fitzgerald's probe and will give a deposition to Fitzgerald about a conversation she had with Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, in May 2004.

However, Viveca Novak did not write a single story about the Plame Wilson leak under her byline between May and December 2004. The first time she authored or co-authored a story about the leak following the May 2004 meeting with Luskin was in July 2005, so it's unclear why Fitzgerald is suddenly interested in questioning her. But her upcoming testimony proves that Fitzgerald is keeping the pressure on Rove.

At least in the Watergate business, an actual crime had been committed before the coverup began. Plamegate appears to be a coverup of a noncriminal act. It was dirty politics, to be sure, but nothing that was going to cause jail time.

trickyy · 02-11-2006, 12:31 AM

the libby defense will implicate cheney, according to NBC, National Journal

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11259044/

Quote:

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, will in part base his defense on the claim that Cheney instructed and encouraged Libby to share classified information with reporters, sources familiar with the case tell NBC News.

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...06/0209nj1.htm

Quote:

Beyond what was stated in the court paper, say people with firsthand knowledge of the matter, Libby also indicated what he will offer as a broad defense during his upcoming criminal trial: that Vice President Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials had earlier encouraged and authorized him to share classified information with journalists to build public support for going to war.

i thought the Wa Post also verified this development, but i can only find analysis of the National Journal article (not independent verification). anyway, this is an interesting development. we could see some friction between libby and his former employers.

Ustwo · 02-11-2006, 01:24 AM

Quote:

But Bill Jeffress, a Libby attorney, said in a statement: “There is no truth at all to the story that Mr. Libby’s lawyers have advised the Court or the Special Counsel that he will raise a defense based on authorization by superiors. Indeed, there has never been any conference call between Mr. Libby's defense lawyers and Judge Walton. We do not know who reporters are relying on as sources for this story, but any such persons are neither knowledgeable nor authorized to speak for Mr. Libby's defense team.”

Same link, where his own lawyers deny it. Kinda takes the bite out don't ya think? Sounds like someone else may be making false statements to damage the VP, not that anyone would do that.

Poppinjay · 02-11-2006, 07:46 AM

I don't know, sounds like somebody leaked this info. who would do such an incorrigible thing?

If, indeed, Libby Lewis does offer this testimony, I hope he's watching how Michael Brown is now being attacked by the Bush admin.

10-27-2005, 07:57 AM	#41 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Poppinjay, Yakk, I did see her bio and noted especially that she worked for Reagan. I also note that her piece is likely a partisan piece as well as an op ed. But I found her arguments that the intent of the law (of which she should be considered an authority on) did not match this case to be persuasive. Contrary to what some apparently think, I haven't formed a concrete opinion on this whole mess and it may very well be that some folks end up serving some time for perjury. But I also don't like the partisan crap that is obviously mixed up in it. If someone truly did out her maliciously (sp?) and it is a crime under the intent of the act, then I support prosecuting said individual. Otherwise, it is the same political bs that we deal with all too frequently. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-27-2005, 08:29 AM	#42 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I honestly am not on this due to partisan feelings. I don't think this is something that should bring Bush down and that people who think he will be kicked out due to some sort of malfeasance are misguided. What I do think about this episode, is that it looks bad, it was bad, people were jailed, the press was made a scapegoat due to a lie, and a coverup ensued. I think it all came about due to small, petty administration thugs who suffer from grand egos. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

10-27-2005, 11:17 AM	#45 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Yakk, What you say may well be true. I'll be interested to see what the Grand Jury comes up with. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-27-2005, 11:28 AM	#46 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Thanks host. Those quotes where surprisingly interesting! =) In effect, there is lots of evidence that Victoria is being dishonest -- she has the means, the motivation, the oppurtunity, and there is circumstantial evidence of prevication in the few verifiable facts she makes in her opinion piece. This means that any statement she makes should be assumed to be an lie or a prevication, unless there is hard independant external evidence for it. I have no reason to believe Plame wasn't a covert agent, because Toensing provides zero credible evidence that she hasn't been an undercover agent recently, and Toensing provides no credible legal advice on the interpritation of the law in question. All she provides is her own opinion, which has no value given her prevication, bias and adgenda. Meanwhile, on the other hand, we have a Judge who has decided that this potential crime is important enought to violate journalistic privledge. The Judge in question has, in addition, access to classified information we are not privy to. The Judge in question could be wrong. But there is no credible evidence that the Judge is wrong. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

10-28-2005, 10:06 AM	#48 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	And down goes Libby... __________________ Bad Luck City

10-28-2005, 01:21 PM	#55 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	While I do find the indictment of Libby to be of little suprise....I must say I am interested in finding out why the Grand Jury is still open. The extension of its use ...may be quite telling. I dont think the white house is done sweating just yet. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-28-2005, 02:42 PM	#56 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	We don't know the truth because the White House has been covering it up. That's why this charge against Libby is so important. It'll serve as the impetus for putting public pressure on the White House to come clean, not just about the Plame leak, but about their handling of the WMD intelligence and the push for war.

10-28-2005, 05:03 PM	#58 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Marv i'm going to have to call bullshit on both your points. First remember Clinton got nailed for lieing under oath and people were screaming for his head. Now that Libby and potentially Rove have done the same it is ok? And on your second point having 2 governments that know about her identity is a lot different than the whole world (assuming the washington times report is true). And furthermore that is beyond the point. It is completly wrong for the administration to attempt to destroy a persons livelyhood because that person told the TRUTH to the american people. It is so morally unethical that it sickens me. Of course maybe ethics just arent important?

10-28-2005, 05:18 PM	#60 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I read that as well....But, I will hold my guesses for a bit. There may be a few suprises hiding in this mans coat pocket. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-29-2005, 07:36 AM	#63 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	first clinton wasn't my president. I'm pointing out the hypocracy in your arguement by saying it was right to go after clinton but not right to go after libby. No one is calling for Bushes resignation. Now tell me this is lieing only wrong when it is under oath?

10-30-2005, 07:18 AM	#71 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Here is something interesting I just noticed. We have conservitives in this thread and the delay threads saying and indictment means nothing and people are innocent until proven guilty but then we have the same people saying guilty to things clinton was never indicted on let alone proven guilty on. Can we all please stop with the double standards. If you hold one person to a measuring stick let's hold everyone to it. I believe that if we do that in a non-partisin manner we will actually get much better discussians.

10-30-2005, 01:33 PM	#73 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	but he wasn't now was he?

10-30-2005, 03:26 PM	#75 (permalink)
host Banned	Great observation...Rekna... especially considering the length of the Ken Starr investigation and the other investigations. Add the Richard Mellon Scaife financed investigation and anti Clinton campaign...called the Arkansa Project and the highly partisan republican house majority that voted for impeachment and then tried Clinton in the senate....and do not forget the Dan Burton led chinagate investigation report.... and the anti Clinton folks will still claim that Clinton was too slick or that he was somehow protected. These folks are convinced that Clinton was not fully investigated. Their belief system is based on points of fact determined by rules that exist in their own parallel universe. Their seperate perception works for them when they talk among themselves. It does not function so well when it is confronted by a question like the one you ask. They will probably answer that Clinton is in possession of powers so evil that no force of righteous repubkicans could bring any indictment against him. A lack of indictments is just more proof of his unprecedented criminality....not less proof...as you and I would suppose....

10-30-2005, 05:12 PM	#76 (permalink)
student Crazy	may i ask all who feel valerie plame's identity as a covert cia agent was already disclosed and was common knowledge and therefore no crime was committed what the intention of mentioning her name was? do you honestly believe it had nothing to do with the fact that her husband reported conflicting evidence that iraq had not tried to buy uranium from niger as british intelligence surmised. this is not an isolated incident. this white house is imbued with controversy, scandal, lies. here's my personal favorite...VOTER FRAUD search diebold and go nuts. but i guess what i am really seeking is edification. after reading these 2 pages of retorts, there is a clear consistency that correlates with every bush supporter i have ever conversed with. what has bush done that seems to make you refute evidence, logic, morals, common sense, decency, did i say evidence? please let me know.

02-11-2006, 07:46 AM	#80 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I don't know, sounds like somebody leaked this info. who would do such an incorrigible thing? If, indeed, Libby Lewis does offer this testimony, I hope he's watching how Michael Brown is now being attacked by the Bush admin. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet