Democrats & Liberals Archives

Laws? We don’t need no stinking laws!

According to a new published report, (link) President Bush personally ordered the Vice President to discredit Joe Wilson. In mono-syllabic terms only the President can emphasize, President Bush told Cheney to “Get it out” any information to discredit the dissenting voice of Joe Wilson. Of course that information is now commonly referred to as “Valerie Plame affair”.

When the President orders his henchmen to disclose classified information, does that make him less culpable? I’m sure there are many convicted felons in the country that would love to understand the difference between their conviction for conspiracy and the President’s apparent sidestep.

CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense.

So how does the President sidestep away from this one? If he told Cheney to do it and Cheney told Libby to do it. And the ‘it’ happens to be illegal, doesn’t that fall under the legal definition of conspiracy?

Isn’t is also true that in order to prove that someone conspired to do something illegal, it doesn’t matter if one or many in the group acted independently or as a whole? All that matters is that someone started the illegal ball rolling and anyone that played a part in this, should be held accountable to the legal definition of conspiracy.

The President swore to uphold the constitution and abide by the laws of our country. However, this President seems, almost pathologically so, set on doing whatever he feels is necessary regardless of the laws or guidelines of the land. He did it with the secret NSA programs where he disregarded the very purpose of the FISA court. He did it with signing statements (link) where he decided which laws he would follow and which he wouldn’t. And of course, using the ‘States Secrets Priviledge’, (link ) he’s pushed his view of the law onto the states, thereby handcuffing the states ability to challenge the federal government.

But it is this latest revelation that should evoke the ire of most law abiding Americans.

When the President uses his office to discredit political detractors, he does himself and his country a disservice. I am reminded when Clinton used his office for nefarious activities and personal pleasures, I and many others voiced a concern for the sanctity of the office. But when a President uses his office as a political war-room to attack and discredit by ordering the use classified information as a purely political tool to be waged against a political enemy, this President not only disgraced the office of the President of the United States, he also may have committed conspiracy.

Posted by john trevisani at July 5, 2006 3:02 PM
Comments
Comment #164980

John Your side lost on this issue.If the Democrats in leadership roles would just consentrate on current events and stop rehashing the simple minded issues that have been proven to be just a smoke screen for Political advantage your party might be taken serious by the rest of the country.VALERY PLAME WAS NOT COVERT SHE WAS NOT UNDER COVER.Remember the special Prosacuter No charges filed in the Plume Case?Don’t be surprised if Valery And her Husband Whats his name end up in the Pen.These Two are the real Crooks.

Posted by: justwondering at July 5, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #164983

I guess Bush could have discredited Joe Wilson legally, but this way was faster :)

Posted by: Zeek at July 5, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #164986

Zeek Its best to discredit liars and traitors with the Quickness would you agree?

Posted by: justwondering at July 5, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #164988

Oh dear, here we go again with the left trying to confuse the issue and accuse Bush of outing Plame, which he didn’t do and there is no evidence suggesting he or the VP or Rove had anything to do with it. The person responsible was discovered thanks to the hard work of the Special Prosecutor.

What this details is that Bush declassified information to counter information presented by Wilson that was not in agreement with his information. He was legally allowed to do it and believed that the information being declassified at that time would not institute a danger to the US National Security interests.

But we already KNEW this information, I’m not sure why the new article and new post, etc. Were the polls going in the wrong direction this morning or something?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #164991

Rhinehold, I think you are mistaken in thinking that a full and complete investigation has taken place. It hasn’t, and can’t, because the President has powers to hide his actions, some of them found in his signing statements, and others cloaked in “Top Secret” documents, only a Congressional investigation committee could acquire access to.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 5, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #164994

Its plain to see the Fourth of July has come and gone.Another year to look forward to the Left Blasting this Country every Chance they Get.I for one Love my Country 365 days a year.

Posted by: jaycee at July 5, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #164996

Actually, this piece goes to something more fundamental…thruth….the writings of Mauury Waas are hardly unbiased.

He constistently bashes the administration in the Huffington Post (non-partial,right?) and the Village Voice.

linktext

Frankly, I don’t believe a word the guy says. He has an agenda.

This guy was easier to qualify than AP’s piece below, but of the same variety.
Axes to grind.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at July 5, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #164998

David,

I would support a further, more in depth investigation, even one that forced the president to give up those documents, etc, *IF* anyone can provide any bit of evidence at all anywhere that the president had anything at all to do with the release of Plame’s name to a reporter.

When you find that hint of evidence I’ll join you. Until then, we’re wasting everyone’s time, don’t you think?

Or are we going to go down the path of assuming that there is a big conspiracy and everything must be investigated over and over again until we find SOMETHING because we all know that there’s got to be something there to impeach the president on…?

Sort of the attitude I saw from democrats.com within hours of Bush being elected in 2000 when they started their ‘Impreach the President’ campaign?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #165000

I guess the question for the Right now is, at this juncture and with all the bad press, what is to be gained by *NOT* having a full and complete investigation on what happened? It seems that the only reason to *NOT* have such an investigation would be because there is still something to cover up. I wonder what…?

Posted by: DavidM at July 5, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #165003
Or are we going to go down the path of assuming that there is a big conspiracy and everything must be investigated over and over again until we find SOMETHING because we all know that there’s got to be something there to impeach the president on…?,
Gosh, where would we find a historical precedent for that? How quickly we forget.

BTW, I love the circular logic about “needing more evidence” to support the case for an investigation to find more evidence. Classic catch 22. In case anyone wants, I’ll trade you a chicken for an egg. Just lemme borrow your chicken for a while first.
For the legalistically-minded out there, investigations are usually predicated upon accusations and/or prima-facie evidence of a crime. In this case, there is no shortage of either.

Posted by: Govt Skeptic at July 5, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #165004

wonderboy,
you love to talk patriotic, now your downplaying a VERY dangerous partisan move by bushco.
You can argue about her undercover status all you want, fact is, the CIA DID consider her covert, and not only that, the front company she worked for, ALL HER CONTACTS and that front companies contacts WERE ALSO COMPRIMISED!
A foreign government intelligence agency would simply analyze anyone that had contact with her or the front company and those people could be comprimised, or even LIQUIDATED.
And we’ll NEVER KNOW since it’s all Top Secret.
Whether bush/cheney directly ordered the outing or not, its just ANOTHER scandal from the administration that was supposed to “put honor back in the White House”.
Spelling and grammar aside, your arguments are weak regurgitation of right wing talking points. They are easily shot down.

Posted by: Observer at July 5, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #165005
It seems that the only reason to *NOT* have such an investigation would be because there is still something to cover up. I wonder what…?

Typical.

I’m not ‘on the right’ but I can easily give a few reasons, kay?

1) We’ve had an investigation already that found no evidence at all that anyone other than Libby was involved.

2) It costs a lot of money to have these investigations, money that American’s have to work hard to earn in order to send to Washington. It’s not ‘free money’ to be spent like a drunken sailor even MORE than it already is.

3) It takes a lot of time to have these investigations, time that our leaders could be used in order to do their jobs, not play party to witch hunts by political hacks trying to further political power grabs.

4) The democrats would lose a ton if they actually had an investigation. If it were to be found that the president knew nothing of the outing of Plame they would be looking like the political hacks I just mentioned and at a time when they can actually make a case that they spend less of the citizen’s money on foolish enterprises than the republicans they will squander that possible political point with any investigation such as this.

5) The democrats would lose further by appearing to be ‘getting even’ for Clinton’s impeachment and would lose their ‘move on’ mantra by following the same path. It’s hard to claim the high road when you are yourself rolling around in the muck.

6) If we are going to investigate anything is *THIS* really what you want to hang your hat on? Remember, you’re only going to get one shot at this, if it turns out there is nothing there then you are going to make it harder next time, right?

Well, that’s just 6 off of the top of my head. OF course, my suggestions are probably going to be seen as furthering the ‘conspiracy’ by some I suppose.

Have fun!

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #165009
investigations are usually predicated upon accusations and/or prima-facie evidence of a crime. In this case, there is no shortage of either.

Ok, I accuse Howard Dean of being an Iraqi operative. My evidence is that I saw him talking to Saddam on a street corner with Mohammad Atta in New York in 2000.

We must have a full investigation! Dean must step down while we have this investigation.

Or, are you saying you don’t take my word for it?

You have to have SOMETHING, right now you have NOTHING. You say that there is no shortage evidence, please provide it, as I stated to David, if you can provide it I will join in on the call. However, if you just have accusation and supposition, you can hang your investigation…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #165025

—I find it difficult to believe Libby was able to acquire information, give it to the press, with
out being told to do such a betrayal to another Government employee. I also believe those who
have seen the prosecutors limited statements concluded others were involved. This case is long from being over. Maybe an imbecile or idiot would deny others were not involved.

Posted by: DAVID at July 5, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #165026

I love how everyone has immediately ignored the fact (FACT) that Rove was one of the sources that leaked Plame’s name to the press - the reason he was facing possible indictment was that he simply forgot to mention THAT phone call in which he leaked the name.

Also - if Bush was not involved, then why did he declassify the documents that were used to leak Plame’s name?

Also - anyone suggesting that since we on the left hate our country because we see issues with Bush and want to investigate what he has done - I would say that YOU don’t understand love of country. Or by “love of country” you mean ignore those in power when you disagree with what they have done?

Posted by: tony at July 5, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #165029

Rhinehold,
The investigation was launched at the behest of the CIA, an agency working under the Bush administration, and is being led by a Republican prosecutor. Democrats may cheer it on, but they can neither make it continue nor make it stop.

Posted by: phx8 at July 5, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #165035

rhinehold:

1) Fitzgerald has found plenty of evidence that people other than Libby did something wrong; he just hasn’t decided yet whether to prosecute. Just because something is outside the scope of a prosecutor’s assigned role, doesn’t mean it’s legal or okay. If Fitzgerald was like Starr, we’d be reading the book all ready.

2) You’re right, it costs money, but Fitzgerald has spent a pittance when compared to Starr. If cost was any reason not to investigate, Clinton would never have been impeached. What is it worth to find out that the leaders of the most powerful nation in the world have broken national and international law? Priceless!

3) Ditto.

4) Read 1, 2, and 3 above.

5) This isn’t muck, it’s legitimate investigation of high crimes and misdemeanors. The president used his position and power to discredit political opponents and cost the citizens of this nation a whole boatload of national security assets in the process. He misinformed congress and the nation in order to advance a personal agenda and invade a sovereign nation. He’s killed thousands of U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens for NO LEGITIMATE REASON. Equating this to the Clinton case is utterly ridiculous.

6) Only one shot at this? If this were true, Starr would have had to quit years before he could find anything even remotely questionable about the Clintons. This still needs to be investigated (that is, really investigated, with subpoenaes and testimony under oath, etc.) by parties of integrity and responsibility to the people of this country. Since there aren’t enough of them in Congress at this time to make that happen, we’ll have to wait until next year.

Posted by: gerry at July 5, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #165037

Wow, Rhinehold, what a fantastically shallow rebuttal. Let me dispatch it posthaste.
Fine, your accusation will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities. Oh wait, first tell me what evidence you have of an actual crime being committed. You know, evidence like some d-bag journalist publishing a CIA operative’s name in a newspaper, or something like that. What, what’s that you say? No evidence other than your word? Oh, and another thing, the CIA wants to tell you that they know that at no point in the year 2000 was Saddam Hussein in NYC. Oh, also, the FBI wants to tell you that they know exactly where Mohammad Atta was for all of 2000, and he certainly didn’t meet with Howard Dean. Oh, and the FBI also wants to tell you that providing false testimony is a felony, frequently accompanied by charges of obstructing justice. Get ready for federal PMITA prison, sporto.
OTOH, there’s evidence aplenty that someone outed Valeria Plame, and that many others tried to help cover it up. And even if the original act wasn’t illegal per se, misleading federal investigators certainly is. Again, federal PMITA prison.
BTW, what office is Dean supposed to step down from, the DNC chairmanship? I forget, is there an oath of office with that position? One that has the phrase “protect and defend the constitution” in it?
Don’t trifle, son. You’ll only hurt yourself.

Posted by: Govt Skeptic at July 5, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #165040


I agree with those like Rhinhold who say that this post is a waste of time but for different reasons. The majority of the American people know that Bush and his boy’s have told one lie after another. They also know that the Republican Congress is going to do nothing about it. Those who still support Bush do so with an almost religious ferver. They have sacrificed their love of their country for their love of Bush.

Posted by: jlw at July 5, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #165043

Whether Bush authorized this mudslinging isn’t really the point. I suspect this was Cheney’s deal.

Bush had to authorize declassifying the info. He did this, supposedly, without consulting with the CIA.

We all know this was a backtrack to cover their collective asses.

Joe Wilson did not lie, Bush and company lied to justfy thier invasion.

They hoped to slide this crap by and get away with it. They didn’t get away with it, except through executive privilege.

I know, and most Americans know that Bush lied, and Cheney lied to us. They compromised a CIA agent over this.

Those are the facts. The lawyers and spinners can twist until they spin into the ground. Most of us aren’t that stupid or lack the common sense to see through this BS.

The bigger point is that 2500 Americans are dead and the middleast is more unstable, and Bin Laden is running around free. Stupid policy from a stupid admininistration.

Posted by: gergle at July 5, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #165044

I think many Dem Americans have replaced their distrust of government with a distrust of Bush and worship at the altar of the DNC falsley, believeing and hoping that the dems somehow are different. You would think those who have lived for more than 40 years would realize by now that Republicans and Democrats, at the very core, are no different.

What makes this so sad and frustrating is that “we the people” are missing out on what we really need…..political reform. I certainly don’t have all the answers but we need something radical…a third party, term limits, huge cut in government….something to turn the system around.

Bush is not THE problem. He just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 911 , Iraq, and Katrina would of been a huge challenge regardless of what party was in the presidency.

The Dems continue to attack the Reps (they are in the minority) hoping if they shake the tree enough something may fall out…..and indeed, something may but when the Reps begin shaking the Dems branches something will fall out as well. When all is said and done…..what will “we the people” get? With no reform, we will continue to get the shaft. Be careful for what you hope for.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 5, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #165046

Why is it that Republicans want to see evidence before the investigation? If there was already evidence, why would need an investigation?

Curmudgeon, I think this is the first time I’ve ever agreed with you. Term limits and lobby reform are so incredibly necessary if we ever want our politics to be more than a soap opera, or worse, prevent the eventual revolution that always awaits systems like thsi one.

Posted by: David S at July 5, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #165058

curmudgeon-at-large;

The democrats are in the majority in this country and have lost two stolen elections.

Fitzgerald could not complete his investigation of the outing of Valerie Plame because he couldn’t find a republican in this administration that would tell the truth.

Bush is a lowlife for stating that he declassified information about Valerie Plame to protect the VP, & Rove.

The Dems continue to attack the Reps (they are in the minority) hoping if they shake the tree enough something may fall out…..and indeed, something may but when the Reps begin shaking the Dems branches something will fall out as well. When all is said and done…..what will “we the people” get? With no reform, we will continue to get the shaft. Be careful for what you hope for.

What more needs to fall out of the tree. No matter how many times Bush and company have been discredited you keep defending them. WHY? What has he done right? Putting incompetent people in charge of agencies they know nothing about? Lying about WMDs? Fighting an illegal war against a country that never attacked us or killed a single American? Raping the Treasury? Destroying Social Security? Passing laws that won’t allow negotiating drug prices? Passing Bankruptsy laws that protect the rich and screw the poor? Creating a two class system, the Rich and those that serve the rich? Keeping the minimum wage well below poverty levels while voting themselves big fat raises? Giving No-Bid contracts to companies that are stealing billions from taxpayers? Raising the “Terror Alerts” 104 times just prior to the 2004 election to scare the crap out of people into voting for him and never raising it after the 2004 election? Allowing paperless ballots and receiving 8,300 more votes than voters in that precinct? Making enemies out of our allies? Putting John Bolten in charge at the U.N.? Appointing extreme right wing judges when Congress is not in session? Being AWOL from military duty and calling those that defended this country cowards? Undoing all the Environmental laws put in place over the last 75 years? Cutting down the last 1 percent of old growth forests? Defending the jailing and torturing of non-combatants? Having secret prisons in foreign countries? Spying on American Citizens?

You have no arguments left for defending this administration.

And when all the Republicans are voted out of office I do Not want to hear one single republican complain about Monicagate and how the Democrats are ruining this country.

Posted by: Pat at July 5, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #165060

I know the story’s gotta be false, because George W. Bush could never tell Dick Cheney what to do. A more likely scenario is that Dick took it upon himself to float the cherrypicked parts of the NIE and then fed George the cover story when the investigation was imminent.

George Bush has neither the brains nor the leadership skills to conconct any coherent plan whatsoever.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at July 5, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #165062

The Plame affair is just silly. You can blame Bush for what? The idea is that Bush told Cheney; Cheney told Libby; Libby did the deed. But the first link in the chain is Libby. Libby is NOT charged with outing Plame. Fitzgerald evidently could not find an underlying crime, so he had to go with a possible perjury. W/o the underlying crime, you got nothing except your indignation. Savor it.

Posted by: Jack at July 5, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #165067

Rhinehold,

Bush himself admited he released the name of Plame. He admited to it when he told the news corps that he can declassify anything he wants too, thus making it legal to be released. Unethical, but legal.

Justwondering,

You are misguided in your opinion that Plame was not covert. You must go back and Listen to the head of the CIA speaking with Meet the Press. He stated Plame was the number two operative in Iran. She was the head of a covert business that was spying on Iran and their Nuke operation. When she was outed, they had to close down the best orginization inside Iran that the US had going at the time. She and all of her so called business partners had to close shop. Losing Plame was a big loss to the US as far as Iran is concerned.
I don’t have the date of the interview handy, maybe someone else out there does. But it seems to me it was about 4 or 5 months ago. Plame wasn’t big on anything in regards to Iraq, but she was huge in the CIA in regards to Iran… Covert she was in Iran.

Rusty

Posted by: Rusty at July 5, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #165069

“Libby is NOT charged with outing Plame. Fitzgerald evidently could not find an underlying crime, so he had to go with a possible perjury. W/o the underlying crime, you got nothing except your indignation. Savor it.”

Come on Jack - this is really weak. Libby LIED to keep from getting busted… or does lying not count with REPs? Surely you can grasp the idea that if you lie to avoid be prosecuted, you charge them with lying, but you can also assume they lied to cover guilt. BTW - it’s never the actual crime thaat gets politicians in trouble - it’s the lying and cover ups.

Posted by: tony at July 5, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #165081

>>The Plame affair is just silly. You can blame Bush for what?
Posted by: Jack at July 5, 2006 07:59 PM

Is this despiration or hysteria?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 5, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #165082

—All those who defend those who had any part of outing a CIA agent to cover their own ass, or for any other purpose do so at their own pearl. They may be pardoned, but ultimately will be judged by the American People, There is still the possibility of an impeachment down the road. I personally have lost all respect for all those involved in the
UN AMERICAN activity from all those involved, an those trying to defend or excuse this activity. This was also just a very cowardly deed for any one to do.

Posted by: DAVID at July 5, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #165088

—Just in case you don’t watch the news President Bush said he told VP Chaney to get the word out on Joe Wilson. So top to bottom or bottom to top AS REP> spin will make the case.

Posted by: DAVID at July 5, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #165091
Bush himself admited he released the name of Plame. He admited to it when he told the news corps that he can declassify anything he wants too, thus making it legal to be released. Unethical, but legal.

See, here’s the problem. Bush never declassified any documents that named Plame as an operative of any kind. Bush declassified the NIE report that countered what Joe Wilson, in his opinion (which was WRONG btw, but he didn’t lie, he just didn’t have all of the facts) was telling the news media.

It was Libby, who found out the information through having the access working for the VP, who leaked the information that was still classified to the press. Libby will go to jail for what he did, or should, unless some new evidence comes to light that would counter what we know today. There are questions as to whether Rove or Cheney might have directed him to do so, but no evidence to suggest, at least none at this time. And even the prosecutor has said that there is NO EVIDENCE at all suggesting that Bush had anything to do with the releasing of Plame’s name.

Time and time again I keep seeing the misrepresentation of the facts to suggest that Bush declassified Plame’s name and status. It NEVER HAPPENED. It’s the liberal version of ‘suggesting’ that Iraq was involved in 9/11. You people seem to think you’re above it all but you play the same tired tricks on the American people that the right does, only YOU think it’s done in the name of freedom. Well, so do THEY.

It’s still wrong.

As evidenced by the number of people here who have completely misrepresented the facts of the case. It’s like banging your head against the wall. You counter the insane ramblings one after one and someone else who read DailyKOS or commondreams or moveon posts the same tired boring WRONG information.

Check some facts, will you PLEASE?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #165092

Again with the investigations!!

I have come to the opinion that as long as the majority of any party and the presidency are the same, the word ‘investigation’ is meaningless. Sometimes it is just meaningless to think about all the things that need to be “investigated” that are simply going by the wayside.

It does not seem to matter if the ruling party is Democrat, or Republican.

1. The Plame leak - somehow the information was leaked, and if it wasn’t Libby, who the heck was it? And WHY?

2. Possible lies about lots and lots of weapons of mass destruction. Hey I know they actually found some - almost 4 years after we were shown pictures of them.

3. Illegal wiretapping, that as far as I know is going to be not only not investigated but rather condoned and given EXTRA TIME to continue other types of these actions.
* See Terrorists Suveillance Act of 2006

4. ETC, Etc, and etc.

We fuss at doctors who appear to be held accountable only by themselves, and actually expect politicians to be able to montor themselves?

Posted by: Linda H. at July 5, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #165093

—Reinhold—A TRICK question for you-
How many years were spent on Bill Clinton sexcaspade?
How many years were spent on White Water,
How Much Money was spent on these and other charges made by the Republicans?
How much did the tax payers spend on the impeachment of Clinton for one Lie about his sex lie??????
The trick is you must go to fact check. to find the answers!

Posted by: DAVID at July 5, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #165094

GERRY,

1) Fitzgerald has found plenty of evidence that people other than Libby did something wrong; he just hasn’t decided yet whether to prosecute. Just because something is outside the scope of a prosecutor’s assigned role, doesn’t mean it’s legal or okay. If Fitzgerald was like Starr, we’d be reading the book all ready.

Reference to Clinton #1.

Say, Gerry, weren’t we suppose to ‘move on’ from the Clinton stuff? No? Still have an axe to grind? Fine, then at least admit that you are just after Bush to get even and quit trying to invent things out of whole cloth. There are some of us that would like to find out if an actual crime were committed and if Bush knew or planned it we would be all over him, but it’s freakin’ hard to do when you can’t get past your Clintonitis. I’m not are republican and I am tired of being looked over or having the stock ‘anti-republican’ agruments thrown at me time and time again when it is completely and totally IRRELEVANT.

When and if Fitzgerald ever produces another report that suggests what you say he knows (which I find hilarious, all of the people who know someone who knows someone who heard what Fitzgerald was going to do and were WRONG back then) then we’ll re-examine those charges and see if our minds need to be remade. But quit expecting me or anyone else to make up our minds before we are presented with facts, not hearsay.

2) You’re right, it costs money, but Fitzgerald has spent a pittance when compared to Starr. If cost was any reason not to investigate, Clinton would never have been impeached. What is it worth to find out that the leaders of the most powerful nation in the world have broken national and international law? Priceless!

Reference to Clinton #2.

It’s worth a lot if there is any credible evidence to suggest it. But I do NOT think it is worth constantly looking under rocks and behind doors to find something just because ‘we know he’s guilty of something, damnit, he has to be!’. Present me something to suggest otherwise and let’s go. I was all for Fitzgerald to find out who released Plame’s name, he found out, and thank god for that. If he finds out any more to suggest that Bush had anything to do with it, let’s keep looking, but even HE said he didn’t think Bush did, so why keep going? Just because YOU’RE convinced he’s the devil and should be constantly investigated?

Oh right, you have that Clintonitis again…

3) Ditto.

Clinton reference #3

4) Read 1, 2, and 3 above.

Clinton reference #4 and #5. Geesh, did you even respond to anything I said or just say that you should be able to investigate Bush ad nasium because the Republicans did so as well? After spending years telling the public that the Republicans were so wrong in doing so you now want to show them that you’re EXACTLY LIKE THEM? Good move. I’m sure the public is just too stupid to figure you out, right?

5) This isn’t muck, it’s legitimate investigation of high crimes and misdemeanors. The president used his position and power to discredit political opponents and cost the citizens of this nation a whole boatload of national security assets in the process. He misinformed congress and the nation in order to advance a personal agenda and invade a sovereign nation. He’s killed thousands of U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens for NO LEGITIMATE REASON. Equating this to the Clinton case is utterly ridiculous.

Too bad we’re not INVESTIGATING any of that, don’t you think? In fact, if we weren’t being so stupidly focused on THIS issue maybe you would find an audience for those other issues, hmmm? But no, we are simply wasting our time instead.

Oh, and Clinton reference #6, with a great liberal trick, do something and then accuse me of being the one doing it. *I* didn’t compare this to Clinton in any way shape or form. I simply stated that after years of telling the public that we shouldn’t treat a president this way you now want them to think we should just because the other guy is in office. Feel free, keep it up, but do NOT be surprised when you still don’t win the house later this year. In fact, if you want to help but the dirt on the democratic party (not the one I was a member of but this new bucket of slime that is running the show) then feel free, I’ll help pat it down so it doesn’t get lose again.

6) Only one shot at this? If this were true, Starr would have had to quit years before he could find anything even remotely questionable about the Clintons. This still needs to be investigated (that is, really investigated, with subpoenaes and testimony under oath, etc.) by parties of integrity and responsibility to the people of this country. Since there aren’t enough of them in Congress at this time to make that happen, we’ll have to wait until next year.

Clinton reference #7.

*sigh*

Let’s give an example. There was a cursory investigation into the suggestion that Clinton gave missle technology to the Chineese in return for campign funding. Now, there’s a little bit of supposition there but no ‘evidence’ could be found that would get him or Gore to release their privately held information, CIA records, FBI wiretaps, etc, that might have helped proven or disproven the allegations. SO we didn’t continue with the investigation becasue we couldn’t find the hard evidence that would cause us to continue. I’m sure you agree with that decision, right?

Are you saying that giving missle technology to the Chineese wasn’t a national security issue? Sure it was! But there was nothing hard to go on.

Everyone wants to say ‘if there were evidence we wouldn’t need an investigation’. Are you really of the mind that if you repeat something that sounds good often enough it’ll stick? No one is saying you need to have a videotape of Bush saying ‘That Joe Wilson is an ass, let’s tell everyone who is wife is, that’ll shut him up’ in order to investigate. But you have to have something. Judges do not issue search warrants without something to go on, neither should we be investigating the president on no evidence either, it’s a waste of time.

But it doesn’t matter, someone else will read on DailyKOS about how Bush outed Plame and he admitted to it why isn’t he impeached yet and come on here and start the whole thing up again, I’m sure…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #165098
—Reinhold—

Rhinehold. I know it’s a tough name to spell when it is, like, spelled out in front of you, but please try harder to get it right in the future, ok? I helps not take away from your argument, one that suggests you can state a fact correctly…

A TRICK question for you-

I am not sure how ‘tricky’ it is, but I’ll give it a try.

How many years were spent on Bill Clinton sexcaspade?

Irrelevant and I don’t care.

How many years were spent on White Water,

Irrelevant and I don’t care.

How Much Money was spent on these and other charges made by the Republicans?

Irrelevant and I don’t care.

How much did the tax payers spend on the impeachment of Clinton for one Lie about his sex lie??????

Irrelevant and I don’t care.

Hmmm, not so tricky at all, really…

The trick is you must go to fact check. to find the answers!

Factcheck! Oh, you mean the web site that details how Bush didn’t lie in his 16 words and didn’t out Plame, etc…?

Maybe YOU should try the website out as well?

But to humor you let’s go ahead and say that what you say has merit.

Which are you saying now.

“The republicans were right to investigate the president so dilligently even though they were unable to uncover much evidence that he did anything wrong.”

OR

“We have the right to do whatever we want to this president because the Republicans took down our symbol of liberal thought (even though he was more of a Republican than Bush is, look at that spending!)?”

I am waiting for your answer with baited breath…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #165100

—Rhinehold- Just to point out, you were the first to mention Plames name an justwoundering was second to bring her name up.{i wonder why}

Posted by: DAVID at July 5, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #165107

-Rhinehold- Wouldn’t you get bored if some one did not try tricking you once in a while,one right deservers another right!

Posted by: DAVID at July 5, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #165109
Just to point out, you were the first to mention Plames name

Erm, except she is mentioned in the first paragarph of the article and is the discussion was about…?

Unless I’m misreading what you are writing? if so please restate what you were trying to say so I can comment.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #165112

john,

I am not sure if we really have enough to hang Bush for conspiracy - but is clear that he has no use for the rule of law - he has said that - he has said that he wishes he was dictator - only jokingly - it is not funny to me - not nay more - he has wiped the smile right off my face.

The thing that I find interesting here, is the one more bald faced lie to the American people.

This liar went on TV and said that he did not know anything about the leak of Plame’s name and that he would fire anybody involved, all the while knowing he had issued orders. An honest person would have said something like maybe: “Well, I issued some orders, but I did not expect anything like this…” The American people should have been the first to know what he knew and the investigation could have preceded downhill from there. Instead, he bald faced lied and acted like he had no idea where this came from.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 5, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #165114
This liar went on TV and said that he did not know anything about the leak of Plame’s name and that he would fire anybody involved, all the while knowing he had issued orders.

Again, Ray Guest, he did NOT order the release of Plame’s name, he did not authorize it and he did fire the person who did when they found out who it was.

How on earth do you figure that he issued orders to out Plame’s status to the press?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 5, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #165122

Rhinehold— Why than did President Bush declassify the information that was put out on this case? Was it for the defence or the prosecution.

Posted by: DAVID at July 5, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #165130

We can take solice in the fact that this November,after we take back one or both houses of congress there will be a real investigation of this and other crimes. Compared to other things this administration has done it is small change but remember they got Al Capone for tax evasion. I think I’ll tape the whole impeachment.

An aside: The Republican Dog,Pony and ImmigantBashing Roadshow appears to be falling on its face. Americans are just not that stupid.

Posted by: BillS at July 6, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #165138

As National Security Advisor, Condeleeza Rice was likened to an eighth grade social studies teacher. However, her ascent to Secretary of State combined with the Bush administrations’ debacle after debacle, has given her room to grow into a formidible diplomat. As much as I would love to see a complete change in leadership, I feel that her efforts show a greater regard for true Americanism than anyone in the executive branch. If after November it becomes necessary to for citizens to regain control of the government, I feer that she could successfully repair at least some of the damage this administration instigated.

Posted by: DOC at July 6, 2006 1:37 AM
Comment #165144

Americans are just not that stupid.

Posted by: BillS at July 6, 2006 12:53 AM

Oh yea?
Explain the extremely long line at the fascist feeding trough known as the mainnstream media.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at July 6, 2006 3:39 AM
Comment #165145

On September 30, 2003, President Bush said:

“I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”

In 2006 it was revealed, and confirmed by the President, that he had authorized Cheney to “leak” Plame’s identity to the press. The hindsight argument is that by authorizing Cheney to release Plame’s name to the press, he was effectively declassifying that information. While that becomes a very convenient caveat, it does raise other issues:

1. Taking Bush’s quote very literally—no one did leak “classified information” since Bush had effectively declassified it. However, why make that statement at all? If he had declassified the information, as he now claims, why didn’t he simply say, “don’t worry about it—I had previously declassified the information. Issue closed.” Why allow the Special Prosecutor and his team to investigate what the president knew was not a crime? Why years of grand jury testimony and years of suspicion and speculation about his most trusted aides if he knew the information was not even classified? Why allow Scooter Libby to face prosecution for lying about something there was no need to lie about? If no crime had been committed, why didn’t Bush just tell us instead of making that and subsequent statements? He could have saved everyone, including himself, a lot of grief. Was he just being coy?

2. Why did Libby and Rove feel the need to lie about the “leaks?” Why didn’t either of them ever come out and say, “yes, I told reporters about Valerie Plame. But the president had declassified that information, so what’s the big deal?” Or did the president declassify the information but just not tell his most trusted aides that he had declassified it—in which case they only THOUGHT they were covering up a crime.

3. While it is certainly the president’s perogative to declassify information, generally the declassification has a purpose. We have yet to be informed about exactly WHY Bush chose to declassify that piece of information at that time. Had there been any review of the situation prior to declassifying the information to know what the potential ramifications of the action might be? Had any person at the CIA recommended to the president that Valerie Plame’s cover should be declassified or was the president acting on his own in a way completely out of character for him or any other president in the history of this country?

4. There’s a difference between declassifying information and outright publicizing it. Even if we are to accept the president’s declassification argument (and only a moron or total Bush apologist could), that does not explain why the administration felt the need to widely broadcast the information that was, only a day earlier, highly confidential. What is the president’s rationale for going to the press with this information?

It’s perfectly understandable that the Special Prosecutor would choose not to indict if he doesn’t think he has an open and shut case. What is not understandable is how the press can let the administration off the hook on a crime which is tantamount to treason during time of war. For those who have made posts saying this issue is no big deal and should be dropped, consider this:

a. Part of the reason we don’t today know what we need to know about Iran’s nuclear capabilities is because of the Valerie Plame affair.

b. A nation in which its diplomats, its generals, its elected and appointed officials are “terrorized” against speaking out about government misdeeds and corruption for fear of political and financial reprisals and dirty tricks is no longer a free nation.

Posted by: Stan at July 6, 2006 3:40 AM
Comment #165146

The majority of the American people know that Bush and his boy’s have told one lie after anotherPosted by:
jlw at July 5, 2006 06:20 PM

Ugh?
Who the hell are these people you, the politicians, and the media continue to refer to as if America was one big functioning democracy where every citizen actually patrticpated in self governance.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at July 6, 2006 3:53 AM
Comment #165154

Darn the facts! The President can unilaterally decide what is and is not secret. He can decide what will and will not be disclosed.

Other than this, you had a perfect conspiracy theory going!

JtO

Posted by: John at July 6, 2006 6:14 AM
Comment #165156

John -

So you have no problem with Bush declassifying information in order to leak Plame’s name to the press? You have no problem with him lying to America by stating: “I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”

It’s not about doing what’s legal - it’s about doing what’s right.

Posted by: tony at July 6, 2006 7:02 AM
Comment #165159

Rhinehold,

If you read my post, you would see that I did not suggest that we have any proof that the liar knew who or engaged in conspiracy to out Plame. But he issued orders to discredit Wilson - he has admitted that - and then acted like he knew nothing about it, when it came out that someone might have broken the law in the process of discrediting Wilson. Are you suggesting that he is so profoundly stupid that he did not see the direct connection between his orders and the excesses of one (actually more than one) of his subordinates who was obviously attempting to follow his direct orders. Are you suggesting that it was honest to withhold that from the American people and act like no one in in his administration was probably involved - to act like he had no idea where this came from? He is a bald faced liar. He repeatedly lied about NSA wiretapping. He lied to the American people about this. He is a bald faced liar - period. Now, the bald faced liar probably is guilty of more than he has admitted.

Posted by: Ray Guest at July 6, 2006 7:22 AM
Comment #165160

Supporters:
Come on now, you can’t be comfortable with a President ‘declassifying’ previously classified information (in this case, Plame’s identity and covert status) for purely political motives.

The President, by authorizing the declassification of Plame’s identity, not only was unethical and potentially illegal, destroyed a covert operation involving not only Plame by EVERYONE that worked in the covert company (Brewster Jennings and Co)(link). Brewster Jennings and Co is now officially closed because of the leak. Any and all information that this fake company helped in the ‘war on terror’ is lost. This company once helped America in the war on terror. Now, sadly, because of the Bush administration’s myopic view of the political world, the company is closed forever.

You’re doing a heck of a job… Georgey.

Posted by: john trevisani at July 6, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #165161

STAN,

In 2006 it was revealed, and confirmed by the President, that he had authorized Cheney to “leak” Plame’s identity to the press. The hindsight argument is that by authorizing Cheney to release Plame’s name to the press, he was effectively declassifying that information.

No, it wasn’t. Bush did *NOT* authorize Cheney to leak Plame’s identity. Please provide the evidence that this occured.

Bush did authorized Cheney to declassify the NIH report. This report does not mention Plame or identify her at all and is a completely different document that has nothing to do with Plame at all.

And I’ve stated this 3 times in these comments and, as predicted, someone strolls over from Daily KOS to repeat the misinformation again and again… And people wonder why I’m frustrated?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 8:15 AM
Comment #165163

This is a very interesting exchange and a bit humorous as well. It would seem the Bush detractors are angry that he exercised his power to declassify information that would put him in a better circumstance politically.

Well Yeah! It is a shame, we all know that if Kerry or even Gore had won their elections they would have NEVER pulled such a stance. (tongue firmly in cheek)

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 6, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #165165

>>And people wonder why I’m frustrated?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 08:15 AM

Said the pot to the kettle…

Posted by: Marysdude at July 6, 2006 8:24 AM
Comment #165166

Curmudgeon-at-large,
And if that happend you would probably be saying the same things, wanting them ousted as well. It seems to me that during the clinton years Rep. up in arms trying to get Clinton impeached as well. At least his sex scandel did get thousands of americans and inocent people killed.

Posted by: LyleNussbaum at July 6, 2006 8:40 AM
Comment #165171
Said the pot to the kettle…

Meaning?

I mean, I know that some like to take quick pot-shots without having to back it up, but when directed at me I will call you on it so unless you can back up your attack on me I’ll assume you are just upset and lashing out at anyone who might disagree with you?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #165177

Rhinehold, meaning you are arguing legalistic mumbo jumbo.

They (meaning the Bush administration) intentionally released info to discredit Wilson. Specifically that his wife sent him. This was a lie. This also involved compromising a CIA agent. If they knew who she was and that she worked for the CIA and was involved in suggesting him for the role, what moron (lawyers included) would think that they didn’t know they were compromising a CIA agent?

Only in the la-la land of jurisprudence is this not a lie. They are pros at smear. They knew exactly what they were doing. They got caught with their grimy little fingers in the cookie jar. Mom knows who is lying and so do we. Apologists may forgive them, I won’t.

Posted by: gergle at July 6, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #165179

To those who say that Vallerie Plame was not acovert opperative, none of her neighbors knew that she work at the CIA. Her cover was that she worked at a DC consulting firm. Its all right for ths administration to leak classifide information if its in their best intrest, but if information is leaked that shead bright light on them they call out the attack dogs to kill the messenger. I keep hearing that information that Joe Willson revealed was untrue just what was false. A T.R. republican

Posted by: Earl aT>R> republican at July 6, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #165181

The reason we have CIA oversight on what gets declassified has to do with keeping the value of classification greater than just name only. According to Fitzgerald’s indictment of Libby, Valerie Wilson’s identity, whether covert or not, was classified information. Wilson, as a NOC agent, though perhaps no longer strictly undercover, still was known to much of the world as an energy consultant, rather than as an agent. This served to safeguard her sources and her associates, not to mention the front company that employed her.

To recklessly declassify information like this, even if legal, is harmful to our national security. It only gets worse if the declassification serves no higher purpose that providing fuel to a rhetorical fire for administration supporters. To use declassification (if Bush’s style of it is even legal) to protect one’s political backside is to betrayal of the trust we invest in a president to defend us before he defends himself.

The status of Classification should not be lightly tossed aside. If a grossly illegal act or atrocity of war is being committed under the cover of secrecy, that would be good reason to disregard things, but this is merely Bush covering for the fact that his case for war wasn’t as tight as advertised. That he gives out our nation’s secrets to protect himself from our reaction at discovering his only makes things worse.

I think those debating this subject should look over the debate that has taken place concerning their issue, and see for themselves the shift in their defenses- from outright denial that the administration would leak Valerie Wilson’s identity, to justification, and now to the notion that nothing illegal was done. Though some details of our argument have changed as circumstance and fact demanded it, we Democrats have remained fairly consistent in our charge, and our charge remains fairly vindicated: that for his own political purposes, the president and his people abused their power in order to get back at an administration critic.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 6, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #165186
They (meaning the Bush administration) intentionally released info to discredit Wilson. Specifically that his wife sent him. This was a lie. This also involved compromising a CIA agent. If they knew who she was and that she worked for the CIA and was involved in suggesting him for the role, what moron (lawyers included) would think that they didn’t know they were compromising a CIA agent?

Really? Because I’ve read the declassified NIE report and I don’t remember seeing any refence to Plame or that she sent him. In fact, everything I’ve read, including the originally posted link in this article, all detail that the administration wanted to counter and discredit Wilson by detailing that he was spouting off without all of the facts, no where have I read that they intended to expose that his wife sent him. In fact, the way I read it Cheney didn’t know who sent him but got curious when Wilson said that he was sent by the administration. That was when Libby found out about the information.

Which document did they declassify that detailed who sent Wilson and who Valerie Plame was? Other than Libby’s giving the information to the Miller and Rove saying to a reporter ‘yeah, I had heard that too’ when asked if had heard the rumor, where did anyone from the administration suggest that Plame sent Wilson to Niger?

Or did Wilson screw up when he said that the administration sent him when they didn’t?

I guess I am just missing that piece of the puzzle that you have found, if you could point me to it with a link I would be appreciative as I could then look it up on my own and make my own conclusion.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #165200


“We’ve had an investigation already that found no evidence at all that anyone other than Libby was involved.”

I wish I could’ve investigated myself those times I was going to court for breaking the law. Do you think I would’ve been found guilty?

Posted by: ChristianLeft at July 6, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #165205

Our legal system is a joke.
The application of the law is selective at best, with a dysfunctional and corrupt legal system; perversion of the laws to do the very things they are supposed prevent; insufficient or selective law enforcement; pardons by presidents to release convicted criminals; legal plunder (e.g. abuse of eminent domain laws and recent, alarming supreme court rulings), wealth re-distribution, plundered entitlement systems, Gerrymandering to manipulate votes based on geographical boundaries, too many greedy, corrupt, and parasitic ambulance chasers, and idiotic juries allowing astronomical judgments for personal injury litigation with million$ and billion$ going to lawyers, etc.); identity theft (the fastest growing crime in the U.S.); no reliable form of identification (e.g. iris and/or finger-print and/or voice-print, and/or hand-print, and/or thermal facial geometry patterns, etc.); spying on citizens; releasing repeat offenders to repeat crimes of rape, child molestation, murder, etc.); violation or insufficient protection of basic rights (e.g. discrimination, and crimes based on religion, race, gender, age, wealth, sexual preference, etc.), and execution and incarceration of innocent people.

Not to mention these other numerous problems …

Posted by: d.a.n at July 6, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #165209

Rhinehold:

After reading all your posts I believe that if indisputable evidence came out that Bush had plotted with Osama Bin Laden to carry out the 911 attacks, you would find excuses for it—and even turn it around so that it seemed beneficial to the country.

Posted by: Stan at July 6, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #165211

I assume that everyone has read the court documents filed by Fitzgerald on 5-5-06. It’s available here in pdf:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/uslibby40506grsp38.html

I quote from the document, “Defendant’s participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8…..occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances………were unique in his recollection.”

This is found at the bottom of page 19 and top of page 20. But really I suggest reading the document in it’s entirety.

Dirty tricks done dirt cheap indeed.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 6, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #165213

Every thinking person should know that Valerie Plame’s name was leaked as political retribution for her husband’s publicly debunking one of Bush’s lies. I suspect that even the staunchest Bush apologists, whether they admit it or not, do know this.

Any discussion of whether Plame was truly a covert agent, or whether the information was truly classified, or whether we’re making a mountain out of a mole hill, are missing, or distorting, a core issue.

This administration has used threats, firings, outings, demotions and every legal and illegal means of coersion at their disposal to silence its critics. Some Bush apologists will say that this has been the case, to some degree, with previous administrations as well. Why should that matter? Regardless of who does it, Republican or Democrat, it undermines the fabric of a free society. If responsible citizens cannot feel free to speak out when atrocities are occurring, then a devious leader (luckily we don’t have one at the moment) could get away with anything. I believe that once the cloud of secrecy has lifted, history will show that the Plame matter was just the tip of the iceberg. Every American should be concerned about this unchecked power.

Posted by: Stan at July 6, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #165214

Remember the Presidential oath of office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

So, if in fact Bush declassified info with the sole intent of discrediting info that could have prevented an all out war and occupation of another country at the expense of 2500+ American lives, just what part of the Constitution was he preserving, protecting, or defending?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 6, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #165221
After reading all your posts I believe that if indisputable evidence came out that Bush had plotted with Osama Bin Laden to carry out the 911 attacks, you would find excuses for it—and even turn it around so that it seemed beneficial to the country.

Ah yes, attack, don’t counter. I’ve said repeatedly that if anyone can show me any evidence that is counter to what I, and Fitzgerald, has stated then I would change my opinion.

Until then, you can attack me with ad hominem attacks all you want, it won’t change the FACTS.

And the funny thing is? I despise the job that Bush is doing and wish that someone qualified had been offered by the Democrats (who are unfortunately more incompetent than the Republicans at running this country) and I would have voted for them. And I did vote Libertarian, not for Bush.

But because I won’t buy into the 2+2=5 arguments that are presented here I am somehow a ‘bush apologist’. *shrug*

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #165222
I assume that everyone has read the court documents filed by Fitzgerald on 5-5-06.

Thanks for the link, I have had it saved on my computer once it was made available but it is good that everyone read it.

I quote from the document, “Defendant’s participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8…..occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances………were unique in his recollection.”

And this is proof of…? We *KNOW* that Bush told Cheney to release portions of the NIE report that backed up their claim and countered Wilsons’ assertions that were based on not having all of the facts (one being that there were other countries besides Niger that were in question).

It does not suggest that Bush said ‘Release the confidential information that we have that Plame was an undercover CIA operative and Wilson’s wife’.

Those are two different things and the reason that Libby will be going to jail. That was classified information that he had access to with his clearance but was not authorized to release.

But really I suggest reading the document in it’s entirety.

As do I. It is always better that people make up their own mind and do their own research. Which is why I’m not buying the argument that Bush authorized Libby to release Plame’s name to the press, it’s just not backed up by facts.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #165223
if in fact Bush declassified info with the sole intent of discrediting info that could have prevented an all out war

Do you really believe this? That by declassifying the NIE report, that one single act caused the majority of US citizens to say ‘yeah, we should go get those Iraqis’?

If I recall, the majority of people were already behind the action, they knew what Saddam was and what he was capable of and what he had been doing and that he had been blocking the UN from determining if and how much WMD he had left. And you think that a single statement from Joe Wilson, that was not accurate, AND was made public, would have caused all of those people to say ‘what a second, maybe we should just keep things like they are and allow all of those people living under those conditions to keep dying and being tortured like that…’?

Interesting…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #165224
Every thinking person should know that Valerie Plame’s name was leaked as political retribution for her husband’s publicly debunking one of Bush’s lies

OOops, I spot a typo. I think you meant to say ‘every non-thinking person’… See, it really makes a difference when you don’t proofread!

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #165228
After reading all your posts

All my posts? Really? I have about 42 articles on here and comments in hundreds of other ariticles…

That must have take some time! And you never came across anything in all of that reading that I was not a Bush supporter and didn’t vote for him? That I think most Republican ‘leaders’ are as worthless as most Democrat ‘leaders’? That it appears that the Republicans are spending like drunken sailors and have lost any footing they had that they were the party of ‘small government’, more like they are the party of ‘republican government’ and the democrats are a part of ‘democrat government’, all that matters to them is if they are in power or not?

Wow, I don’t really know what to say about that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #165229

Rhinehold,

That’s why I made very little comment. In my opinion there were “dirty tricks” involved. Illegal? I don’t know. I don’t have a law degree, but I doubt this is over. Off the top of my head I think Libby’s trial is set to begin in January 2007. I would expect tons of delays for numerous reasons.

What I truly expect to happen (pure speculation) is for Libby’s lawyers to broker a plea deal at the last minute. Then, even if such agreement includes some jail time, it’s not at all uncommon for people of stature to be granted several months to “get their affairs in order”. By then Bush will be approaching the end of his term and will give Libby a full pardon.

In my book the whole build up to the Iraq war including the Plame affair fall into the category of “dirty tricks done dirt cheap”. Of course it’s all “dirt cheap” to the politicians because “we the people” get to pick up the tab.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 6, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #165231

This whole argument is stupid. Rhinehold, it is so painfully obvious that you would never hold Bush accountable for anything that your voice here is useless. Saying he declassified one thing, but had no idea Libby would say another is childishly naive. That is like saying “I helped him break into the house, but I did not know he was going to take the tv.” The fact that the only thing the president has to hide behind is legal maneuvering and has done everything in his power to prevent a congressional investigation that could demand to see the kind of records that even the special prosecutor can’t access should tell you that something stinks. If he has nothing to hide, why is he trying so hard to hide it?

Posted by: David S at July 6, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #165233

“Do you really believe this? That by declassifying the NIE report, that one single act caused the majority of US citizens to say ‘yeah, we should go get those Iraqis’?”

Rhinehold,

“one single act”. No, absolutely not, just one of many dirty tricks and IMO lies. What I remember is Hans Blix virtually pleading for more time to continue the inspections. Joe Wilson’s debunking of the yellowcake thing was just another peice in the puzzle.

I could sit here and dig thru my bookmarks for hours to formulate a list, but you’re an intelligent man. I’m sure you also paid attention to the news at that time. Bottom line: Bush was a better salesman.

Interestingly here in the “bible belt” most people still believe that Saddam was somehow partly responsible for 9-11. Sadly it’s pretty easy to sell the majority of Americans anything.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 6, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #165235

Rhinehold—What would some of your thoughts on this subject, on the Human interest side, rather than on the the political side, such as do you think this
Wilson matter should have been avoided altogether.

Posted by: DAVID at July 6, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #165236
do you think this Wilson matter should have been avoided altogether.

If you mean finding out who leaked Plame’s identity to the press, no. I was one of the people calling on the government to find out what happened and who was responsible. We did and we have, but some seem to think there is a greater conspiracy without anything to back it up.

I guess if you explain what you are looking for I could answer it better?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #165237

Kansas:

Its sad if people think Saddam was involved in 9-11. Its not beyond the pale of possibility, but no such link has been shown as of this date.

On the other hand, its also sad that people say that Saddam did NOT support terrorism in general. MAny seem to equate ‘terrorism in general’ and 9-11 as the same thing, from both sides.

I believe Saddam was active in promoting terrorism; he even admitted as much by sending money to families of suicide bombers. I’ve not seen any link to 911, but I’ve seen the link to terrorism.

Bush definitely ‘sold’ the war. In my opinion, he oversold parts of it. For me, seeing Saddam working to get the sanctions removed made me fearful of what would happen if he succeeded in that. And he was succeeding. I’ve likened Saddam to a rabid dog on a fraying leash (the fraying leash being the weakening sanctions).

You don’t want the rabid dog to run free. You take action to prevent that danger from happening, rather than waiting for it to happen and then trying to catch the dog.

My concern with Hans Blix was that I felt he would always need more time. He admitted to not getting cooperation from Iraq, and Blix and his predecessors listed many times that Saddam had broken the cease fire agreement by either having WMD’s or missiles or VX gas etc, or simply by not allowing unfettered inspections as required.

Saddam had been breaking the rules for almost 12 years; what makes anyone think that he was going to stop within the next months.

But you are correct that Bush made the better sales pitch. One thing in sales is to underpromise and overdeliver….Bush did the opposite. I believe he chose the right course in attacking Iraq; I also believe that he oversold his reasons for doing so.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 6, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #165238
Rhinehold, it is so painfully obvious that you would never hold Bush accountable for anything that your voice here is useless. Saying he declassified one thing, but had no idea Libby would say another is childishly naive.

*sigh* again you make assumptions that are wrong, I’ve detailed here just before you commented that I didn’t vote for Bush, I don’t like Bush as a president and PRAYED that the Dems had nominated someone, anyone, who was competent to do the job.

But, somehow you can’t see any other side than your own, I on the other hand have been asking for someone to prove me wrong but only get attacks on my character instead. Otherwise you have supposition and theory, not fact, that Bush knew of and authorized anyone to release classified information that he didn’t declassify…

If he did, if he said ‘oh and btw, I am declassifying the knowledge that Joe Wilson’s wife is a CIA undercover operative’ I would be on your side demanding something be done (thought it would have been legal apparently, it wouldn’t have been sensible) but right now all we have is a president wanting to get information to the people that backed up his POV, I thought most on the left would like to see more of that… *shrug*

As for my ‘voice not being relevant’, that’s a pretty mean thing to say I suppose. Especially when you obviously know so little about me. But worse than that it just proves that you have nothing at all to counter what I am saying so instead you try to dismiss me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #165240

David:

I think that Wilson made it appear, or more correctly allowed the media to make it appear, that Cheney’s office sent him. His article made it seems that he knew more than he did, because information had come to light between when he reported on his trip and when he wrote his article.

The conclusion of the Senate Committee on Wilson’s trip was that it left them with more questions than answers, and actually bolstered the idea that perhaps Iraq was searching for uranium. His information did not have the kind of conclusive answers that he tried to portray.

Its possible that the administration wanted to let people know that Wilson was sent on a junket partially at his wife’s suggestion, more than at Cheney’s request. The admin may not have planned on ‘outing’ Plame as much as they planned simply to show that Cheney’s office was not really the instigator of the investigation.

Bottom line is that Patrick Fitzgerald is a highly thought of prosecutor. His resume is impeccable, and both Dems and Repubs were highly in favor of his selection prior to the investigation. Both sides considered him tough but fair, and definitely honest and honorable. He has investigated and shared his results. If we now say that his results are not correct, are we not throwing stones at Fitzgerald’s abilities—the same abilities that everyone praised?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 6, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #165242

—-Rhinehold-Your response only shows even trying to be nice to you is a waste of my time! sorry to have bothered you.

Posted by: DAVID at July 6, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #165244

“It seems to me that during the clinton years Rep. up in arms trying to get Clinton impeached as well.”

Clinton actually broke a law. It was proven. Dems are aggravated that Bush used the law to his advatage. Every President and politician has done it to some extent.

C McKinney and Kennedy are GREAT examples. Any of us on this blog pulled the stunts they pulled we would have seen a little “stick time” as we spent time in the hole. But not them, they are the elite. But Dems are not upset by that because these were democrats.

I don’t like it, but Bush did not do anything that is unlawful. He used the law to his advantage and most every American does when given the opportunity.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 6, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #165247

—joebagodonuts—Wilson’s statement specifically said that he found no evidence of yellow cake, uranium!
It was also known that Wilson was sent by his wife’s CIA boss because Wilson was familiar with Najur.

Posted by: DAVID at July 6, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #165248

—Curmudgen—The last traitor that outed a CIA agent to the Russians is in prison as we speak. And we also know a few on this site who it seems even admit a little spin here and there is alright B.S.
Not in my book they don’t!!!

Posted by: DAVID at July 6, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #165253
Your response only shows even trying to be nice to you is a waste of my time! sorry to have bothered you.

I wasn’t trying to be mean or flippant, I seriously didn’t understand from the wording of your question what you were asking. Please, ask it again so that even my limited mental capacity can understand what you are asking and I’ll answer it. Otherwise I have to start guessing at what you are asking and I am not up on my psychic skills at the present. :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #165255
Wilson’s statement specifically said that he found no evidence of yellow cake, uranium!

Actually, no, that’s not exactly what he reported to the CIA

He told the CIA that

although former Nigerien prime minister Ibrahim Assane Mayaki was unaware of any pending sales contract with Iraq, an Iraqi delegation had approached him in June 1999, expressing an interest in “expanding commercial relations.” Mayaki believed this may have meant that they wanted to purchase yellowcake uranium, one of Niger’s few exports. Mayaki claimed he refused to discuss any trade issues at all due to active UN sanctions on Iraq, and so steered the conversation in another direction.

This statement to the CIA led them to believe, along with the OTHER intelligence that they had, that the story may have had some merit. Other intelligence had the Iraqi delegations approaching other African countries looking for yellowcake as well, this admission by Mayaki was seen to bolster those suggestions.

Wilson may not have thought there was anything to the story, but Wilson did not know “The Whole Story”. So when his information was put together with other information they had aquired it actually gave credence to it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #165257

jbod,

The only problem with your “rabid dog” argument is that a dead dog is pretty easy to clean up after. The situation in Iraq appears to be more comparable to us killing a mad zoo-keeper. Unfortunatly we no plan for how to manage the zoo and now we’re playing “dog-catcher” with lions and tigers and bears.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 6, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #165258

What’s worse though? Cleaning up the lions and tigers and bears or leaving the mad zoo-keeper in charge while he performs sadistic experiments on the animals, rapes them and terrorizes them on a daily basis?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #165270

David:

joebagodonuts—Wilson’s statement specifically said that he found no evidence of yellow cake, uranium!

Rhinehold answered this for me, and he is correct. Wilson’s statement actually left our intelligence with more questions than answers.


It was also known that Wilson was sent by his wife’s CIA boss because Wilson was familiar with Najur.

I assume that by “Najur”, you mean the country of Niger. It is NOW well known that Wilson was suggested for the trip by his wife and sent by her boss. But it was not known at the time.

Wilson’s article gave the impression that he went to Niger at the behest of Dick Cheney’s office, though it didn’t specifically say that. The media jumped on that and repeated that he had gone at Cheney’s request, and Wilson never bothered to correct them. Its possible he saw the political good fortune of allowing the media’s laziness to work for his agenda.

Kansas:

Are you familiar with what happens to a rabid dog BEFORE it dies? It goes around biting anything in its path. It is essentially insane and will attack anything and everything.

I’m okay with YOU letting the rabid dog off its leash, and ME telling you that its bound to die shortly, while it charges and attacks and bites you. But I don’t want our positions reversed.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 6, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #165273

Rhinehold,

First, Wilson never said Cheney sent him. Since you seem to have ALL the sources down, perhaps you could quote him.

To help you here, a newsource made that statement and Wilson did not immediately correct that ascertion. He never made that claim.

Second Cheney did note that Plame may be involved in sending Wilson on a “junket” on the Wilson article. Oh, and by the way, he did request the CIA to look into the yellowcake issue.

Third, the “I heard that rumor, too” quote is hillareous because the Whitehouse WAS the source of the rumor. Only you and my three year old believe that one.

Oh yeah and fourth, no one believed the yellowcake story from the start. It was a spin and Cheney knew it, that’s why the defamation game started.

At least get your facts straight, before you try to twist them into something else.

Posted by: gergle at July 6, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #165277

“‘Every thinking person should know that Valerie Plame⦣x20AC;™s name was leaked as political retribution for her husband⦣x20AC;™s publicly debunking one of Bush⦣x20AC;™s lies’

OOops, I spot a typo. I think you meant to say ‘every non-thinking person’… See, it really makes a difference when you don’t proofread!”

Rhinehold:

That is such an idiotic statement—you have obviously chosen to cavalierly ignore the content of my post in order to make an infantile, stupid, irrelevant, and unfunny joke. I don’t know why anyone should allow you any credibility after posts like that and others I’ve seen you make. I, for one, will simply ignore your posts in the future.

Posted by: Stan at July 6, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #165281
First, Wilson never said Cheney sent him. Since you seem to have ALL the sources down, perhaps you could quote him.

I never said that Wilson said that Cheney sent him. I did say that Wilson said he was sent on the trip on request of the administration. There is a difference but the press convoluted it into ‘The VP sent him’, which Wilson did not say nor did he correct immediately.

The paragraph in his op-ed piece reads

n February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990’s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.

So you see, according to this reading he was sent by the CIA to answer some of Cheney’s questions. That’s how the hole thing started

To help you here, a newsource made that statement and Wilson did not immediately correct that ascertion. He never made that claim.

Right. We agree on those statements.

Second Cheney did note that Plame may be involved in sending Wilson on a “junket” on the Wilson article. Oh, and by the way, he did request the CIA to look into the yellowcake issue.

Correct, Cheney did say ‘Did we do this or did he go at the request of his wife’ or something to that effect, I don’t have the report in front of me atm… He wrote that in the margin of the Wilson piece as a mental note. I’m not sure what this ‘proves’ but no one has challenged this fact to date that I know of.

Third, the “I heard that rumor, too” quote is hillareous because the Whitehouse WAS the source of the rumor. Only you and my three year old believe that one.

But he did not KNOW that the administration was the source of the rumor, did he? What we know at this point is that Libby had passed that information off to Miller, no one else was in on the release of that information. Many people *THINK* that Rove knew but there is no evidence to that fact. Or are you privy to some evidence, the same evidence I’ve been BEGGING for, that shows that they did know?

Oh yeah and fourth, no one believed the yellowcake story from the start. It was a spin and Cheney knew it, that’s why the defamation game started.

Except that the yellowcake story was believed by the CIA… OR do they not count? It was the State Department that questioned it.

And remember, several investigations have held that the story had enough behind to be considered believable at the time. Or do we just ignore those findings and the factcheck article?

So when you say ‘nobody’ you mean … ?

At least get your facts straight, before you try to twist them into something else.

I have my facts pretty straight. But if you find anything else that I’ve stated that you feel is in error, please let me know. Together I’m sure we can get to the bottom of it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #165287
That is such an idiotic statement—you have obviously chosen to cavalierly ignore the content of my post in order to make an infantile, stupid, irrelevant, and unfunny joke.

The content of your post was ‘if you don’t think like I do you’re an idiot’. I’m sorry if I didn’t actually give it much thought, it’s a ‘you’re a poopiehead’ statement that is not really fitting in a forum like this so I responded in kind. In fact, let’s break down your ENTIRE comment and see what it says?

Every thinking person should know that Valerie Plame’s name was leaked as political retribution for her husband’s publicly debunking one of Bush’s lies. I suspect that even the staunchest Bush apologists, whether they admit it or not, do know this.

So you’re saying that everyone must agree that Plame’s name was leaked as political retrubtion for a Bush ‘lie’ that has since been held up by 2 investigations and research by factcheck.

What does that make anyone who doesn’t agree with your suggestion?

But! Let’s go a little further shall we? Ok, Libby did release Plame’s name to Miller because he thought that the CIA was attempting to do an ‘end around’ and place the blame on the President instead of the CIA in the intelligence arena. So while ‘technically’ you are right that the reason her name was released BY LIBBY was politically motivated, you got the reasoning a bit wrong, didn’t you? I’m sure you don’t see it that way and will contend that Bush (the dimwit) organized this conspiracy to destroy Plame and Wilson for purely political reasons and set out this plausable deniability plan. He had to have done it from his ranch though, he has been there so much instead of governing, how did he find the time?

Any discussion of whether Plame was truly a covert agent, or whether the information was truly classified, or whether we’re making a mountain out of a mole hill, are missing, or distorting, a core issue.

I actually agree with this one, it was determined by Fitzgerald that Plame’s status was classified at the time it was released so it seems a bit of a nonstarter to me. This is probably why I didn’t respond to it originally…

This administration has used threats, firings, outings, demotions and every legal and illegal means of coersion at their disposal to silence its critics.

Very sinister and generic arguments, some valid some not. When someone starts speaking in such generalities thought it’s really hard to believe that you can persuade or discuss anything with them. I also know for a fact that this has been done by previous administrations so I’m not sure why Bush is to be set apart, they are all pretty crooked in that respect. The motivation of most politicians is to gain and keep power, at all costs. Clinton used to use IRS files of enemies, and we don’t need to bring up Hoover and Nixon do we?

Some Bush apologists will say that this has been the case, to some degree, with previous administrations as well. Why should that matter?

It doesn’t!

Regardless of who does it, Republican or Democrat, it undermines the fabric of a free society.

Yup.

If responsible citizens cannot feel free to speak out when atrocities are occurring, then a devious leader (luckily we don’t have one at the moment) could get away with anything.

Yes, and they have. Do you know why the 9th and 10th amendments have been basically null and void for nearly 100 years? Or why the RICO statues that were the basis for most of the Patriot Act are still around and touted as necessary for fighting ‘the war on drugs’? I would love to see someone run for office that I thought could change all of that and have been voting for the ones that I think could but unfortunately the two main parties are doing what they do best, gain and keep power, and won’t let that happen. Instead they just keep trotting out reject after lame reject to run for office and knowing that even though we may be holding our noses when we vote, it will be THEIR guy we vote for because too few people have the guts to stand up and vote 3rd party for JUST THAT REASON. Manipulation.

I believe that once the cloud of secrecy has lifted, history will show that the Plame matter was just the tip of the iceberg. Every American should be concerned about this unchecked power.

Most likely so.

You see, I agreed with most of what you said, it was just that little LAME statement that you suggest to be ‘factual’ that caught my ire.

I don’t know why anyone should allow you any credibility after posts like that and others I’ve seen you make.

Like? Oh wait, you’ve probably read all of my posts too! So you know exactly what I am saying. You can’t rebut anything I’ve said, but I have no credibility because I don’t groupthink the liberal mantra? And people wonder why I left the Democratic party…

I, for one, will simply ignore your posts in the future.

Huzzah! That will afford me the opportunity to not have to be told how to think again!

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #165299

jbod & Rhinehold,

My “mad bee-keeper” was cynical at best. Sometimes I’m twisted, what can I say?

I don’t believe that we’d nearly exhausted all diplomatic options, (1) with Iraq, or (2) in rallying greater support from the international community, before we invaded Iraq. Perhaps it may have been inevitable. We’ll never know now.

I do believe it’s time to “call a spade a spade” and call the war in Iraq what it is: an occupation! And if we’re going to stay we must increase our troop strength possibly as much as quadruple current levels. Oops, that would mean reinstating the draft, eh?

Personally I’m beginning to think more and more that we should let Iraq settle it’s own internal strife. I’ve recently read comparisons to our own war for independence and even the civil war and I do believe that our greatest strengths have arisen from our darkest moments in history.

As far as the Plame affair, I find what the white house did to be extremely distasteful and due to my liberal bias I’d love to see Bush impeached if not run out of DC on a rail wearing tar & feathers, but that is at least as much based on bias as anything else.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 6, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #165302

Late Show with David Letterman
Jun 29, 2004 , 11:39 pm

Ambassador Joseph Wilson is the guy whose wife was outed by Novak as a CIA agent. Dave does a very serious interview. He wants to give Rummy sodium pentathol to tell the truth.
Dave: “Do you see him being re-elected?” (GWBush)
Wilson: “Not if I can help it.”

from

http://sixesses.blogspot.com/

Posted by: ohrealy at July 6, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #165318

Remember when a deserter can be elected President, I guess he can do anything
Money talks, and BS walks

Posted by: KT at July 6, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #165326

Oh, by the way, just to be clear: Wilson’s quotes end just before this line: Speaking of revisionist history, what exactly did he say about Cheney’s role?

The next part is a quote, and the rest is as it appears.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 6, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #165341

Stephen,

I never questioned Wilson’s patriotism nor his service. I never even question his credibility. I just pointed out that he made an accusation without having all of the facts. That’s something I *think* we can agree upon?

As for character assassination, yeah, it’s something that goes on far too much in politics. Between Murtha, Cheney, Lieberman, etc, I’ve just seen it all over the spectrum.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #165375

—-Everyone is entitled to their own opinion
but not their own facts,(DPM)
If any one wants all the facts in chronological
order in the Wilson case, start to finish, a
long read. The Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove
Blame Game Factcheck.org

Posted by: DAVID at July 7, 2006 4:54 AM
Comment #165476

Justwondering,

Nope. You got it wrong.

VALERIE PLAME WAS COVERT. HER IDENTITIY AS CIA WAS CLASSIFIED.

You are now not only BUYING the rediculous hype, but spouting it to boot. You are the one who needs to look into the facts a little deeper.

Posted by: RGF at July 7, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #165478

Justwondering,

I am also getting SICK of you hurling the TRAITOR accusation against those you disagree with. STOP IT. IT VIOLATES THE CRITIQUE THE MESSEGE, NOT THE MESSENGER policy.

As far as the left accusing BUSH, CHENEY or this administration of it…well you can be offended, but the elements of those acts are now a matter of public record. The only question is who knew what and when and what exactly BUSH meant by telling Cheney to do what he did. If BUSH specifically intended for Cheney to do waht he did, then our president has committed a crime which might possibly rise to the level of treason. But, that is a big question which will probably never even be fully adressed, much less answered.

Posted by: RGF at July 7, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #165490

JBOD,

Your messeges continue to stun me. I do not understand how somebody with the apparent ability to orchestrate an at least intelligible response can also fail so miserably in the most basic of analytical thought. I have pointed out that neither you nor Jack nor anybody on your side seems to EVER actually respond. All I have ever seen is sidestepping, obfuscation and straw-man arguments over and over again. NEVER a direct reply. In all fairness, Sicilianeagle does a better job of the direct reply than most on your side. Considering his training and career choice, that is not surprising.

This Plame thing is like the DeLay fiasco, like ENRON, WORLDCOM, ADELPHIA, WATERGATE and IRAN-CONTRA:
ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME ARE NOW A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.

You and yours can pretend it is all political and bias and witch hunt if you wish, but just know that it doesn’t wash. It simply isn’t so.

There is no relevence whatsoever to the notion that Plame had anything to do with sending Wilson on the fact finding trip he took. It simply doesn’t matter. A crime was committed. That crime -may- trace back to BUSH depending on what he knew, when he knew it and whether he intended Cheney to specifically do what he did. Those are questions we are hardly likely to EVER get answers to, but that does NOT change the fact that a crime was committed.

Posted by: RGF at July 7, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #165540

—Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, Counter Proliferation’s Division (CDP)-
Wilson never said any one else had sent him! The (RNC) Misrepresented most of the incorrect information, Radio talk spinners along with regular news print media, an all the Talk media, haven’t bothered to correct their errors, even the true facts have now come out. Any one who states any thing else is telling an untruth, an any one believing any else would be considered illiterate an always will be,

Posted by: DAVID at July 7, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #165542

—An for the beginner go back to the top of this page and read john trevisani post, then read all the rest. See how many errors and down right spin you find!!

Posted by: DAVID at July 7, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #165550

You’re right David, there is a lot of spin and errors in John’s post and the posting of those accusing Bush of telling Cheney to out Plame. There is simply no evidence to suggest it. Even Fitzgerald has stated the same. Yet the attempt still persists by those on the left looking to gain power that has been lost to do anything, say anything, factual or otherwise, to regain that power.

Bush told Cheney to discredit Wilson’s assertions that his 16 words was untrue. Libby chose to out Plame, Fitzgerald suggests the motive in his indictment, and no evidence whatsoever suggests anything more than that went on. Of course, that’s not enough for some, they wanted that link, so instead of being disappointed they just keep going on as if the link were there when it is not.

Unless someone wants to attempt to convince me, which no one has done yet. All I’ve seen are personal attacks on my mental capacity (you have to be stupid not to see…) and accusations that I am deflecting the issue when I’m the only one actually discussing the actual issue at hand.

I’ve been accused of saying that Plame’s status wasn’t classified, which I never did. I have been accused of saying that Wilson said the VP sent him to Africa, which I never did. I have been accused of sticking up for Libby, which I never did. All I have done is point out that Bush telling Cheney to discredit Wilson’s statements which were based on incomplete information by releasing the NIE report. Nothing at all about his wife was suggested or ordered from ANY reliable source that I can see.

Anyone, evidence or sufficient cause to think otherwise? Please? I’m listening….

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 7, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #165593

Rhinehold,

Your post is ALSO full of spin. I believe I said, and still believe, that we do not yet have enough to pin anything on Bush. That would require knowing EXACTLY what he said to Cheney and what he intended that Cheney do.

We DO, however, have enough to show culpability on the part of Libby and Cheney. I’m satisfied with that. Bush’s crimes are plentiful enough without it being necessary to get him directly for this.

We still have a ‘culture’ of disregard for the law in this administration, that much is clear and undeniable.

Posted by: RGF at July 7, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #165595

Rhinehold,

Like I said, only you and my three year old believe that one. Mom will never have the evidence to think johnny ate the cookies, no matter how much chocolate is on his mouth, in your world.

Stop being a Bush defense lawyer and be a rational sentient human and maybe you’ll see the light. It might work in court, not in the world of public opinion.

Posted by: gergle at July 7, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #165636

Rhinehold,

you have some backers here. i’m one of them. i haven’t posted but only because you are doing such an excellent job yourself. if you think about it this whole thing about Bush really goes all the way back to the 2000 election. there has never been an acception of Bush as the President.

Posted by: The Griper at July 7, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #165637

oops read that as “acceptance” not “acception”

Posted by: The Griper at July 7, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #165642

The Griper,

You’re somewhat correct, as I pointed out earlier the website democrats.com, made up mainly of upset Clinton administration members, started the call for the impeachment of Bush even before he was sworn in. But it’s not just 2000, it really goes back to the way the republicans went after Clinton that has them seeing red. Many democrats feel that the only way to ‘get even’ is to take down Bush at any costs. Funnily enough, moveon.org is one such group who got it’s name because they suggested we ‘move on’ from the Clinton scandal. I fear they are not taking their own suggestion…

Now, Bush hasn’t helped his cause any, there are many things he has done that are possible illegal and will have to go through court challenges to find out. However, trying to pin this one on him is not accurate IMO.

And Gergle, you are forgetting to add Fitzgerald in that list with me and your 3 year old daughter. You keep ignoring his assertion that he doesn’t see any reason to believe that Bush knew anything about Plame’s name being released. So, anyone else we want to add to you ‘too stupid to see the conspiracy behind the presidnet’ list?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 7, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #165650

>>And Gergle, you are forgetting to add Fitzgerald in that list with me and your 3 year old daughter. You keep ignoring his assertion that he doesn’t see any reason to believe that Bush knew anything about Plame’s name being released. So, anyone else we want to add to you ‘too stupid to see the conspiracy behind the presidnet’ list?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 7, 2006 10:10 PM

Rhinehold,

Cheney/Bush has taken a lesson from Daddy Bush, i.e., several years as head of the premier spy organization of the world and several years as Vice President of the United States, but he was ‘out of the loop’ about Iran/Contra. Cheney/Bush knew nothing about the Plame outing…ho ho ho

Posted by: Marysdude at July 7, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #165663

>>And I’ve stated this 3 times in these comments and, as predicted, someone strolls over from Daily KOS to repeat the misinformation again and again… And people wonder why I’m frustrated?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 08:15 AM

Said the pot to the kettle⦣x20AC;?
Meaning?

I mean, I know that some like to take quick pot-shots without having to back it up, but when directed at me I will call you on it so unless you can back up your attack on me I’ll assume you are just upset and lashing out at anyone who might disagree with you?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2006 09:23 AM

Meaning that you make the same statement three times and then hack others who use the same answers to your statemets. It makes me aware of wht folks meant by that old maxim about the pot and the kettle. If you make the same incorrect statement three times, do you expect others to roll over and play dead?

Posted by: Marysdude at July 7, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #165669

And that incorrect statement was?

I don’t expect them to roll over, I expect them to actually explain why my statement would be incorrect other than ‘You’re just wrong’. Maybe I’m expecting too much?

So, I’ll ask you. Please explain to me exactly how we know that Bush ordered Cheney to have Libby release the identity of Plame to the press.

I’m being honest and am truly wanting to hear someone explain it without using cryptic conspiracy theories or being told that I’m just too stupid to see ‘the truth’.

I’m sure you’re the right person for the job, right? Or do you want to tell me ‘Said the pot to the kettle’ again and expect me to just accept that?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 7, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #165673

Rhinehold,

i agree with your response to me entirely. i only used the 2000 election as the starting point because that was when the attacks became personal towards Bush rather than a general anger against republicans.

Posted by: The Griper at July 7, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #165798

—President bush said “I declassified the NIE for a reason” Court papers pertaining to Fitzgerald’s
investigation of “Scotter” Libby
Libby testified he had been told by Chaney that Bush authorized the disclosure of parts in the NIE Report! Trying to discredit Wilson, by implicating Plame, Until Libby stands trial we won’t know for sure. We do know President Bush did Declassify the NIE. The Trick question is why release The NIE in the first place?

Posted by: DAVID at July 8, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #166109

Well, the NIE showed that what Wilson was saying was wrong. So that part of the NIE was declassified.

The NIE has nothing to do with Plame, doesn’t mention her at all and is a completely different thing.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 9, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #166277

Rhinehold/DAVID:
A few of questions for the both of you:
- Do you think that Plame (along with Brewster Jennings Co.) was covert?
- If she was covert (along with Brewster Jennings) was she Plame outed?
- Was the motive for outing Plame politically motivated?
- If you agree that she was outed, did that act of outing a covert agent (along with Brewster Jennings) help or hurt this country’s efforts in the ‘War on Terror’?
- If you don’t agree it hurt the effort, then please explain.
- If you agree that the country’s efforts were hurt by exposing this covert activity and the subsequent closing of Brewster Jennings, who do you think had access to the information that Plame was Covert?
- If you think that the Senior Advisor and a Chief of Staff(Rove, Libby) of both offices were the sole source of the information, where do you think that they secured this information? Please enlighten me as to how a Advisors and CoS can get classified information from the CIA?
- If you think that the information came from a level higher (Pres. or V.P) do you think that a President or Vice President should be misusing classified information for political purposes?


-john trevisani (AKA: leftist spinmeister par excellence)

Posted by: john trevisani at July 10, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #166421

—john trevisani- I do not believe I have disagreed with any of your posts, I do believe after a full investigation has been completed, all those involved in this world class disloyalty, to one or more of our covert agents should be charged with High Crimes an Misdemeanors. Since Article 3 0f the Constitution only covers High treason for waging a war against the United States or giving aide or comfort to it’s enemies. Since only twice were charges of high treason were ever brought an only one case won an the case of Arron Burr was dismissed. 35-to 40 cases of treason were brought an only a few won. I think that any of those rats involved should all be charged and given the maximum sentence. Until we do this, no other
Country or the American People could respect our rule of law.

Posted by: DAVID at July 10, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #166427

—john trevisani- I forgot to ask you why you
call your self spinmeister?

Posted by: DAVID at July 10, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #166438

—john t— I just re read my post -go back to the top and read. that meant for the other readers to compare your post against the spin the others were applying to your post! sorry for not being clearer with my post, someone else here is trying to help me to me, Since I had major surgery, I have lost about one third of my memory and apparently some commonsense. I am working on this problem several hours a day. no offence intended

Posted by: DAVID at July 10, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #166507

DAVID:
Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by: john trevisani at July 11, 2006 7:40 AM
Comment #167193

The FACTS:

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html


July 6, 2003 – Wilson publishes ” What I didn’t find in Africa” in The New York Times, identifying himself for the first time as the unnamed “envoy.” …

July 7, 2003 – White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer retracts the 16-word yellowcake claim from the State of the Union address, calling the President’s statement “incorrect.” ( White House Press Gaggle, July 7 2003).


They admitted they were wrong the next day, and still went on to try and discredit the claims by going after Wilson and his wife.

Posted by: badboodah at July 13, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #167198
Well, the NIE showed that what Wilson was saying was wrong. So that part of the NIE was declassified.

The NIE has nothing to do with Plame, doesn’t mention her at all and is a completely different thing.

Only parts of the NIE were leaked, err, declassified. Just the parts that supported their claims, which they had already admitted were wrong the day after Wilson’s op-ed. Had they released the whole NIE, through actual proper channels, it would have shown Wilson was right, and shown that Fleischer was right when he admitted Bush was incorrect when he spoke the day after Wilson’s op-ed.


But alas, Valerie was only working on keeping tabs on Iran’s nuclear arsenal. No big loss, right?

Posted by: badboodah at July 13, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #167201

Full quote from:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030707-5.html#9

Now, we’ve long acknowledged — and this is old news, we’ve said this repeatedly — that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.

This was on July 7, the day after Wilson’s op-ed came out. And yet they went on to try and discredit Wilson, and out his wife, and propagate the disinformation that it was Wilson that was wrong (which evidently has worked, since people like “justwondering” say Wilson and his wife are the “real crooks”).

Posted by: badboodah at July 13, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #168246

—-badboodah—I truley love when the spinmiesters
get caught up in their spin! Funny how the truth
sometimes comes out, thanks for finding this info.

Posted by: DAVID at July 17, 2006 1:59 PM
Post a comment