Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Eric,
Intereesting link on the Woodward interview with Larry King. Here is a portion of it:

“Now there are a couple of things that I think are true. First of all this began not as somebody launching a smear campaign that it actually — when the story comes out I’m quite confident we’re going to find out that it started kind of as gossip, as chatter and that somebody learned that Joe Wilson’s wife had worked at the CIA and helped him get this job going to Niger to see if there was an Iraq/Niger uranium deal.

And, there’s a lot of innocent actions in all of this but what has happened this prosecutor, I mean I used to call Mike Isikoff when he worked at the “Washington Post” the junkyard dog. Well this is a junkyard dog prosecutor and he goes everywhere and asks every question and turns over rocks and rocks under rocks and so forth.

KING: And doesn’t leak.

WOODWARD: And it doesn’t leak and I think it’s quite possible that though probably unlikely that he will say, you know, there was no malice or criminal intent at the start of this. Some people kind of had convenient memories before the grand jury. Technically they might be able to be charged with perjury.

But I don’t see an underlying crime here and the absence of the underlying crime may cause somebody who is a really thoughtful prosecutor to say, you know, maybe this is not one to go to the court with.”

Poor Bob Woodward. You know, once he was a great investigative reporter. Now look at him. It’s sad. He’s been Judy Millered.

Such a pathetic way to end of career, sinking to so low a depth. The poor guy needs access to the Bush administration in order to finish his second book, and now finds himself repeating the administration line.

The man who once helped break open Watergate is reduced to the role of toady, a mouthpiece, a weak kneed sycophant repeating the official line.

“No smear.” It started out as just “gossip.” The Prosecutor is a “junkyard dog.” A perjury charge is just a technicality.

So much for a liberal media bias, eh? Poor Bob Woodward. Thanks for the link, Eric, and reminding us how horribly far the pitiable Bob Woodward has fallen.

Posted by: phx8 at October 30, 2005 01:57 AM

Eric,

This is a good post. Thank you. Your title really caught me. Libby should be tried fairly. If he’s found guilty, then he should be punished (versus pardoned). And, since it seems you were suggesting it, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson should probably be investigated. As should the journalists would published the information.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 30, 2005 01:58 AM

Wow. I was not aware that Joe Wilson’s report was false. Iraq really DID get yellowcake from Niger!!! Why did you not say so, Eric? Surely, the fact that Iraq had an existing WMD program when we invaded would be more important!!!

Could it be that the Yellowcake Data was a lie and Bush LIED to the United States in hiw State of the Union Speech?

Come, Eric!!! Tell us all how Iraq acquired Yellowcake!!!

Posted by: Aldous at October 30, 2005 06:05 AM

Amazing!

Rush Limbaugh thinks that this is a CIA coup to discredit the President.
It’s not like this administration hasn’t done anything to discredit themselves.

So much for trying to cover-up non-existing crimes.

I guess we would have to ask Nixon about that.

Posted by: Rocky at October 30, 2005 08:36 AM

Eric, you take ambiguity (Fitzgerald saying that he won’t say whether or not she was covert), and a statement of fact (that they had not made an allegation to that effect), and you turn it into a definitive statement.

Your assessment about damage to national security is based on one reporter’s assessment, one who is not privy to classified secrets.

You assume that Fitzgerald is done. Don’t. Not until he says he’s done. It’s foolhardy to believe that your people are in the clear.

Why is it necessary to go to such extraordinary lengths to make Joe and Valerie Wilson the guilty party, to argue that it’s all political self-defense? Why is it that you are willing to let this “self-defense” go to the edge of the law and even over it?

Wilson likely was not setting out to destroy Bush at that point. They were checking up on a simple document, which turned out to have many wrong details on it, and which referred to a situation that made it next to impossible for Saddam to get Uranium for his bombs from there.

That he went at his wife’s suggestion should not be seen as nepotism, for he gained next to nothing for it. With his knowledge of the region and contacts, Wilson was not unsuited to the task, and he could make inquiries on behalf of the government that would be unseemly by insiders. He could offer them an independent opinion.

As for his “lie”? It’s likely a true lapse of memory, unlike Scooter Libby’s. Source Amnesia. It’s probably happened to a bunch of people here. You’re in the heat of an argument and you put out a fact, not realizing that the fact you put out came from an unreliable source you earlier encountered. Embarrassed, you have to admit that you didn’t get it where you thought you did.

Joseph Wilson has the advantage of having a reliable source to have had source amnesia with. It was an IAEA report on the documents that he mistakenly conflated with his own account. It somewhat diminishes Joseph Wilson’s status to have this information be only secondhand, either by CIA or IAEA, but the fact of the matter is, his information was accurate. If it was a lie, after all this, then it was a failure of proper attribution, not a failure to give accurate information.

Just to be clear on this, Wilson was given detailed information on the documents. He wasn’t just sent there fresh.

The problem with your whole tack on this is that you view all these scandals as vindictive, jealous liberal conspiracies against Bush. You buy carefully crafted spin and (yes) lies meant to deflect and scapegoat blame for unethical and (by this prosecutor’s determination) illegal behavior. This is the water you swim in, and it seems you can only gasp for air when you do anything but stay on their message.

Fact is, if this administration wanted to punish nepotism, there were legitimate channels for doing so. Fact is, if this administration had the facts on its side, it would have never needed to strike at the Wilsons ad hominem. You only attack people in this way when the only way you can win an argument is by disqualifying the other side. Since nobody is perfect, you can always dig up such things.

Problem with this is that such arguments do not depend on the facts concerning the matter being debated in order to persuade people. Because of that, they will always serve to bubble people away from facts and figures inconvenient to those using them.

Its time to argue on the facts. If you lose then, then you deserve to lose. Next time, though, you can work from the truth, instead of the loyalty of your supporters.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2005 08:37 AM

Eric,

Let’s not dismiss the whole Plame leak quite so quickly. First of all, according to the Washington Post the CIA has yet to fully assess the damage from this case. Second, as is pointed out above, Fitz isn’t done yet. Third,

“if there’s nothing to hide, how come he lied?”**

You point out inconsistencies in Wilson’s statements and in the CIA’s post-outing behavior (odd, but not illegal), but you seem to ignore that Libby knowingly committed felonies to divert the investigation from the truth.*** Of course, we don’t know the full truth, but whose fault is that?

On this same theme, doesn’t this story really point out what’s really wrong with politics in our country today?

People on the left (far left?) have actually been hoping for indictments. This is such an accepted fact that it doesn’t even seem odd, but think about it. Their hatred for the administration is so strong that they would prefer that senior administration officials are lying crooks and punished for it than to find out that there is a non-criminal explanation for it. I don’t want to imply that anyone was looking forward to the 2,000th American death in Iraq, but its the same sort of thing. Wishing for something terrible just so your opponent comes out looking bad.

At the same time the right (the far right?) seems incapable of accepting the fact that this administration - which was elected in part on a platform of accountability and integrity has made serious errors in judgment at best and committed fraud against the American people at worst.

** Why should it always be the defense side that gets to use clever rhymes?

***In a court of law, Libby is innocent until proven guilty. In the court of public opinion…let’s be serious, OK?

Posted by: Adverbal at October 30, 2005 09:05 AM

I’ve wondered why a “Covert” agent would recommend her husband for anything. Especially when he had no expertise in that area. You’d think if she was really in a critical position she would not want any possible public connection to him.

There have been those who have stated that Plame last served in that position in 1997 and it was a matter of her classification not being changed rather than her still being “covert”. Hopefully as this progresses more will come out because if she really was not covert then that would explain why the only thing Libby was charged with was related to the investigation rather than the “outing of Valerie Plame”.

Novak has stated that had the CIA person he spoke with told him that his releasing her name would have caused her harm he would not have published it. I also wondered if this was true and if it was true why the CIA was not more adament about not releasing her name.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 30, 2005 09:45 AM

The irony about both Clinton and Bush, their followers, and the problems they have is that they were both hoisted on their on petards. Clinton allies had made too big a thing of sexual harassment. When their guy was caught with his pants down, we saw the erstwhile zealots claiming technicalities and saying it was no big thing. The Bushmen made security the center of their world with a similar result. The other irony is that their opponents have jumped on a bandwagon they were previously less interested in riding.

Posted by: Jack at October 30, 2005 10:48 AM

The fact that the CIA hasn’t even bothered to do an assessement of what harm was caused by this “leak” tells you something about either

1). Their seriousness with with which they take their jobs to begin with.

or

2). The seriousness with which they take Valerie Plame’s “undercover work” as a Langley desk jockey.

Posted by: sanger at October 30, 2005 11:02 AM

Jack,

the erstwhile zealots claiming technicalities and saying it was no big thing

Well said. However, IMO, national security is a little more important than a blow job. Posted by: ElliottBay at October 30, 2005 11:08 AM

Elliot

Depends on what you call the underlying problem

Fitzgerald specifically made no allegation of “outing” a covert agent. He could have done so. He knows (and we don’t) Novak’s source. Perjury is serious. This did nothing significant to compromise security.

Clinton was not about a blow job. First, it was a textbook example of sexulal harassment, as defined before Clinton. We can thank Clinton for stopping that sexual harassment jugernaut.

But consider this. If it is no big think for the CEO to seduce an intern (I know “she was asking for it”) what is sexual harassment?

The other problem for Clinton was exactly the same as this one, perjury.

Posted by: Jalc at October 30, 2005 11:17 AM

National security is definitely more important than a blow job (well, several blow jobs, but let’s not quibble). But what does that have to do with anything?

Some people are really showing themselves incapable of keeping up with the story here.

Clinton was never indicted or legally punished for blow jobs. Scooter Libby and/or everybody else is not being accused of anything having to do with national security. Both were accused of exactly the same thing—perjury, and the other issues are just white noise.

The only difference is that Libby had the dignity to step down while he fights the charges and Clinton refused to step down even after the charges were proven.

Saying that one perjury indictment is somehow worse because it relates to potential crimes that nobody is being accused of is plain ridiculous.
If you investigate somebody for murder and only find out that they broke the speed limit a couple times, does that mean that they’re a murderer? I guess it would if you’re a Democrat and the person you’re accusing isn’t.

Sandy Berger can walk around with his pants stuffed full of stolen Top Secret documents and you people will laugh and shrug it off—as in fact you did. FYI, what Berger has admitted to is ten times worse than what Libby has done and you people don’t care, so please spare us the crocodile tears about national security. You people don’t CARE about National Security and the whole country knows it, which is why the Republicans now control all three branches of goverment and will make further gains in the Senate in 06 while losing only a small handful of House seats. If you did care about national security, you wouln’t make excuses for Berger, excuses for Clinton, excuses for the CIA’s very nearly treasonous wartime plot against the president involving a desk mole whose NOC had expired but hadn’t been reclassified (as it it should have been) and her lying husband who had deep ties to the Kerry campaign.

Of course, this doesn’t square with the current Democratic talking points and strategy of obfuscation, but fair-minded people have no reason to care.

Posted by: sanger at October 30, 2005 11:31 AM

Adverbal-
I think when we emphasize the body count, we’re trying to indicate to people the irreversible march of things, that there are consequences to this war that just can’t be undone.

As for “Fitzmas”? Democrats have heard much more than the average Republican about the corruption and abuses of power in this administration. Democrats see the indictments as justice against people who have more or less decided to be the villains against the Democrats.

Part of it is indeed partisan feelings, and that should not be a surprise, a shock, or an abomination to those on the Right. Part of it, though, is that Democrats have been right about just about everything thing they’ve accused the Administration.

The Documents we said were forgeries were forgeries. The WMDs we say aren’t there, are still missing. The cover-stories done by the participants in the leak have been proved false, and the budget deficit spiralled out of control, much like we expected it to.

For once, though, we want more than the cold comfort of factual vindication. We see all this corruption, lying, and negligence in Bush’s administration, and we can’t help but want somebody to face the consequences for that. So we’re happy about indictments, drops in polls, and other things, in the main, because we think that’s the way it should have gone. We wish that all this crud had come out last year, and a new, better administration had come into power. Now, many people have that same wish, and we unfortunately are in the same position: Bush stays president for the next four years.

Sanger, Lisa Renee-
A great deal of intelligence work is done out of embassies. That’s what makes a Non-Official Cover operative Non-Official- they lack the credentials that would tell the authorities that they have diplomatic immunity, and thereby save them from torture and/or execution.

Wilson, a former ambassador could not have done his job without some contact with the CIA, especially not where he was posted in his career. Any other assessment is done in ignorance of the way things are really done.

Valerie Wilson? I don’t know if she ever left the country. I could be wrong but the likelihood is that she remained safely distant from her husband. These CIA folks, after all, know what they were doing.

The term during which an agent is considered covert, after return from foreign soil, is about five years. There is a dispute about whether recent trips on Brewster Jennings business extended that period of time or not, but one fact remains that Fitzgerald (otherwise coy) explicitly stated: her relationship to the CIA was a classified secret. That Fitzgerald did not necessarily charge Libby on that is no indication that Valerie was not covert. It just means that he was being scrupulously circumspect about ongoing grand jury proceedings.

Which brings me to Novak. If you tell somebody “don’t release her name”, you’ve just outed her. Instead, they gently try to discourage it, which is all they can do.

As for the assessment, it may just be a matter of not revealing how badly the damage is for the sake of national security. Regardless, all this is cover for behavior that is illegal, as well as unethical and almost illegal behavior.

Sanger-
You are saying that not telling the truth about where you got the classified information you leaked has nothing to do with national security. Do you, pray tell, have a logical argument to back that preposterous claim?

Clinton was not indicted. Libby was. Libby’s perjury involved security concerns. Clinton’s involved personal matters. Libby’s act covered up an act that might have killed a number of people. Clinton’s act merely stained a blue dress.

Sandy Berger got into trouble, and as far as I’m concerned, he can stay there.

As for this treasonous plot? Seems to me to be the political paranoia of folks who have a hard time believing that there are other things as important or more important than winning elections. There was no plot to kill the president, no plot to allow al-Qaeda to carry out a new attack, no giving aid and comfort to our enemies. It was merely some guy telling the rest of the world that the president’s words were backed by bad evidence, which in fact they were.

If the truth like this is treason then to lie to oneself and other must be your greatest display of loyalty. I simply call it what it is: truth is truth, lies are lies. Only the truth can rightly guide our people to better days. Anything else wastes our efforts, on the whole.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2005 02:02 PM

For those, like myself, who didn’t know who sanger was talking about, here’s some info on Sandy Berger.

“On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for taking as many as fifty classified documents, in October 2003, from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were commissioned from Richard Clarke about the Clinton administration’s handling of millennium terror threats. When initially questioned, Berger claimed that the removal of top-secret documents in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his pants and jacket pockets was accidental. He would later, in a guilty plea, admit to deliberately removing materials. Berger left the John Kerry campaign shortly after the incident became public. Some suggested that Berger’s removal of the documents constituted theft and moreover had serious national security implications, while others claimed that the documents were taken, only drafts and all were flattering to Clinton and Berger (relating to the failed 2000 millennium attack plots). Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department’s public integrity section, asserted that the documents Berger removed were only copies, and government sources have said that no original material was taken. [1]

On April 1, 2005, in connection with the documents investigation, Berger pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. Under a plea agreement, U.S. attorneys recommended a fine of $10,000 and a loss of security clearance for three years. However, on September 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson increased the fine to $50,000 at Berger’s sentencing. Robinson stated, “The court finds the fine [recommended by government prosecutors] is inadequate because it doesn’t reflect the seriousness of the offense.”“

It’s not quite the same thing as the Plame/Libby case, but it does look like he got a rather lenient sentence. It makes me wonder what Libby will actually get, assuming he isn’t just pardoned. I don’t think we can seriously look forward to a maximum sentence.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 30, 2005 02:04 PM

Stephen,

“Part of it, though, is that Democrats have been right about just about everything thing they’ve accused the Administration.”

Democrats have made a LOT of accusations that have not been substantiated yet. Bush as a mass murder, Bush’s military record, AND that Libby “outed” Valerie Plame are some quick examples that come to mind.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 30, 2005 02:17 PM

The problem I have with BOTH Democrats and Republicans at this point is that so many of them have such low standards for their own politicians. Integrity doesn’t seem to matter as long as the politician is for the legislation you want implimented.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 30, 2005 02:19 PM

Stephen, the reason Clinton was not indicted was because you cannot indict a sitting President. He was, however, tried and impeached in the House of Representatives.

Once again (but not for the last time, I’m sure) Libby has not been accused of anything related to national security. He simply hasn’t, which he could easily have been if there was just cause to do so, so it’s futile partisan sping to keep making that charge.

That is simply not what the indictment says, and while I understand your disappointment, Fitzgerald has simply refused to bring the charges Democrats were hoping for. Two years of innuendo, leaks, sound and fury signifying nothing, and this investigation has netted one guy the vast majority of the country has never heard of, and on charges vastly less significant than what was orginally charged.

You’re still trying to score points, but the buzzer has sounded, the teams are in the locker room and the fans are on the freeway.

I have no doubt that the far left is going to keep talking to each other about this story for months and years, but the rest of the country will be moving on very soon now. Just turn out the lights when you’re finished.

It’s amusing—but not surprising—to see how the Democrats refuse to acknowledge how the ball has been moved in this case. It

Posted by: sanger at October 30, 2005 03:10 PM

Dear Eric:
Unless your ass is in danger of going to prison for this crime I dont see how you can be making excuses for this act of treason.
This is not game yankee vs Mets in which you defend your team to death. This is our America that we love. 2000 soldiers have died and every day a new shit appears in which we can see that the administration went to war just for the money. If you dont see that Libby is a traitor, you are a traitor yourself, my friend.
Look what you are doing now, you are defending someone who lied to you about the yellow cake and sent lots of soldiers to die in the war because of that lie.

Posted by: Michael the wise at October 30, 2005 03:13 PM

Michael, who has been accused of an act of treason? Nobody. In fact, who has been exonerated on those charges? The entire Bush administration. Try to keep up.

And since nobody has been accused of act of treason and you’re just talking nonsense, why don’t you also call it an act of arson, kidnapping, murder and rape? Since you’re obviously overbrimming with hate, it might feel good to just accuse your enemies of everything you can think of. Go for it.

Posted by: sanger at October 30, 2005 03:30 PM

Eric, against Woodward’s damage assessment, both Bush 41 and Bush 43 have said publically that outing an undercover agent is a serious offense. And perjury does harm as well - those lies make it impossible to investigate the root offense accurately.

As to the outing, there is evidence that Cheney and Libby knew, or should have known, about her status. If nothing else, the whole sordid transmission of the info from Tenet to Cheney to Libby to Cooper shows an organization that was all too loose with classified information.

As to whether Dems are sincere in their views on national security - well, I beg to differ. Sandy Berger was pre-9/11, as I recall, and 9/11 changed everything. Anyway you cut it - we should all accept that this SHOULD be treated seriously.

Posted by: William Cohen at October 30, 2005 03:46 PM

Stephen

As Stephanie says, you guys make a lot of accusations and then interpret them ex post facto.

Let’s see:

Forged documents - you mean those that Dan Rather reported about Bush or the Wilson report that the bipartisan commission found substantially supported the Bush assumptions AT THE TIME.

WMD - you mean what most democrats thought was there, including John Kerry, who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee BEFORE Bush was president and saw the same intelligence.

We are guilty of the deficits, but not for the reasons you think. Tax revenue is up sinced the second round of Bush cuts. In 2005, we collected more in Federal taxes than in any other year in American history. If we spent the same as we did in 2000, we would have a surplus. (in dollars adjusted for inflation in both cases) Problem is, we are spending too much. Republicans and Democrats should be looking for cuts. I agree with you.

Also the Clinton was not indicted, Libby was, is an invalid comparison. Clinton was president. Libby is the assistant to the vice president. Clinton was impeached, which is a more serious and much rarer occurrence. I don’t think he should have been impeached, but I am not sure if Libby is guilty of anything either. And nobody has accused our current president of perjury at all.

BTW - I don’t like to bring up Clinton, but we have to have some comparison.

Posted by: Jack at October 30, 2005 04:11 PM

Rocky
Nixon isn’t talking. He’s out of the country.

Stephen Daugherty
Your spinning Stephen. Research left and right. Come back and argue the facts.

Adverbal
“Libby knowingly committed felonies”. That is really reaching and stretching even an iota. There is absolutely no way you could make that statement and believe it.

Jack
Only Monica could tell if it was a big thing (grin)

There is all kinds of evidence that Joe Wilson is a liar. That Joe Wilson outed his own wife.
That the who debachle of CIA, Plame/Wilson, Wilson, et al needs to have an investigation. There are people and facts yet to be known to us that need to be brought forth. The liars need to be revealed. Prosecutor Fitzgerald spent two years and only came up with the Libby indictment!
How many of you can remember what you said and did at this time two years ago and remember it well enough to make it sworn testimony. People in government are busy people (most of them). They make notes. When those notes are taken from them without review and then you have to go to a secret meeting and swear to their truthfullness you must have a good memory and know what your are talking about. None of us here can yet form viable opinions about Libby and the indictment until it goes to trial. When the true facts become known then we can opine till the cows come home.

Posted by: tom at October 30, 2005 05:00 PM

Sanger,
Fitzmas is satisfying. It’s a season, one that may last years. By the way, how sure are you that there will be no more indictments?

Tom,
No, there is not “all kinds of evidence” that Joe Wilson publicly revealed his wife’s identity. Joe Wilson is not being indicted.
As for memory- read Fitzgerald’s comments on Libby’s testimony. He was attempting to mislead the direction of the investigation, and deceive the prosecutor, apparently confidenct he would never be caught.
Same question for you as for Sanger. How sure are you that there will only be one indictment?

Posted by: phx8 at October 30, 2005 05:24 PM

phx8
You are correct Joe Wilson is not being indicted. He should be, though.
Not one person on the face of the earth knows whether another indictment will be forth coming.
Two years spent and no indictment for the outing is sure a waste of time.

Posted by: tom at October 30, 2005 05:53 PM

The dems and the media are making the indictment of Libby seems like the end of the Bush administration. Just one quick question: Does anyone remember just how many Clinton aides were indicted, and just how much media coverage it didn’t get?

Posted by: Mack at October 30, 2005 06:15 PM

Phx8, I can’t be 100% sure that there will be no more indictments. Just like I can’t be 100% sure that tomorrow night the Great Pumpkin won’t rise over the pumpkin patch.

What I know is that after two years of investigating, a special prosecuter has indicted exactly one person on charges which are not insignificant but nonetheless nothing like what motivated the origninal investigation. I know too that the same special prosecuter, no matter how people strain to imagine otherwise, has done everything but say outright that there will be no more indictments.

1. “We’re not saying that Libby knowingly outed a covert agent.”

2. “OK, is the investigation finished? It’s not over, but I’ll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that’s going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.”

3. “We make no allegation that the vice president committed any criminal act. We make no allegation that any other people who provided or discussed with Mr. Libby committed any criminal act.”

Sound like somebody planning to look for more indictments? Nope. Thinking otherwise is just wishful thinking on the part of Democrats who have seen their “Fitzmas” dreams dashed—but that’s their own fault.

They built up this big tinsel-covered fantasy about getting a shiny red Rover and ended up with a tiny little Skooter. And that Skooter may very well skate right out from under these charges—leaving them with nothing but a pile of their own tear-soaked kleenexes.

Posted by: sanger at October 30, 2005 06:17 PM

Tom,
Imagine a Republican driving a car with a Democrat as a passenger.

“Lookout!” the Democrat says, “You’re about to drive off a cliff!”

The Republican replies “How dare you criticize the way I drive!”

Wilson is not the issue here. Constructive criticism can be helpful, especially when it comes to driving off cliffs, or invading another country based upon flimsy pretexts. Had the administration listened to criticism a little more carefully, those infamous ‘16 words’ would never have appeared in the SOTU address, to say nothing of the rest of the dreadfully inaccurate material in that speech.

Good Lord, what a low point in the history of our country! But let’s move on…

Sadly, time and again, the Bush administration responds to opponents with a smear campaign. This goes back to the Texas campaigns, to the smear of John McCain in the SC primary, to O’Neill, and so on, and so. It’s a long list. Do you want more names? There are Democrats as well as Republicans.

What made this particular smear campaign so notable was the crossing of a legal line. Valerie Plame was supposed to be “fair game” for a Bush administration smear. Whoops!

Had no indictment been issued after two years, I think everyone would be fine with that. If people like Libby told the truth, and there was no legal case, that’s all, folks.

Instead, this is just the beginning.

Posted by: phx8 at October 30, 2005 06:19 PM

Jack,

a textbook example of sexulal harassment

Except for the fact that Lewinsky never accused anyone of sexual harassment. She freely admitted that it was a consensual affair.

Tom,

Joe Wilson outed his own wife.

I’ve seen this claim several times now, without anyone posting any evidence to back it up. Do you have any evidence? If so, please post it.

Everyone,
If Libby doesn’t plea bargain, there is a good likliehood that his case will go to trial in a little under a year, so it should be in high gear about the time of the 2006 elections. What impact do you folks think that will have on the elections? I think it can only hurt the Republicans.

I think Libby will be under heavy pressure to plea bargain, just to avoid embarrassing the White house any more than they already are. Maybe an Alford plea?

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 30, 2005 07:05 PM

Elliot

Re sexual harassment.

There were others besides Monika. Besides, the sexual harassment people previously would still have called that harassment. What about the other side of the coin? If Monika gets ahead for giving a head, isn’t that a form of sexual harassment against those who refuse? In the White House, merely being in the presence of the president is a valuable commodity.

The PC police would have been all over this one if it had been a Republican.

Posted by: Jack at October 30, 2005 08:10 PM

Stephanie

The problem I have with BOTH Democrats and Republicans at this point is that so many of them have such low standards for their own politicians.

AMEN!

Tom:

“Libby knowingly committed feloniesâ€. That is really reaching and stretching even an iota. There is absolutely no way you could make that statement and believe it.

What are you talking about? He’s charged with five felonies. You may believe he’s not-guilty (and you’re entitled to your opinion) but I believe you’re in the minority on that one. If it turns out he’s not guilty I’ll appologize on this board and even send him an e-mail.

Posted by: Adverbal at October 30, 2005 08:31 PM

Saying that one perjury indictment is somehow worse because it relates to potential crimes that nobody is being accused of is plain ridiculous.
If you investigate somebody for murder and only find out that they broke the speed limit a couple times, does that mean that they’re a murderer? I guess it would if you’re a Democrat and the person you’re accusing isn’t.

Great comment there Sanger…and Stephen…Clinton WAS indicted. Not in the normal sense of the word. He wasn’t idicted by a grand jury, but if you know anything about the whole system in the grand scheme of things and constitutionally. He was “indicted” by being impeached. They are the “grand jury” in the case and the “jury of your peers” is the Senate. They are the ones who place judgement on a sitting president.

Posted by: Robert at October 30, 2005 08:42 PM

Aldous wrote:
Wow. I was not aware that Joe Wilson’s report was false. Iraq really DID get yellowcake from Niger!!!
_______________________

The exact quote is: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”. Aldous, sought and have are two different things.

Here’s some facts for ya:
http://www.netwmd.com/articles/article626.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Posted by: rahdigly at October 30, 2005 09:46 PM

The Clinton comparisons here only serve to muddy the moral waters. Their only value is to paralyze those arguing the immorality of Libby’s actions with those that liberals might be more lenient about. The morality of the decisions of both men, though, remain constant.

Republicans or Democrats alike can mince words about it, but when it comes down to it, we live by the rule of law, and some of us claim to live by higher laws than that.

Let me remind you that if the charges against Libby are true, then he has not only committed perjury, made false statement, and obstructed justice, he has also born false witness against the journalists who he tried to scapegoat as his sources, when he was actually theirs. He lied, and tried to shift the blame for his actions.

The real purpose of evoking Clinton is to put Democrats on trial, instead of Libby, to discourage and dishearten them, to remind them of their imperfection.

But doesn’t Libby’s behavior reflect that imperfection back on the Republicans, as does their rationalization of it?

I have concluded this: It is simply wrong to lie in these circumstances. This is not worthy behavior for a Republican or a Democrat. Especially not if we Democrats are going to be pushing for a clean up of Washington.

Sanger-
The law doesn’t related to national security, but the crime does. He lied about being one of the leakers, one of the revealers of classified information. He may very well have been prosecuted for such offenses had he not thrown sand in Fitzgerald’s eyes on this one.

To protect our secrets, we must be able to determine what those who violated secrecy did an said. If they are so brazen as to attempt deception or interference with the investigation, they become twice the threat that somebody who simply confesses or testifies to their actual actions is.

Consider who or what a violator of our secrets might be trying to protect. Do you like the idea of a spy violating our secrets, then getting off scott-free because they didn’t tell the full truth?

Libby exposed classified secrets. As you have drawn from his authority to claim a number of things, you should respect his authority here: for some reason, Libby trafficked in the secrets of our country for his gain, or the gain of others. He compromised an array of assets in a time of war, and when asked, instead of telling the truth, he fabricated a story which he repeated with great detail.

The score, if one could be said to exist, does not favor the Republicans. The indictment confirms that the leak was indeed illicit (a classified info leak is that by definition) It confirms that A White House Official was indeed the first source for many of the Reporters out there. It confirms that a White House official tried to cover up his role in it, and lied to a grand jury.

The buzzer has not sounded. We’ve only reach the change of a quarter, with a new team of grand jurors coming in to replace the old. Save your celebrations for the end of this investigation.

Jack-
The Wilson report concludes the document false and Uranium trade between the countries nonexistent. Wilson reports a veiled reference to trade in Uranium Oxide, but he also reports that interational control of the Yellowcake market ensures that we wouldn’t miss such a sale.

The Tax Cuts were knowingly made in an atmosphere of reduced revenue. The results have been obvious: revenue reduced even further. Cut spending where you can, but don’t act like we can get out of this without some sacrifice. That simply is not the case.

Tom-
All kinds of evidence? Share it with us. I did my research, which you could see for yourself, if you would be so good as to venture to the Blue column and look.

Adverbal can believe what he says, because he has a federal prosecutor as his source.

You claim that Joe and Valerie Wilson are responsible for all this. I say that itself is spin. I say all you have on that is the speculation of pundits and politicians on the motives of those they see as rivals. We have a prosecutor with witness questioned under oath.

Fitzgerald has only come up with the Libby indictment so far. There’s a first time for everything, and you’re assuming despite the preparation of a new grand jury that this will be the last indictment.

If you’re wrong, then what? Are those the last possible indictments, then? Does justice have a limit defined by the personal opinion of Tom, or any of us desktop pundits?

Additional to Sanger-

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I’ll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

If you take that to mean what it’s obvious you think it means, then your interpretation may not age well. He said:

QUESTION: Is Karl Rove off the hook? And are there any other individuals who might be charged? You say you’re not quite finished.

FITZGERALD: What I can say is the same answer I gave before: If you ask me any name, I’m not going to comment on anyone named, because we either charged someone or we don’t talk about them. And don’t read that answer in the context of the name you gave me.

QUESTION: What can you say about what you’re still working on then?

FITZGERALD: I can’t. I don’t mean that fliply, but the grand jury doesn’t give an announcement about what they’re doing, what they’re looking at, unless they charge an indictment.

This guy didn’t tell the media ahead of time who he would and would not indict. He’s not going to leak that information given the seriousness with which he takes his job. Reading into that exoneration of anybody or anything that’s been alleged is just unfounded spin.

Robert-
Potential? I’m afraid if it was a potential crime, Valerie Wilson would still be some Ambassador’s wife, and an employee of Brewster Jennings. Somebody leaked classified information, and by all indications Fitzgerald thinks its Libby who did it first.

The lie directly related to the leak, and was meant to cover up the nature of it, who it came from. That’s the obstruction of justice.

As for Clinton being indicted? If you have to put it in quotes, it’s not equivalent. The normal sense of the word indicted has a specific meaning here. It matters whether there was enough evidence to bring Clinton up on criminal charges. There wasn’t.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2005 10:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:
You all don’t get it. It’s not about the leak. Covering up all the lies at the cost of people.
It’s about Attacking who ever gets in your way and ruining they lives.
Like they did to John McCann
John McCann 2008

Posted by: King at October 30, 2005 10:11 PM

The damage is done. The corruption is coming to light. No matter how deep it really goes, the Administration will unlikely recover the confidence it’s now lost. Most people will now believe that a molevolent mindset exists withing government. And, rightly so. It’s a dirty business. Just another of the countless examples of smug, arrogant, irresponsible, and unaccountbable government that is threatening the future and security of the nation.

And, it’s not over yet. Rove is still under invetigation. Others are too. More indictments may be on the way. Still, no one knows who’s Novak’s primary source is.

In the big scheme, this isn’t as important as the many serious problems facing the nation. It’s just another predictable symptom of an already corrupt, dysfunctional, fiscally, & morally bankrupt government. Our government has been hihacked by an arrogant PC (“Political Class”). This has been going on for decades.

But look at the failures to date (many in the last 10 months):
(1) failure to reform Social Security
(2) failure after Katrina
(3) failure of border security (calling Minute Men vigilantes)
(4) failure of appointees
(5) failure of Supreme Court appointment (Harriet Miers)
(6) failure to cut spending and pork-barrel (where the hell is his veto pen?)
(7) failure by allientating allies
(8) failure to get body armour for all troops in Iraq, and armour for humvees
(9) failure of reliable intelligence

The Republicans are losing it. They’re certain to lose seats in Congress, and elsewhere. Polls of whether the nation is on the right path are down and falling.

______________________________________________
“I see PC people !”

Posted by: d.a.n at October 30, 2005 10:50 PM

At the 2003 Iraq Forum, (June 14, 2003), Joe Wilson along with a number of other people were speakers at the forum. His bio had a lot of data and toward the end “He is married to the former Valerie Plame”. Some of the speakers on the schedule were CIA people. Like the keynote speaker was Ray McGovern, an analyst at the CIA.
As far as the indictment of Libby, it is only an inidictment it is in no way a guilty verdict. Give him his day in court.

Posted by: tom at October 30, 2005 11:00 PM

For all concerned,
Eric pointed out that Mr. FITZGERALD said a href=”http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/past_newsletters/january_1995/title/18_usc_793.htm”>Section 793 the Espionage Act was a difficult statute to interpret. Read it for yourself and ask how can we present the necessary information required for a fair public court case while still protecting our national security. IMO this statue needs to be rewritten in such a manner that we (i.e. United States) does not have to expose ourselves in order to prove that damage to our national security has happened.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 30, 2005 11:49 PM

tom,

That is amazingly lame. The bio said NOTHING about what “the former Valerie Plame” did for a living, did it? You said there was

all kinds of evidence that Joe Wilson is a liar. That Joe Wilson outed his own wife.

This one item is “all kinds of evidence”? C’mon you gotta do better than that.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 31, 2005 12:03 AM

Sorry people, However, web search “US Code Title 18 Section 793” and look for the one marked access.gpo.gov

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 31, 2005 12:07 AM

An idle observation… Flipping channels, looking at various sites from all sides, I’m left with the impression Cheney is going down.

It seems as if Cheney is being set up as the fall guy, and not just for outing Plame. It seems as if the fault for going into Iraq is being laid at Cheney’s door.

Pure speculation on my part, but I can’t help noticing fingers pointing at the Vice President from both right and left. Did Bush and “Official A” (Rove) cut a deal with Fitzgerald, and throw Cheney over the side?

Is an orchestrated resignation due to ‘health reasons’ in the making?

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2005 12:33 AM

William Cohen,

“Sandy Berger was pre-9/11, as I recall, and 9/11 changed everything.”

NO! I provided a link for people who didn’t remember Berger, because I didn’t.

His offense happened AFTER 9/11 and concerned the 9/11 COMMISSION!!!

Scroll up to:
“Posted by: Stephanie at October 30, 2005 02:04 PM”

If you want to read up on him.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 31, 2005 01:32 AM

phx8,

“Fitzmas is satisfying.”

“Fitzmas” is a sad, sick, partisan joke. That you think wrong-doing within the administration that runs our nation is something to celebrate indicates that you think the image of the Democrats is more important than the image of our nation. The fact that many of the politicians within the Democratic Party agree with you is indicative of why the Democrats do not control this nation. Sadly, the Republicans are following suit.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 31, 2005 01:45 AM

Stephen,

“Consider who or what a violator of our secrets might be trying to protect. Do you like the idea of a spy violating our secrets, then getting off scott-free because they didn’t tell the full truth?”

Would I like it? No, of course not. Would I expect a spy to lie? Of course I would. Would I expect the prosecutor to discover the truth despite the lie? Heck, yeah!

Fitzgerald has had two years to investigate this. He’s talked to a LOT of people and read through a LOT of documents. You, amongst others, have said that Fitzgerald is good at his job. Given these factors I suspect that Fitzgerald knows the truth, that Libby’s lie might have fooled him for a while, but didn’t prevent him from uncovering the truth. That being said, considering that Fitzgerald has NOT accused Libby (or anyone else) of actually committing the crime they were originally accused of leaves me to believe that he’s not going to, because he can’t, because it wasn’t done the way we originally thought. I could be wrong; I admit that. But, NOBODY here knows and only time will tell.

Besides, Libby wasn’t a spy. He’s being accused of being a corrupt government official. While both are bad and both acts should be punished, they are not equivalent.

I MIGHT consider worrying about whether Wilson is/was a spy, but he really seems much too incompetent to be very effective.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 31, 2005 02:12 AM

Tom-
I understand what an indictment means.

What you don’t understand is that none of the circumstances you list would out her. Only the pairing of an indentification of her and association of that with her employment at the CIA would out her.

Nothing about her husband attending a conference that featured a lot of publically known CIA agents would reveal that; as an ambassador who once represented our country to Iraq, he could show up there on his own standing. Neither does naming her as his wife, since that’s already publically known. Only the connection of her workplace with her identity would have made that difference.

Stephanie-
Libby wasn’t a spy, but he could have been, and that’s the point of why he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with lying. In another case, he could have been protecting his recruiter or his own spies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2005 06:44 AM

Stephen,
I got a question. If the Commander and Chief of the United States gave a direct order to his White House Staff to cooperate fully with the investigation into the outing of Mrs. Wilson during a time when the country is at war than does that not mean that Mr. Libby could be charged accordingly? Isn’t the Presidential Staff the same as the Commander and Cheif’s Staff? Something to punder over the next few months.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 31, 2005 08:24 AM

Scooter Libby lied to the press folks. His testimony that is quoted in the Indictment are all recollections of what he said to the Press. He was indicted not for lying to the Grand Jury, but rather for lying to the Press. Think about that for a second. At no time did he say Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, he told other reporters that that was the story going around. His charges are based upon his recollections of what he told to reporters, and that information was not correct, or actually, were statements made by him to limit the press to what he actually knew. He neither confirmed nor denied the information asked by him by reporters, exactly what someone whould do if they did not want to expose anything.

Posted by: David Korkowski at October 31, 2005 08:50 AM

Henry-
We can’t court martial Libby. Military authority, even in time of war, does not extend to civilians in that way. The worst that could happen, did happen: Libby no longer has a job.

David-
He didn’t lie to the press, but to the grand Jury and the FBI. He told them that he learned of Plame through the press. That’s a lie: according to a number of people, he learned from other officials.

In doing so, he intentional attempted to divert investigators from investigating what he and others did.

Thus: Two Counts of perjury, two of making false statements to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice.

Fact is, according to a number of reporters, he did in fact reveal Valerie Wilson’s association with the CIA, a classified secret. Whether or not it falls under IIPA is one matter, but it does fall under the rubric of a breach of national security.

This is not lying to the press. He unfortunately told them a little more truth than it was legal to reveal. The crime he faces indictment for now is not coming clean when asked about it by FBI agents and the grand jury.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2005 10:00 AM

Stephen,
I realize that we can not court martial Libby; however, isn’t there a civil law somewhere on the books that cover this very problem? Certainly after 229 years some one has pulled this stunt before haven’t they? Although I am not sure of one right off the top of my head if anyone has every done such a thing, you have to admit that it is not right.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 31, 2005 10:33 AM

The indictment of Scooter Libby is just the tip of the iceburg as to the corruption in DC. And it’s not just something that has come up over the last 7 years. Corruption has been going on in our government for as long as I’ve been paying attention to politics, and goes back to the 1960 ecections.
This DOESNOT excuse anything that Libby might have done (He hasn’t been tried yet, only indicted).
When votes are bought, back room deals are made, political headquaters bugged, pork is the number one priority, laws are made by bureacrats (EPA regulations or any other regulations that carries penitalies), defict spending is the norm, and the general welfare of the country is ignored., it’s time for the voters of this great nation to standup a shout ENOUGH.
There are many ways to do this, but the best way is to VOTE THE RASCALS OUT and keep voting them out until the politicans get the message that WE AINT GOINA TAKE IT ANYMORE. Americans deserve and should have a government that is responsible and accountible to WE THE PEOPLE and not WE THE SPECIAL INTREST.
If your tired of irresponsibility and unaccountibility in government then vote nonincumbent and keep voting nonincumbent until OUR ELECTED EMPLOYEES get the message.

www.VOIDnow.com

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 31, 2005 10:51 AM

Sorry the above link should be

http://voidnow.org

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 31, 2005 11:11 AM

That was easy, thanks David and d.a.n.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 31, 2005 11:13 AM

David is right. If you read the indictment, there are several counts which seem to be based entirely on lies which Libby basically admits to having told—but to reporters.

Fitzgerald really does seem to think that lying to reporters and then admitting to having done so before a grand jury is perjury, a disturbing legal notion which has certainly never been applied before now.

Look at Count Four, for example, in which Fitzgerald underlines the specific words that he says are perjury. This is a direct quote from Libby’s grand jury testimony.

… . And then he [Tim Russert] said, you know, did you know that this excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson’s wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said he may have said a little more but that was he said that. And I said, no, I don’t know that. And I said, no, I don’t know that intentionally because I didn’t want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don’t know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn’t take my statement as confirmation for him.

And now get this. Here’s why, according to Fitzgerald, the above statement consitutes a count of perjury.

In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in that:

Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA; In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.

And that’s it. This charge is ridiculous. Here are two points Libby’s attorney’s will raise.

1). That “Libby was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA…” isn’t relevant to what Libby actually said. Libby doesn’t even deny that he was aware of this. If anything, the quote shows Libby essentially conceding that he knew Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, and then describing how he tried to sidestep confirming as much when talking to Russert. If he lied to anybody, it was to Russert.

2). The whole charge completely and uncritically depends on Russert’s recollecton of the conversation as the unvarnished truth. Absent recordings of this conversation, how in the world can it be proven whose recollection is the correct one?

Even if Libby doesn’t totally beat the charges, there are at least 3 of them which are so poorly reasoned they’re likely to be tossed out before trial.

Posted by: sanger at October 31, 2005 11:14 AM

Sanger-
The law referenced is Perjury, in case you haven’t checked it out.

Libby is not caught because he lied to a reporter, but because he didn’t tell the truth about what he said to Russert, not even about his own familiarity with the information.

As for Russert’s recollection, there are rumors that there may be exactly that: a recording. Even then Russert’s recollection is bound by the same statute as applied above: he goes to jail if he lies to the court.

It has nothing to do with lying to reporters. It has everything to do with lying to investigators and the grand jury. Your legal interpretation doesn’t even properly identify the direction of the lie. If Russert does have the evidence, Libby is screwed, outright. If it can be demonstrated that Libby knew this information, even if no hard evidence exists, we still have Russert’s testimony under oath, and we still have several witnesses who will indicate that four people told him the information and several people were told this information by him, in circumstances that indicated he knew what he spoke of.

This is not Ronnie Earle. This is the Guy who prosecuted mobsters and the WTC bombers, including our friend the Blind Sheik. You don’t rise as far as he has by being sloppy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2005 11:42 AM

A word to the confused, even if Joe Wilson is caught eating live babies, it does not make Scooter innocent. If I’m escaping after robbing a bank and run over a wanted child molesterer, am I still guilty of robbing a bank?

This is the heart of the conservative defense of Scooter.

Try to stay focused.

Posted by: Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout at October 31, 2005 12:36 PM

David Korkowski

You see, this is how they get you guys all worked up. They misstate the facts in what seems to be a minor way: “He was indicted for lying to the press” (a falsehood) instead of “He was indicted for lying about what he said to the press” (a truth). You take the falsehood as gospel and get all indignant and echo it on talk radio and blogs until it drowns out the truth among your like-minded comrades. Voila! Newspeak and doublethink!

Please wake up before it is too late.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 31, 2005 12:45 PM

I think this case, like the Martha Stewart case, has a real problem. It’s an obstruction case related to the obstruction of an investigation for an underlying act that may have not been a crime. When asked if the underlying conduct was a crime, Patrick Fitzgerald said essentially that it could not be determined, in part, because of the obstruction he faced from Scooter Libby, comparing his acts to throwing sand in a baseball umpire’s eyes. Fitzgerald said, “But let’s assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don’t know the truth. ” This can’t be the situation he faces. Either she has the status of an agent whose identity may not legally be disclosed under the Espionage Act or she does not. This does not hinge on Libby or anyone else’s recollection of the details of the leak. Her status is the sine qua non of the underlying offense. It’s the type of question that needs to be asked first, and the answer could be determined quickly and easily by reviewing her status at the CIA and comparing it to the relevant law. This finding should have been made before any other activities in the investigation. While Fitzgerald is fond of baseball analogies, consider this one. It’s as if someone were charged with the “crime” of playing baseball without a license. After months of investigation, it turns out one of the players did not want to admit to investigations that he played a bit of pickup ball in the old HS stadium. (Perhaps it was embarassing, not least because it occured during the work week). He’s charged with obstruction. Millions were spent. But it turns out the underlying conduct was not a crime, and this could have been determined before any other investigative acts by resorting to a statute book.

Fitzgerald’s failure to be forthright about whether the underlying leak was a crime is disturbing. Investigations deserve respect, and investigators should not be lied to. But the respect is a two way street. Expensive and intrusive investigations that extend to high government officials and members of the press should be undertaken when a real crime is involved. They should not be ends in themselves, investigating noncrimes or other “gray area” conduct, and then prosecuting the individuals involved for their resistance to the process.

Posted by: Roach at October 31, 2005 01:58 PM

phx8
“An idle observation… Flipping channels, looking at various sites from all sides, I’m left with the impression Cheney is going down.

It seems as if Cheney is being set up as the fall guy, and not just for outing Plame. It seems as if the fault for going into Iraq is being laid at Cheney’s door.

Pure speculation on my part, but I can’t help noticing fingers pointing at the Vice President from both right and left. Did Bush and “Official A†(Rove) cut a deal with Fitzgerald, and throw Cheney over the side?

Is an orchestrated resignation due to ‘health reasons’ in the making?”

I too, wonder whether this will reach to Cheney.
Here are some questions that I have:
We now know that Cheney has been lying and that Fitzgerald knows this. And we now know that Cheney knew that Libby was lying to investigators and that they were all aware of Plame’s classified status. Now Cheney could have thrown Libby to the wolves very early on in this investigation and then announced it to try to make himself look honest and save his own hide, but instead, he kept silent during this whole process.
Does this mean he also perjured himself with his testimony, and is his silence not Obstruction in and of itself? In other words, has Cheney put himself into the exact same situation as Libby?
Is Fitzgerald using Libby’s indictment to punish him, or is it to put pressure on him to talk because he wants to go after others? In addition to “Offical A” which we all recognize as Rove, who talked about Plame with Libby (prior to Libby’s “talk” with Tim Russert)? The indictment cited an unnamed under secretary (Grossman?), someone from the CIA, the Vice President and Ari Fleisher.
So, rather than the final result, is Libby perhaps only one corner of the total picture, with the ultimate target in the crosshairs, but not yet named?
I believe that the point that has been made clear from the indictment is that there has been a cover-up — and that it extends to the entire White House. Why? Because are we to actually believe that Libby concocted this whole thing all by himself?
What about the president? As Cheney’s chief of staff, one of Scooter’s previous job titles also happened to have been “assistant to the president”. Did Bush lie to us when he said he’d get to the bottom of it — and when he claimed he’d have all of his staff fully cooperate with Fitzgerald’s investigation? Don’t we in fact already know he’s a chronic liar? After all, we now know that he was lying 2 years ago since he was aware that Rove was one of the leakers, even though he didn’t say so at the time. And we know he lied about firing anyone who turned out to be involved, since Rove is still right there beside him, isn’t that right?

No matter what any of the Republican’s on this blog are saying or will say in the future, everything in this case is sharply undermining both the president and vice president’s honestly and credibility. And everything points to a conspiracy to discredit Wilson — because he was exposing their phony justifications for going to war in Iraq.
A double conspiracy. One about their breach of national security to cover for the other, which is the highest of high crimes and most impeachable of impeachable offenses.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 31, 2005 02:37 PM

So many lies in the red column, and so little time.

Question for the right. It’s true that no one has been indicted for the “underlying crime”. Most people on both sides, including the prosecutor, have said that the law is written in such a way as to be very difficult to prosecute. Also, contrary to what many of you have written, the prosecutor did in fact talk about the “outting” itself. He said that Libby was the first person to talk with reporters about Plame’s identity and that this was the first they had heard about it. Libby did, in fact, out Plame. So, my question is, if it is too technically difficult to prove that the outting of a CIA agent is against the law, do you have any problem with the Administration doing it or are you of the opinion, like Karl Rove, that Plame was fair game?

Secondly, the right likes to bring up the Senate Intelligence Committee report that stated that Wilson’s report actually helped bolster the yellow cake claims with some people at the CIA. What you fail to mention is that the same report reveals that the State Department (correctly) determined that Wilson’s report helped debunk the yellow cake claims. The State Department that had been right about Iraq as often as it had been ignored or ostracized in the administration. Just because the administration chose to ignore the findings of the State Department, doesn’t mean they (or Joe Wilson’s report) were wrong. Quite the contrary.

So what we have here gets to the real heart of those of us who have been against how this adminstration operates and specifically how it dealt with evidence in the lead up to war. Much of the evidence shows that the administration had been pressuring the CIA for intelligence to back their claims against Iraq. They were looking to sell the war and needed backup, even if the “round” intelligence didn’t fit into the “square” holes of war justification, they wanted it “reshaped”.

While the independent thinkers in the State Department were able to see that Joe Wilson’s report helped debunk the yellow cake claims, those at the CIA were somehow able to claim that it added credence. That could be just held up as an honest difference of opinion, if it wasn’t widely known that administration officials, including Scooter Libby, were making an unusually large number of trips to Langley to lean on the CIA to come up with more material. Thus, the claim of “twisting” intelligence.

It all gets back to the point that yes, the administration had lots of evidence against Iraq that could be used to sell the war, but they also had lots of intelligence that went against that argument. But those pieces of evidence were ignored, villified or shouted down, with the assistance and complicity of the CIA in the person of George Tenet (yes, a Clinton appointee - gasp) who received the highest honor this country can bestow as thanks for his incompetence.

Posted by: Burt at October 31, 2005 02:50 PM

Simple Truth
Libby reveled classified information to the press for his own purposes. This is illeagel. Stop trying to justify somones illeagel activity because they belong to your political party. Left wing conspiracy, Media Bias, All a bunch of radical right wing B.S.
C.A.W.P.

Posted by: C.A.W.P. at October 31, 2005 03:05 PM

Roach-
Are you saying that a person should have the freedom to lie to a grand jury when they’re embarassed about the truth? Oh, poor thing, they investigated him and made him red in the face. He still lied, and as your people amply proved in the Whitewater investigation, lying to a grand jury truly does not qualify as a non-crime.

The classified nature of her role in the CIA has already been determined. Fitzgerald has also presented his opinion that her NOC existence was a little known fact, not widely known like the reverberators in the GOP echo chambers have said.

Those two determinations, at the very least, present a greater likelihood that Fitzgerald might indeed confirm that Valerie Wilson was a covert agent when she was outed.

Besides, he may have determined she was under the protection of the IIPA already, just not charged anybody with the crime yet. If so, your assessment is prematurely concerned with the matter.

As for million’s being spent? The actual figure is $700,000. I guess hundreds of thousands doesn’t carry the same moral reproach as seven figures does.

This administration has won itself little respect and less impunity by sliming those who disagree with it. Had they never taken that path, this Administration would not face the possibility of a grand jury-created personnel crisis.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2005 03:12 PM

Great to see the lunatic left unwrap their Fitzmas gifts and find all they got is underwear and sweat socks.

“This is what we really wanted though, underwear and socks. Thanks Santa Fitz”, they exclaim, grimacing through clenched teeth.

One thing about the Wile-E-Coyote Super Genius left - they may be delusional and ignorant, but they never stop entertaining.

Next, the left will get steamrolled by Judge Alito, on the road to losing more of Congress in 2006.

The lunatic left - the gift that keeps giving.

brian, this message serves no purpose but to flame other participants here at WB who are on the left. It violates the spirit of our Critique the Message, not the Messenger policy. Please refrain from this kind of flame-baiting or lose your privilege to participate here. —WB Managing Editor —

Posted by: Brian at October 31, 2005 03:16 PM

brian
WE can tell your a real informed republican cronie. Underwear and sweatsocks what a great analogy.(Bush write that for you) When you have nothing of any merit left to say spouting off on liberal nut jobs and liberal conspiracy theory only make you look more stupid. I love how when anything associated with the republican party goes wrong its somehow the democrats fault. Are you really that ignorant?
C.A.W.P.

These personal and derogatory comments to brian violate our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger policy. Refrain from any more of these kinds of remarks please, or your privilege to participate here will be removed. —WB Managing Editor—

Posted by: C.A.W.P. at October 31, 2005 04:05 PM

Dear C.A.W.P.

I get the Communist Workers Party part, but what does the “A” stand for? Anarchist? Antichrist? Addled? Affable? Accidental? The mind reels …

“WE can tell your a real informed republican cronie.”

Can WE also tell I don’t bother to inform myself about the NON-outing of a NON-covert agent, a NON-crime, not to mention a complete waste of time?

“When you have nothing of any merit left to say spouting off on liberal nut jobs and liberal conspiracy theory only make you look more stupid.”

Tell me the exact point when there was anything at all of merit to report about this entire matter, and you win a cookie, champ.

“I love how when anything associated with the republican party goes wrong its somehow the democrats fault.”

That’s sweet about your love, but I don’t see how anything much has gone wrong here. Some CIA chairwarmer sent her sot of a husband to drink scotch by a Nigerian pool, and then he wrote a “what I did on my boondoggle of a summer vacation my wife sent me on to get me out of the house” op-ed in the New York Times, which pretty much exposed his wife in the first place.

So I’m supposed to get worked up about exactly what? There’s nothing here to even remotely care about. I just like watching the left get their hopes up, only to have it all crash down on their heads, just like the roadrunner cartoons.

Posted by: Brian at October 31, 2005 04:25 PM

Brian-
Tell me what deep well of personal experience you draw upon to make the statements that you do. You did accompany them on that trip, didn’t you?

Failing that, please enlighten the rest of us about what sources you use, and whether any of them use actual factual evidence to characterize the Wilsons and their activities, or whether this is just all an exercise in free-form personal partisan interpretation.

From the looks of it, with everybody repeating the same crap, it appears to me that the latter is the more likely scenario. Trouble is, the Conservative media has itself so tightly wound in on itself, that there’s never anybody to step in front of wild speculation or bad facts to stop them. Everybody just lets the crap just charge right on, without any effort of filtering for the facts.

I think America deserves less mudslinging and more real analysis. The question is, where’s yours?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2005 04:59 PM

I think what he did was serious and probably criminal. It’s more a question of prosecutorial discretion. I dont’ think Libby or anyone other than the CIA human resources desk can confirm her status and, once that’s confirmed, justify or not a continuing investigation. The lack of charges on that aspect of the case are disturbing. And this trend of independent counsels bringing obstruction charges when the underlying offense cannot be proven is a common trend, which included Starr and Lawrence Welch.

I’m not concerned for Libby. It’s not his right to break the law regarding obstruction and perjury, even if the underlying conduct does not constitute a crime. I’m concerned for the problem of prosecutorial malfeasance and misuse of resources. There is something ridiculous about taking years to figure out what happened if “what happened” is not a crime. And if it is a crime, Fitzgerald should say so. His failure to do so and his misleading attribution of that to Libby’s misconduct, punts an issue that he should be able to answer directly. If he continued to investigate what he did not think was a crime, that’s a misuse of prosecutorial resources and the social harm of perjury and obstruction in such a case is indeed less, just as it would be if someone lied in an investiation of “snow skiing without a license” or some other such thing. The harm and right to raise this defense is not Libby’s; he has no right independently to pick and choose which investigations he’ll deal with truthfully and which he won’t. The harm is to the general public, whose prosecutorial resources are misused or used inefficiently.

Posted by: Roach at October 31, 2005 05:02 PM

I didn’t realize that Iraq had actually aquired yellow cake from Niger. Your insight is breathtaking. Damn that liberal media for telling me there was no yellow cake. I guess the investigation is still open to see if Joe Wilson is the one guilty of a crime.
Look, conservatism is a dying ideology because it is based on saving the elite. It believes true heartedly that the people that are in power are there for a reason, and therefore they can never do the amount of wrong that would require them to be vanquished from their position, and hence no one should try to change that.
But conservatism has done everything wrong that would make it seem that to follow these principles is suicide. I ask everyone of you, what has this administration done that has worked, other than destroy lives?

Posted by: ericsucksballs at October 31, 2005 05:09 PM

This whole matter is only a big deal to Bush Haters, Inc. As far as John Q. Public is concerned it’s a political lynching. The general public is much more concerned with the price of gasoline and how the economy is doing (fairly well by the way). This really isn’t even a blip on their radar.

Posted by: pige at October 31, 2005 05:57 PM

pige,

If it “really isn’t a blip on their radar”, then why do only 39% of the public think Bush is doing a good job? And why does the public think that the gas company profits are excessive?

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 31, 2005 06:27 PM

pige:
“This whole matter is only a big deal to Bush Haters, Inc. As far as John Q. Public is concerned it’s a political lynching.”

Poll: Americans Think Libby Sign Of Larger White House Wrongdoing

“The general public is much more concerned with the price of gasoline and how the economy is doing (fairly well by the way).”

Consumer confidence at 13-year low. Home-buying attitudes plunge to lowest in 15 years

“This really isn’t even a blip on their radar.”

Do you guys never bother to read the daily news?

Posted by: Adrienne at October 31, 2005 06:32 PM

Adrienne,

Bush’s approval ratings, according to Rasmussen (one of the only ones who got the election right), are up 5% to 45% and the Consumer and Investor Indexes are both up as well.

As for many people believing that the indictment hides a deeper wrondoing, remember that the majority of people believe that there was an Iraq-Al Qaeda link on 9/11. ‘the people’ are easily led to thinking along the lines of conspiracies, especially when you have the democrats hawking it harder than the republicans hawked the war itself. It leaves little room for those like us in the middle who would like some proof to go along with their conspiracies please…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 31, 2005 07:01 PM

Roach-
First, he’s a Special prosecutor. His appointment has nothing to do with the now defunct independent counsel law.

I know the lack of charges has you spooked. It even makes me uneasy. This is what they call suspense. It leaves me free to say more indictments to follow, you to say the opposite, and neither of us free to say we’re right about it on a factual basis.

I think it’s highly premature for you to talk about punting or about prosecutorial malfeasance and waste of resources when we’re only seeing the beginning of this phase, especially since much of the investigation is over.

It seems to me that your side is convinced of two conflicting possibilities at once:

1)It’s all over, the worst is past,

and

2)This is just beginning and it can only get worse.

This is why you are already grumbling about prosecutorial abuse in an investigation that’s remained below your radar for so long. That is why you’re reading the best and the worst into Libby’s indictment.

And because Fitzgerald won’t let you know exactly how bad it is, you folks feel resentment towards him. There’s no solid target for the usual press manipulation. You folks kept on bluffing about no indictments coming, then bang: one! And worse, one high up. One in the middle. This isn’t some forgettable aid, this is someone right in the middle.

So make your jokes about snow-skiing or baseball playing without a license, as if a national security investigation is something that frivolous, that baseless. Keep on thinking that Republicans who believe in their country can do no wrong, and in thirty years, after this all blows over, you can repeat all the mistakes that got you into trouble this time all over again.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2005 08:02 PM

Rhinehold,

How is it going finding evidence that Wilson outted his wife on national television? Care to simply admit your error?

Posted by: Burt at October 31, 2005 08:03 PM

I don’t set much store in opinion polls.
I was asked a couple of times to participate in opinion polls.
The first thing they ask is your political party.
Then if you tell them you don’t have a party they ask if your conservitive or liberial.
One of the polls told me that I didn’t qualify to participate because I wasn’t liberial. Guess whos beliefs they wanted the results to reflect.
The other let me participate but turned down a friend of mine that is Democrat. Maybe they wanted the polls to refelct the rights beliefs.
The thing to remember is that the companies that conduct polls aren’t doing it for fun they’re in business to make money and are going to get the results that the people that hire them want.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 31, 2005 08:15 PM

Rhinehold:
“Bush’s approval ratings, according to Rasmussen (one of the only ones who got the election right), are up 5% to 45%”

But if we average all the polls out, public opinion does not appear to be very good for the man you are constantly defending against all rhyme or reason.

“the Consumer and Investor Indexes are both up as well.”

Rasmussen does report that they are up today.
But over all public opinion regarding the economy isn’t strong. And we know that when winter sets in, heating prices will be costing 50% more than last year — this is going to be terrible for the economy in the months ahead.

Consumer index:
Thirty-two percent (32%) of Americans now rate the economy as good or excellent.
Thirty-five percent (35%) of Americans now rate the economy as fair while 32% say poor.
Investor index:
Among Investors, 38% rate the economy as good or excellent, 37% say fair, and 24% say poor.

Ron Brown:
“I don’t set much store in opinion polls.”

Perhaps you won’t want to look at this data or my links then.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 31, 2005 09:43 PM

Stephen,

“Libby wasn’t a spy, but he could have been, and that’s the point of why he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with lying.”

How from my posts have you gotten the impression that I think Libby should get away with lying?!?

Posted by: Stephanie at October 31, 2005 10:31 PM

Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout,

“A word to the confused, even if Joe Wilson is caught eating live babies, it does not make Scooter innocent. If I’m escaping after robbing a bank and run over a wanted child molesterer, am I still guilty of robbing a bank?”

You are exactly right there. While Wilson may have committed a criminal act (and if Fitzgerald suspects that then this might be why he’s getting another grand jury), that does NOT excuse Libby in any way, shape or form. IMO, IF Libby is guilty, which I will leave entirely up to the jury as far as my opinion goes, he should (but won’t) get the maximum sentence, i.e. thirty years according to what’s been tossed around here.

However, I cannot resist answering your analogy. IF the bank robber, risked getting caught for robbing the bank by INTENTIONALLY running over a wanted child molester BECAUSE he was familiar with the molester and the case and wanted the molester dead, then while the bank robber should still be tried (and convicted if guilty) of robbing the bank, were I the judge he would face no charges of homicide.

The one set of people I fully and completely admit, acknowledge and passionately defend feeling absolute and complete HATE for is child molesters. While, rationally I realize they too deserve their day in court, personally I think there may be a reasonable case for suspending vigilante laws to address this growing threat to our nation’s children. And thus, because our laws really do try to be more just than that, I will never be allowed to be a juror on a case of child molestation.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 31, 2005 10:44 PM

But if we average all the polls out, public opinion does not appear to be very good for the man you are constantly defending against all rhyme or reason.

Um, straw man much, Adrienne? How do you figure I am defending Bush against all rhyme or reason when I just pointed out that YOU were wrong in assuming that the bad news of friday wasn’t the better news of monday?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 31, 2005 10:51 PM

It’s no secret that many members of the CIA felt that the evidence used for going to war was shaky, and in some cases false. It’s not secret that Valerie Plame, an expert in WMD, felt that the yellowcake statement was false.

It’s no secret that Valerie Plame, among other experts in the CIA, were right. In fact, there was no WMD in Iraq, and no national threat that justified the war.

Why were these individuals ignored?

Instead, The center for “Family Values” feels that those values are better served by talking about how Valerie Plame is a “partisan”. Apparently being right isn’t a value these days.

Instead of the nation taking a good hard look at itself, in horror at going to war on false pretense, our leadership thinks its more important to pass the buck and point fingers and engage in name calling.

Apparently, we go to war out of loyalty and not for well-researched reasons. Apparently, loyalty is more important than telling the truth. Ah, Ambassador Wilson, you evil man who engaged in partisanly telling the truth against a noble president who went to war on shaky evidence and the testimony of a secret source named “Curveball”. Oh, Joe Wilson, it is YOU who should be ashamed.

Posted by: Jullia at October 31, 2005 11:26 PM

“Um, straw man much, Adrienne?”

Oh, well I can’t take credit for this one. It was “pige” who first set him up, so I knocked him down. Then, you propped him back up, so I had to knock him down again. For all I know, you’re going to try to make him tap dance!

Posted by: Adrienne at October 31, 2005 11:27 PM

Sanger,
You wrote:
Saying that one perjury indictment is somehow worse because it relates to potential crimes that nobody is being accused of is plain ridiculous.
If you investigate somebody for murder and only find out that they broke the speed limit a couple times, does that mean that they’re a murderer? I guess it would if you’re a Democrat and the person you’re accusing isn’t.

Interesting metaphor, but obviously flawed. The obvious metaphor would be: if you investigated someone for murder and only found out that they lied and obstructed justice… why didn’t you go there… could it be because the obvious implication if you did go with the more accurate metaphor, would be, that if you investigated someone for murder and found that they lied and obstructed, that you would reasonably suspect that they were involved in the murder - or conceivably perhaps something worse - possibly far worse…

If Bush wants to “restore honor and dignity to the White House” he should clean house and get rid of all people who remain under suspicion of wrong doing. Of course he can’t get rid of the VP, but he could distance himself from him.

The fact Fitzgerald did not indite for outing a CIA agent could simply mean that he did not have enough evidence because of the lies and obstruction.

Fitzgerald is still meeting with Rove’s lawyers which indicates that Rove continues to be a either a target or a witness.

Wilson was sent as a result of an inquiry by the VP and Wilson was uniquely qual