Democrats & Liberals Archives

Does Bush Believe in the Rule of Law?

Bush has every legal right to pardon Scooter. After all, the idea of a guy named Scooter having to sleep next a big bear named Bubba is not very pretty. Scooter apparently did write that terrible porn novel about bears and little girls, but he seems like a nice enough guy. It breaks my heart to think of him going to prison. I don’t even want to see Cheney go to jail - just be tarred, feathered, and rode out of the white house on a rail.

Scooter is a fall guy. He was just a guy trying to do his criminal job. The four basic reasons for sending someone to prison are punishment, natural consequences, rehabilitation, and to protect the public. I am bleeding heart liberal. I don't believe in punishment ever. But I do believe in tough love and letting people experience the natural consequences of their mistaken choices can be the most loving thing. Those consequences can include life in prison - even death. Our prisons do not rehabilitate. They warehouse. Removing Scooter from a position of power is all that is needed to protect the public. Let's be real. Prisons are not made for mild mannered rich white guys. Prisons are made for poor black guys. So we are not going to rehabilitate Scooter. We do not need to protect the public from him. Why would we send him to prison?

Fitzgerald has said that his investigation is closed unless he receives new information. So the case is closed. Why not just let Scooter go? We are only talking about the treason of outing a CIA brass plate operation and sending American troops to die under false pretenses. What is done is done. It is not like as if anybody got their cigar licked. Why not let Scooter go?

Of course... Fitzgerald did say that his investigation was blocked by Scooter's lies... He has now proven Scooter's lies beyond a reasonable doubt... If Scooter wanted to come clean, turn state's evidence, and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... Then Fitzgerald would receive new information and a deal could be cut to keep our friend Scooter out of prison. Couldn't it?

In February of 2004 Bush did say:

I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things./
Fitzgerald clearly has a chance to get to the truth now if Bush would publicly promise not to pardon Scooter. Does Bush really want to know the truth? Or does he already know it and wants to cover it up? Bush also said:
If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.
What did he mean by that? Did he mean that they would experience the rule of law, or did he mean that he would pardon them and protect them from the rule of law?

If Scooter wants to protect his master the natural consequences will be that he goes to prison. That will be Scooter's choice unless Bush does not believe in the rule of law.

Posted by Ray Guest at March 9, 2007 11:10 PM
Comments
Comment #211279

It means that Libby was convicted of perjury. It means nothing else than that. He lied about something that the special prosecutor did not think was an indictable crime.

What truth do you expect to find out? We know that Novak’s source was Richard Armitage. We know that Fitzgerald does not consider that an indictable crime.

There just is no Fitzmas for you. Fitzgerald convicted a hapless guy who lied about something that was not crime and foolishly got himself in trouble. He did not manage to beat the rap, as Bill Clinton did for an identical crime.

Posted by: Jack at March 9, 2007 11:37 PM
Comment #211282

Jack,

What an interesting spin Jack. Fitzgerald said clearly, explicitly, emphatically, and repeatedly that he tell weather a crime had been committed because he was like an umpire who had had sand thrown in his eyes. He is a very careful man he does not implicate people until he has the goods to nail them. Jury members said that they considered Scooter the fall guy based on the evidence that they heard. Fitzgerald has not implicated your guys because he is so careful, but they certainly have not been cleared. We certainly do not yet know the truth. Scooter certainly still has the option of telling the truth and arranging a plea bargain in exchange for dropping his appeal and Bush should certainly pledge not pardon him. If Bush pardons Scooter then his administration will remain under a cloud of suspicion forever.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 10, 2007 12:12 AM
Comment #211283

Jack,

I was writing too fast. The first line of that last comment should read: that he could not tell whether a crime had been committed…

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 10, 2007 12:16 AM
Comment #211285

Geeez Jack…we know you just can’t stand the facts…GUILTY, on 4 out of 5 counts. Nodody is fighting the idea that he took a dive for someone, but will he give him up or not???
Now we just have to wait to see how C.S. Bush wants to get with the idea of a pardon.
I’ll put this back in here…

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 01:27 AM

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 10, 2007 12:17 AM
Comment #211286
Jury members said that they considered Scooter the fall guy based on the evidence that they heard.

Jury Member (meaning 1). And that jury member is a former Washington Post journalist who couldn’t wait to find a camera after the verdict was reached (he even made sure to tell the reporters that his name was ‘Denis’ with one ‘n’).

Libby has said several times that no one authorized or ordered him to release Plame’s name to the press and Fitzgerald has also said that he didn’t think that anyone had authorized or ordered Libby to release Plame’s name to the press. Yet here we sit with people still SURE that he was ‘just the fall guy’.

The administration will be under a cloud of suspicion forever because it suits the needs of their opponents to do so. I have not seen any evidence of a concerted effort to release Plame’s name or job to the press. I *did* see a concerted effort for the administration to counter Joe Wilson’s op-ed piece as there was a lot of incorrect information in it (not that that was wrong, he did not have all of the information, he was just posting his opinion).

But, the conspiracy discussion will still go on no matter how many people say it didn’t happen and no matter how much lack of proof anyone has to support it…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2007 12:20 AM
Comment #211293

Remember there’s a new cop in town:

Waxman Sets Hearings on CIA Leak Case

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/?pid=173342

Posted by: KansasDem at March 10, 2007 1:43 AM
Comment #211306

Rhinehold,

You actually wrote:

Libby has said several times that no one authorized or ordered him to release Plame’s name to the press and Fitzgerald has also said that he didn’t think that anyone had authorized or ordered Libby to release Plame’s name to the press. Yet here we sit with people still SURE that he was ‘just the fall guy’.

Libby said… Libby said… Libby is a proven liar. Is that the best that you have got? A proven liar? That is the basis of your argument?

Juror number 10 also said that she / they all considered Scooter to be the fall guy, so don’t even try that bald distortion that it was just one liberal juror that thought Libby was a fall guy.

Sandra Davidson,

Absolutely great link. Thanks for posting that.

KansasDem,

Thanks for that link too. The interesting thing to me there is that Waxman may work with Fitzgerald. At the very least they could make the evidence that came out in the Grand Jury public and it will be death by a 1000 cuts for this corrupt regime. When the evidence becomes public there will be tremendous pressure on Bush not to pardon Scooter. When the door slams shut on a pardon, the rat will sing. Scooter does sort of look like a cute rat, doesn’t he? Scooter is a good name for a rat - scooting around his little legal maze looking for something that stinks, like a Presidential Pardon… …or big bear named Bubba.


Posted by: Ray Guest at March 10, 2007 7:50 AM
Comment #211307

Perjury is perjury, and this was not just about what two consenting adults did behind closed doors. Why should a poor black guy get ten years for shoplifting a video from a convenience store, while a rich white guy who endangered the life and livelihood of one of our public servants gets a pardon? Maybe if folks like Scooter knew that they risk having to live many years in a dirty, stinking pesthole with a 300-lb. cellmate who wants to call them Louise, they might think twice before doing their bosses’ dirty work.

Posted by: Dragon at March 10, 2007 8:08 AM
Comment #211316

Fitzgerald knew who revealed Plame’s identity. He may have been hoping (as you were) to catch somebody else instead, but since he did not bother to indict the person he knows did it, it sure doesn’t seem like the sand in his eyes prevented him from seeing the truth. He just didn’t want to.

I ask again - what truth is Libby supposed to tell that will implicate others in a legal (not political) hot water? If he says someone told him about Plame, he is saying something everybody knows. If he says he told journalists about Plame, he is saying that he did what Armitage did. The only possible crime, revealing the identity of a CIA employee, is technically not illegal and Fitzgerald knows it, since he is not indicting the person he knows did it.

Trying to discredit Wilson is part of politics. It was important to reveal that Wilson had not been sent at Cheney’s request and that it was a bit of freelancing by his wife and that he had misrepresented some of his conclusions. It is not illegal, not matter how much you do not like it.

Re plea bargain, Fitzgerald can no longer make one. The verdict is in. Our legal system has become too much like an auction, but at some point bidding is finished.

There is no future here for the Bush haters. It is already at the low point for Libby. His appeal could improve his situation, but nothing can make it worse. From now on events move in only one direction and it is not the one you want.

Dragon

Yes. He was convicted of perjury, a serious crime. But as in the Clinton case, he was lying about something where there was no underlying crime to lie about. He was being foolish.

Kansas

Waxman would hold hearing no matter what. This is the political part, just as the Republicans held hearings about everything Clinton did. There is nothing Bush could have done or could have not done that would have avoided Waxman holding hearings.

Posted by: Jack at March 10, 2007 9:43 AM
Comment #211318

It looks like Fitzmas to me. The snow is on the trees, the chestnuts are roasting… OK, I live in Florida, but it does look like Fitzmas.

Check out this Time article about the effect of the Libby verdict on Cheney (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1597226,00.html):


On an imaginary political balance sheet, Cheney is the Democrats’ most valuable asset… But for all the personal shows of support, more Republicans with each passing week have acknowledged privately what is felt across Washington when it comes to the Vice President: his time has passed… when the verdict against Libby came down, it was also a rebuke to that hermetic power-sharing arrangement at the top of the White House…From the start, the case was only marginally about Libby. What was really on trial was the whole culture of an Administration that treated the truth as a relative virtue, as something it could take or leave as it needed.


Posted by: Woody Mena at March 10, 2007 10:02 AM
Comment #211320

Jack,

You are right. The verdict is in. Libby like others in this corrupt regime, is a liar. The sentencing recommendations can, will be, and are being negotiated behind closed doors. By all means, keep believing that your guys are in the clear. They may indeed be in the clear, especially if Bush does not believe in the rule of law, which clearly he does not.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 10, 2007 10:59 AM
Comment #211321

Jack (and Rhinehold too), you crack me up!
You keep saying perjury, perjury, but what about OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? HUH? The jury convicted him of that also you know.
Scooter’s own lawyer made the case right from the opening statement that he was set up to take the fall in a consiracy to discredit Wilson by revealing his wifes role in him being sent to Niger. Any way we look at this it was a conspiracy, you got that? You want to brush off as unimportant the fact that in the process of trying to discredit Wilson, the entire lot of them (Armitage, Libby, Rove, Cheney) outted Plame’s undercover status (which Fitzgerald confirmed had indeed been undercover at his press conference) AND every single operative who had ever worked with her at Brewster Jennings.
People who were working for our government, risking their lives to gather information for this country were undoubtedly killed because of this. Why doesn’t that seem to mean anything to you?
It is treason.

All,
I have a feeling we’re going to learn a lot more this when Waxman begins his investigation. About who was made to pay for their little political conspiracy to cover their own asses after they’d lied about the reasons for the Iraq war.

Ray, after the way they screamed about perjury and obstruction of justice with Clinton, I see no reason why they should now be hypocritically screaming for a Libby pardon, do you? The charges against Clinton lead nowhere, but Libby was convicted on four out of five counts.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2007 11:01 AM
Comment #211322

Does Waxman have the power to subpoena Libby to testify under oath or can Libby refuse? As I understand it, they can subpoena him, but he can invoke the Fifth Amendment. Death by a 1000 cuts. If Libby refuses, it will look like he still has something to hide, which will adversely affect his sentencing. If he perjures himself again he can face additional charges.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 10, 2007 11:15 AM
Comment #211324

Jack and Rhine.
Thats it. Put your hands on your ears and shout”NYAA…NYAA…NYAA..” long enough and it is sure to turn back time.

Posted by: BillS at March 10, 2007 11:52 AM
Comment #211327

Adrienne et al

It is not a crime to discredit Joe Wilson. Yes, they did that. I would have done it too. The Clinton’s certainly attacked anybody who threatened them. It makes perfect sense. The alleded crime is revealing the CIA employee, which Fitzgerald did not indict although he KNEW who did it.

Re revealing secrets, yes we should go after that more strongly in the case of leaking re “secret prisons”, SWIFT and wiretaps. Those things have probably cost lives. Maybe we would also find not crime, but they deserve to be investigated as hard as the Libby case.

Posted by: Jack at March 10, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #211330

Ray,

“It breaks my heart to think of him going to prison. I don’t even want to see Cheney go to jail - just be tarred, feathered, and rode out of the white house on a rail.”

Relax, Ray. Scooter’s not going to jail; he’ll (most likely) receive the same kind of punishment as Sandy “Burglar”. As for Chenney, fat chance. Chenney and Rove were exonerated; no matter how bad the left tries to spin it against them.


Let’s focus (NOW) on the War on Terror. You think some of you, on this blog, can do that?!


Posted by: rahdigly at March 10, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #211332

Jack,
BillS is right, it’s nyah, nyah all the way with you. Guess what? I don’t care. Clearly treason doesn’t bother you at all — but oh well, nothing else has bothered you either about this lawless administration so there’s no big freaking surprise there. Still, it is hilariously funny and over-the-top hypocritical of the Repubs to be screaming for a Libby pardon now, after he’s been convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, after you spent many millions of wasted tax dollars crucifying Clinton over the exact same charges.

As for those other “leaks” you’re so concerned about — well they were leaks about illegal activities, we’re they not? Yes, indeed they were.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #211334

Adrienne

It is the nature of the rule of law to have specific defintions for many things. That is what rule of law means. It does not mean you are angry or you feel something. It requires thinking, not emotion.

Treason is a specific case. We have already indicated that the special prosecutor knows who revealed the CIA employee’s name and chose not to indict on even the lesser charges.

Treason does not mean someone does something you do not like. Do you believe it is treason for someone to reveal classifed information AND do you believe the test was met in this case?

I think it is very ineresting that Dems throw those words around so liberally and then feel so stung if anyone suggests that their own behaviors more closely fit the charges.

Posted by: Jack at March 10, 2007 1:20 PM
Comment #211337
I think it is very ineresting that Dems throw those words around so liberally and then feel so stung if anyone suggests that their own behaviors more closely fit the charges.

Liberals and Democrats get accused of treason when we criticize Bush or suggest that even a few military personnel may have committed war crimes. That is what most people call free speech.

I don’t think this case qualifies as treason, but at least it involves actual classified information and not simply someone expressing opinions or observations that someone else finds distasteful.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 10, 2007 2:08 PM
Comment #211339

Rhinehold and Jack,

It’s common knowledge now that the administration leaked evidence they knew was likely untrue to discredit Wilson’s opinions, which undermined the rationale for war. This does sound like treason to me. If not treason, surely an impeachable high crime and or misdemeanor.

While it hasn’t been proven in a court of law that Bush or Cheney specifically authorized the leak of Plame’s identity, it has been shown that Rove was one of the sources of the leak. Also, we have been given a picture of Cheney’s obsessive involvement with everything related to the case. It may not be proven, but it’s hard for anyone with commonsense to believe he would not have been involved somehow. It is strange, to say the least, that the White House has never denied it, even when asked pointedly.

The low point for Bush has already arrived.

Posted by: Max at March 10, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #211341
It’s common knowledge now that the administration leaked evidence they knew was likely untrue to discredit Wilson’s opinions

Common knowledge to who? What information was ‘leaked’ that they KNEW to be likely untrue? How does this fit in with the Butler Reveiw and Senate Report that specifically go against what you are suggesting?

The report indicated that there was enough intelligence to make a “well-founded” judgment that Saddam Hussein was seeking, perhaps as late as 2002, to obtain uranium illegally from Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo (6.4 para. 499). In particular, referring to a 1999 visit of Iraqi officials to Niger, the report states (6.4 para. 503): “The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.”

This intelligence (which had controversially found its way into George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech) had previously (before September 2003 [C. May, 2004]) been thought to rely on forged documents. The Butler Review stated that “the forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made.” (6.4 para. 503) Taking into account the American intelligence community’s findings on the matter, it is true that in December 2003, then CIA director George Tenet conceded that the inclusion of the claim in the State of the Union address was a mistake. (CNN.com, 2003) However, Tenet believed so, not due to any compelling evidence to the contrary, but rather because the CIA (criticized concerning this matter by the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq [Schmidt, 2004]) had failed to investigate the claim thoroughly; however again, the Butler Review states (6.4 para. 497) in 2002 the CIA “agreed that there was evidence that [uranium from Africa] had been sought.” In the run-up to war in Iraq, the British Intelligence Services apparently believed that Iraq had been trying to obtain uranium from Africa; however, no evidence has been passed on to the IAEA apart from the forged documents (6.4 Para. 502). (Times Online, 2003)

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2007 2:40 PM
Comment #211342

I’ll just say that one should consider Waxman’s past vigilance and please read his letter to the President dated March 17, 2003:

http://www.house.gov/waxman/text/admin_iraq_march_17_let.htm

I suspect by the time this is over Bush will be saying, “OH HENRY”, and he won’t be begging for a candy bar.

The “outing” of Valerie Plame-Wilson was only a “side effect” of the “malpractice” Dr’s. Bush and Cheney dished out to their patients! The malpractice suit is coming and Henry Waxman is the “ambulance chaser” that’s been compiling info and waiting for just the right moment to spring the malpractice suit.

Mark March 16th on your calendars and set your TIVO for C-SPAN. This should prove to be good.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 10, 2007 2:52 PM
Comment #211345

KansasDem,

If Waxman wants to hold another hearing on the pre-war intelligence and the ‘16 words’ that have been upheld twice before, he should so. But to bring it up while investigating a CIA identity leak seems a bit out of bounds of what the investigation is for, don’t you think?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2007 3:06 PM
Comment #211347

What get’s me, is those that say Fitzgerald was looking for the person/persons that leaked the information, but picked on Scooter for lying to him. Of course he was and he was hand picked by Bush, so they thru him a fish(scapegoat), and poor Scooter took the bullet to protect who. Well it seems like his boss. Will we ever find out who leaked the info, probably not, and if Scooter is sent to prison, bush will probably pardon him, before him and Bubba become butt brothers.

Now it seems this kind of stuff runs thru the republican party. I remember when Reagan said no arms would be sold to Iranm no money for the contra’s. Well the CIA director and LT.Col ollie decided to sell arms to iran for money for the contra’s. So when the bs hit the fan lets see, papers were shredded, ollie got off(even though he broke a direct order and should have been courtmaritaled), and the dead CIA director got the blame. Guess if you are pardoned by the president, makes you a national hero…NOT.

Posted by: KT at March 10, 2007 3:12 PM
Comment #211348

“The low point for Bush has already arrived.”

Max,

The “low point” was when they were sworn into office. OK, that was just the low point for America, not THE AMERICANS, ie: Neocons, Theocrats, “the haves and have mores” et al.

What’s important is that the Republicans seem to know no “low point”! McCain says, “We came to power in 1994 to change government and government changed us.”

From FOX news folks, no one can object!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258169,00.html

Holy crap! Government changed them! It’s time to appoint a “government czar”! We must stop government from corrupting the government! I’m freakin’ dumbfounded.

Would someone tell McCain that he is the f@%#^@g government! What a boob! To think I once considered voting for him if there’d been a McCain Vs. Gore race. IMO the Republican party has become a bunch of self righteous miscreants.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 10, 2007 3:32 PM
Comment #211349

Libby’s guilty verdict: Media myths and falsehoods to watch for

Max, Jack and Rhinehold don’t seem to be interested in looking at the facts.
Good link, Kansas Dem. Yes indeed, Waxman will be the man to watch.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2007 3:36 PM
Comment #211351

Rhinehold,

I used that as an example of Waxman’s vehemence at getting to the bottom of things. In this particular case it’s not just the Plame issue, it’s the larger issue of the misinformation, or manipulation of information, that led to this war which Waxman has obviously been aware of for some time.

Quite honestly I’ve reached the point where I’m stunned that anyone would support or defend this administration. I can only imagine that the 30% of Americans who still support Bush would do so even if a private tape of him performing acts of beastiality on his dog Barney were aired on the MSM. To me it’s mind-boggling.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 10, 2007 3:50 PM
Comment #211352

Adrienne,

There is nothing in that Media Matters piece that I disagree with, I’m not sure why you think that I am not interested in looking at the facts when all I am ASKING for are facts…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2007 3:50 PM
Comment #211353

KT,

Will we ever find out who leaked the info

It was Armitage, in case you haven’t been following, though Libby did as well, just not to a journalist who wrote the initial story.

ollie got off(even though he broke a direct order and should have been courtmaritaled)

Thank the democrats for that one. In their zeal to get to the President (they were just SURE the president was involved) they gave North FULL immunity for his testimony. In return, he took the full blame for everything, said the president wasn’t involved and got off scott free. I’m concerned that the Dems haven’t learned from this debacle, but we shall see…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2007 3:55 PM
Comment #211354
Quite honestly I’ve reached the point where I’m stunned that anyone would support or defend this administration.

I’m not interested in defending or supporting this administration, I just don’t think unverified accusations of such a nature should be thrown around without proof. If they want to have hearings, let them have hearings. But let’s make sure that charges of doing something aren’t convictions with nothing concrete to back it up.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2007 3:57 PM
Comment #211356

Thanks All,

Nice to hear from you Adrienne. There is couple of points that Jack made that I would like to challenge - maybe later - although Adrienne already handled that anyhow.

I will admit that we are a little loose with the word treason. Treason is a specific crime. It may apply here, but I am using the word more as metaphor. This is treasonous. It may not be treason.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 10, 2007 4:01 PM
Comment #211359

Adrienne,

Out of that list this especially sticks out:

Fitzgerald News Conference
Published: October 28, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28text-fitz.html?ex=1173675600&en=f20bb0e5ccc46a69&ei=5070

If anyone can read that whole news conference, hear the Libby verdict, and also hear Fitzgerald talk after the verdict and say that “no real crime was committed” they’re simply seeing and hearing only what they want to see and hear.

That’s why I threw in the “Bush humpin’ Barney” thing. Some people argue for the sake of argument, then there are those who simply refuse to accept that their “candidate” is a louse, or that their choice was a bad one.

Bush, Cheney and the Neocons are responsible for the greatest fiasco in my lifetime (possibly in American history) and those who supported it ain’t gonna’ give up without a fight! So, it’s time to fight!

Posted by: KansasDem at March 10, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #211360

“It may not be treason.”

Ray Guest,

That’s arguable. I’m absolutely sure that both Bush and Cheney have violated their oath’s of office.

I just wish this was a perfect world. In a perfect world they could both be removed from office when daylight savings time kicks in and Monday morning we could see President Pelosi being sworn in.

That would be a really goooooooooood day.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 10, 2007 4:23 PM
Comment #211361

Oooookaaaaay sooo umm no one sees him, the Scootster, as merely the fallguy for bigger players, albeit this one with major RNC AIPAC connections? Super sluethin’ there guys.

My guess—somewhere down the road he gets rewarded not much unlike half the current administratrion for this endictment—My crystal ball says five years down the road he’ll be hosting a show on Fox and given all the laurels and garlands of a war hero.

There’s a dance move twice warmed over that some-a y’all are-a missin’ here. Call me sardonic but I’ve seen this triple-lindy somewhere before.

Posted by: Servitudinal at March 10, 2007 4:30 PM
Comment #211362

So, when are the hearings to determine that Bush, through the Skull and Bones and Trilateral Organizations, set up this whole Iraq with the complicity of Hussein in order to start the new world order and increase gas prices to pay off the oil industry, then had Hussein quickly put to death because he was extorting Bush and his cronies for more money or he would go public with the truth?

I mean, if evidence of an accusation isn’t needed anymore…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 10, 2007 4:35 PM
Comment #211384

Rhinehold,

Thanks for makin the case. I was gonna make it myself.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 10, 2007 6:37 PM
Comment #211400

Rhinehold, I think you got you a book in the works—probably to be published in France—but none the less a book.

(Sherman Skolnick is dead right?)

Posted by: Servitudinal at March 10, 2007 9:04 PM
Comment #211420
It is not a crime to discredit Joe Wilson…The Clinton’s certainly attacked anybody who threatened them.

Except in this case, the threat was revealing that Cheney new the Niger yellowcake deal was bogus. After that CIA report came back to him, every time Cheney used the yellowcake as a pretext for war, he was lying.

If it turns out that President Bush was lying as well, it makes the Iraq invasion a war of aggression which makes Bush and Cheney war criminals.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 10, 2007 11:44 PM
Comment #211423

Ok, AP, do you want to hash that one out? How was the yellowcake story completely false? And how do we know that Cheney knew it was bogus? Remember, after Wilson reported back to the CIA they said that it bolstered their belief that Iraq tried to acquire uranium…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2007 12:00 AM
Comment #211430

No, Rhinehold, the CIA believed the uranium story was bogus. That’s why Tenet had the White House remove it from a speech months before the State of the Union.

Stephen Hadley already admitted that he knew the CIA didn’t put any credence in it. Tenet and Rice already apologized for it.

The question is: Did Cheney and Bush know? Certainly, Cheney would have known when he got the CIA report that he asked for.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 11, 2007 12:36 AM
Comment #211436

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

You do realize that the English STILL say that this story is good and the intelligence backs it up. Remember, they determined this information *BEFORE* they even knew about the forged document that everyone believes is the single basis for this charge…

Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.
In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that “for most analysts” Wilson’s trip to Niger “lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal.”
Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush’s 16 words weren’t based on the fake documents. The British didn’t even see them until after issuing the reports — based on other sources — that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that “we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.” But that wasn’t until June 17, 2003 — nearly five months after Bush’s 16 words.


Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2007 12:54 AM
Comment #211438

Oh, and I forgot the most important part:

However, the Senate report confirmed that the CIA had reviewed Bush’s State of the Union address, and — whatever doubts it may have harbored — cleared it for him.

Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the “16 words” or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.

So, when did Tenet say he told them to remove the words? Because that information might have been handy to the Senate at the time they investigated…

Or, are you referring to:

From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct - i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

Not that it was wrong, not that it wasn’t based on 6 other pieces of evidence not related to the possible forgeries, but because it didn’t meet the level of assuredness that it should have for the SOTU address. That hardly reaches the level of a ‘lie’ doesn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2007 12:59 AM
Comment #211439

C’mon, Rhinehold. That article from 2004 clearly states “both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.”

Why are you still defending a position that everyone involved admits was unfounded? The only question is: Did Cheney and Bush get the memo before they presented it to Congress and the American people?

Posted by: American Pundit at March 11, 2007 1:08 AM
Comment #211441

And why didn’t they retract the claim until after they got caught by the Wilson op-ed?

Posted by: American Pundit at March 11, 2007 1:12 AM
Comment #211444

Yes, that it shouldn’t have been in the speech. After the speech when the Italian document, which didn’t suggest just an attempt to buy uranium but supposedly had a deal signed, came to light.

You stopped before the next line:

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that’s not the same as lying.

And further:

Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush’s 16 words weren’t based on the fake documents. The British didn’t even see them until after issuing the reports — based on other sources — that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that “we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.” But that wasn’t until June 17, 2003 — nearly five months after Bush’s 16 words.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2007 1:13 AM
Comment #211448

All you’ve done is prove that Bush can weasel word with the best of them. It’s no accident that he said the claim was based in British intelligence and not CIA intel.

Your article states:

The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn’t likely to happen.

So what did Bush and Cheney do when the CIA wouldn’t back the yellowcake story? They attributed it to the Brits.

And to answer Jack’s question: That is the truth we expect to find out.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 11, 2007 1:42 AM
Comment #211449

Weasel words? Nothing he said was wrong, you claim it was a lie and he was weaseling words…

*shrug*

He didn’t say that Iraq DID purchase the yellowcake, he said that Iraq ATTEMPTED to purchase it from Niger. Which in and of itself was troublesome because it showed that Iraq was TRYING to obtain the material; how long might it be before they did find someone to sell it to them.

At this point the CIA also had received “several intelligence reports” alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that “it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence.”
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2007 1:50 AM
Comment #211450
So what did Bush and Cheney do when the CIA wouldn’t back the yellowcake story?

Are you just not reading what I’m writing? At the time of the SOTU address the CIA still backed the intelligence.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that “we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.” But that wasn’t until June 17, 2003 — nearly five months after Bush’s 16 words.
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2007 1:52 AM
Comment #211453

Gee, it also says “Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn’t likely to happen.”

It also says “both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.”

So, at the time of the SOTU address the CIA did not back the intelligence.

Obviously there’s some discrepency within that article. As I said, It’ll be interesting to see what Waxman digs up.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 11, 2007 3:38 AM
Comment #211454
there’s some discrepency within that article

No, there isn’t.

“Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn’t likely to happen.”

Yes, there was no sale. But there was an ATTEMPT to purchase uranium. Isn’t that what the 16 words said?

“both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.”

Yes, all the way back to the summer of 2003, which was MONTHS after the SOTU address. Where in the article does it suggest once that the CIA didn’t back the intelligence before the SOTU? In fact, as I had quoted, they reassessed well after the SOTU address and decided THEN that they shouldn’t have been in the speech after the fact.

Where, anywhere, is there any evidence that the CIA didn’t back the 16 words before the SOTU address?

As for Waxman, I thought he was looking into the Flame leak. Or are you expecting he’s going to just start investigating everything adnaseum? Isn’t that what the Dems disliked about the Reps in the late 1990s?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2007 3:51 AM
Comment #211460

I should jump in here, but life calls in other directions.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 11, 2007 10:17 AM
Comment #211467
Where in the article does it suggest once that the CIA didn’t back the intelligence before the SOTU?

Regardless of what is says in the article, the fact is, months before the SOTU, the CIA pulled the yellowcake reference from a Bush speech because they didn’t think it was credible.

Facts are facts, Rhinehold, no matter how inconvenient it is for your argument.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 11, 2007 12:38 PM
Comment #211477

Nicely done, AP.
Rhinehold, why not just give it a rest until Waxman’s investigation begins?

Posted by: Adrienne at March 11, 2007 1:55 PM
Comment #211505
Regardless of what is says in the article, the fact is, months before the SOTU, the CIA pulled the yellowcake reference from a Bush speech because they didn’t think it was credible.

Well, if it is a ‘fact’ then it shouldn’t be hard to provide me with a link that backs that fact up?

Rhinehold, why not just give it a rest until Waxman’s investigation begins?

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that Waxman was our Solomon. I just thought he was a partisan congressman…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 11, 2007 9:18 PM
Comment #211515

I am sure that this thread is about closed, but Michael Duffy on Hardball. He is pretty much backing up everything that I said here.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 11, 2007 11:16 PM
Comment #211520

If Waxman holds further hearings on this, we’ll hear Republicans asking Fitzgerald, Wilson, and other players in this affair questions they’ve never had to answer before, certainly not under oath, and that could be very interesting indeed. That’s why I doubt it will ever happen.

What Fitzgerald said before, after or during the trial about “other crimes” is irrelevant because his opinion about that is no more valid than anybody elses. He is neither a judge or a jury, and he hasn’t secured prosecutions for any “other crimes.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 12, 2007 12:48 AM
Comment #211521

Jack-
Libby can get a reduced sentence if he decides to talk.

The legality of this depended on two laws.

Problem with the first was that Plame had been home too long. However, her identity as a CIA employee was still classified, still sensitive.

Problem with the second was that it was difficult to prove that these people were on the same page concerning whether this was classified. The slipshod way in which the White House allowed information to be slung around might have been responsible for that, to the extent that people were unsure about what was sensitive wnad what was not. Additionally, the law concerning classified information would make that release a crime only if it was intended to aid another country in harming our country.

So in essence, your saving graces are sloppy procedures and sloppy loopholes. That’s a sad reason for this all not to be prosecutable, the best reason would have been flat-out innocence.

Whether or not Wilson’s outing was legal, strictly speaking, it was wrong, and it comes out of a scandalously careless approach to secrecy. And I think we can say that in the old fashion sense of the term scandalous: a public action that leads others into sin.

First, the Bush administration censors reports where the information is already out in the open. The Administration cried foul over SWIFT, even though this supposedly secret program was public record at the UN since Oct 2002. It censored much of Flynt Leverett’s piece on Iran, despite the fact that Flynt had already published many other articles in the public domain with those facts in them.

I mean, some of this stuff is just ridiculous

The acceleration of secrecy began after the 2001 attacks, as officials sought to curtail access to information that might tip off Al Qaeda about America’s vulnerabilities. Such worries have not faded; just last week the Department of Health and Human Services sought unsuccessfully to prevent publication of a scientific paper about the threat of a poisoned milk supply on the ground that it was “a road map for terrorists.” But across the political spectrum, there is concern that the hoarding of information could backfire. Thomas Kean, chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a former Republican governor of New Jersey, said the failure to prevent the 2001 attacks was rooted not in leaks of sensitive information but in the barriers to sharing information between agencies and with the public. “You’d just be amazed at the kind of information that’s classified - everyday information, things we all know from the newspaper,” Kean said. “We’re better off with openness. The best ally we have in protecting ourselves against terrorism is an informed public.” Kean said he could not legally disclose examples he had discovered of unnecessary classification. But others cite cases of what they call secrecy running amok: the CIA’s court fight this year to withhold its budgets from the 1950s and ’60s; the Defense Intelligence Agency’s deletion of the fact that the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was interested in “fencing, boxing and horseback riding”; and the Justice Department’s insistence on blacking out a four-line quotation of a published Supreme Court decision.

But then? Oh, lets just put out all these documents on WMD on the web to prove we’re write. There are nuclear bomb designs in these? Oh, and declassifying part of an NIE without consulting the CIA, so we can respond to a critic? Oh boy, lets do that.

These people have so undermined the useful definition of secrecy that it’s not funny. Their judgment is so flawed, their reasons for keeping secrets and releasing them is so whimsical, that it’s not surprising the press would find Bush’s outrage over leaked secrets a bit disingenuous.

Secrcy is not a toy to be played with, to be used to put political opponents at a disadvantage. It’s a weapon against our enemies, and one that is best wielded when it has a real impact. If some guy could go through the stacks of a local library, or bring up a page from a newspaper or a journal and find your so-called secret, its not much of a secret, now is it? It also doesn’t have much impact when a president or vice president or their staff members decide that when they’re having a tough time arguing with their opponents, that they can reveal some secret to discredit them, or counter their arguments.

I think there’s this unfortunate sense that because Armitage’s leak to Novak was the one that started the whole investigation that it was the first leak.

Actually, Armitage’s first leak was to Woodward, but thankfully, there was a guy who knew how to keep a secret. After that, the next leaker was Libby, leaking to Judith Miller on June 23.

Now think about that. He’s not even a public figure, just an anonymous source behind the scenes. And yet Libby’s already leaking the information?

The magic numbers are 7-8-03. You see, the first Libby leak precedes that leak by about two weeks. Past that date, and you could argue a reporter told you, but two weeks before then, the only Reporter who knew was Woodward.

Libby was the earliest known leaker to the investigation until Woodward came forward. Yet he tried to claim he was the last to know. Two weeks, Jack.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2007 12:49 AM
Comment #211523

Stephen, dissecting Libby’s interactions with Miller is pointless. Miller never wrote about Plame, and nobody alleges that anybody who spoke to either Miller or Libby ever did.

The so-called “leak” came via Novak’s column, and everybody already knows who Novak’s source was, and that that individual is not only not indicted but not accused of doing anything wrong.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 12, 2007 1:15 AM
Comment #211527
Where, anywhere, is there any evidence that the CIA didn’t back the 16 words before the SOTU address?

This Time article describes the whole saga (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,464405,00.html).
While the CIA did finally relent to having it in the speech, they did give Bush ample warning that he was dealing with questionable intelligence.

Excerpt

After Tenet left a closed hearing on Capitol Hill in September [2002], the nuclear question arose, and a lower-ranking official admitted to the lawmakers that the agency had doubts about the veracity of the evidence. Also in September, the CIA tried to persuade the British government to drop the allegation completely… In October, Tenet personally intervened with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s deputy, Stephen Hadley, to remove a line about the African ore in a speech that Bush was giving in Cincinnati, Ohio… The battle between believers and doubters finally came to a head over the State of the Union speech… When the time came to decide whether Bush was going to cite the allegation, the CIA objected—and then relented. The nsc official in charge of vetting the sections on WMD, Special Assistant to the President Robert Joseph, denied through a spokesman that he said it was O.K. to use the line as long as it was sourced to British intelligence. But another official told TIME, “There was a debate about whether to cite it on our own intelligence. But once the U.K. made it public, we felt comfortable citing what they had learned.”

So the CIA didn’t really back the 16 words. They grudgingly let Bush cite British intelligence.

I’m sure we’ve all been in situations like these. Someone keeps asking you to OK something, and you finally say, “Fine, Dick. Go ahead and do whatever you want, just don’t say I supported it.” That doesn’t mean that you agree with what they are doing, you just want them to shut up about it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 12, 2007 7:32 AM
Comment #211529

LO-
Valerie Wilson’s identity was classified information, and not widely or inappropriately disseminated to that point. So-called? So it should be called. If the release of classified information not publically known is not a leak, then nothing is.

Dissecting the interactions with Miller is important, because here is a guy trying to get this information out on Wilson, before the guy’s progressed beyond anonymous source, before the crucial leak has taken place. He was trying to get the information out to those not cleared for it. I think that qualifies as leaking.

As for not being accused of doing anything wrong, I think the main reason for that is that the guy is genuinely remorseful for it, and cooperated with authorities, unlike others we could name.

I don’t know why you think getting Wilson and Fitzgerald under oath will yield some gotcha moment. It will most likely get worse rather than better if Fitzgerald ends up testifying. A man like him has a damning recall of the facts.

Your mistake is confusing the lack of a prosecutable crime with the lack of wrongdoing. It’s a bad thing to get confused about, because not everybody shares your view of what can be rationalized.

The Republicans rationalize their politics too much. Everybody they attack takes a sudden shift to the left. Fitzgerald’s a moderate Republican, I believe, althought that would be surprising to those who judge people’s politics by whether they oppose Bush or get into antagonistic situations with his people.

That’s what gets me. Everything’s rationalized as political. That’s dangerous, because politics can pull your perceptions towards it.

For me, this has always been about the facts, and what they say about the way these people have been running their government. The politically concerned can always point to what the tax cuts or the Iraq war are supposed to be doing, but they’re always ignoring what they are doing, and how that’s getting in the way of what they want.

You want the leak to Miller, however it was intended to be pointless, because that leaves you with Armitage’s leak. You want Novak’s column to be the beginning and the end of the case.

You want this investigation to be a liberal conspiracy, which would be more fleshed out if these men were called up and force to unload their dirty secrets. You want Fitzgerald lacking in authority.

It makes it easier to believe what you want to believe.

The real facts are not so convenient, to either of us. Rove is a leaker, but he isn’t the leaker. The law’s poorly written, and what they did technically legal, no matter how abhorrent its results.

Still, you folks claimed they were clean of this. They weren’t. People in the White House did leak the information.

You folks claimed that the Wilson’s themselves were the leakers, all done out of some rabid anti-Bush conspiracy. Fitzgerald’s investigation found no evidence of that.

Y’all have claimed Fitzgerald’s thorough investigation was the result of Left-Wing motivation on his part. Well, he’s gone after Republicans, no doubt, but he’s also gone after people in the offices of Democrats Richard M. Daley and Rod Blagojevich. Calling him a leftist partisan is just a means of denying an ugly truth: that there is objective reason to investigate this administration for wrongdoing.

There is a point to all this: this is all intolerable, regardless of who or what party holds the reins of government. It’s time to set aside the self-destructive politics of denial.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2007 8:24 AM
Comment #211530

Stephen,

Very well put.

I too have noticed that anyone who criticizes or embarrasses the Bush administration is readily dismissed as a partisan hack, even if that person is a Republican. The idea that someone can be acting out of principle, and just doing their job, and produce something embarrassing to Bush just does not compute to some people.

If there was a video of Bush beating up a nun, and he even admitted that he was authentic, you can bet your bottom dollar that the person who shot the video would be described as a partisan hack and a Bush hater. Anything to avoid talking about the facts.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 12, 2007 9:05 AM
Comment #211546
Libby can get a reduced sentence if he decides to talk.

Interesting, because people now say that what he says (that Cheney did not authorize him to discuss Plame with reporters) isn’t reliable because he’s a convicted liar. BUT, if he is tempted with reduced sentence by saying that Cheney did, then they’ll believe him? They won’t think that this convicted liar is now just lying again for a tangable benefit to himself?

LOL

Btw, Stephen is right IMO. It doesn’t matter that Armitage is the original leaker, Libby did not know that when he leaked information he knew to be classified to a reporter who did not have clearance. Anyone who has been any kind of security clearance would understand this concept. Why Armitage is not behind bars right now is beyond me, a technicality of releasing classified information because someone thinks later on that it might not be technically classified is beyond the pale.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 12, 2007 12:09 PM
Comment #211551

Talk about backroom politics…Halliburton is moving its headquarters from Texas to Dubai…

1) The US should cancel immediately any and all contracts with Halliburton.

2) Does anyone still believe that the Iraq war is not being fought to gain a groundhold for the US oilmen in the Middle East?? Our children have been killed in Iraq for fun and profit.

Posted by: Lynne at March 12, 2007 12:42 PM
Comment #211576

Bush should certainly give a pardon to a guy that was found guilty of having a “bad memory”. The left just will do anything to take a shot at Bush. Bush is going to move on; which is (most likely) not going to be the case with the left; they’ll hang on to this petty incident to go after the Bush administion for as long as they can. Weak and ridiculous!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 12, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #211584

Thanks All,

Thanks Woody, Stephen, and Lynne.

In the end, we come back to my original point: Talk of pardon is a way to continue to throw sand in the umpire’s eyes. There is only one reason to do that - cover up.

Posted by: Ray Guest at March 12, 2007 2:43 PM
Comment #211586

Are you talking about Clinton pardoning Rich?!!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 12, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #211585

Jack,

“I ask again - what truth is Libby supposed to tell that will implicate others in a legal (not political) hot water?”

Doctored intel. Illegal war. Outing C.I.A. agent. Forgery. War profiteering. Disgracing the executive office. Lying to the U.N.
Lying to the American people.
These are bad things. Wouldn’t you like to know about all who were involved?
I would.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 12, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #211599

Rahdigly-
Points for irony: Scooter Libby represented Marc Rich.

Rhinehold-
It would be a problem for Libby, but there is a solution to that: Get him to lead you to evidence, and build the case on that instead of him. That kind of painstaking effort shouldn’t be unusual.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2007 4:04 PM
Comment #211600

It’s fascinating to see that wherever a gap in known information exists in this story, Democrats rush in to fill the blank spaces with conspiracy theories, and then proceed as if those theories are the established facts.

In Miller’s conversations with Libby, Libby did not “leak Plame’s status” or relate what he knew to be classified information. Neither of those is an established fact at all—not even Fitzgerald has alleged either of those things. If either thing were true, perhaps different charges would have brought. The fact is that they were not.

Libby told Miller said that Plame was a CIA employee who had been responsible for Wilson’s trip. That’s it.

There’s no indication at all—to this day—that he ever knew anything more about her than that, if there was anything more to know (something irrelevant to Libby’s case, since all he was accused of is innacurate testimony).

It is not against the law to mention that someone merely works for the CIA, or to explain (accurately or not—again, we don’t know) who sent Wilson on his trip.

The fact is that Libby was convicted for lying about matters which are IMMATERIAL to any crime based on discrepancies between his testimony and the testimony of reporters. And that’s all.

Continue to imagine that lurking between the lines here are treasons, murders, kidnappings, leaks of intelligence, arson, tax evasions—-anything at all that suits your fancy. There’s no proof for or against any of it, but don’t let that stop you. It sure hasn’t so far.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 12, 2007 4:07 PM
Comment #211602

Sorry: unusual for Patrick Fitzgerald.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 12, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #211613
It would be a problem for Libby, but there is a solution to that: Get him to lead you to evidence, and build the case on that instead of him. That kind of painstaking effort shouldn’t be unusual.

I agree, if we can get some physical evidence then it would be something everyone (except the most ardent partisan) could accept. However, just his word at this point I think only the mart ardent partisan on the other side would accept knowing what we know now.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 12, 2007 4:52 PM
Comment #211642

Why is it that Fitzgerald isn’t taking heat for knowing the source of the leak right out of the box but not revealing it? Why can’t Judith Miller take some kind of action against him for sitting in prison for not revealing her source while Fitzgerald knew who the leak was the whole time? Say what you will about Libby but I think Fitzgerald is the criminal here for extending his govt paid project for months in order to keep that paycheck coming in while letting Judith Miller sit in jail.

Posted by: Carnak at March 12, 2007 8:04 PM
Comment #211704

“Points for irony: Scooter Libby represented Marc Rich.”


Yet, there’s a huge difference in the crimes. Libby’s crime was having a “bad memory”; Rich is a financial criminal in every way. Jeez.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 13, 2007 10:55 AM
Comment #211733

rahdigly-
Perjury and making false statements requires the person to have sufficient memory to know better. The very nature of the conviction means the exact opposite of what you imply.

Another thing you must understand about pardons is that it makes an undisputed fact of the crime, even as it removes it from the person’s record.

Carnak-
A lot of wishful thinking here on your part.

Fitzgerald was not criticized much for keeping secrets during the investigation because investigators typically do that. If you blab too much during an investigation, you tip off those you’re investigating, and you also run into a particularly nasty problem: What if you’re wrong, and you’ve just told the press your bad theory? Worse, consider the political implications. People expect reliable conclusions, and during the course of an investigation, these are often not present yet. Better to wait to talk until you can tell people things for sure.

As for Judith Miller, there was no law saying that she could keep silent in the face of grand jury questions. She was in jail for contempt of court.

As for the length of the investigation? The big hold up there was Matt Cooper and Judith Miller refusing to testify about what they discussed.

Without knowing what the questions the investigation had during its course, you can’t say whether it was justified to keep the investigation going. Without knowing what Cooper and Miller were told, Fitzgerald could not make conclusions as to what had gone on.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 13, 2007 2:08 PM
Comment #211896

Woody,

Bush wouldn’t beat up a nun, he would bash a gay guy with his redneck buddies. Then he’d ride off into the sunset with his golf cart (since he’s afraid of horses. Notice how even though he owns a Texas ranch, he’s never photographed on a horse?). :)

Posted by: gergle at March 14, 2007 5:47 AM
Comment #212105

Does Bush believe in the rule of law?

Like Nixon, W believes that “if the President does it, it’s legal” Invade Laos or invade Iran, bomb Cambodia or bomb Teheran, what’s the difference? It’s not like Jenna will be in the front lines…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 15, 2007 3:02 PM
Comment #212119
Does Bush Believe in the Rule of Law?
No. That’s pretty damn obvious.
  • (1) he ignores the Constitution, spies on citizens without civil oversight, etc.
  • (2) he starts wars based on bad intelligence, giving cause to question the term itself
  • (3) he pardons convicted felons (not yet as bad Clinton though)
  • (4) he refuses to secure the borders, or stop illegal immigration; in fact, he wants an amnesty

In fact (1) and (2) alone would appear to be impeachable offenses.

But, the problem isn’t just Bush.
Congress ain’t much better.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 15, 2007 4:17 PM
Post a comment