Democrats & Liberals Archives

I was wrong!

Libby was found guilty on 4 of counts! I admit I did not think that we would see this day. It was good to see that this administration has not gotten away with all of its lies.

Libby, Dick Cheney's right-hand man, is a convicted liar. I am sure that this will still drag out on appeal for some time before we see Libby in an orange jump suit picking up trash on the side of I-95. Now let's see if Bush will pardon someone who lied to protect the VP and himself for ruining the career of a CIA agent and trying to trash her husband. The first of the lies that have gotten us stuck in this war in Iraq have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Discuss . . .

Posted by Tom Snediker at March 6, 2007 12:06 PM
Comments
Comment #210675

I’m smiling ear to ear. It’s about time!

Step one is done.

Posted by: bandman at March 6, 2007 12:17 PM
Comment #210676

Present facts. Have a trial. Come to a verdict.
Amazing how that works isn’t it.

Posted by: kctim at March 6, 2007 12:23 PM
Comment #210677

Erm, Tom…

Not to rain on your parade but Libby was not found guilty of lying to protect Cheney or Bush. He was found guilty of lying to try and protect himself. Such misrepresentation is bothersome…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 12:27 PM
Comment #210678
The first of the lies that have gotten us stuck in this war in Iraq have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Huh?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #210679

Libby is found guilty on four counts. The rule of law works. It is a crime to lie under oath, no matter what you lie about.

Posted by: Jack at March 6, 2007 12:34 PM
Comment #210680

Yup. GUILTY.
Thirty year sentence that will likely amount to ten. Pardon? I think it’s probable, after all, Bushco knows no shame. Personally, I’d think it would be better to give him to the CIA. Since he’s so good at lying and keeping secrets for his bosses, and since his kind think that working undercover isn’t all that important, he probably won’t mind being made to be a spy in a dangerous situation. Might even last as long a few days…

Posted by: Adrienne at March 6, 2007 12:37 PM
Comment #210681

uhh, Rhinehold - he was lying to protect his bosses from embarassment over the administration trying to smear someone who had himself uncovered a Bush lie (16 words in the SOTU) by outing a CIA agent who happened to be married to Joe Wilson. These lies did get us into a war and lies to cover up the initial lies are what Libby was convicted of. I know it is hard to keep track of since there are so many layers of lies that the Bush administration has told to get us stuck and continue to keep us stuck in Iraq.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at March 6, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #210682

Tom,

That may be your opinion but nothing of what you suggest was ‘proven beyond a reasonable doubt’ by the conviction of Libby. All that we learned from this verdict is that Libby is guilty of lying to investigators about when he learned of Valerie Plame’s position in the CIA and when he told reporters. Everything else on your part is conjecture.

We have gone around and around on this issue on these pages for months and will continue to do so I’m sure. However, before you start making false statements yourself you might want to check your euphoria for what you perceive to be the truth and realize that none of what you suggest has been ‘proven’ any more today than 6 months ago…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 12:50 PM
Comment #210683

I see…. So Libby is convicted of lying so now we have to have a debate about why he was lying? Please… Lying is an element of this administrations policy. This is just the first bullet into their black craven hearts. Not soon enough there will be a wooden spike to prevent their rebirth, like Milosovich has now.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 6, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment #210684

Dave,

I’m not the one suggesting I know why Libby lied, Tom is. As for this being a ‘first bullet’ as you say, we shall see. But saying that this guilty verdict proves more than it does is disengenuous at best.

I’m glad that Libby was tried fairly and found guilty. He pergured himself and is now (hopefully) going to face the penalty for that. I would be very angry if Bush pardoned him. However, as I said, this does not prove that the left is right and the right is wrong about everything ever charged against the White House. It only addresses the specific issue at hand, Libby’s guilt in his remarks to Fitzgerald about when he knew about Plame’s position and when he told reporters. That is it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 1:04 PM
Comment #210687

BTW, reminds me of one of the best editorial cartoons ever.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000701.html

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 1:20 PM
Comment #210689

Rhinehold - nice cartoon - guilty as charged :)

Posted by: Tom Snediker at March 6, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment #210691

Rhinehold,

If Libby did not lie to protect Cheney then why did he lie? Really, I would like to know if there’s ANY other plausible explanation.

You are right that Libby is only guilty of lying, but everyone is going to connect the obvious dots. We all know why…

Posted by: Max at March 6, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment #210696

Rhinehold,


“He pergured himself and is now (hopefully) going to face the penalty for that.”


Are you talking about the Clinton Administration?! Because President Clinton perjured himself; were you “hopeful” of the penalty (lack thereof) then? Or, are you just partisan about these issues?!!


Posted by: rahdigly at March 6, 2007 1:37 PM
Comment #210698

Comparing consensual sex to outing of a CIA agent?

What a stretch.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 6, 2007 1:39 PM
Comment #210701

Unfortunately, the biggest liars in the Administration have not yet been charged. While today’s justice is reassuring, it pales compared to the justice thus far denied to the American people. Sadly, Dubya and Cheney have made it abundantly clear that they see themselves as being above the law (following the example of both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan). One would hope that we, the American people, will finally learn our lesson this time… surely, the 3rd time in less than 40 years will be the charm… and refuse to ever permit another GOPer into the White House again.

Posted by: Allen at March 6, 2007 1:49 PM
Comment #210702
were you “hopeful” of the penalty (lack thereof) then? Or, are you just partisan about these issues?!!

Um, yes I’m one of the few on this blog that defend the impeachment of Clinton, he lied under oath in a sexual harassment trial and I was glad he was impeached as he should have been (he also lost his law license).

Strange, I get accused of being a republican hack and a democrat hack in the comments of the same article, lol!

Womanmarine,

I think he was comparing the outing of a cia agent to sexual harassment, but if you gotta spin it to make yourself feel better, that’s your call.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 1:51 PM
Comment #210703

womanmarine: Indeed, it is a stretch. But, what can one expect from a party that prostitutes itself to corporations and lunatic religionists (not to be confused with people of faith).

Posted by: Allen at March 6, 2007 1:52 PM
Comment #210708

Whatever President Clinton’s foibles — and I do not defend them — they are nothing compared to the multiple frauds perpetrated by BushCo against the United States (USC 18 - 1031).

Posted by: Allen at March 6, 2007 1:59 PM
Comment #210711

Now, onward to impeaching Dick Cheney!

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2007 2:01 PM
Comment #210712

On the charge of…?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 2:06 PM
Comment #210713

Rhinehold,

I’m curious. What do you think was the motive of Scooter, in lying? You mentioned, protecting himself . I assume you mean from prosecution. Prosecution of what, exactly?

Posted by: gergle at March 6, 2007 2:07 PM
Comment #210714

Rheinhold: The charge of fraud under USC 18-1031. Note: fraud is not synonymous with lying.

Posted by: Allen at March 6, 2007 2:12 PM
Comment #210715

Rheinhold: Also USC 18 - 1001

Posted by: Allen at March 6, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #210717

If you liked the Libby verdict, you’re gonna love the pardon!!!!

Posted by: big guy at March 6, 2007 2:23 PM
Comment #210716
What do you think was the motive of Scooter, in lying?

He lied to keep himself out of jail for releasing Plame’s identity to reporters without authorization to do so, I imagine. Do you have another theory?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 2:23 PM
Comment #210720

Rheinhold: And, also, conspiracy to commit fraud under USC 18 - 1001, and 18 - 1031 … fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud are both “high crimes” within the context of Article I of the Constitution.

Posted by: Allen at March 6, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #210719

“Comparing consensual sex to outing of a CIA agent?

What a stretch.”

Posted by: womanmarine at March 6, 2007 01:39 PM

For your statement to make any sense at all, one would have to believe that Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold with a flap. She can raise or lower the flap depending upon the what the lie was about when told under oath. Somehow, many of you go from point “A” (lying under oath) to Point “Z” (the President and his administration are criminals). Your hatred and love of your own opinion is disgusting. Jim

Posted by: Jim at March 6, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #210722

“Comparing consensual sex to outing of a CIA agent? What a stretch.” Posted by: womanmarine at March 6, 2007 01:39 PM

For your statement to make any sense at all, one would have to believe that Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold with a flap. She can raise or lower the flap depending upon the what the lie was about when told under oath. Somehow, many of you go from point “A” (lying under oath) to Point “Z” (the President and his administration are criminals). Jim

Posted by: Jim at March 6, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #210723

“Comparing consensual sex to outing of a CIA agent?”


Libby didn’t “out” her!! This libby trial wasn’t about that, at all! Shows how much some know about what’s (really) going on! This is what partisan (gutter) politics is all about.


Posted by: rahdigly at March 6, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #210725

“Comparing consensual sex to outing of a CIA agent? What a stretch.” Posted by: womanmarine at March 6, 2007 01:39 PM

For your statement to make any sense at all, one would have to believe that Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold with a flap. She can raise or lower the flap depending upon the what the lie was about when told under oath. Somehow, many of you go from point “A” (lying under oath) to Point “Z” (the President and his administration are criminals). Jim

Posted by: Jim at March 6, 2007 2:29 PM
Comment #210724

Allen,

As detail oriented as you like to seem, you might try getting my name right once?

Second, I’m having a bit of trouble figuring out what you are referring to. Are these crimes the ones that Cheney is suppose to be impeached under and if so, what is the evidence you have that supports the claims made? I can throw out crimes all day long against anyone but without something to explain why it makes them a bit hollow.

Further, how does THIS verdict equate to going after Cheney, what is it about this verdict that supports any of the claims you are making?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 2:29 PM
Comment #210726

Allen, quite right. Onward to the impeachment of Dick Cheney. If Bush had not lent his ear to Cheney, his poll numbers might not be rusting out the bottom of the barrel.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2007 2:31 PM
Comment #210727

big guy, I don’t think a pardon is a slam dunk. There is a legacy in tatters here, and all loyalty has its limits. We’ll have to wait and see. Bush hasn’t pardoned the two Border Patrol agents.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2007 2:33 PM
Comment #210728

Rhinehold: I apologize for misspelling your name earlier.

You ask:

He lied to keep himself out of jail for releasing Plame’s identity to reporters without authorization to do so, I imagine. Do you have another theory?

This doesn’t make sense as Dubya authorized the release of Plame’s identity. Hence, Libby was not in jeopardy on that count. Hence, the protection (read, cover-up) of Cheney seems the most likely motive for Libby’s lying. What is very clear: Libby’s loyalities do not lie with his country but with his masters.

Posted by: Allen at March 6, 2007 2:34 PM
Comment #210729
Your hatred and love of your own opinion is disgusting. Jim

This works both ways.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 6, 2007 2:36 PM
Comment #210730

David R. Remer:

If Bush had not lent his ear to Cheney, his poll numbers might not be rusting out the bottom of the barrel.

You are probably right.

Posted by: Allen at March 6, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #210731
This doesn’t make sense as Dubya authorized the release of Plame’s identity. Hence, Libby was not in jeopardy on that count.

Huh? When did Bush authorize the release of Plame’s name ever? Where is the evidence to suggest this? Even Libby after indictment has stated that he was never authorized to do such a thing. Bush did declassify portions of the NIH report, but never authorized the release of Plame’s name to the media…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #210732

Did the “plamegate” trial ever reveal who actually outed her? I don’t believe it did. Yet, some of you are so full of anti-Bush hatred that you’ll continued to believe this Libby verdict was about “outing” Plame.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 6, 2007 2:40 PM
Comment #210733

NIE, not NIH, sorry for any confusion that may have caused…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #210734

Rhinehold….for one thing, I hardly see where sexual harassment and outing a CIA agent can be compared. It’s tough to think that a consentual BJ between two adults rates up there with potential risk of jobs/lives/national security.
Lying…hmmm…..guess the guilty verdict takes away the responsibility of Dubya having to keep his promise to fire anyone involved..?? :( Go figure..
Now that the trial is over and verdict reached, Libby will have some down time to think about all the lives lost in Iraq and think about his ultimate contribution towards that.
It’s not easy for Bushco 27%ers to accept a loss, but this one came through the justice system, and hopefully is only the beginning of toppling this “house of cards”.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 6, 2007 2:47 PM
Comment #210735

Sandra,

The sexual harassment wasn’t of Lewinsky and if you, as a women, see nothing wrong with sexual harassment then that’s your decision I guess. *shrug*

As for Bush, Libby resigned as soon as he was indicted, I’m not sure how this has anything to do with Bush’s statement that he would fire anyone involved since that person no longer works there, but again *shrug*

Finally, this has nothing to do with our going into Iraq, especially considering it was all done after we invaded, but again *shrug*

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 2:54 PM
Comment #210736

Rhinehold….it would seem that what I said went right over your head, but I’m pretty sure most of the others on here will “get it”. “”“”shrug”“”“

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 6, 2007 2:58 PM
Comment #210737

Sandra,

Please, take some time out of your busy day and speak down to me so that I can understand what you are saying and be enlightened. I would be most humble.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment #210740

Rhinehold: Dubya gave Cheney the authority to declassify classified information in his (Dubya’s) name and we know from both documents, grand jury testimony, and depositions from Libby’s trial that Cheney authorized Libby’s leaking of Plame’s identity. What Libby said is that Cheney did not give specific authorization but, rather, gave general authorization to “get it out,” and that phrase was explained by Libby to the grand jury. Hence, Libby was not charged with leaking classified information (Fitzgerald explained this at the time Libby was indicted). Admittedly, we get caught up with semantics here(and that has been a key tactic of Cheney’s operations generally and that is why I pointed out earlier the difference between lying and fraud). I am sorry, I should have been clearer.

Posted by: Allen at March 6, 2007 3:17 PM
Comment #210741

Rahdigly et al,

Um, your ongoing claim that Clinton “perjured himself” is simply not true. He was tried by the GOP Senate and found “NOT GUILTY.”

If the Libby jury had come back “NOT GUILTY” on all five counts, would you accept anyone here spouting that Libby was guilty of perjury.

Time to get your facts straight.

Posted by: Boomer at March 6, 2007 3:21 PM
Comment #210743

Sorry Allen, but I have never seen anywhere that Cheney or Bush authorized the release of Plame’s name. Bush gave authorization to release some elements of the NIE report that pertained to the issue (those that showed Wilson was full of it). That was it. I do not deal with semantics, I deal with specifics.

Could you provide a link that I could examine to back up what you are suggesting please? It goes against what I’ve read in most news stories and wikipedia articles pertaining to the case, such as here, here and here

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 3:26 PM
Comment #210744
Bush did declassify portions of the NIH report, but never authorized the release of Plame’s name to the media.

Who is now assuming facts; there is no unbiased evidence to support your last assertion. Also the methodology and reasons for Bush’s declassification of parts of the NIH has been called in question. Unfortunately as President of the United States, he sets the methodology, even if it is after the fact.

Finally, this has nothing to do with our going into Iraq, especially considering it was all done after we invaded, but again *shrug*

But it has everything to do with the assertion that the American Public and Congress was mislead by the skewed information this Administration intentionally used as a precept for war. I suspect Rhinehold is not so much defending this Administration as defending his articles in which he supported a “preemptive” war against Iraq.

Posted by: Cube at March 6, 2007 3:27 PM
Comment #210745
even if it is after the fact

And therein lies the problem. If it was legal to release because Bush declassified it after the fact, does that make the release legal?

And if it were, why did the CIA react by asking for the investigation in the first place?

Posted by: womanmarine at March 6, 2007 3:30 PM
Comment #210749

Murray Waas must feel pretty well vindicated. Remember this gem in the National Journal eleven months ago?

Libby Says Bush Authorized Leaks
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm

IMO I fail to see how anyone can read that after having watched the trial evidence unfold and NOT conclude that “efforts to declassify portions of the NIE and to leak information to the media regarding Plame” were all part of the LIES Bush & Co. told to lead us into a needless quaqmire with no end in sight.

That may not be a crime, but IMO it sure is a violation of both Bush’ & Cheney’s oaths of office. If that’s not a “high crime or misdemeanor” it should be.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 6, 2007 3:44 PM
Comment #210751

Cube,

Who is now assuming facts
Well, considering this is what has been reported by every legitimate news article about the subject, Libby himself, etc, I take it at face value. If someone involved says “this is the say it happened” and there is NO evidence to the contrary, how do you figure that is ‘assuming facts’?

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

I suspect Rhinehold is not so much defending this Administration as defending his articles in which he supported a “preemptive” war against Iraq.

I disagree very much with the way this administration dealt with the ‘PR campaign’ concerning the war, as can be detailed in my article: The Case for Invading Iraq

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 3:49 PM
Comment #210753

“Um, your ongoing claim that Clinton “perjured himself” is simply not true. He was tried by the GOP Senate and found “NOT GUILTY”…Time to get your facts straight.”


It would be nice if other people would, too.

Fact: Clinton perjured himself
Fact: Libby perjured himself
Fact: The House of Reps voted to impeach Clinton; not the Senate.
Fact: Libby did not out Plame; his trial was about lying to a grand jury (perjury), ala Bill Clinton.

Fact: The people who believe Libby’s verdict today was about outing Plame are (pathological) liars.


Posted by: rahdigly at March 6, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #210754

Rhinehold,

Your allegation that Clinton lied about having sexual relations with anyone was not proven in a court of law. Therefore, I demand you retract your statements and make a full apology to everyone on this board. I find your insinuations troubling sir! Have you no sense of decency!? Dare you slur a commander in chief with cheap innuendo!? For shame sir! For shame!!!!

Sounds ridiculous, right? Even though technically true? That’s the same argument you are making when you pretend Libby didn’t lie to protect Cheney. It’s obvious. Stop insulting our intelligence by saying that’s not the issue the courts dealt with. So what? We know that. We also know the real issue here: Libby lied to protect Cheny, and probably even Rove and Bush from their lies to the public used to prop up and distort the true evidence of Sadaam’s weapons of mass destruction.

And do we really need to spin the difference between lying about an affair and the reasons we went to war? Again, the difference and seriousness of the crime is obvious and commonsensical. I’ll give you a hint, one is a grave personal mistake, and the other is high crime against the nation. You’re either pretending to not get it or you’re delusional. It doesn’t matter anyway, because EVERYONE knows the truth.

Posted by: Max at March 6, 2007 3:53 PM
Comment #210755

Max,

Obvious? Not to me I’m afraid. Libby made it clear that he was not told to release Plame’s name by Cheney yet you want to believe that he in fact did, without giving me any evidence to the contrary? Why would I assume that Cheney told him to release the information when everything that has been said and reported about the incident tells us he didn’t?

Now, if I was of the mindset that Cheney was an ‘evil bastard’ and since we couldn’t get him on the initial indictment we should try to lump him into whatever we get, then perhaps it would be ‘obvious’ to me, but I’m not of that mindset…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 4:05 PM
Comment #210757
Prosecutors said he learned about Plame from Cheney and others, discussed her name with reporters and, fearing prosecution, made up a story to make those discussions seem innocuous.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479718/

Now, if the prosecutors are saying that he lied because he feared prosecution, how are we suppose to believe that he didn’t fear prosecution and instead was protecting someone else? How does that logic work exactly?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 4:23 PM
Comment #210758

A little different approach to the same issue…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-the-libby-verdict-is-_b_42795.html

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 6, 2007 4:25 PM
Comment #210763

Rhinehold,

I’ll do my best to update you, and provide you with some evidence:

After a long day or legal wrangling and no witnesses, an FBI agent took the stand shortly before 3 p.m. She is Deborah Bond, a 19-year veteran, called into the probe of who may have leaked name of classified agent.

She described the bureau’s interview with I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby on Oct. 14, 2003. Asked where he first learned of Ambassador Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, he had told the FBI then — from the vice president, on or about June 12 that year, in a telephone conversation.

Vice President Cheney had also said that she worked in “CP” or counter-proliferation at the agency. How did Cheney know this? From someone at the CIA — possibly director George Tenet, but Libby wasn’t sure.

How to explain Libby originally claiming he had first heard about Wilson’s wife from NBC’s Tim Russert in July? He had simply forgotten he had actually heard it from the vice president a month or more earlier, Libby said. But Libby’s notes, produced by prosecutors during this testimony, did show notations from June 12 regarding Wilson’s wife. And Libby later confirmed this in a second FBI interview.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003540604

Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald began investigating in December 2003 whether administration officials illegally provided information about Plame to the press as retribution.

Wilson asserted that he led a CIA mission that found no evidence Iraq was attempting to acquire material for nuclear weapons.

Fitzgerald has said his investigation found that Cheney was the person who first told Libby about Plame’s CIA job and about her role in suggesting her husband for the mission. Cheney told Libby he could release some of the information to rebut Wilson’s assertions that the vice president had ordered the mission, according to Libby’s testimony.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121900753.html

Larry Johnson, a former intelligence officer and colleague of Plame’s who has been critical of the administration’s campaign against Wilson, said the Libby testimony helps prove that top executive branch officials were working to discredit an administration critic.

Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff testified that his bosses instructed him to leak information to reporters from a high-level intelligence report that suggested Iraq was trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction, according to court records in the CIA leak case.

Cheney was one of the “superiors” I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby said had authorized him to make the disclosures, according to sources familiar with the investigation into Libby’s discussions with reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame.

“This was not some rogue operation, but was directed at the highest levels, and specifically by Dick Cheney,” Johnson said. “Libby was definitely a man with a mission, but a man who was given a mission.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902117.html

In conclusion: Libby lied when he said he found out about Plame’s identity from a reporter. He found out from Cheney, and most likely Rove and Bush were involved as well. The leak was an attempt to distort the evidence of Sadaam’s having weapons of mass destruction in order to lead this nation into war.

Posted by: Max at March 6, 2007 4:40 PM
Comment #210768

Re motive:

AP reports: “Prosecutors said Libby concocted a story to avoid losing his job for disclosing classified information to reporters without authorization. Libby’s attorneys said any errors resulted from memory flaws.”

Posted by: Jack at March 6, 2007 5:38 PM
Comment #210773

Jack, Libby was a top gun attorney before going to D.C., and chief of staff for Dick Cheney. I find it incredible that such a person with such a faulty memory could ever achieve such positions of power in the first place. Apparently, the jury, with far more facts at their disposal than I, agree, else the verdict would not been as it was.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2007 6:08 PM
Comment #210774

Does anyone know, do democrats have a budget for 07? Are they planning to create a budget for 07? Are they going to give us a budget for 07 that moves us closer to a balanced budget?

Can anyone tell me how “pay as you go” works when the democrats are working with no budget? Does this mean pay as you go is nothing but meaningless propaganda?

Is this the “fiscal responsiblity” the democrats promised us? Do they qualify as a “do nothing” congress yet?

Has anyone on the left DARED to start a thread on the budget activity of this democrat congress and their lack of interest in controling spending?

Posted by: Stephen at March 6, 2007 6:29 PM
Comment #210775

Stephen, I appreciate your interest in these matters but I don’t think any of us want to derail the conversation that is taking place about the posted article. Please see the link to the Rules for Participation, in specific “Comments are expected to remain on the topic of the published article.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 6:42 PM
Comment #210776

I’ve got a question for all you out there about this issue of whether Libby outed Valerie Wilson:

If Matt Cooper or Judith Miller had gone out and written articles based on their conversations when they were told, Would you really be able to say they hadn’t outed Wilson?

What matters here is they they were deliberately trying to disseminate that information. Whether this is technically a crime or not is a valid legal issue, but whether their efforts, according to sworn Grand Jury testimony, were aimed at exposing Valerie Wilson is not. They did in fact tell these reporters this information. Libby authorized Miller to divulge their conversation, and Rove authorized Cooper to do so; they knew what the reporters were going to say and they let them say it.

No one can say now officially that Libby did not lie to federal investigators, to a grand jury. What his defenders on the right are going to say now is that there was no crime to prosecute. Question is, do people commit perjury to cover up things that are without legal ramifications? Not typically.

Why lie to investigators, to grand juries? Why, to shape the investigation, to shape the findings of the grand jury. The successful case that Patrick Fitzgerald put forward essentially laid out the case that Libby lied to keep investigators unaware of the fact that he had divulged Valerie Wilson’s identity, rather than having it be divulged to him. Libby wanted to be perceived as the last to know, rather than one of the first to tell.

Did Libby commit a crime by leaking that information that Fitzgerald could have prosecuted? We may never know. The important point to keep in mind though, was that whether Fitzgerald conceivably could or would prosecute Libby for his role in the leak, Libby feared enough about the legality of his actions that he made false statements to investigators, committed perjury and obstructed justice with a story designed to conceal the fact that he was among the first to leak the classified information of Valerie Wilson’s identity to the press.

Given that Rove did exactly the same things that Rove did, and Rove both told Cooper and confirmed things for Novak (which makes him as much a leaker of Wilson’s identity as Armitage), we all of a sudden have this rather improbable coincidence of two Bush administration officials deliberately leaking the same little-known information to a number of reporters at the same time.

There are two possibilities here, not necessarily mutually exclusive: The Bush administration deliberately leaked information to embarrass Wilson and impugn his motives, with two or more officials leaking in parallel, or the Administration is just so damn undisciplined about the handling of classified information, that these three leaks just sort of happened.

A conspiracy seems preferable to the notion that this administration is sloppy. For them to choose to divulge this information might seem less scary than the notion that this administration can’t hold it’s liquor when it consumes sensitive information.

Either way, do Republicans and independents really want rationalize this kind of behavior? What would they say if a Democrat used sensitive information to further his political agenda? Does this recklessness benefit anyone? How can they even ask the press to abstain from revealing secrets, when they so easily employ them to their political advantage?

National security outweighs winning a political fight. Better for Bush to lose his argument with Joseph Wilson than for this nation’s secrets to be known to its enemies. You could always find non-classified dirt to bash Wilson with, win the argument against him without endangering national security. The worst thing about this leak was that it was gratuitous.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 6, 2007 7:05 PM
Comment #210777

Over a year ago Sanger posted on this blog just how easy it was going to be for Scooter to walk on all the charges he was facing. At the time of reading it I laughed about the delusions of gradure that he posted. Here is a tasty little nugget of what was goin on in many republicans minds prior to the trial ever starting.

I don’t know how many liberals have paid very close attention to this case since the Fitzmas fizzle, but let me describe the enormous uphill battle that Fitzgerald faces at this stage in order to convict Libby of even perjury or obstruction.
The charges against Libby are all based on contradictions between Libby’s testimony and that of reporters. That we all already knew.
So here’s the problem: in order to get these reporters to testify before the grand jury in the first place, Fitzgerald had to give them strong guarantees that they would ONLY be questioned about specific narrowly circumscribed facts and their conversations with specific individuals.
Now, Fitzgerald can make those promises as a prosecuter trying to convince witnesses to give grand jury testimony.
But at trial, the defense is under no obligation to honor agreements made between witnesses and the prosecution. In fact, in an actual trial the rights of the defendent to have all facts known will take precedence.
When these reporters take the stand (if they do), the defense has every right to ask them any questions at all and expect that a completely truthful answer be given under oath. You don’t get to “protect your sources” or your “journalistic integrity” when a defendent’s freedom is at stake.
You can be assured that Libby’s defense will demand to know ALL of the things that Fitzgerald promised them they’d never be asked. If they fail to be totally forthcoming about all their sources and everything they were originally promised they’d never have to divulge, then their testimony will be useless.
Libby’s defense is gonna have a wonderful time calling up one big time media figure after another and grilling them under oath. These people are going to regret the day they had anything to do with Fitzgerald.
It should be especially interesting to hear—under oath—all about Russert and Kristoff’s personal contacts with Joseph Wilson and the DNC long before this whole story broke. And when, and from whom, they first learned about Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame—information the prosecutor guaranteed them they’d never be asked.
Unfortunately, this spectacle will likely never come to pass since the case will probably be tossed out in the next couple months. The reason being that the prosecution is currently refusing to turn over evidence to the defense.
Posted by: sanger at February 11, 2006 12:09 AM


Kind of fun looking back in hindsight about just how short sided many of the republicans who post here think. Finally, man am I glad that Fitzgerald easly navagited the so called “enormous uphill battle” And that the ablove mentioned jouranists like Russert who had the balls to simply tell the truth under oath unlike Scooter.

Fifty bucks says Bush will pardon him before he leaves office.

Posted by: Jeff Gannon at March 6, 2007 7:14 PM
Comment #210778

‘Did the “plamegate” trial ever reveal who actually outed her? I don’t believe it did.’


The Man Who Said Too Much
A book coauthored by NEWSWEEK’s Michael Isikoff details Richard Armitage’s central role in the Valerie Plame leak.

from the above article:
“Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn’t thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame’s identity. “I’m afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing,” he later told Carl Ford Jr., State’s intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had “slipped up” and told Novak more than he should have.”

From what I understand the prosecutor already knew this before he went after Libby.
Is that the way our system is supposed to work?
Is this the way we WANT it to work?

Posted by: Dawn at March 6, 2007 7:15 PM
Comment #210779

Rhinehold: I am working for a hard copy of the court case file. After doing a little hunting, I found most of everything on the OSC website. (1) See the Grand Jury transcripts of Libby’s testimony; (2) See the Grand Jury transcripts of Judith Millers testimony; (3) See the Grand Jury Exhibits #6 & #8. All of these materials are found in Government Exhibits GX1, GX1A, GX2, & GX2A. Finally, (4) See the transcipts of both the government and defense closing arguments (I cannot find the transripts on line; however, the case file can be obtained from the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of the District of Columbia for $$$ — it’s what I did).

Posted by: Allen at March 6, 2007 7:54 PM
Comment #210780

First sentence of previous post should read: “I am working from a hard copy….” Sorry about the typos

Posted by: Allen at March 6, 2007 7:57 PM
Comment #210781

Well, I put together a rather long post “proving” that we do in fact know that Cheney authorized the leak. Many FBI members who interviewed him said it, and Libby himself verified it. Unfortunately, Watchblog occaissonally thinks I am a “new” member who has never posted before and it blocked it.

Bottom line, even the jurors after the trial said “What are we doing with this guy? Where’s Cheney and Rove?” This is hardly the end of this. It’s obvious from this thread that the Republicans are pissing their pants over this. I wonder if we will ever see the end of their irrational, and to my mind treasonable, devotion to this evil president.

Posted by: Max at March 6, 2007 8:24 PM
Comment #210785

Stephen

Whether or not it was technically a crime is what divides a legal from a political issue. Libby is convicted of the crime of perjury, a serious offense. Nobody is convicted or even indicted for “outing” because it was not a crime. Fitzgerald knew Armitage did it and chose not to indict. What does that tell you?

We have had a lot of serious security breaches reported on the pages of the NYT. We should go after those leakers and liars now that we know how it is done.

Max

If the jurors said that, Libby will have ample grounds for appeal, since the jury didn’t understand the law. They were supposed to try a case of perjury. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Rove or Cheney lied to grand juries or investigators.

Libby was not on trial for the Plame case. I hope the jurors understood that.

So you are right that this is not over. I am sure Libby will appeal and if the jurors were so misled, he will have a good chance of winning.

I also think your acussing people of treason is well over the top. Isn’t that kind of hyperpole - calling people evil too - what the hystrical left claims to so hate in the right’s rhetoric. It indicates … well you know better than I do. Fill in whatever insult you would have done if someone on the right had called the Democrats traitors and evil.

Posted by: Jack at March 6, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #210787

Jack, the juror I saw on TV said that they thought that Libby was a scapegoat for Cheney, however, he said that Libby committed the crimes that they found him guilty of. Fitzgerald also said that Libby lied to protect himself and to protect Cheney.

I think most legal analysts agree that he won’t get anywhere on appeal.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at March 6, 2007 8:56 PM
Comment #210789

A pardon is probable to keep Libby from turning states evidence .. Too bad. Their basic greed makes neo-cons such great snitches.

Posted by: BillS at March 6, 2007 9:02 PM
Comment #210806

Jack,

Did you even follow the case? Yes, Libby was on trial to determine whether or not he perjured himself, but it came out, many, many times during the trial that he got the information from Cheney from multiple witnesses. This is in no way grounds for appeal.

Furthermore, is it hyperbole to call the president evil? Not if he tried to fool the public into thinking there was evidence Sadaam had weapons of mass desruction when there wasn’t any. There is no graver crime than lying to the public to get support for a war.

Do you have any sense of proportion? This is the most serious crime I can imagine, not politics as usual.

Posted by: Max at March 6, 2007 10:27 PM
Comment #210807

Those damn activist judges, its those damn activist judges jest ruining this country.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 6, 2007 10:30 PM
Comment #210808

Stephen,

“What his defenders on the right are going to say now is that there was no crime to prosecute.”

Correct! He didn’t “out” her. That was supposed to be the “crime” that Rove and Cheney did. Yet, they didn’t, they weren’t indicted; so they frame this Libby guy. Nice. Nice f#$%ing Justice System. All you civil liberty “crusaders” can’t possibly defend this crap.


You know it’s complete (and utter) Bullsh*t when the Juror comes out and says: “what is HE [Libby] doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys… It seemed like he [Libby] was, as Mr. Wells [his lawyer] put it, he was the fall guy.”


Partisan politics can’t even justify that statement. That’s just pathetic. You can’t find a (reasonable) lawyer out there that’s not shaking their head at that comment from a juror. My goodness. The hatred is just too(ooo) easy to debunk here. Way too easy. Luv the diehard (Bush haters) though, they’re making me laugh. They actually believe this crap. Ha! Ha!


Posted by: rahdigly at March 6, 2007 10:31 PM
Comment #210810

“Did the “plamegate” trial ever reveal who actually outed her? I don’t believe it did. Yet, some of you are so full of anti-Bush hatred that you’ll continued to believe this Libby verdict was about “outing” Plame.”

A few inconvenient facts.

Bob Woodward learned from Richard Armitage which was later confirmed by Armitage
During his appearance at Libby’s trial, Cooper recounted how he first learned about Valerie Wilson on July 11, 2003 from Karl Rove
Judith Miller claims to have learned Plame’s CIA affiliation from Scooter Libby
Walter Pincus testified during Libby’s trial that he learned Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA from Ari Fleischer.
Matthew Cooper’s sources, later revealed as a result of Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s investigation, are Karl Rove and Scooter Libby


Posted by: TheSavage at March 6, 2007 10:42 PM
Comment #210812

Max:
“This is hardly the end of this.”

Cheney is next. :^D

“It’s obvious from this thread that the Republicans are pissing their pants over this.”

Agree!

“I wonder if we will ever see the end of their irrational, and to my mind treasonable, devotion to this evil president.”

Clearly a certain percentage will continue to hang on to their irrational, treasonous devotion to Bushco. They like that safe, secure feeling of “staying the course.”

Posted by: Adrienne at March 6, 2007 10:46 PM
Comment #210816

Savage,
“A few inconvenient facts.”


This Libby trial was not about “Leaking” or “Outing”. Look it up! Show me where this particular trial was (at all) about “outing” plame! That’s a fact. You’re going to have to face that fact sooner or later. I’m guessing later, what do you think?!


Some of you (and you know who you are) were so “hellbent” on getting Rove and/or Chenney when the plamegate started. Then, they didn’t indict anybody for “outing” plame; instead, they indict Libby for perjuring himself. It’s truly pathetic and (clearly) easy to see the hatred and outrage some of you have for The Bush Administration. Though it’s pretty funny to me. Thanks for the laughs, Bush haters. He! He!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 6, 2007 10:59 PM
Comment #210821

Max

It makes no difference who told Libby. It made no difference who told anybody about Plame. Fitzgerald knew who did it and did not indict.

Re appeals, I was only saying that IF the jurors thought that Cheney & Rove should have been on trial, they didn’t understand the nature of the perjury trial.

You are right that I did not follow the trial. I was not much interested in it. I figured the rule of law would produce a reasonable result on whether or not Libby lied about something that was not a crime. Poor Libby. Had he merely told the truth, Fitzgerald would have had no indictments at all.

You guys who think that Rove or Cheney are “next” might recall that Fitzgerald had all the facts that he has now already last year. He knows he does not have enough to indict. You will not be getting a late Fitzmas. This is one of your liberal myths.

Perjury is a crime even if there is no underlying crime. In both the Clinton and the Libby cases, that was the argument.

Posted by: Jackj at March 6, 2007 11:35 PM
Comment #210823
Well, I put together a rather long post “proving” that we do in fact know that Cheney authorized the leak. Many FBI members who interviewed him said it, and Libby himself verified it.

Max, that’s a shame because I would really love to see this ‘proof’ considering Fitzgerald, the other prosecutors AND Libby are all on record for having said that Cheney did not authorize Libby to release that classified information, as I have already linked.

If you can somehow show me that information I would be greatly appreciative. Otherwise I’m going to have to go with what Fitzgerald and Libby have both said.

even the jurors after the trial said “What are we doing with this guy? Where’s Cheney and Rove?” This is hardly the end of this. Fitzgerald said that his job is now done, there will be no more indictments and he’s going back to his day job.

Also, the juror that has stated this is a former Washington Post reporter… I have a small feeling that he *MIGHT* have had some preconcieved notions about the situation and, oh I don’t know, was out looking for cameras after the fact for his own personal reasons perhaps?

I certainly am not about to convict someone else of something on that basis alone, why you think it shows some ‘proof’ of something is incredulous.

No one has yet shown me anywhere the proof that Libby was authorized by Bush or Cheney to release Plame’s name to the press. If anyone has any, please do so.

And Allen, I’ve read many of the things you’ve listed and there is nothing in there saying that Cheney authorized Libby to release Plame’s name or occupation to anyone. If I’ve somehow missed that specific reference you are referring to, could you please quote it here?

Thanks…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 11:46 PM
Comment #210824

Sorry about the formatting issue, let me redo it:

even the jurors after the trial said “What are we doing with this guy? Where’s Cheney and Rove?‎

This is hardly the end of this. Fitzgerald said that his job is now done, there will be no more indictments and he’s going back to his day job.
Also, the juror that has stated this is a former Washington Post reporter… I have a small feeling that he *MIGHT* have had some preconcieved notions about the situation and, oh I don’t know, was out looking for cameras after the fact for his own personal reasons perhaps?

I certainly am not about to convict someone else of something on that basis alone, why you think it shows some ‘proof’ of something is incredulous.

No one has yet shown me anywhere the proof that Libby was authorized by Bush or Cheney to release Plame’s name to the press. If anyone has any, please do so.

And Allen, I’ve read many of the things you’ve listed and there is nothing in there saying that Cheney authorized Libby to release Plame’s name or occupation to anyone. If I’ve somehow missed that specific reference you are referring to, could you please quote it here?

Thanks…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 6, 2007 11:48 PM
Comment #210826

Jack-
I believe one part of the law that would have covered the leak is that the person might have to know that the information was sensitive. Armitage apparently didn’t. The others might have believed that the president could authorize declassification.

Neither helps them. With Armitage, you have to ask how careless this administration is with sensitive information that such a screwup occurs. With the other two, it brings up the question of why the use of highly sensitive information for rhetorical purposes in a campaign is so unremarked upon.

Nevertheless, you never addressed the real question: did Libby believe that this conduct or that of his bosses were potentially indictable? He must have. He lied to the Feds, he lied to Patrick Fitzgerald and the grand jury.

And what was his lie? That he was leaked to by Tim Russert, rather than having leaked to reporters much earlier. His lie was meant to obscure his role in leaking classified information to the press.

A man who considered his conduct beyond reproach would not lie to a grand jury to cover that conduct up. If the leak was perfectly legal, this former trial lawyer would not risk jail time by lying to a grand jury or agents of the FBI. He would be absent a sensible motive.

Concerning the New York Times? There’s considerable question as to whether illegal programs can be hidden under the rubric of classification.

As for the SWIFT program, that was public record in october of 2002. It’s not a secret if everybody knows it. That hasn’t stopped Bush from classifying much information that was already in the public domain.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 6, 2007 11:49 PM
Comment #210827

“You guys who think that Rove or Cheney are “next” might recall that Fitzgerald had all the facts that he has now already last year. He knows he does not have enough to indict. You will not be getting a late Fitzmas. This is one of your liberal myths.”

It won’t be Fitzgerald that continues this, Jack. It will now become a Congressional investigation. A reporter asked Fitzgerald today whether or not the prosecution would turn over sealed files from the grand jury investigation to Congress, and he replied:

“If Congress does something or not, we are not going to predict that. We will do what’s appropriate.”
He also said:
“I do not expect to file any further charges. The investigation was inactive prior to the trial. We’re all going back to our day jobs. If new information comes to light, of course we’ll do that.”

So, if more information comes to light through a Congressional investigation, or if Libby decides to open his mouth (unlikely if he gets a pardon) then Fitzgerald is saying of course he’d file further charges.
Your belief that people don’t want to see to the bottom of this cesspool is a Republican myth. You and your ilk can go right ahead and sneer like petulantant, arrogant children all you like, but we want justice. And if it takes getting these lying treasonous bastards long after they’re out of office, so be it.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 7, 2007 12:07 AM
Comment #210829

Adrienne,

Of course if there is additional information that comes to light we should go further, but no one has any such information at the present time and no one has provided any ‘proof’ that there is anything more here than someone doing something he shouldn’t have. No evidence that Cheney ordered Libby to release the classified information, no evidence that Libby was lying to protect anyone but himself, etc.

Until then aren’t you advocating going after ‘them’ just because you don’t like them? Isn’t that what everyone complained at Starr and the Republicans for doing to Clinton? Isn’t that why Moveon.org was formed?

Is that who you guys really want to emulate now, becoming the party that tries to score political points through the legal processs?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2007 12:15 AM
Comment #210831

Rhinehold, I know you and Jack are hoping against hope that nothing further comes of this, but David is right. Now that Libby has been found guilty of lying in order to cover up for Cheney, this could feasibly lead to a Cheney impeachment.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 7, 2007 12:25 AM
Comment #210832

Adrienne,

I don’t hope any such thing, I care that justice is done, as I have always maintained in this instance. When the indictment was handed down I was glad to see it and hoped that Libby was found guilty unless some new evidence came to light that he wasn’t guilty (and there wasn’t).

I don’t mind if evidence came to light and pointed to Cheney, I would be the first to call for his impeachment. But, and let me repeat this again, THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE that anything of the sort happened.

Do you have any? Would you like to get my support in your desire to impeach Cheney? Please provide me the evidence that I ask for, that is all.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2007 12:29 AM
Comment #210833

Rahdigly-
If Novak had kept his mouth shut and Judith Miller hadn’t… Well, he would be the leaker. It’s shear dumb luck that they’re not hanging on the yardarm.

That juror you were listening to was basically saying that they rightly convicted him of what he was accused of, but that they got the sense that his bosses were doing stuff that’s much worse.

Did they get that sense because of partisan politics? I don’t see that. They acquitted him of that one count, and instead of taking a few partisan-passion-inflamed hours, they spent the better part of two weeks deliberating.

I think the evidence speaks plainly to what this administation has done over the last six years. You want to believe it’s just partisan politics, Bush hatred. It’s easier than admitting problems. Unfortunately for you, the Republicans get nowhere for long without dealing with those problems.

Libby’s conviction is one of them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2007 12:34 AM
Comment #210840

Rhinehold:
“Would you like to get my support in your desire to impeach Cheney? Please provide me the evidence that I ask for, that is all.”

I’m afraid, you’re going have to wait with the rest of us until the Congressional investigation begins. But I get the sense that nothing will change your mind since the facts we already know about this case make you believe that nothing wrong took place in the vice president’s office after Joe Wilson exposed the administrations lies about the Iraq War.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 7, 2007 1:28 AM
Comment #210841
I’m afraid, you’re going have to wait with the rest of us until the Congressional investigation begins.

In other words, there is none and you are doing just what Starr was accused of doing. And that’s ok, just own it is all.

But I get the sense that nothing will change your mind since the facts we already know about this case make you believe that nothing wrong took place in the vice president’s office after Joe Wilson exposed the administrations lies about the Iraq War.

Well, considering I didn’t think anyone in the administration was involved until evidence to the contrary was provided and I viewed it, I would have to say you are wrong. But, as you say, I get the sense that nothing will change your mind, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen before.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2007 1:34 AM
Comment #210849
Well, considering I didn’t think anyone in the administration was involved until evidence to the contrary was provided and I viewed it,

That is a laughable comment. Of course the Administration was involved. The point is the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name is arguably not a crime, as long as the NIH was conveniently declassified at the time of the disclosure. Lying to the Grand Jury about the leak was a crime. Hence why Scooter was sacrificed and there weren’t any more indictments. I suspect Scooter will get pardoned and rewarded privately for his loyalty.

Posted by: Cube at March 7, 2007 4:07 AM
Comment #210850

Rhinehold,

The sexual harassment wasn’t of Lewinsky and if you, as a women, see nothing wrong with sexual harassment then that’s your decision I guess. *shrug*

When does Lewinsky sue Clinto for sexual harassment?
AFAIK, she always said she had consensual oral sex with him. Show us where she said she was forced to, please.

Otherwise, seeing it as sexual harassment is your unbacked opinion.


As for Bush, Libby resigned as soon as he was indicted, I’m not sure how this has anything to do with Bush’s statement that he would fire anyone involved since that person no longer works there, but again *shrug*

Finally, this has nothing to do with our going into Iraq, especially considering it was all done after we invaded, but again *shrug*
Posted by: Rhinehold

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 7, 2007 4:40 AM
Comment #210851

Oops, sorry for the quote garbage at my previous post bottom.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 7, 2007 4:41 AM
Comment #210854

Tom, from my synical point of view this Libby stuff is just another example of the Bush Administration’s “smoke screens.” Offering up Scooter Libby is Al Qaeda in America’s version of soliciting “suicide” bombers. Fortunatly for Libby, he won’t lose his life. It’s too bad the over 3,000 dead American service men and women weren’t as fortunate.

Libby likely won’t even lose his freedom.

On the bright side, perhaps the blood clot in the leg of Libby’s boss will find its way to his lungs.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at March 7, 2007 5:09 AM
Comment #210856

rahdigly
our question was “Did the plamegate trial ever reveal who actually outed her?
I answered same

Posted by: TheSavage at March 7, 2007 6:25 AM
Comment #210861

Rahgdily, your understanding of the facts are pretty underwhelming, but I think I can help. Let’s review what you are proposing as “fact” and what the real facts are.

Rahgdily’s Claimed Fact: Clinton perjured himself

Actual Fact: Clinton was tried for perjury and found “NOT GUILTY.” So if you want to say he was “accused” or perjury, or “tried” for perjury, then you would be correct. Or, “Bill Clinton was found not guilty of perjury.” But you didn’t say that.

Rahgdily’s Claimed Fact: Libby perjured himself

Fact: Correct! The jury found him “GUILTY” on two counts of perjury (and two other felony crimes). Charged and convicted.

Rahgdily’s Claimed Fact: The House of Reps voted to impeach Clinton; not the Senate.

Fact: Correct! But you imply this means he was guilty. Apparently you don’t understand what impeachment is. It’s similar to a grand jury stating “we think there is enough evidence to coduct a trial.” The House only voted for the trial, an impeachment, which is then conducted in the Senate. As mentioned above, the (GOP) Senate held the trial, and came back with their “NOT GUILTY” verdict. This is what I wrote before. You need to understand what impeachment means and what the process is. When I wrote, “the GOP Senate found him NOT GUILTY” that was correct and factual. You’re confused as to how it works.

Rahgdily’s Claimed Fact: Libby did not out Plame; his trial was about lying to a grand jury (perjury), ala Bill Clinton.

Actual Fact: Nobody without security clearance knew Plame was a CIA Agent before Libby (and others in the White House) told reporters. So, it would be correct to say “Libby and others outed Plame,” but I don’t think that’s what you were going for. His trial was about lying to a grand jury. Correct! And obstructing a federal investigation into the leaking the name of a CIA Agent. He was found “GUILTY,” on four different counts. Bill Clinton was tried as well and found “NOT GUILTY” on all charges.

Rahgdily’s Claimed Fact: The people who believe Libby’s verdict today was about outing Plame are (pathological) liars.

Actual Fact: The trial was about perjury and obstruction of justice. I don’t see anywhere on the site here where anyone has alleged ‘the jury said he was guilty of outing Plame.’ We can infer why he lied and obstructed the investigation, but he was guilty of covering up and lying about the outing Plame.

You really need to pay more attention Rahgdily. Hope this helps.

Posted by: Boomer at March 7, 2007 8:42 AM
Comment #210863

Rhinehold,

No, I have no other theories, but then this makes rather thin gruel of your contention that the White House didn’t intentionally leak and lie about Valerie Plame and her Husband, as well as the findings.

We know why there was no conviction. It’s a hard law to enforce, because it requires proof of a mental state and knowledge and understanding.

The case may not prove Rove and Cheney guilty of lying, but it’s as close as you are going to get in the bizarro and hot house world of legalty. The American public gets it.

Posted by: gergle at March 7, 2007 9:05 AM
Comment #210865

Libby,guilty! O J innocent???????????????
What a wonderful world!!!! NOT!!!!
If Libby were a Democrat,Plame would be on trial.
Oh!Libby’s guilty verdict also proves beyond a doubt that GOD created this world!!!!!!!

Posted by: rdcsr at March 7, 2007 9:06 AM
Comment #210871

Rhinehold,

Read it, and then I would like to ask you who do you believe? The FBI? Libby’s own notes? The White House’s silence? Or… You and Jack? Because I can’t even find conservative sites out there that seriously believe Cheney didn’t authorize the leak.

After a long day or legal wrangling and no witnesses, an FBI agent took the stand shortly before 3 p.m. She is Deborah Bond, a 19-year veteran, called into the probe of who may have leaked name of classified agent.

She described the bureau’s interview with I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby on Oct. 14, 2003. Asked where he first learned of Ambassador Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, he had told the FBI then — from the vice president, on or about June 12 that year, in a telephone conversation.

Vice President Cheney had also said that she worked in “CP” or counter-proliferation at the agency. How did Cheney know this? From someone at the CIA — possibly director George Tenet, but Libby wasn’t sure.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003540604

Libby’s own notes show that he was told by Cheney about the CIA employment of Wilson’s wife, more than a month before Plame’s CIA identity was publicly revealed.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003542084

The White House did not challenge the prosecutor’s account of Bush’s and Cheney’s
role in orchestrating the effort to discredit Wilson yesterday. Both Bush and Cheney
have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, but the details of what they told him are
unknown. Fitzgerald’s new account is based on Libby’s grand jury testimony that
Cheney told him Bush had authorized the declassification and disclosure of some of
the information.

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/004841.html#comments

Posted by: Max at March 7, 2007 9:25 AM
Comment #210877

Rhinehold,

Who are you going to believe? Libby’s own notes? The FBI agents who interviewed him? The White House’s silence? Or just you and Jack? From what I can tell even most conservatives know Cheney is guilty.

After a long day or legal wrangling and no witnesses, an FBI agent took the stand shortly before 3 p.m. She is Deborah Bond, a 19-year veteran, called into the probe of who may have leaked name of classified agent.

She described the bureau’s interview with I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby on Oct. 14, 2003. Asked where he first learned of Ambassador Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, he had told the FBI then — from the vice president, on or about June 12 that year, in a telephone conversation.

Vice President Cheney had also said that she worked in “CP” or counter-proliferation at the agency. How did Cheney know this? From someone at the CIA — possibly director George Tenet, but Libby wasn’t sure.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003540604

Libby’s own notes show that he was told by Cheney about the CIA employment of Wilson’s wife, more than a month before Plame’s CIA identity was publicly revealed.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003542084

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

The White House did not challenge the prosecutor’s account of Bush’s and Cheney’s
role in orchestrating the effort to discredit Wilson yesterday. Both Bush and Cheney
have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, but the details of what they told him are
unknown. Fitzgerald’s new account is based on Libby’s grand jury testimony that
Cheney told him Bush had authorized the declassification and disclosure of some of
the information.

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/004841.html#comments

“It was clear that what Scooter was doing in the Wilson case was at Dick’s behest,” said Kenneth L. Adelman, a former Reagan administration official who has been close with both men but has broken with Mr. Cheney over the Iraq war. “That was clear. It was clear from Dick’s notes on the Op-Ed piece that he wanted to go get Wilson. And Scooter’s not that type. He’s not a vindictive person.”

Prosecutors played a tape of Mr. Libby testifying to a grand jury that Mr. Cheney had asked Mr. Bush to declassify an intelligence report selectively so he, Mr. Libby, could leak it to sympathetic reporters. Mr. Cheney’s hand-written scribbles were introduced into evidence at the trial, including the one that hinted Mr. Cheney believed that his own staffer, Mr. Libby, was being sacrificed.

“Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat-grinder because of the incompetence of others,” the note read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/washington/07cheney.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Posted by: Max at March 7, 2007 9:46 AM
Comment #210889
“Did they get that sense because of partisan politics? I don’t see that. They acquitted him of that one count, and instead of taking a few partisan-passion-inflamed hours, they spent the better part of two weeks deliberating.”


One of the jurors was a Washington Post reporter; worked with Woodward; and was a neighbor of Russert. Keep trying though on the “non-partisan” claim; it’s easy to tell that line stirred you up a bit.


“I think the evidence speaks plainly to what this administation has done over the last six years. You want to believe it’s just partisan politics, Bush hatred. It’s easier than admitting problems. Unfortunately for you, the Republicans get nowhere for long without dealing with those problems.”


What’s “easier” is to admit that this is the problem. It’s nothing more than a “Political Witchhunt” at the Bush Administration; it started with “Fitzmas”, targeting Rove and Chenney and they got neither. NEITHER!! Libby’s the “Fall guy”, the jury and the MSM wanted Bush/Rove/Chenney and they didn’t get them. It stops there and that’s that.

Yet, keep trying though. This is funny as hell watching you guys try to be completely serious with this (waste of time) trial; showing us how serious you are with “The Justice System”.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 7, 2007 11:10 AM
Comment #210890

Faux News is keeping its reputation in tact - they were running the headline “Libby found not-guilty of lying to investigators” nice to see these boys haven’t lost their sense of optimism. “Fair and Balanced” to the bitter end. Way to go Rupert Murdoch!

Posted by: Tom Snediker at March 7, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #210895
The sexual harassment wasn’t of Lewinsky and if you, as a women, see nothing wrong with sexual harassment then that’s your decision I guess. *shrug*

When does Lewinsky sue Clinto for sexual harassment?
AFAIK, she always said she had consensual oral sex with him. Show us where she said she was forced to, please.

Otherwise, seeing it as sexual harassment is your unbacked opinion.

Lewinsky did not sue Clinton for sexual harassment, Paula Jones did. It was during this trial that he perjured himself, was impeached and lost his law license. He perjured himself when asked about his relationship with Lewinsky during questioning of the Jones sexual harassment trial.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2007 11:32 AM
Comment #210901
On the bright side, perhaps the blood clot in the leg of Libby’s boss will find its way to his lungs.

Wow.

This has to be one of the saddest and disgusting things I’ve seen said on here in a long time.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2007 12:03 PM
Comment #210902

It would be nice to have one discussion when someone does not bring up Bill Clinton. You guys really need some new material. He hasn’t been president in over 6 years - let it go.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at March 7, 2007 12:06 PM
Comment #210911

Tom,

I concur. Let it go! Yet, the libs are going to do the same thing Bush; he’ll be slandered over this, especially come Pardon time, and he wasn’t even on trial here (like Clinton was). It’s pathetic.


“On the bright side, perhaps the blood clot in the leg of Libby’s boss will find its way to his lungs.”


Hey, Bill Maher’s on this blog. Ha! Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 7, 2007 12:35 PM
Comment #210916

Rahdigly-
You do know that Woodward is a Republican, right?

This liberal bias theory is like one of those kids who plays guns and then announces he’s bulletproof when the other kid points their toy gun at him and goes “bang!”

You don’t want to drop on this one. You don’t want to acknowledge that a jury has legitimately convicted him. Fine. Call it a witchhunt every time Republicans get in trouble. It’s easier than admitting you’re wrong.

And you are. Did you notice, by any chance, that Libby’s defense was not that the other witness were lying, but that he didn’t remember what he told them. He said, basically, the leak happened, but I got so overworked that I just forgot I did that!

He’s the fall guy in that he’s being put away when it’s clear that his was no isolated case, but not in the Matlock sense of suddenly being found by a dead body of a person he didn’t kill. He’s more like a Watergate Burglar than a Perry Mason Client.

Of course the Watergate Burglars didn’t do anything either. That was just the liberal media, right?

Wait, I forgot. Woodward’s a Republican. Man am I overworked!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #210924

Stephen, you’re (and others on this blog) the one that doesn’t want to drop this one. You want this to mean so much more then it does and to stain the President and his Administration. Yet, it won’t. This was a Bullsh*t case (from the get go) and it didn’t solve anything; however, you can continue to believe (in) it if you want. The MSM will continue to support you; though I wouldn’t take that as a compliment, b/c they’ve proved they have no credence anymore.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 7, 2007 1:54 PM
Comment #210928

It’s the media’s fault!

If they didn’t print Plame’s name when it was leaked to them, and they didn’t report she was a CIA Agent, and they didn’t report on Libby’s indictment, and they didn’t report the trial testimony that Cheney and Rove were involved in the attempted discrediting of a war critic, and the media didn’t report on the jury’s decision, this would all be no big deal. No one would care about a top level White House official committing and being convicted of four felonies if the liberal MSM didn’t tell us what his position was in the first place.

And they keep reporting on the Iraq war! Get over it already, it’s been going on for four years now. Find something else to hate on Bush about.

Damn liberal media.

Posted by: Boomer at March 7, 2007 2:19 PM
Comment #210931

rahdigly-
I think it means an awful lot that officials working for my government revealed sensitive intelligence to the world to attack a man who was blowing the whistle on bad intelligence that the administration had long known was bad.

I mean, revealing an agent’s name is bad, and so is trying to sway public opinion with intelligence known to be erroneous, but doing the first to cover for the second? That’s a breathtaking degree of malfeasance.

You tell me the media’s wrong in how it’s reported the case. Wrong how? You’re claiming bias pre-emptively, to discourage me from using the facts I’ve gained from the mainstream media. Still, I haven’t seen anything from you specifically debunking those facts.

Do me and everybody else the courtesy of finding hard evidence to prove your assertion about Libby and the mainstream media. Bring it out and lets put those facts to the test.

Otherwise, don’t blame me for wanting to keep on this, because from where I’m looking, there’s clear reason to believe that there was a lot more going on than just Libby’s newly convicted infractions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #210933

Stephen, the fact is that Joe Wilson was the one that was proved wrong about his assertions. Look up the Senate intelligence Committee’s report, they proved Joe Wilson was lying about his story. They proved the “16 words” in Bush’s speech were correct.

The Judge in Libby’s trial already said he wasn’t going to admit evidence on “outing” b/c that’s not what this trial is about. That was tried on Rove and Chenney and neither of them were indicted. Sorry Stephen, yet you’re going to have to face the fact that this trial isn’t as big as you want it to be and this did nothing but waste the country’s time.


But, you seem to be as hellbent on this issue being “valid” and “righteous” as you were on denying that poll where the “MAJORITY of AMERICANS” are in favor of our country “Completing the Mission” in Iraq!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 7, 2007 2:54 PM
Comment #210939

Rahdigly…. what are you smokin’ ?? and where did you get that breaking news on support for staying in Iraq???????????

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 7, 2007 4:03 PM
Comment #210940

Rahdigly-
The questions were leading. You don’t put leading questions in a poll unless you want a result a straight question wouldn’t deliver.

Concerning Wilson, show me where the letter was proved genuine. Show me where it was demonstrated that Saddam had access to the ore from those mines. Wilson might have gotten confused as to the source of information pertaining to the physical appearance of the letter, which he never saw, but he was briefed about the contents, and he did establish that one mine was flooded, the other controled by interests that would not sell to Saddam, and had all their ore presold anyways. He established that the official named had not been in office for the last ten years.

Although Wilson got confused about seeing the actual letter, he did accurately relate real information about it- the IAEA report on the letter, which called it an amateurish forgery.

Wilson, by all accounts, was actually a proponent for finishing the job with Saddam. He had confronted and stood up to Saddam when he tried to take some people hostage as human shields during the Gulf War. What he didn’t appreciate was the repeating of information he knew was not reliable.

Why are Wilson and so many centrist and even conservative critics of the administration all of a sudden raving left loony partisans when they speak up? Because it’s more politically convenient for them to attack vicious partisans that folks who have honest disagreements and substantive arguments to make.

That’s what this trial is about: this administration’s abuse of it’s power for its own political convenience. Tar and feather a centrist diplomat who worked for Bush’s father and Reagan with little trouble so you don’t have to face American voters and answer for your sloppy or dishonest intelligence work.

Why was it so important to keep Americans convinced of a Nuclear threat? Because that’s the only way you’d GET the mission in Iraq. As Wolfowitz was quoted as saying, WMDs and terrorists were just a politically agreeable pretext for the war. But America didn’t see the Administration’s claims as mere pretext, not in the wake of 9/11. They saw them as threats, and if they weren’t they deserved to know the truth before our troops were put in harm’s way in a war Americans would be compelled to support.

You look at the dislike and hatred of Bush as irrational. Trouble is, there are more good reasons to dislike them, rational reasons, than you’re willing or able to admit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2007 4:03 PM
Comment #210949

Rahgdily,

Just once, a fact from you would be nice. Not you saying, “it’s a fact” because you believe a limbaugh.com myth.

The Senate intelligence Committee’s report indicated Wilson lied? Wrong again Rahgdily. The closest they came to anything near this was that they heard from an intelligence officer who wrongly judged that Wilson was talking about uranium trade, when he was just talking about “trade.” Wilson didn’t lie.

Otherwise, if I am wrong, can you quote what the report said. Please, don’t give us another, “you can look it up” because there’s nothing to find. It’s just (another) false claim of yours.

I guess if you really believe all of the myths you propose as fact here, it’s easy to see how you get all worked up and believe it’s a liberal MSM conspiracy to bring down America.

It’s silly to debate you on almost any topic, because you don’t understand the facts. You rely on right-wing op-ed pieces that slant the reality to fit their “all is good with the GOP and W” view of the world.

But, you wrote it, and I’m calling bulls**t (again) on you. Where did the “Senate intelligence Committee’s report… prove Joe Wilson was lying about his story.” Produce it or it’s simply BS. Produce it with this in it, and I’ll apologize. Otherwise, consider yourself educated (again) on the truth.

Posted by: Boomer at March 7, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #210950

Any president who derives a direct benefit, or forestalls a consequence to himself as the result of a pardon, has a conflict of interest. Bush should not be allowed, under any circumstances, to issue such a pardon. I can sort of see wanting to get one’s cronies out of a jam, or helping a friend of the family out with a presidential pardon. Perks of the office, and all of that. If it comes to pass that Bush pardons Libby, and I fail to see how it won’t, any incentive Libby has to come clean will vanish.

Many here will not agree with this. Especially those who wave the enormous (metaphoric) hardons of their stubborn ideology, despite all evidence to the contrary. Some have even used these mighty (ideological) erections to pole-vault completely over the river of sanity to a place that allows them to continue to believe that the Libby conviction DOESN’T mean that the shrub’s dwindling legacy is, as a result, ever more tarnished by the stink of it all. To those (the engorged ones), I salute you!!!

P.S. Merry Fitzmas!!

Posted by: Steve Miller at March 7, 2007 4:37 PM
Comment #210956

Has anyone else notice how few on the right are here to try and spin this conviction?Reading the posts above I see sheer desperation — this cant be so — but Clinton — Wilson lied -etc. I am waiting for Carter to be blamed too.
As a person that believes neither party is worth a shit , this is what it boils down to.
1- A CIA agent was outed for political convenience by people very high in OUR goverment.
Even if Wilson had been dead WRONG, A CIA agent was outed for political convenience.
2-Libby and others though not charged with anything lied to their constituents and spun about it repeatedly.
3-We the people bear ultimate responsibility for what our government does have to know if the government is acting in our best interest.
4-If any person in our government chooses to act in ways that are in the sole interest of a political agenda
and against the interest of the people,in a time of WAR
it is TREASON.We elect people to represent us not a political agenda.
And by the way sad to say —I voted for bush in 2000

W.E. Savage

Posted by: TheSavage at March 7, 2007 5:20 PM
Comment #210962

Rhinehold-

if you think that comment about the Vice President’s blood clot is the saddest and most disgusting thing you have read on this blog in a long time, then you must ignore or at least gloss over the mentioning of Iraq War stats reporting the number of American military that have lost their lives (well over the number of Americans killed in the cumulative 9/11 attacks) or the continued increases in the number of US military casualties and death in Iraq despite the new “surge” in the number of American troops. If worrying about what people say about Dick Cheney and the other “asses of evil” are how you show your support for American troops—to me, that is well beyond sad and disgusting!

Dick Cheney is the very personification of evil. Hence, there is no great loss to humanity if he dies in office (of any cause). Perhaps Karl Rove will be indicted and tried next forcing the VP to take more very long travels around the world in order to “get out of Dodge.”

Posted by: Kim-Sue at March 7, 2007 7:00 PM
Comment #211016

This is interesting…..seems that Libby just may not be eligible for a Presidential pardon, at least without Bush tweaking the Justice system. We all know the likelihood and him pulling any shenanigans, now don’t we?!?!?!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17507199/site/newsweek/

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 8, 2007 1:27 AM
Comment #211022

If he were to follow pardon guidelines, he would have to wait 5 years after conviction to be elegible
(and Bush will be a bad memory by then). I also don’t forsee Libby being “remorseful” as the guidelines also say. That being said, we have a president that treats the Constitution like an inconvenience and that laws apply to everyone but him, going around “guidelines” would be nothing to him.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at March 8, 2007 7:46 AM
Comment #211067
“Rahdigly…. what are you smokin’ ?? and where did you get that breaking news on support for staying in Iraq???????????”

I got it from Support the troops, let them win! (February 21, 2007) article on the “Republicans and Conservatives” blog.

And, I don’t smoke; I’m not a pothead.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 8, 2007 1:58 PM
Comment #211070

Rahdigly….I’m so happy to hear that your data is based on such an “unbiased” source as POS.
And by the way, you gotta watch out for that second-hand stuff, too.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 8, 2007 2:33 PM
Comment #211072

They were straight forward questions that confirmed America’s committment to victory. We’re definitely not going to hear about that with the MSM; that’s for sure. If American’s weren’t committed, then the Dem Congress would (easily) defund the War. Yet, they haven’t b/c Americans are behind it. So are the troops. 51% of the troops feel there should the same amount to more troops in Iraq; only 26% want less troops. Doesn’t sound like withdrawl or redeployment to me.


“And by the way, you gotta watch out for that second-hand stuff, too.”


What are you a Doctor?! I’m not a pothead and I don’t hangout with potheads!
:-)


Posted by: rahdigly at March 8, 2007 2:51 PM
Comment #211112

Rahdigly-
A straightforward question would have likely been straightforward questions. You wouldn’t want to link the two questions because together they confound each other:

How many people want to stay in Iraq until the violence dies down?

How many favor Bush’s plan?

Other polls have indicated, with these two matters separated, that folks don’t agree with either.

They would also phrase it in third person, and would give a number of options (which statement do you agree with? A:”America should withdraw immediately” B:”America should withdraw within a a year” C:”America should withdraw within two years” D:”America should remain indefinitely”

If they really wanted to be fair, they would rotate the order of the statements, to make sure people aren’t responding to the order.

The point is, this poll personalized it, and then narrowed the definitions instead of giving people their own answers to what finishing the job might be.

The poll pushed it’s own distinctions on people. The military city poll is better.

Less than half of the people polled, all active duty, stated that we should have gone into the war in Iraq. 41% believe we are not likely to succeed. The seventy percent of the troops believe it will take more than three years to get the Iraqi army ready to replace us.

Eighty percent of the troop stated it would take more than three years to get out of Iraq. That’s 26% saying three to five years, 31% saying five to ten, and twenty three percent saying we’re going to have to be there for more than a decade.

Though half approve of Bush’s Job as president, only a little over a third approve of his handling of the war. Forty two percent registered disapproval.

47% believe that the War in Iraq is separate from the War on Terror, with the same believing the opposite.

Question thirteen should give you caution. 13% percent answered that we should have no soldiers in Iraq whatsoever. Another thirteen percent registered the opinion that we should have fewer soldiers than we had at the beginning of the surge. Another thirteen percent favored keeping troop levels stable. 38% favored increases. 39% favored level or declining numbers. another 23% said they didn’t know or declined to answer. In contrast, 54% believed we should keep Afghanistan troop levels where they are or raise them higher.

You’ll notice that we both claim the pivotal middle, but since this president has decided to increase the number of troops, it’s fair to ask if they want to increase the numbers of soldiers, rather than conflate that with maintaining the numbers. The most charitable interpretation is that the military is split on the matter.

I think the trouble here is that you like the more than the people who actually have to fight it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 8, 2007 7:53 PM
Comment #211134

Stephen,
Military Times Poll

13. 51% of the military support having the same amount to more troops in Iraq; 26% support less troops.

14. 54% of the military support having the same amount to more troops in Afghanistan; 19% support less troops.

Those are big contrasts to the “withdrawl”/”redeployment” crowd. And, remember, CBS used this survey as a “hit piece” a few weeks back; they didn’t even reveal these numbers b/c that would disrupt their (blatant) bias.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 8, 2007 10:22 PM
Comment #211719

For Libby, he discovered that being a Republican in a criminal offense. GOP policies are criminal, because they disagree with Dem policies, right? Or, should I say, left?

Posted by: Clay Barham at March 13, 2007 12:53 PM
Post a comment