Cheney and the leak?
 

Today there was an article in the New York Times about documents showing that Vice President Cheney told his aide Lewis Libby about Valerie Plume (the CIA agent who was married to a war critic and who's name got leaked to the press). Lewis Libby had claimed under oath that he found out about her from journalists first. This shows that statement to have been a lie.

If it can be traced as far up as VP Cheney, do you think that VP Cheney is going to be found to have been involved in the leaking of her name?

Which is the lie? Maybe both?

Consider motivations then vs. now.

BTW, this is the AP article I read:

In my opinion, the most important part of that article:

Cheney's involvement suggests not that Cheney was the source of the leak, but that Libby lied about learning of Plame from conversations with journalists who knew from some other source. Particularly damning is the fact that this conversation with Cheney about Plame was documented in Libby's own notes - so there is no reason to expect that he would have forgotten before giving testimony.

This clear statement about Cheney may be a sign the Libby will be the sacrificial lamb, especially if the story can be cast that Rove got the name from Libby as well (placing Libby squarely in the middle and thus exonerating the rest of the crew).

Fitzgerald may have something more that we don't know about, but your assessment would be the best possible choice for damage control.

The big problem now will be the people who lied under oath.

I dunno what the big hub-bub is about. I'm pretty sure that Bush would pardon his two political allies who have been with him through his presidency, so I sincerely doubt many people will see jail time. And I don't think that this is a big enough national scandal that it will be that important.

I think all the scandles with the GOP lately could lead to a backlash in the midterm elections which could also carry onto the next elections.

If libby is guilty of perjury he should go to jail. Cheney talking about Plame is not illegal since he is privy to that sort of information. The only wrong-doing in this whole mess is the attempt to "cover-up" the "source."

A. Its not illegal to disclose the name of a covert agent if it is unknown that that person was covert.

B. Plame was not covert at the time her name was "leaked" to the media. She was covert in the past. But for the previous five years she worked in Langly, VA. Her friends and family knew this. How is that covert?

The dems keep throwing scandle after scandle at the bush administration, hoping one will stick. I personally hope there are indictments in this case, and not for obstruction of justice or some small potatoes, I want to see indictments for outing plame so that fitzgerald gets torn a new one (metaphorically speaking) in the courtroom. But that is precisely why we wont see any indictments handed down, other than possibly one for scooter, if he did in fact lie under oath.

Stevo, I see your points. I would offer this in response:

Even if outing Plame was not at crime, lying under oath is a big deal for a public official. It isn't Scooter Libby's place to determine that the investigation is pointed at a non-crime and therefore it is ok to lie to the prosecutor. Perjury is a big deal, and this is a national security case. This to me was the extremely valid part of Clinton's impeachment (which, clearly, I recognize was not a national security case). If public officials haven't yet learned that the coverup is always worse than the scandal, it really makes me wonder how often the coverups pay off. How many things are happening and hushed up that we never hear about?

Cheney can talk about Plame. Cheney can't say, "tell Rove to leak that Plame is an agent."

When he is under oath, he'll certainly deny he said anything like that.

Oh, and the lie about the leak coming from the press? Real nice. Thanks, Bush administration, I don't knock the hookers off the grill when you're working.

Without a doubt, lying under oath is a crime. If libby did that he should go to jail. And I definately agree with you from nixon to bush and everyone in between the coverup has always been worse than the crime. and it appears politicians will never learn this lesson. And then you pose another good question. I guess you'd have to be privy to some classified information to know that one now, wouldn't you.

He doesn't have to, its not a leak. A month before Novak got plame's name from someone in the whitehouse, wilson was at a democratic fundraiser and in a speach he gave he "outed" his own wife as a CIA agent.

Don't you guys see, there was no crime here, and if there was wilson should be indicted first, for he let her name out before anyone else. But she wasn't a covert agent at the time, and hadn't been for half a decade. Like I said. Its all just a game and the democrats keep trying to get some kind of accusation to stick because they can't win at the ballot box.

This is a description from a website for the EPIC Iraq Forum 2003. Joe Wilson spoke there June 14, 2003 at 5pm. This website was set up prior to that event and his description was too.
http://next.epic-usa.org/epicdev2/ep...maudio2003.php
So a month before the Novak piece came out, here it is, on a public website, the name of joe wilson's wife, Valarie Plame.

Now someone please explain to me how the whithouse outed a covert CIA agent.

I'm failing to see where he said what Novak said, that she was a CIA agent.

I don't see the CIA referenced in that quote at all. We know he was married. We didn't know she was with the CIA.

does anyone know where I can find some sort of timeline or summary for all of this business? I have been trying to pay attention to it, but it seems to get more confusing every time. I know pretty much the details of the leak thing, but I hear things about forged documents and such, and it seems like I hear a new name every day... someone help me out? I'm trying to stay on top of all of this.

The whole point is that no one was trying to hide her name or identity. If she truely was covert he would not have listed her name. The point is she wasn't covert. She had to have lived and operated overseas in the past five years. she hadn't been. she worked in langly va for the previous 5 years. her friends and family knew she worked at the cia. She was anything but a covert agent.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/us...6----000-.html The definition of a covert CIA agent
Here is a column from Novak discussing Plame's covertness from a few weeks ago, well, here's the link to the whole column and the important parts. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...01/168398.html
Wilson himself said http://www.theunionleader.com/articl...?article=57825

these stories will do a good job of catching you up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102401405.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102401690.html

She was a covert agent previously. A covert agent who made contacts that were potentially threatened if found out. She became an un-covert worker. But her contacts would still be threatened if it was know that she had been a covert agent.

She wasn't outed as a CIA worker, she was described and outed as a covert agent.

I still fail to see your argument. Example: Peter Parker's name is in the newspaper every day as a photographer, but that doesn't mean that anyone knows he is Spiderman, because he is undercover.

Thanks! You work fast.

Undercover being the key point.

Plame hasn't been undercover for several years.

I posted an article written by the authors of the law that the current adminstration is accused of breaking and this was the point they made.

No crime was committed because she wasn't undercover.

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.

It is illegal to out the covert activities of an agent. That is what happened in this case.

Lebell, can you point out where this article is?

I stopped paying attention to the articles Stevo posted after he claimed that the printing of Plame's name in any context whatsoever (including, say, a context in which her job isn't mentioned!) implies that her cover was already broken. @_@

Don't be so quick to blame the administration Pan. Your taking the bait the bush-haters hang and run with it.

Did you read what Novak says?

Did you read "He 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."

Has it occured to you that maybe this is all news about nothing? The only reason there is all this commotion is because the justice dept took a quick look at it one weekend and dismissed it. But the bush-hating media decided to make something out of this because they are so dead set on getting rid of bush. Has it?

The Bush hating media? Are these the same guys that rode Clinton for bylines and adoration from the right?

Here's a clue to that: the media is almost entirely owned by rich white guys. Not a hotbed of liberalism. Or even democrats.

Additionally, there's enough just in your statement that warrants the investigation and possible indictment. "PROBABLY will never again.." PROBABLY. "use of her name might cause DIFFICULTIES"

Oh, and, "HE ASKED ME NOT TO USE HER NAME".

I'm not dead set on getting rid of Bush through scandal and whatnot. I do want the truth to be told, and I despise that they blamed the leak on the media.

I am laughing out loud at the argument that "We knew he was married to Plame..." That was never hidden nor should it have been, hell that is public record. What wasn't known is that Plame was not a consultant like her neighbors thought... she was a undercover CIA agent.

Is that why MSNBC, CBS news, ABC news, the New York Times, the LA Times, CNN etc, are all such great Republican news sources?:rolleyes:

I'm happy you noticed!

When was the last time you saw an article on Ohio election irregularities? Seen a major paper say that Bush is a complete idiot? Seen a major network allow left-wing groups (say, moveon) to buy ad-time for political messages? Seen a major network allow the Republican controlled white house buy ad-time for political messages?

The last article you read on the subject of Nixon's "southern strategy", and it's analogy to modern day? The last bit of invesigative journalism detailing the political connections of the largest manufacturer of voting machines?

The right-wing bias in the mainstream media is well documented.

The easiest and most dangerous thing in the world is to attack the free press.

Our press is far from perfect, they are driven to report what sells and try to create news to be more spectacular to sell. They do this regardless of party.

I do however find the press, even with their faults our greatest defense against tyranny.

However, lately we find BOTH parties crying the media is unfair and biased on the other side. Perhaps, it is because the press actually TRIES to be as objective as possible and the truth hurts. They attacked Clinton just as feverishly and as hard as they have Bush. But because one side is so brainwashed to believe that any press not supported by the 700 Club and Bush's white House is evil, they refuse to remember how every station, magazine and news show went after sources to find ways to show Clinton's demise.

As for editorials, Op Eds, talking heads like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Springer, Moore and so on.... they are airing their opinions and should be looked at as that. If they want to claim their opinion as fact, then allow them to show the evidence. If not then it's opinion and they lied..... BFD.

I find it horrific that we continually deride the press and attack them for not supporting our views and because they do not support what we believe then obviously they are puppets for the other side.

Beware the press that tells you the Kool Aid you are drinking is your favorite flavor, Jim Jones clones may lurk in the shadows.

I prefer a press that tells me to check before I drink the Kool Aid because someone may have pissed in it. I believe that is what the press's job is.

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

(Here you go, Yakk)

Forget the partisan crap for a minute: What was the purpose in "outing" the agent? Why did they do that? I don't know if it was a crime or not but I would have erred on the side of caution. That's just common sense - why do that to a fellow American?

Also the CIA should be answering questions about this to clear the air once and for all about her status etc.

Interesting column. I didn't pay attention to the early stages of this thing and was taking too much for granted. Reading your link and some of the earlier AP stories tonight put the mess in a new light. It's one amazing horse race.

Sure seems like many people on the inside could have diffused this long ago. They must have been transferred to FEMA.

I don't see that you have anything that will withstand an argument, Lebell...
A month after Toensing's column appeared in the Wapo, the DC Circuit appeals court issued it's ruling in the following case. Note that Judge Tatel was initially most reluctant to rule against Judith Miller, but Fitzgerald's evidence submissions (and "voluminous classified findings")must have convinced Judge Tatel to change his mind......
In fairness to Toensing, the following was reported six months after she persuaded the WaPo to print her BS opinion piece. We'll document her track record as a partisan media whore "hack" in a followup post.

I have detailed the following before, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1839331&postcount=15">here</a> on this forum. This is the political bomb shell case of your generation, folks. I'm disappointed that so much of what I've read here lately, has even been posted. Early on....when I sorted out where this was going....and this being a "poltical forum", I laid it out as best as I could. It's not too late to review my thread. I'd be interested to read opinions of what I've been wrong about......

There's been so much focus on format and on wording in thread "titles". This post and the one that follows will convince some of you that more curiousity about the material might have avoided Toensing's WaPo article being offered as substantative. It clearly isn't.
<h4>Note that, even after the above article was published, Toensing is reported to frequently provide her opinion to the press that "no law was broken". Toensing has persisted with her PR message during WARTIME.</h4>

There has been much repub "spin" about Fitzgerald's investigative "mandate".
In addition to reading the GAO decision paper linked in the preceding quote box, other illuminating pieces that describe Fitzgerald's mandate as akin to that of the Attorney General of the U.S. Unlike Special proscutor Ken Starr, Fitzgerald has authority to operate with autonomy. He does not need to get justice department authorization (permission) to serve warrants or to enlarge the scope of his investiagtion. As the Dec. 30, 2003 DOJ press conference where his appointment was announced, and the Feb. 2004 letter that is on display at Fitzgerald's new website, make abundantly clear, Toensing and other repub "spinners" are wrong when they attempt to narrow Fitzgerald's "original" mandate.....he had an open authoraization to take his investigation to anywhere that he deemed it might lead:

1.)The Victoria Toensing Jan. 2005 "column" that you cite at the WaPo link is an "op ed", i.e., an "opinion" piece. It is not to be confused with news reporting by that newspaper or by other news or news wire services.

2.)There is nothing credible about Toensing or her husband. They are (if you call 300 TV appearances in a short period, extreme....) partisan to the extreme, and difficult to imagine as anything other than obsessive, self promoters.
3.) Heavens, no !!! The following portrays Toensing, when compared to the bold quote above.....as a...."flip-flopper" !
4.)Victoria Toensing is on record as having a curious contempt for the law. What else could explain authorship of a "law", intended to safeguard national security, that is described by said "author" as:
But....what would one expect a close friend of Robert Novak, and an openly partisan republican like Toensing, to say, if not the quotes above? She is not in the habit of disclosing her friendship with Novak as she interjects her "opinion" in this matter, everywhere that she is able to.....
4.)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.
5.)The Toensing op-ed column is riddled with inaccuracies:
The Washington Post identified Toensing as "chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee from 1981 to 1984 and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration." Sanford was identified as "a Washington lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues."
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"?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=16

Lebell,

I hope you noticed the bio of the person who wrote that column:

Victoria Toensing was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee from 1981 to 1984 and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. Bruce Sanford is a Washington lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues.

Ya think she might be a bit biased? At any rate, that was not a news report, it was an opinion piece with as much weight as any opinion piece. It is not a report from a reporter.

You're pretty naive if you think because someone is a "reporter" they don't have an agenda and everything they print is fact, checked twice over. Reports from reporters are littered with biases, omissions, and sometimes straight-out lies. At least with an opinion piece its labeled as such. Not so for the front page of the NYT.

And no where did I say that I think reporters don't show bias. Look at Fox News.

As for the straight out lies, I'm sure there are bad reporters just like there are bad cops. They shouldn't exist.

I have worked as a reporter and manage reporters and know bunches of them. Most of them bend over backwards to be balanced.

But that piece had no FACTS, just OPINIONS and was posted as a refute to facts.

All of which leads the thread awry and doens't address the topic the leak came from Cheney's staff. It was about a formerly covert agent. Her husband saidgain today that it put her in jeopardy. Rove lied and said he heard the news from the press.

Thank you Lebell.

That editorial does not assert that Plame was not assigned overseas. The best it asserts is that she was working in the US for "some time". It doesn't deal with the fact that there is apparently a large volume of classified information presented to a judge who became convinced, based off this evidence, that journalistic privledge should be revoked in the national interest.

It doesn't mention that the CIA agent Novak talked to repeatedly told Novak not to reveal Plame's status as a CIA operative. Instead it brushes against this and mentions far less important quotes from the discussion... It doesn't mention that Plame was working for a CIA shell company (not the CIA), and her employment with the CIA at Langly was a secret. In fact, it uses "at Langly" as if this implies she was openly working for the CIA...

In effect, the piece looks like an advocacy piece, not an attempt to uncover the truth of the matter. The political credentials (high former official in a republican white house) provide cooroborative evidence.

I must therefore assume that it is written in an adversarial context, and that any ommissions and wholes in her arguement are intentionally left out are not accidental but rather rhetorical dishonesty. The history of expertise of Victoria means that it isn't reasonable to assume she just accidentally missed important and pertinant facts that happen to be less than supporting of her arguement.

So, in conclusion, Victoria isn't making an honest arguement. There is ample evidence of lies by ommission. So citing her as an authority, or assuming without independant proof, any fact she espouses is not reasonable.

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.

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.

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.

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
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....
<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.
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.
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?

Yakk,

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

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.

I can neither confirm nor deny this.

But please don't ask again...

:eek:

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.

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.

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?

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?

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."

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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:
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.

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


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.

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.

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?

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.

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......

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

but he wasn't now was he?

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:

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:



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.

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....

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.

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

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.

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11259044/http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...06/0209nj1.htmi 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.

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. :rolleyes:

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

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

well, i never said this story is Absolute Truth. if i was particularly concerned with "bite," i wouldn't have noted that there's only 2 repuatble news sources reporting this version of the story. [EDIT: here's the third story i couldn't find]

however, a Fitzgerald letter (Exhibit C, pg. 15) released 1/31 mention that libby's "superiors" instructed him to act as he did. so something is there, unless they've changed their legal strategy or Fitzgerald is mistaken.

It no longer matters - the VP himself has stated that HE can declassify documents. The Pres. is no longer needed. Just ask him - he'll tell you again.

A> Can Cheney do that? I mean, legally, not "I say, therefore it is true".

B> Is revealing a covert CIA agent's name in order to harm and discredit someone who disagrees with administration policy a good thing for a VP to do?

C> Do the actions of the Bush white house define "good", and such any action done by a member of the Bush white house are "good"?

Just wondering. =)

If he can, it's the first anybody is hearing about it.


You'd think it would be a bad thing but nobody is asking this question yet.

Yes. If you do a really really really bad thing, like screwing up a major disaster relief event, you get a pat on the back. If you do a really really bad thing, like releasing the name of a covert CIA operative, you get a commendation and kiss on the cheek. If you do a really bad thing, like shoot an old codger in the woods, you get a medal. If you do a bad thing, like getting a DUI and scuffling with your dad, you get to be president.

Bump

Some new details emerging about the leak and its origins. Looks like this one came all the way from the top...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Republicans should be shakin' in their boots right now. If they lose Congress this year, be prepared to see indictments flying all over the place (as well as possible inpeachment charges as). Should be an interesting couple of next months...

Edit: woops, meant to say *congress*, not senate. ;)

Saw that.

Yeah, I'm starting to get fed up of all this, regardless of truth or falicy. Is it 2008 yet?

Senate presides over the Impeachment hearing, the House has to draw up the articles.

You'd think maybe he should follow Nixons lead here at some point, I mean he simply can't be effect as our leader. Not saying I want Kerry or Clinton at the helm, but get fucking serious.

Mojo, I am concerned about a number of things regarding Bush policy. I see no advantage to a successful impeachment of Bush, if that leaves us with Cheney. I believe he and Rumsfeld (among other necons) are the actual architects of the current mess we are in.

Well I wasn't so much addressing problems in policy, that's all this administration really has going for it. I agree that the whole administration would need to be removed seeing as to alot of these implications name severely members. I think he should resign, at least attempt to keep politics out of it.

Another source, Jason Leopold, has been following and reporting on the Plame leak. You can find Wiki information about him here Leopold if you wish to check out his credentials.

TruthOut

This might explain Cheney's comment that if he says "it", it is declassified.

I'm quoting myself from 18 months ago. I still think hanging Libby out to dry was an all or nothing strategy. However, it may very well backfire. Impeachment or no, this could be VERY damaging to the Bush administration. If Cheney was really passing Bush's instructions down, I only see two defenses (after more hedging, of course). 1) they could push the argument that Bush's word is good enough for declassification, but this will be hampered by the fact that the administration has spent almost 2 years covering this up. If they really believed that legalization was so simple, this could have been explained easily and quickly. 2) Cheney could take the heat and say that Bush didn't really authorize disclosure.

The only other ways are to hope to stall this one out until 2008 or for Bush to take responsibility for his people. Yep, it could be a very interesting year ahead of us.

Uber, I think they only need to stall long enough to get through the midterm elections without another major scandal or revelation. Seven months is all that is needed.

Libby may have agreed to be the sacrificial lamb, as did Tenant. We won't know until Libby's lawyers play their cards.

What do you suppose they get in return? Haliburton or Enron shares?

If this did come directly from Bush and he indeed has the ablity to declassify information for any reason no matter how underhanded will anything come of this? In addition, if it did come from Bush what about the statement from Bush to fire anyone to have been found involved in the leak? If he knew it was himself that was responsible and he told the American public this what does this do for his credibility to the American people?

I'd say we'd have sufficient evidence to take him up on the offer.

Bush has a lot of charisma (or at least, he used to), and that helps him to propose initiatives. Cheney has negative charisma, if that is possible. That would slow down anything that he would wish to do.

Agreed. Cheney works best in the back corners of the room, muttering under his breath to his coterie of underlings. Forcing him to be the public face of the administration would almost certainly undermine his ability to fulfill his agenda.

I think it's a way to pin everything on an unpopular president to try and save the party.

No one can do anything to Bush, so he takes the heat and since he is oblivious to the people's opinions he won't even notice. Meanwhile the party can distance themselves from him find the 2008 candidate and not worry about this going any further.

Just a guess.

I'd like to say I'm surprised that Bush would blatantly lie to the American people but I can't. I'd also like to say that something will result from this but I can't do that either.

It seems to me that when the congress and the president all belong to the same party their is no recourse from the american people to hold the president responsible for his actions. I think that our government is broken when one party controls everything.

i am not surprised.

i am surprised, however, that this matter seems to have as much traction as the range of--um---problems associated with the iraq debacle.
and even more that a country so "free" as this is facing yet more time under the aegis of this administration.
these people make a very strong case for systemic change, one that would perhaps involve the possibility of a vote of no confidence or some other mechanism to depose an adequately corrupt/inept/criminal administration.

two strange logical loops:

1. an edito in this morning's ny times outlines the problems created by this for the bush people---the endlessly repeating statements about leaks "damaging the nation"--squared with the leaks from bush direct in this matter---the conclusion: this administration understands itself to BE the american nation, to BE the american people. its partisan interests and those of everyone are identical. by damaging the bush administration's absurd case for war in iraq, damage was being done to the american nation. so the leak follows, as does the apparently inconsistent actions at once leaking and deploring leaks.

2. in the past couple days i read somewhere a survery of various legal folk who were called up by a reporter and asked about the legal problems this revelation might cuase for bushco---among the responses were: the action is legal because the president is, himself, the source of the distinction between classified and not classified documents. so he cannot really break the laws against leaking classified information--because the act of "leaking," carried out by the president, amounts to a de facto declassification of the information.

this reflects a strange and dangerous quirk in the legal thinking of the administration itself--their reliance on carl schmitt---you saw this in the glorious trail blazed by john yoo in the context of the "creative" reading of the word torture for example--for schmitt, sovereignty resides not with the people--as it is alleged to in this fine american pseudo-democracy--but rather with the person of the sovereign. who is the source of law and so is positioned both within and outside the legal system itself. by this logic, violations of law by a sitting president could be resolved in the direction outlined above with reference to the leak--as the source of law, the sovereign cannot be held accountable within the frame that he grounds.

schmitt's legal theoretical work is mostly about the state of exception or emergency. it is a critique of parliamentary democracy--and the idea that sovereignty resides with the people by extension--on the grounds that it is too diffuse, too slow--it relies too much on debate--a state of exception requires Decision and only a single individual--a sovereign, a Leader, a Dictator--can make Decisions.
democracy is all blah blah blah....
so in a state of exception, the Leader *is* the nation, his interests, partisan or otherwise *are* the interests of the nation.
the alarming thing is that you can lay this schmitt business over the actions of the bush squad and it makes sense of their actions.

if the administration really operates through this set of assumptions, then the diagnosis that would accompany the recent wholesale collapse of any credibility enjoyed by these folk outside the confines of the hardcore right could easily be linked to problems in the perception of the state of exception.
so, it would follow that, since the interests of the administration and those of the people are identical, the people's interests could be best served by a renewal of the perception that they are, in fact, in a state of exception.
at this point, the only real hope would be another big explosion.
it worked out pretty well in september 2001.