Democrats & Liberals Archives

Sweet Vindication

I caught a lot of flak for writing this on 9/30/2005:

It was the White House, in the person of “Scooter” Libby, who fingered Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.

Now what do I find on CNN: Libby: White House ‘superiors’ authorized leaks.

If you want to dispute the story, send your complaints to CNN.

Posted by Woody Mena at February 9, 2006 9:20 PM
Comments
Comment #122975

I can’t wait to see how the Cons are gonna spin this one.

Cheney Spearheaded Effort to Discredit Wilson

Posted by: JayJay Snow at February 9, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #122983

thick as thieves, the true events come out now & it is not spin. Facts are often harder to accept than fiction with the Bushies.

Posted by: rayxolex at February 9, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #122991
I caught a lot of flak for writing this on 9/30/2005:

It was the White House, in the person of “Scooter” Libby, who fingered Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.

Now what do I find on CNN: Libby: White House ‘superiors’ authorized leaks.

If you want to dispute the story, send your complaints to CNN.

Get ready to catch some more flak.

Nice job of using an unrelated matter to “prove” something you are still wrong about.

Does that CNN article say or even suggest that Scooter Libby “fingered” Valerie Plame as a CIA agent? No, it does not. Does the prosecutor? No, he does not. So who does? Nobody does anymore except for grasping-at-straws left wing bloggers.

As for what the CNN article actually says, look at how they bury a very important detail in the third paragraph: “Portions of NIEs are sometimes declassified and made public. It is unclear whether that happened in this instance.”

So it’s unclear if anything actually was classifed at the time Libby was authorized to discuss it. Only that once it might have been, though Libby and his attorneys are clearly saying it wasn’t. Why in the world would they lie about that? Why wouldn’t the prosectuter have filed charges over it? Why is an article in CNN that confesses it doesn’t really know the facts a better source?

Even more important, and something the article never bothers to discusses, is the nature of how information in NIEs are considered classified to begin with.

Unless they contain information classified as secret under other rules (as is the case with the identity of undercover agents,) these are the administration’s secrets. Hence, if they authrorize publicly sharing this info, the information is by definition no longer classified.

Posted by: sanger at February 9, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #122994

Sanger,

Spin, spin, spin….keep it up and one day even you might believe it…

Michael

Posted by: Michael at February 9, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #122997

So sanger is Bob Novak a lier? He broke down and reported his source as Libby. Same can be said for MAtt Cooper and Judith Miller. All three have said that Libby told them about Joe Wilson’s cia wife
The question was never if Plame was outed as a CIA operative. Anybody who reads the Washington Post can answer that. The questions are did she have covert status, and just how high up the Bush hierarcey did the scandel start. Both will be answered at Libby’s trial. I hope he cuts a deal and sell’s out his fellow neo cons, and it appears to be happening with todays news.

Say all you want and spin away but I can’t fathom if the Clinton Adminstration had leaked a CIA operative’s identity as a act of revenge, this is about as shameless as it gets. Smear a guy and his wife for telling the truth about yellow cake procurement that never happened.

Posted by: Jeff Gannon at February 9, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #122998

Okay, Michael. I’m the one spinning.

If I’m spinning, then show me where this CNN article gives “sweet vindication” to Woody’s claim that Libby fingered Valerie Plame?

Read the article. Point out a passage. I’m all ears.

The problem here is more essential than spin, actually.

It’s about basic literacy: an ability to read and understand words.

Posted by: sanger at February 9, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #123004

Sanger great point about

” basic literacy: an ability to read and understand words”

Here is the first paragraph from the article listed above.

A former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney told a federal grand jury that his superiors authorized him to give secret information to reporters as part of the Bush administration’s defense of intelligence used to justify invading Iraq, according to court papers.

anbd you said what about spin?

Posted by: Jeff Gannon at February 9, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #123010

Sanger excellent points, all they can do is call your simple facts “spin”.

Gannon, reading comprehension is part of literacy too! The article also says:

“We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors,”

… The prosecutor has “an understanding” that the accused is guilty. What a shocker! I bet ya Libby’s lawyer has “an understanding” that Libby is innocent. Another shocker!!! Plame’s husband outed her all the time at parties … about 100 times more than Libby ever did. If you throw Libby in jail you have to throw her husband in jail too. And if her NIE isn’t confidential, no crime!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 10, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #123012

Well lets see, is the article about tuna fish? Or is it about the finding of WMD in Iraq? Could it be that “superiors” authorized him to tell the press that Walmart was having a sell. No? Well then I guess it must mean the good ole “Scooter” talked about a some info that linked Ms. Plame to her ole man.

So you can say it is a dishonest article is your usual wingnut way of talking about the “important points” and missing the forest in the middle of the trees. Well you ilk have sold that garbage to the “vast majority” of the voting public the pass several elections and now we have a “spin machine” in DC that the Clinton’s would be proud of. The problem with obscuring the facts over a long period of time it finally catches up with ya. So as time passes all the wingnut yelling and screeming will only become a din to drown out whatever they are trying to say.

So as I said before, spin spin spin….

Posted by: Michael at February 10, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #123014

Didn’t the CIA request an investigation? Doesn’t that mean something? My memory is getting poor in my old age with so dang much to pay attention to going on.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 10, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #123015
But in any case, there is no way a literate person can read that article and say that it provides “sweet vindication” for the accusation that Scooter Libby fingered Valerie Plame.

Sanger,

Talk about being literate? Woody’s quote doesn’t say that he accuses Scooter of fingering Valerie Plame. It says that it was the White House, through Scooter Libby, who fingered Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.

It was the White House, in the person of “Scooter” Libby, who fingered Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 10, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #123018

If Scooter Libby blew Valerie Plame’s cover why wasn’t he inndicted for it?
Yall aint going to be happy until Bush get’s impeached. And the only reason yaall want him impeached is because he’s a Republican.
He might need to be impeached but that’s not the reason.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 10, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #123019
Talk about being literate? Woody’s quote doesn’t say that he accuses Scooter of fingering Valerie Plame. It says that it was the White House, through Scooter Libby, who fingered Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.

Ridiculous point. So the White House fingered Plame through the person of Libby but the person of Libby had nothing to do with it? What are you taking about?

Michael, I repeat: where does that article say that Libby or anybody for that mattered “outed” Valerie Plame?

Does discussing WMD in Iraq mean that you are discussing Valerie Plame?

Allow me to suggest the following.

Posted by: sanger at February 10, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #123026

Any one notice how much rational “thinking” our conservative friends managed to find when Bush and the Republicans took over?

If hypocrisy could be used to measure the depth of one’s ignorance, these folks should start swimming for the sewers they floated from before they drown in their on nonsense.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at February 10, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #123028

Watch what you ask for guys. If Cheney leaves office then Condi becomes vice prez. She will split the black vote, Split the single woman vote. Dems dont have a chance if that happens. That just makes Her one step closer if cheney resigns early.

Posted by: scott at February 10, 2006 1:05 AM
Comment #123056

The Administration is one helluva bind now. On the one hand they are going to defend themselves for having leaked secret information for political purposes while on the other, they are going to want to prosecute the NSA spying whistleblower(s). The White House can’t have it both ways. Contrary to their delusions, they don’t have authoritarian control of our government with the ability to change the rules as they deem convenient.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 10, 2006 3:01 AM
Comment #123065

“If Scooter Libby blew Valerie Plame’s cover why wasn’t he inndicted for it?
Yall aint going to be happy until Bush get’s impeached. And the only reason yaall want him impeached is because he’s a Republican.
He might need to be impeached but that’s not the reason.

only a partisan of the rankest sort would believe that.
When George W. Bush responded, at first, with well thought out conviction in destroying the terrorists who’d been responsible for flying jet liners into skyscrapers killing 3k Americans, paritisanship was practically unheard of. Even I, a sworn pacifist, praised the way Bush handled the crisis. I didn’t care if he was a republican, a democrat, a nazi, a commie or a tree-hugger.

Now, five years later, I STILL don’t care what his political affiliations are… he should be impeached, aw hell, he should be incarcerated.

It’s one thing to lie about gettin’ yer knob polished in the oval office, whether yer under oath or not, it’s another thing to tell lies that lead your country into war and cost thousands of American lives.

Of course, neither impeachment nor incarceration is likely for Bush. There are too many jerks out there who will defend the Bush administration regardless of the amount or severity of infractions committed.

Does any one even remember when bush ran for office in 2000 as ‘the great uniter”?

Posted by: Thom Houts at February 10, 2006 3:58 AM
Comment #123069

scott:

Rice will never become Vice President. Do you honestly think a Party of Bigots would ever let that happen? They will force Condi to resign before she ever swears in.

Posted by: Aldous at February 10, 2006 4:43 AM
Comment #123102

When will bush supporters ever learn; this morning’s MSN news details how the bush administration cherry-picked the intel in the lead up to the Iraq war(so who, exactly is trying to “rewrite history”?). This from the C.I.A. guy who coordinated the middle east intel gathering!!!! also in today’s news, seems Abramoff’s e-mails relate how HE MET WITH BUSH!!!!! Six or so times.Was invited to to “endless vacation” ranch.What about the shrub’s repeated, public denials? I know this is not ,strictly speaking, on the topic of this post, yet it IS. The point being The administration, from the very top on down, are a bunch of liars, and, more than likely criminals.

Posted by: Steve Miller at February 10, 2006 7:30 AM
Comment #123105

Ken Copper show me an article that Joe Wilson “outed” his wife . It should be easy since you said he did it hundredes of times. I ‘m pretty sure I have an Idea what your response will be. I too so saw Judge Nepelanitino on faux news channel claim that he heard from a “source who will remain un named” about this happeneing. Man You figure a judge would know better than to use “hear say” evidence. Like the rest of the garbage you hear from that channel it is BS. Unfounded, made up, and pulled from un named sources fair and balanced my foot.

Posted by: Jeff Gannon at February 10, 2006 7:55 AM
Comment #123107

“Plame’s husband outed her all the time at parties … about 100 times more than Libby ever did.” -

Sounds like an urban legend to me.

“If Scooter Libby blew Valerie Plame’s cover why wasn’t he inndicted for it?”

I’m guessing it’s because HE LIED UNDER OATH. Do you really believe that lying to keep from getting busted is as trivial as the talking points would suggest?

I’m finding it hard to get over the fact that people are still ‘spinning’ and ‘talking’ - trying to maintain these people’s innocence as one by one they face new indictments. Oh yea, let’s push the idea that they’re not guilty until the judge hands down a sentence. OK - that’s fine by me, as far as their personal lives go. But let me toss out a question: Do these guys (I’m speaking of Libby, Rove, Delay, Ney…) … do they make you proud? Have the earned the unfettered support you are giving them? Do they truly represent your values and beliefs?

Posted by: tony at February 10, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #123113

Sanger,

It is true that the article says he was authorized to leak info about NES, not Valerie Plame. But this was all happening at the same time. Are we to believe it was just a coincidence that he simultaneously chose to burn someone who was embarrassing the administration? At some point giving someone the benefit of the doubt reaches absurd proportions. It is kind of like Bill Clinton sent an assassin after an arguably “legitimate” target, and that person happened to off Paula Jones while he was at it. Oops!

The evidence supporting my claim is piling up fast and thick. We have Scooter Libby being indicted (it was true he wasn’t charged with the leak, but Fitzgerald said he was the leaker), and Karl Rove almost being indicted (not a speculation on my part, just what I read in the papers). Now we have him testifying that he was authorized to leak at least some classified information. It is not possible to indict a building, so Fitzgerald can’t go after the “White House” itself. What more do you want?

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 10, 2006 8:37 AM
Comment #123116

It’s oficial:
This administration is guilty of TREASON. Let’s see if these neocon supporters can put their money where their mouth is.

I am completely flabbergasted that, in light of these new revelations, there are still those out there (on this blog, for instance) who are blindly supportive of this administration. It’s stunning to see such relative morality play itself out. As for this bringing Condi closer and thus splitting the women’s vote and the black vote…THAT’S COMPLETELY PREPOSTEROUS.

That is merely more of same kind of thing that these neocons do habitually: UNDERESTIMATE THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Now is the time for all those CHICKENS to GO home to roost, to borrow from an old American saying. This November will tell the tale. Hide and watch. By then, if there is any morality in this country at all, Bush and Cheney BOTH will be impeached…AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE!

Funny how justice works sometimes, isn’t it? These fruitcakes were never rightfully elected in the firstplace, anyway.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 10, 2006 9:02 AM
Comment #123118

The most salient point here is: Scooter Libby is under indictment. Joe Wilson is not. No one else is…yet. If Scooter is under the microscope, especially during the tenure of an administration of his own party which holds a great deal of power, there is a reason for it.

Posted by: Scott at February 10, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #123122

Woody:

The article from CNN has the following paragraph as well:

“A legal source involved in the case tells CNN that Libby did not testify to and has never suggested that anyone in the administration — including Cheney — authorized disclosing the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame.”

How does that square with the headline on the piece?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 10, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #123125

“If Cheney leaves office then Condi becomes vice prez.”

Just FYI, if the vice-presidency becomes vacant for any reason, the president can select anyone he chooses to be VP, as long as the nominee meets the constitutional requirements for the presidency. That nominee must then be confirmed by majority votes in the House and Senate.

There is no formal succession to VP.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 10, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #123140

Arr-squared:

Of course you are correct, but we’d probably want to make sure Al Haig (“As of now, I am in control here in the White House.”—said in 1981 to the press just after President Reagan was shot) isn’t anywhere nearby. :)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 10, 2006 10:07 AM
Comment #123143

If Cheney leaves office, whomever Bush nominates to be VP will instantly become the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in ‘08.

With a White House where all policy is right-wing and everything is considered in terms of politics, there’sa 99.99% chance that Bush will nominate a nationally-known extreme right-winger to keep the party out of the hands of more moderate Republicans like Romney and Pataki (and McCain, although I don’t see him as moderate on most issues).

Posted by: bobo at February 10, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #123146

Sanger,

Your lack of knowledge or understanding of law is disturbing to me. No small wonder the Republicans have seen fit to attack lawyers, and the legal profession, so often.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER LIBBY “FINGERED” VALERIE PLAME!!! WHAT HE HAS ADMITTED TO AND TESTIFIED ABOUT IF SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THERE WAS A COMMIT A CRIME WHICH CONSTITUTED TREASON!

BOTTOM LINE. Who, or when, the “fingering” took place is omportant, but ultimately immaterial.

GO GET A LAW DEGREE. I DID.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 10, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #123150

Sanger,

It’s called: Conspiracy. There was clearly a conspiracy to commit the crime. That’s what matters. This is undeniably TREASON. How and why do you defend this? I don’t get it. I’ve asked the question before and I will continue to ask it: WHAT DO THESE MODERN CONSERVATIVES THINK THEY ARE ‘CONSERVING’?
Clearly it isn’t -
Law, The Constituion, morality, honor, lives or even money. I don’t get it at all. It’s time for the Democrats to take their rightful name as the true CONSERVATIVES. Let’s get the names right. The Republicans play fast and loose (liberal, if you will) with law and morality, so we need to identify them appropriately as well.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 10, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #123155

“Rice will never become Vice President. Do you honestly think a Party of Bigots would ever let that happen? They will force Condi to resign before she ever swears in.”

Yup! That’s right! We’re the part of bigots! 1st JCS, 1st NSC, 1st Sec of State, 1st Supreme Court Justice … which party posted the first Blacks in those positions? Hmmmmm? Who are the bigots now? You libs just like to tell African Americans “You negros be good ole boys now and vote democrat … otherwise we’re going to say you’re abandoning your race because, well, you’re not allowed to think any other way. So you dark skin folk just hit the voting booths and vote left now … you let us smart Ivy league grads figure that out for you!”

So who are the slave owners in this country?

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 10, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #123158

OK, OK, OK. I hate to say this, I mean deeply, deeply hate to say this, but I think sanger is right about this one. You’re all jumping the gun.

RGF,

I, too, have a law degree, and I think, if you remember law school, you’re indulging in conclusory arguments right now, i.e. you’re stating a legal conclusion without backing it up by showing how the facts support that legal conclusion. I, too, BELIEVE that many in the White House are guilty of treason, but, like Tom Cruise’s character said in “A Few Good Men”, it doesn’t matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove.

I would love for Woody to be right about this, but this story is hardly a vindication. I think the point this story was trying to make was NOT that this disclosure of information conclusively demonstrated that leaking was going on in the White House, but rather that Libby saying that he was authorized to give information to the press MIGHT indicate that he was demonstrating an increasing willingness to testify against his bosses.

I think Woody’s last comment indicates agreement with me that this is just another bit of circumstantial evidence that makes the whole leak issue LOOK bad for BushCo. Nevertheless, I have to say: don’t make too much of this. We can’t afford to overextend ourselves here. There are plenty of ways to assail this administration, and this one is going to be really tough to prove without some kind of smoking gun (e.g. direct testimony that a high-ranking member of the White House staff authorized leaking Valerie Plame’s covert status). And this ain’t it.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 10, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #123159

ACLU would be upset at you Libbers. I don’t know why there’s not a “Libbers for Libby” campaign. He hasn’t been declared guilty of anything and you all have him in jail with the key thrown away. So, you’re all in ACLU hack … you’ll get a call from them when you’re allowed out of the corner.

CNN, MSNBC, CBS and other leftist news program also reported Plame’s husband bragging about his CIA wife at parties. Now, I’m not going to be a liberal and say “well, if the media reported it, it must be true!” I think we have enough examples, especially from the NYT about our mistruthful media. But, just like the CNN article which references understandings from the prosecutor (I’m sure they removed all bias, ha!), I’m not going to believe anything until it’s testified to in court.

Of course, we’ve heard VERY high level politicians lie to a grand jury before, haven’t we? (Hi Bill!) So maybe we can’t even trust that anymore.

As for the name calling, do you guys do that at funerals to?

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 10, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #123162

“There are plenty of ways to assail this administration”

Nice job Yossarian. We have WWIII on our hands with idots who can’t even put a cartoon in perspective … and you’re strategizing ways to assail the president. A GRADE “A”, MARK ONE, MOD ZERO LIBERAL!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 10, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #123172

You guys better watch C-SPAN right now. Brownie Boy is rolling over on BushCo.

Posted by: Aldous at February 10, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #123175

Ken Cooper:

The FBI interviewed Plame’s friends, co-workers and neighbors. NONE of them knew she was a CIA Agent. I am not surprised you would lie about this. Lying is all the Right has left.

Posted by: Aldous at February 10, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #123176

Ken C.

Ease up, cowboy. There was no strategizing there, just a statement that there are plenty of faults to point out with this administration.

I won’t dodge the label of liberal. What else ya got?

As for WWIII — please. The world is the same as it’s always been, America has just come to appreciate that terrorism is an issue that merits attention. Unfortunately, the country is currently in the lunatic grip of doomsday prophets like yourself who say that one terrorist attack mandates the complete transformation of our society and the betrayal of its identity.

But I understand why your ilk clings to the fear-inducing issues. Without them, your political party would be powerless.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 10, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #123184

Yossarian,

I think there are a few points here:

1) According to this report, Libby was being used his “superiors” at the White House as a conduit for intelligence information in July 2003.

2) According to Fitzgerald, at that same time, he leaked Valerie Plame’s convert status.

3) It has been widely reported that Fitzgerald was very close to indicting Karl Rove, another WH official over the Plame affair.

You can call all of this “circumstantial”, but at some point it gets a little silly…

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 10, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #123187

Woody,

No, I fully agree with you. I can’t emphasize that enough. In a public dialogue and taken together, the evidence is enough to convince any rational person that this administration was engaged in illegal activity.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it IS just circumstantial, and nothing in this article standing alone will bring Fitzgerald closer to proving his case in a court of law.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 10, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #123194

Ron Brown and Sanger,

Why not yell “Libs!” at the top of your lungs, put your fingers in your ears and repeat, “la la la la la la la la la la la la la”, until those who deal in factual information just walk away frustrated, stunned and digusted.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 10, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #123196

I was flipping around on cable last night, and I think I saw Sean Hannity actually doing that for a solid half hour.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 10, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #123201

To elaborate a bit, I think the key point from this particular article (assuming the facts are correct) is that the WH cannot plausibly argue that Libby was a “loose cannon”. He didn’t just decide on his own to start chatting with reporters about intelligence, but he was told to do so. Regardless of whether these superiors (and who are we kidding, he worked for Cheney) specifically told him to burn Plame abd Wilson, I think that there is a very high level of culpability there.

To put this in perspective, let’s imagine that Gore’s chief of staff was doing what Libby was doing. Is there any question about whether the GOP would hold Clinton and Gore responsible?

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 10, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #123215

More vindication?

Quoting Paul R. Pillar,
“It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community’s own work was politicized,” Pillar wrote.

From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 10, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #123221

Woody and Yassarian,

They are so desperate.

Here’s what they have left in their arsenal:

“Libs!”
Clinton Lied!”
“They’re all corrupt, even the Democrats!”(Name them)
“It’s a time of War!”
“They’re innocent until proven guilty!”(Even when they admit it)
“Liberal Media!”
“Puts our troops in harms way!”
It’s getting pitiful to watch. It’s like the school bully getting his a$$ kicked. You watch with a morbid joy but after awhile you feel bad.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 10, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #123222

Woody, you are vindicated.
National Journal article: Cheney ‘Authorized’ Libby to Leak Classified Information

Posted by: Adrienne at February 10, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #123236
Quoting Paul R. Pillar,

‘It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community’s own work was politicized,’ Pillar wrote.

Predicted responses from the Republicans:
1. Pillar is “disgruntled”
2. Pillar’s view was in a “small minority”
3. Pillar is a Democrat.

Please Republicans. We KNOW you will say this. Please give us your EVIDENCE instead!


The Nation is calling this America’s Downing Street Memo.

Posted by: bobo at February 10, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #123239

Yossarian:

Nail, meet hammer!! You hit it right on the head. I don’t know anything about conclusory evidence, and I hold no law degree, but I do know that just saying someone is guilty doesn’t make it so. Even if you repeat it ad nauseum. Thanks for putting that out there so well.

I’ve said before that one problem I see the Dems having is the rush to judgement. They’ve jumped on so many issues prematurely that the public feels they are crying “wolf”. I know that those on the left don’t see it that way, and that’s okay. I hope they continue doing it, because its hurting their own cause in my opinion.

The Dan Rather memos were an example in a way. CBS and Rather jumped on a story without doing due diligence to the facts. The result was that CBS’s image, and Rather’s even more so, was horribly tarnished. Had they not rushed in so fast, they might have actually had a decent story. They could have the information to create a perception—-but they tried for the slam dunk and failed, which negated every part of their story for a lot of people.

Patience is a virtue, but the naysayers on the left don’t seem to think that way.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 10, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #123244

jbod;

What do you say to this (from Adrienne’s link):

Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been “authorized” by Cheney and other White House “superiors” in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration’s use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.

I think tonight’s wingnut News will include:
“Lying Lib Libby votes for Hillary”

This isn’t jumping on anything “prematurely”, this is evidence number 500, and really damning evidence at that. It’s just some people are too foolish and/or stubborn to see it. Let’s impeach the dick and see what happens, eh?

Posted by: Dave at February 10, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #123262

joebagodonuts,

Do not think for one minute that this is not just as disheartening to all of us who do not support Bush? It’s all of our government and they’re doing terrible things.
I hope you realize I wish this administration, and I thought they were until he declared war in Iraq, and all administrations would lead honestly and with our interests in the forefront. It sucks to have an administration that causes this great nation shame and embarassment.
Please do not think this is a Democratic or Independent victory. It’s another American loss.
Who wins, when our Federal government fails?
Nobody.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 10, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #123263

Aldous…


Rice will never become Vice President. Do you honestly think a Party of Bigots would ever let that happen? They will force Condi to resign before she ever swears in.


Uhhhh…and the Dems have had HOW MANY black Sec. of States?

Uhhh…and the Dems have had HOW MANY black National Security Advisors?


Uhhhh…ZERO???? Would that be a good guess?

Now…WHO did you say was the Party Of Bigots?????

Posted by: Jim T at February 10, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #123274

Thom Houts
You must be new here. I’m NOT partisan. I’m Conservitive but NOT Republican.
If I was partisan why would I sugest that he might need impeaching?

Ron Brown and Sanger,

Why not yell “Libs!” at the top of your lungs, put your fingers in your ears and repeat, “la la la la la la la la la la la la la”, until those who deal in factual information just walk away frustrated, stunned and digusted.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 10, 2006 11:41 AM

Does the truth hurt?

Gezz, I come across like yaall do and you jump down my throat. But yaall talk that way all the time, and it’s ok. But that just part of yaall’s double stanard ait it?

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 10, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #123275

Woody, Dave, Andre, et al,

Quote from a Truthout article Cheney Spearheaded Effort to Discredit Wilson :

The CIA and State Department officials said that a day after Wilson’s March 8, 2003, CNN appearance, they attended a meeting at the Vice President’s office chaired by Cheney, and it was there that a decision was made to discredit Wilson. Those who attended the meeting included I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff who was indicted in October for lying to investigators, perjury and obstruction of justice related to his role in the Plame Wilson leak, Hadley, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and John Hannah, Cheney’s deputy national security adviser, the officials said.

“The way I remember it,” the CIA official said about that first meeting he attended in Cheney’s office, “is that the vice president was obsessed with Wilson. He called him an ‘asshole,’ a son-of-a-bitch. He took his comments very personally. He wanted us to do everything in our power to destroy his reputation and he wanted to be kept up to date about the progress.”

Another quote, same article:

“Cheney and Libby made it clear that Wilson had to be shut down,” the CIA official said. “This wasn’t just about protecting the credibility of the White House. For the vice president, going after Wilson was purely personal, in my opinion.”

Cheney was personally involved in this aspect of the information gathering process as well, visiting CIA headquarters to inquire about Wilson, the CIA official said. Hadley had also raised questions about Wilson during this month with the State Department officials and asked that information regarding Wilson’s trip to Niger be sent to his attention at the National Security Council.

That’s when Valerie Plame Wilson’s name popped up showing that she was a covert CIA operative. The former CIA official who works in the counter-proliferation division said another meeting about Wilson took place in Cheney’s office, attended by the same individuals who were there in March. But Cheney didn’t take part in it, the officials said.

“Libby led the meeting,” one of the State Department officials said. “But he was just as upset about Wilson as Cheney was.”

Posted by: Adrienne at February 10, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #123278

Spiro T Agnew (1973)
“No lo contendre” to tax evasion.

Dick Cheney (2008)
“No lo contendre” to violating numerous articles of the US Constitution.

Posted by: Dave at February 10, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #123287

Dave:

I’ll remain consistent. What you posted was a news story from the media. It insinuates certain things and proves none, as Yossarian showed in his post.

I’m happy with Fitzgerald running his investigation. I doubt he needs your or my help. People jumped on the “Happy Fitzmas” bandwagon months ago, only to be disappointed that only Libby was indicted. Now they read headlines and jump on new bandwagons.

I’m comfortable with Patrick Fitzgerald doing his job, and letting the chips fall where they may. If Libby is found guilty, then he’ll be punished in some way. If he’s found innocent, will you except his innocence or will you accept it?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 10, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #123289

Poor Micheal Brownie!!!! And he worked so hard too!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4702090.stm

Mr Brown, who quit as Fema chief amid mounting criticism of the disaster response, said: “I find it a little disingenuous. For them to claim that we didn’t have awareness of it is just baloney.”

Posted by: Aldous at February 10, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #123295

“It sucks to have an administration that causes this great nation shame and embarassment”

Ain’t that the truth.
Maybe if the left had listened when they were told that, they wouldn’t be ignored now.

Also, for the sake of our country, IF anybody has any factual evidence which could lead to the impeachment or firing of a Republican, please send it ASAP to the DNC or media.
Elections are coming up and they need this evidence of absolute guilt you all are saying exists.
Vindicate your party and share this factual information with the rest of the nation.
We deserve better.

Posted by: kctim at February 10, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #123298

after 8 years of clinton, bush is a breathe of fresh air. condi will be vice president around the same time that the dem’s allow an anti abortion candidate to win the presidential nomination

Posted by: mike h at February 10, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #123308
after 8 years of clinton, bush is a breathe of fresh air

Then you are as blind as the left was during Clinton’s reign of terror.

Posted by: kctim at February 10, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #123314

jbod,

Yah, you remain ‘constant’ alright. I’m glad we’re clear that you equate: “Grand Jury Testimony”
i.e.

Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been “authorized” by Cheney and other White House “superiors” in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration’s use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.
with
“Insinuation”

kc,
You do know that “Impeachment” is the trial, not the conviction, right? Why do you not think there is enough information to justify a trial?

Posted by: Dave at February 10, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #123333

DemocracyNow! transcript of interview with Murray Waas (the guy who wrote the National Journal link I put up earlier today):
Exclusive Interview: Murray Waas on How Cheney “Authorized” Libby to Leak Classified Information

Posted by: Adrienne at February 10, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #123334

Dave
Why? Because I am not privy to the info that they have. But I can guarantee you that with the 06 elections coming up, if they had enough “factual” based evidence, they would start with the trials. Hell, they may even be sitting on info so they can start closer to the elections.

It doesn’t matter what your or my opinions or assumptions may be. They cannot be found guilty or not guilty based on what we THINK. They must have evidence to support the charges.
Waiting for that evidence is hard, but right.

I know how you feel, I also went through this with clinton.

Posted by: kctim at February 10, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #123339

Ken Cooper,

“CNN, MSNBC, CBS and other leftist news program also reported Plame’s husband bragging about his CIA wife at parties.”

Please provide the transcripts of these statements. If not, your honesty is in question. Since I do not know you, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and a few hours to find this so called evidence. I’ll be waiting..

Ron Brown,
“If Scooter Libby blew Valerie Plame’s cover why wasn’t he inndicted for it?”

This is a question most righties want to ask. The answer is simple. Because he is a liar. Fitzgerald has not even gotten to the facts yet because Scooter has perjured himself. How was Fitzgerald supposed to get evidence from somebody who was not honest in the first place.

Posted by: Vic Vega at February 10, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #123341

“How was Fitzgerald supposed to get evidence from somebody who was not honest in the first place”

Simple, he could have gotten advice from Ken Starr on how to do it right.
(Sorry, but its Friday, couldn’t resist)

Posted by: kctim at February 10, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #123346

Kctim,

Touche’

Posted by: Vic Vega at February 10, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #123349

JBOD,

The whole idea that liberals were tearing their hair our when Libby was indicted instead of Rove is a right-wing media invention. I read many stories about unhappy liberals in the right-wing press, and none in the left-wing press. The fact is, a high-level WH official was indicted and it is not at all clear that Rove is off the hook. There is no reason for the mythical “Bush hater”
to be unhappy.

I notice this always happen when there is bad news for you guys — you focus on how liberals are reacting, whether they are hateful, disappointed, etc. I, for one, don’t care what you guys think. I just care about the facts.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 10, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #123350
IF anybody has any factual evidence which could lead to the impeachment or firing of a Republican, please send it ASAP to the DNC or media.

Scooter Libby was already indicted and resigned. There’s your Republican.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 10, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #123356

Sweet Vindication


Sweet, sweet vindication


Those MEAN ‘OL REPS!!! They TOOK money from Abe!!! Kick them all OUT!!! Their nothing but CRIMINALS!!!

Errrr…wait a minute….

Posted by: Jim T at February 10, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #123357

if they had enough “factual” based evidence, they would start with the trials…
Posted by: kctim at February 10, 2006 03:45 PM

Are you serious?

FYI: To impeach requires the House of Representatives to first pass “articles of impeachment” by a simple majority. The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been “impeached.”

Like that’s going to happen with the current house. The democrats aren’t even allocated conference rooms by the republicans for press conferences. And the repubs are so friggen scared by Karl and the Slime Boaters and the GOP chairman they soil their pant’s even for the thought crime of wanting to investigate Big Brother.


Posted by: Dave at February 10, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #123361

“Scooter Libby was already indicted and resigned. There’s your Republican”

Cool.
Amazing how facts are taken more seriously than assumptions, opinions and hopes isn’t it.

But really now, is Libby a big enough fish for you guys? Or is the hope that it may go higher up the chain that has you all so happy?
I mean, Libby just seems so MacDougal.

Posted by: kctim at February 10, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #123363

Jim T,

That is the diffence between Democrats and Republicans. Yes, if Reid took money, then kick him out. It is that simple. Will you say the same thing about Republicans?

Errrr…wait a minute….

It was reported today

(http://www.twincities.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13835970.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation)

that Abramoff met with Bush a “Dozen Times.”

Posted by: Vic Vega at February 10, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #123364

scott:

Rice will never become Vice President. Do you honestly think a Party of Bigots would ever let that happen? They will force Condi to resign before she ever swears in.

Aldous

HEHEHEHEHE Aldous you are always so funny. Ive been busting a gut for 5 minutes before I could Repost.

IM BLACK

Its the southern democrats that wouldnt vote for a black person or a woman.

Are there some ultra right bigots? YES We dont need them to put a Black person in office. We just need the moderates.

Dont forget that until the mid 60’s, Black people as a whole shifted from the republican party to the democratic party. and trust me. I of all people know. That the shift is beginning to go back the other way. The democrats have taken advantage if us for way too long. It doesnt take much of a shift to severly wound the democrats. and Condi is going to be a big starting point.

Posted by: scott at February 10, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #123367

Dave
Come on, the “every Republican is corrupt and wont follow the rule of law” line?
I don’t trust my govt, but even I can acknowledge that absolute proof of wrong doing will force them to act or suffer defeat at the polls. They know that too.

Besides, Woody just said the system works.

Posted by: kctim at February 10, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #123368

Vic,

If they have committed a crime and it can be proven that they have…OUT THEY GO! No sympathy from me!

Just remember, though…you kick out Bush, you kick out Cheney…who’s left? Do you REALLY want the Speaker Of The House to be President?

YIKES!!!

Posted by: Jim T at February 10, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #123373
Rice will never become Vice President. Do you honestly think a Party of Bigots would ever let that happen?

Err, what does the Democratic Party have to do with who a republican administration names as VP?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 10, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #123377

How about we worry about getting the best person for the job and stop trying to use minorities as political pawns?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 10, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #123379

Amen JJ, end affirmitive action now.

Posted by: kctim at February 10, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #123393
Dave Come on, the “every Republican is corrupt and wont follow the rule of law” line? I don’t trust my govt, but even I can acknowledge that absolute proof of wrong doing will force them to act or suffer defeat at the polls. They know that too.

Besides, Woody just said the system works.

Posted by: kctim at February 10, 2006 04:56 PM

That’s a bullshit reply and you know it.

Posted by: Dave at February 10, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #123405
Dont forget that until the mid 60’s, Black people as a whole shifted from the republican party to the democratic party. and trust me. I of all people know. That the shift is beginning to go back the other way. The democrats have taken advantage if us for way too long. It doesnt take much of a shift to severly wound the democrats. and Condi is going to be a big starting point.

Scott

You’re about as black as Dick Cheney. The blacks have been blocked from voting in the last two elections for one simple reason… they vote Democrat, they will continue to vote Democrat and in 2006 you will see a turnout like never before.

Bask in the fact that the Republicans control everything now because it will be the last time.

Posted by: Pat at February 10, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #123419

Hey Ron, we don’t want Bush impeached for any other reasons than that he is a bumbling, lawbreaking, arrogant, callous, thieving, murdering LIAR! That ought to be reasons enough.

Posted by: capnmike at February 10, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #123437

This is a question most righties want to ask. The answer is simple. Because he is a liar. Fitzgerald has not even gotten to the facts yet because Scooter has perjured himself. How was Fitzgerald supposed to get evidence from somebody who was not honest in the first place.

Posted by: Vic Vega at February 10, 2006 03:54 PM

Or maybe there just wasn’t anything there to start with.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 10, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #123439

Hey Ron, we don’t want Bush impeached for any other reasons than that he is a bumbling, lawbreaking, arrogant, callous, thieving, murdering LIAR! That ought to be reasons enough.

Posted by: capnmike at February 10, 2006 09:14 PM

More Democrat talking points?
You don’t really want him impeached. If that happened we’d get Chaney. Do you really want that?

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 10, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #123445

blockquote>This is a question most righties want to ask. The answer is simple. Because he is a liar. Fitzgerald has not even gotten to the facts yet because Scooter has perjured himself. How was Fitzgerald supposed to get evidence from somebody who was not honest in the first place.

I know that Fitzgerald suggested something like this in his press conference after indicting Libby, but it’s a completely absurd approach for a prosecuter to take.

When does a criminal case EVER depend only on the testimony of the defendent without any corroborating evidence from other sources? Even corroborrating evidence that would indicate that a crime actually occured?

Try to convinct somebody for a drug offense without drugs, drug residue, drug paraphenalia or anything at all but the defendent’s unwillingness to come out and tell you that he is a drug offender. Perhaps if he doesn’t tell you that, and you have no evidence to the contrary, it’s because you don’t have a case.

All Fitzgerald alleges is lying about matters which he doesn’t even say are crimes.

I’ll go out on a limb for a second: the case against Libby will be tossed out of court before Easter.

This will be because of the prosecution’s failure to provide evidence and complete records of their interactions with journalists to the defence.

If you’ve followed this case at all since the Fitzmas fizzle, it’s become increasingly obvious that Fitzgerald got frustrated at the lack of his ability to make a case and threw a Hail Mary by indicting Libby on the basis of evidence that will never hold up in court.

Posted by: sanger at February 10, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #123448

So much garbage, so little time.

“America has just come to appreciate that terrorism is an issue that merits attention”

Well! Ain’t it a shame we couldn’t have “come to appreciate that” around 1993 or 1994 or 1996 or 1998. Ctaching Osama in Africa when we had him cornered may have been an idea to consider. Coulda saved us a lot of future agony … to include folks making a choice between burning alive or a 100 story death dive. Oh, but that’s right, Libs also protest that Al Qaeda didn’t emerge until FEB 2001.

As for an impeachment trial I assume you libs are sticking to the “Bush Lied About WMD in Iraq” thing … AGAIN!! It didn’t take in the 2004 election but you guys are still sticking with it … desperation is a horrible thing I suppose. Well, from 1998 to 2002, here’s YOUR democratic leaders talking about the “lie” of WMD in Iraq (or are you too scared to watch?):

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 10, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #123449

sanger,
I think you couldn’t be more wrong. No matter what happens, Libby committed perjury and obstruction of justice. Those are not insignificant charges.
What Libby tried to do to Fitzgerald was slam all the doors shut with his lies, but now that he’s been indicted for perjury and obstruction, he is being forced to start opening those doors. I think that what will come of all this will be more things which Fitzgerald will feel should be investigated.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 10, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #123455

Adrienne, being indicted is not the same thing at all as having been convicted.

No matter what happens, Libby committed perjury and obstruction of justice.

No matter what happens? How about the case actually making it to trial—as an example of something that needs to happen?

Or for that matter the prosectuter presenting evidence in a venue where he doesn’t hold all the marbles and the defense has a right to present their own evidence, cross-examine the prosectution’s witnesses and call witnesses of their own?

How about a jury hearing all this and returning a verdict? Jeez. Shucks. How about that?

No, I’d say that a GREAT DEAL needs to happen indeed before it can be said that Libby even commited these far lesser charges. In fact, at this stage, he is innocent of those charges before the law.

Posted by: sanger at February 10, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #123468

I don’t know how many liberals have paid very close attention to this case since the Fitzmas fizzle, but let me describe the enormous uphill battle that Fitzgerald faces at this stage in order to convict Libby of even perjury or obstruction.

The charges against Libby are all based on contradictions between Libby’s testimony and that of reporters. That we all already knew.

So here’s the problem: in order to get these reporters to testify before the grand jury in the first place, Fitzgerald had to give them strong guarantees that they would ONLY be questioned about specific narrowly circumscribed facts and their conversations with specific individuals.

Now, Fitzgerald can make those promises as a prosecuter trying to convince witnesses to give grand jury testimony.

But at trial, the defense is under no obligation to honor agreements made between witnesses and the prosecution. In fact, in an actual trial the rights of the defendent to have all facts known will take precedence.

When these reporters take the stand (if they do), the defense has every right to ask them any questions at all and expect that a completely truthful answer be given under oath. You don’t get to “protect your sources” or your “journalistic integrity” when a defendent’s freedom is at stake.

You can be assured that Libby’s defense will demand to know ALL of the things that Fitzgerald promised them they’d never be asked. If they fail to be totally forthcoming about all their sources and everything they were originally promised they’d never have to divulge, then their testimony will be useless.

Libby’s defense is gonna have a wonderful time calling up one big time media figure after another and grilling them under oath. These people are going to regret the day they had anything to do with Fitzgerald.

It should be especially interesting to hear—under oath—all about Russert and Kristoff’s personal contacts with Joseph Wilson and the DNC long before this whole story broke. And when, and from whom, they first learned about Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame—information the prosecutor guaranteed them they’d never be asked.

Unfortunately, this spectacle will likely never come to pass since the case will probably be tossed out in the next couple months. The reason being that the prosecution is currently refusing to turn over evidence to the defense.

Posted by: sanger at February 11, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #123485

Sanger
(as far as I am aware)In a criminal trial, in cross examination, the defense attorney can only question the witness about issues covered in the prosecutor’s examination. They cannot introduce new lines of questioning.
This is a case of “who said what to whom, and when.” There is very little salient evidence other than testimony. So the case does lie within what Libby and others will say. The fact that Libby obstructed justice (if that is proven to be true)is the crux of the matter. He is obligated both by his oath of office and his oath in his testimony to tell the truth, and is expected to.
In the real world, many cases are solved and proven by principals in the crime “coming clean” with the facts. Such is usually the situation in any conspiracy case. What we may yet see is a plea agreement with Libby to reveal everything about his superiors, et. al. It’s beginning to sound like Libby is willing to talk.


Jim T.: On a side note; if ANY democrat was in bed with Abramoff and did something wrong, they should be prosecuted. I, for one, will be outraged that someone in my party did this, and I won’t want them around anymore. I just wish the republican voters felt the same way about those in their party.

Posted by: Cole at February 11, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #123486

Worth looking into currently is the asbestos bailout bill being pushed by the Rep leadership.It is a great example of a corporate bailout. To their credit it is being opposed by some Reps and nearly all Dems.
It sets up a fund of 140 B to pay off claims. No one knows where that number came from or if it will be adaquate. The fund will be paid for by industry. What companies will contribute to it is a secret. Why? Perhaps they match a doner list.
What arrogance. Some of these companies knew that asbestos was killing people but went ahead and produced it anyway,even laying off workers that started to show symptoms. Canada dealt with this by putting those responsible in prison (some got shot on their way). Here? Lets get them off the hook with taxpayers probably footing the bill sooner or later. With luck most of the victums will die soon.

Posted by: Bill at February 11, 2006 1:10 AM
Comment #123491
In a criminal trial, in cross examination, the defense attorney can only question the witness about issues covered in the prosecutor’s examination.

Not true at all.

Remember Mark Fuhrman in the OJ trial? His whole personal history was examined by the defense attorneys and he was questioned about whether he’d ever used the N-word, something I somehow doubt was an issue in the prosector’s examination.

A defense attorney can ask all kinds of questions which go to the heart of any witness’s credibility, character and hidden agendas.

It will be entirely relevant to ask these reporters in Libby’s case about who else they’d ever spoken to about Plame (and other matters) including the identities of sources they took off the table in their deals with Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald will no longer be judge, jury and executioner in this matter once the defense is given the rights to actually present a case and call witnesses under oath, including those who’d much prefer to remain in the shadows—i.e., Joe Wilson himself.

Posted by: sanger at February 11, 2006 1:24 AM
Comment #123494

Sanger

It will be entirely relevant to ask these reporters in Libby’s case about who else they’d ever spoken to about Plame (and other matters) including the identities of sources they took off the table in their deals with Fitzgerald

You’re right, if it goes to credibility, etc. But they can’t introduce an alternate theory in a cross examination. And as far as the deal, that will be up to the judge.

Posted by: Cole at February 11, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #123504

Bill,

“Worth looking into currently is the asbestos bailout bill being pushed by the Rep leadership.”

From what I’ve read about this it’s woefully inadequate to provide true compensation. I read all I can about this issue because it touches close to home.

I still have a work related inhilation illness case pending appeal related to the processing of PTFE’s that may well never be settled in my lifetime. I dare not comment further or my attorneys would crap a gut. I’ve been threatened in the past with contempt charges for violating a court order.

Anyway, I know comparing asbestos and teflon is like comparing apples and oranges, but I believe this teflon thing could end up nearly as large as the asbestos thing when all is said and done. After all, how many years has it been since the earliest reports of health problems due to asbestos?

Also of note is the fact that when big business doesn’t fulfill their responsibilties regarding employee (or consumer) harm guess who foots the bill? Every taxpayer in the good old USA in the form of Social Security Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

In fairness I should also say that about half of the reasons for my disability are at best indirectly job related, the other half, well two courts have agreed it’s work related. I’ve said too much already, time to shove the sock back in my mouth.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 11, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #123505

Ken Cooper,

I am still waiting for those transcripts….

Posted by: Vic Vega at February 11, 2006 2:21 AM
Comment #123507

Sanger,

“I’ll go out on a limb for a second: the case against Libby will be tossed out of court before Easter.”

I’ll go out on an altogether different limb, hell maybe a whole different tree, and predict that the defense delays and prolongs things as long as possible. Then when the finding of guilt appears imminent they’ll go for a plea bargain to prevent testifying at all. Of course by then the number of days left for this administration to serve will be very short and Bush (or his “replacement”) will pardon him and all the other corrupt repubs.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 11, 2006 2:34 AM
Comment #123569

hopefully bush will get bill clinton to defend him in his impeachment proceedings?….oops……..bill’s disbarred…maybe hillary then? oops…she’s too busy right now collecting money from those evil lobbyists for her run for the presidency

Posted by: mike h at February 11, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #123586

Don’t worry. If any one is convicted, they will get a presidential pardon.
They have rigged it so they are above the law.
Who says political crime does not pay ?
This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 11, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #123602

Sanger, sorry I was gone yesterday, but it is good to see that the “spin zone” is still at work.

So we can obscure the treason commited by good ole Scooter and his bosses by resting assured that it will all be tossed before trail. Now it is Fitzgerald who is at fault. Maybe he just went to the Ken Starr school of law.

Back to spin spin spin….the issue is that this administration (and sorry since we have the first CEO/MBA president he is responisble for those under him) have used confidential and illegal information to smeer thier political rivals.

Somewhere Nixon is looking on with pride and evny at this group pust his plumers and crew to shame for thier illegal and immoral behavior. So go ahead and spin spin spin and maybe you will fell safe and happy while this administration wipes its butt with the Bill of Rights.
Michael

Posted by: Michael at February 11, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #123605
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

Ken,

Do you think if you SPAM this all over the place here it makes it any more credible? Yes, Clinton and others did say that Iraq had WMDs, but U.S. forces under his command along with Britain bombed 800 targets, over 4 days identified by intelligence sources as WMD sites. (Republicans accused him of “wagging the dog”. But, guess what? There were no WMDs when Bush invaded. Maybe, because Clinton already took care of them. The right seems to think that the only way to be strong militarily is through war. If we reach our goals through quick decisive action then that doesn’t count in the minds of the right. We can accomplish our mission without expensive, drawn out, and deadly occupation.

Besides prior to the start of the war in Iraq two prominent Bush officials, Colin Powell and Condi Rice, both stated publicly that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 11, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #123609


here is an article you may have missed

A legal source involved in the case tells CNN that Libby did not testify to and has never suggested that anyone in the administration — including Cheney — authorized disclosing the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/cia.leak/index.html

here is an article you may have missed

Posted by: DAVID at February 11, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #123617

Some of sanger’s points are well taken, others less so. Basically they amount to nothing beyond what’s been said here already, that this case is far from over and we don’t really know much yet, coupled with his belief that the case isn’t strong. OK, nothing terribly inflammatory about that, and sanger is just making largely unsupported bald assertions and predictions based upon his own intuitions, AS ARE WE. None of us will know what kind of evidence there really is until the trial begins.

One thing to keep in perspective, though — it is highly unlikely anyone will be prosecuted successfully under the espionage law that everyone was up in arms about a while back. It is extraordinarily difficult to prove, and has never successfully been prosecuted since its institution except by plea, which could have occurred for any of a number of reasons unrelated to the prosecution’s ability to prove its case.

Ken C.

Well, now you’re changing the debate…again. You were saying this was WWIII, I disagreed, and you brought up Osama’s ability to be caught during the Clinton years, which is adding an even more irrelevant point to an already irrelevant side debate you were starting.

Let me get you back on on track — this thread is about Woody’s article. Do you have anything to add about that? If you want to talk about Clinton, as nearly everyone on your side does, perhaps you could write an article about him, and then I’d be more than happy to address anything you have to say.

So run along and let the grownups talk.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 11, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #123722

This isn’t new news to me, I reported on this in July of last year.

Posted by: Michael Ajitsingh at February 11, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #123871

Michael,

I looked at your blog, and see you posted the Muhammad cartoons. Good for you. If we can handle Abu Grahib photos, we can handle a few drawings of Muhammad.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 12, 2006 9:41 AM
Comment #124195

While we are at it, check it this fake-yet-eerily-prescient Cheney quote I wrote in a spoof:

All you neocon-haters best step off. Whoever messes with me ain’t gonna be feelin’ right. That’s how I roll. I’ve got a nine, and it’s easy to load.

So you think Cheney’s “friend” crossed the line? ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 13, 2006 8:36 AM
Post a comment