Am I the only one who thinks its funny that the small club of White House officials convicted of felonies now includes a Libby and a Liddy?

The jury in the CIA leak trial of Scooter Libby has spoken. Now it's your turn.

Enter the "Sentence Scooter Contest." You get to play judge and pronounce a fitting sentence for the incredibly guilty Mr. Libby, convicted on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. You'll not only have fun, you could also win a $100 Amazon.com gift certificate for your trouble.

Play "Sentence Scooter" Today!

brilliant, intelligent, sane man like Libby

Why would Mr. Sullivan think Libby is worthy of such praise?

Am I the only one who thinks its funny that the small club of White House officials convicted of felonies now includes a Libby and a Liddy?

Probably.

Good.

Now let's hope Bush immediately pardons him so his immunity from further prosecution means he becomes Fitzgerald's top witness against Cheney.

A big round of applause to Patrick Fitzgerald, who, on behalf of the American people, has just become Scooter Libby's new sugar daddy.

Sadly Auto, I think that would have the opposite effect. Fitzgerald's primary negotiating point right now is reduction of sentence.

It's about the nukes and the intelligence cooking operation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

The Wingers all have spittle around there lips today.They should be happy,The one thing Fitz proved to the whole world is that Dick Cheney is a rotten, lying,scumbag.If he was a real man he would not let libby go through this for his worthless ass.

It's about the nukes and the intelligence cooking operation.

You bet it is, and the forged document and who forged it as well.

But unfortunately Fitzgerald isn't persueing the case any further. He isn't closing it, so I have to assume that he's now putting pressure on Libby to fess up some info on Cheney et. al.

Kevin,

I completely agree with you that the sad thing about this whole affair is that the man truly responsible for this whole mess (the leak, the trial, the war ans so on) will not be brought to justice. The Vice President and the President have not be held accountable for the numerous failures and crimes they have committed in the past six years. I can't wait until they leave office and then we will have an opportunity to hold them responsible without them hiding behind the seal of the president.

Auto,

If Bush pardons Libby, he won't testify for Fitzgerald because he won't need to. We need to make sure Bush doesn't pardon Libby.

Kevin Drum >"...The only unfair thing about the whole trial is that his boss, the guy who was behind the whole thing, wasn't in the dock with him."

Have much patience Grass Hopper, first act has only begun

"...Ambition must be made to counteract ambition..." - FEDERALIST No. 51

Cheney? A real man? Dick five-deferments Cheney? Dick "Other Priorities" Cheney? I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

Sorry, but this trial was not about "whether this administration deliberately misled the American people about WMD intelligence before the war" - it was about whether Libby lied to investigators, which the jury says he did. Nothing more. In fact, didn't Fitzgerald already know who the "leaker" was before he talked with Libby? What was the point? This whole investigation, after the first day when they figured out who the "leaker" was, has been a big waste of time and money - the biggest waste since, well, Kevin Starr.

But unfortunately Fitzgerald isn't persueing the case any further.

Where's Ken Starr when you need him?

There have been stories that neo-Con Michael Ledeen was involved. He is also Karl Rove's foreign policy advisor. (Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.)

it was about whether Libby lied to investigators

Hmmm. I wonder what his motivation would be for doing that? Just for giggles?

Libby should be admired as a great American patriot willing to risk his freedom for the safety of our great Vice President, without whose exemplary service to the nation we would all lose our freedom.

And with that, Kevin, we move from perfectly understandable partisan gloating to full-fledged ideological delusion.

Libby lied to investigators looking into who leaked Plame's identity therefore Cheney lied about pre-war intelligence on Iraqi nuclear capabilities.

Gee, blogging is so much easier when you don't have to, you know, connect the dots or make an actual case or something.

Gregor, that was satire, right?

I like your guess, Kevin: "Nobody else lied to the FBI and the grand jury. Only Libby. And that makes it pretty obvious that he was trying to hide the one thing he knew that no one else did: the fact that he learned Valerie Plame Wilson's identity from Dick Cheney."

I just think you may be focusing too narrowly. With all the lunching and conversating that Libby was doing, it's more likely that he knew that the slime of knowledge extended past him and Cheney to Rove and our one and only President.

Hacksaw just doesn't get it does he.A true Consevative you are sir.

Congratulations. You didn't "get" Rove although that DC jury wanted to. Still, you took one more step toward making the country ungovernable. The site accusing Ledeeen looks like a 9/11 conspiracy site. You guys are in good company. Even 60 Minutes gets it but not you.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!

John John,

Believe me, I get what folks like Kevin are trying to do. I'm simply asking for more than the slender threads of conspiracy-mongering to connect the very real conviction of Libby to the very specious claim that this 'proves' Cheney was lying about Iraq's nuclear capabilities. In other words, I'm asking him to make a case, not a claim.

If he was a real man...

no, that's his daughter

Posted this comment on the last thread before I realized we had moved along to this one:

Today it finally feels as if the reclamation of America is truly underway. Guilty verdicts in the Libby trial, which is basically a condemnation of the fraudulent Iraq war runup; the Congressional hearings on the illegal justice tampering by Domenici and Wilson in New Mexico, and the part it played in the greater unethical purging of serious and dedicated US Attorneys ethically doing their job; and the Congressional hearings on the malicious and hypocritical reckless disregard the Bush Administration has for the health and safety of it's wounded veterans, the very troops the Administration has spent the last five years hiding behind. This is a very good day; but our work has just begun if we are to restore this country, and our government to the ideal it was created to be by the founders and the Constitution.

"Libby lied to investigators looking into who leaked Plame's identity therefore Cheney lied about pre-war intelligence on Iraqi nuclear capabilities."

Gregor,

First, we didn't need a conviction in this case to prove that Cheney lied about pre-war intelligence on Iraqi nuclear capabilities. We know that he received a report saying the aluminum tubes was bullshit.

We know that inquire about the Niger yellowcake to the CIA. But somehow he never received a report? I'm asking what Chris Matthews is asking, where's the report you received Mr. Cheney.

We know he cooked the books on the intelligence. And now we know that Libby lied on his behalf. I just hope we will at some point learn everything they were trying to cover-up. Worst Vice-President ever and that's saying something given the weakness of the office.

Who forged the Italian yellow-cake documents, and who knew.

That's where this goes now, and whether it's through Fitzgerald or through a Congressional investigation, it will be a fun ride.

Those who have perverted our intelligence system in order to start a war on phony pretexts, meanwhile shredding our reputation throughout the world, deserve the worst circle of Hell.

I'm sorry. I was addressing Hacksaw.

Once again:

Dick Cheney is the Worst American Who Ever Lived (tm)

The very specious claim that this 'proves' Cheney was lying about Iraq's nuclear capabilities.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/23/60-minutes-cia-official-reveals-bush-cheney-rice-were-personally-told-iraq-had-no-wmd-in-fall-2002

Dick Cheney is the Worst American Who Ever Lived (tm)

Can we strip him of his citizenship and put him out to sea for the remainder of his days, like The Man Without a Country?

Mike K: Congratulations. You didn't "get" Rove although that DC jury wanted to. Still, you took one more step toward making the country ungovernable. The site accusing Ledeeen looks like a 9/11 conspiracy site. You guys are in good company. Even 60 Minutes gets it but not you.

Now, that was a masterpiece of unfocused, furious impotence. In a scant handful of sentences, you make a laughable attempt to conflate the Libby conviction with global terrorism and whine that a working justice system will make the country "ungovernable." Serving up a little irony syrup on your paranoia pancakes, you throw in an accusation that we're suffering from conspiracy theorizing.

You can't make this shit up. But does the California medical board know about this guy's...er, decline?

So - not knowing much about how lawyers' professional credentialing organizations work - how long before Libby is disbarred?

mhr,

Let me break this down for your feeble mind.

Perjury is a serious crime. Our judicial system depends on honesty. This is why you have swear an oath. Thus if somebody breaks the law and lies to a court, grand jury or jury, they should receive a penalty.

Perjury is not a "high crime or misdemeanor." There is a reason why the framers wanted it to be a "high" crime. They didn't want the Congress to randomly get rid of presidents. They crime to be serious enough that the Congress had no choice but to get rid of the president. Perjury is not a high crime. Murder is. Do you get it now or do you need a cartoon to explain it to you?

P.S. Clinton did receive a penalty for his perjury. Not a high enough one for me. I think he should have paid a higher fine, but he did receive a penalty.

P.P.S. It's funny that under Nixon the Supreme Court decided that a criminal trial could not be conducted against a president during his term of office (because it would be too much of a distraction). Yet under Clinton the Supreme Court decided a civil trial could be conducted against a sitting president. Wouldn't most people think a civil trial would be just as much a distraction.

It is a rare day that I agree with Andrew Sullivan, but he is absolutely correct here. It is Dick Cheney and his boss (ha-ha), George W. Bush, who should be on trial here. Were that to happen, I'm sure Dick would be sitting right next to George. Their weird, puppet-master relationship became painfully obvious when Bush could not even testify to the 9-11 Commission about the events that occurred on that fateful day, without Cheney coaching him on every response. Although Bush fatuously likes to compare himself to Harry Truman, the buck clearly does not stop on his desk.

Whoever above stated that perjury is not a "high crime or misdemeanor" within the contemplation of the impeachment provisions clearly does not know what they are talking about and is not familiar with the legal history of the phrase.

O.K. bmaz educate me. How does perjury consistute a "high crime and misdemeanor?"

"That was the one thing serious enough to make them wildly overreact to a couple of otherwise toothless allegations."

Well, the tooth hurts, especially when you know, on some level, like Cheney does when alone in his bunker, that you are lying sack of worthless shit.

The press wasn't going to say so, but the fact that there was one professional insider willing to call him on his treachery—well, look no further than the Pearl Harbor Day Massacre for more evidence of this pathology.

mhr: "Perjury is a very serious offense against the judicial system- unless it consists of lying about sex."

Probably the only sensible thing you've ever said. Many a man would be straightforward about everything else—except when his wife (or Ken "Kleenex" Starr) would ask him about infidelity. Ask, I don't know, any guy on the planet!

But covering up the destruction of CIA assets for political purposes—well, maybe a little more important!

"Mike K: Congratulations. You didn't "get" Rove although that DC jury wanted to. Still, you took one more step toward making the country ungovernable. The site accusing Ledeeen looks like a 9/11 conspiracy site. You guys are in good company. Even 60 Minutes gets it but not you.

Now, that was a masterpiece of unfocused, furious impotence. In a scant handful of sentences, you make a laughable attempt to conflate the Libby conviction with global terrorism and whine that a working justice system will make the country "ungovernable." Serving up a little irony syrup on your paranoia pancakes, you throw in an accusation that we're suffering from conspiracy theorizing."

You are the ones posting this stuff.

The decline goes back to the Bork hearings when "anything goes" became the motto of Washington politics. The Clinton impeachment was the payback for the Iran-Contra prosecution by Walsh.

That led to the Bush Derangement Syndrome and now this. Do you really think the next Democrat who is elected president is not going to suffer from this ?

I know that many of you think the whole terrorism thing is either a fanstasy of right wingers or a product of Bush's foreign policy, even though much of it occurred during Clinton's term.

"You can't make this shit up. But does the California medical board know about this guy's...er, decline?

Posted by: shortstop"

I think the personal snarks do not make much of a debate point.

I did congratulate you.

Let's not jump to conclusions about Cheney. Based on past experience with scandals involving the Bush administration, don't they always end up looking not quite as bad once all the facts have come out?

Wait a minute....

Libby can look forward to many, many years at, say, the Oakwood Prison Camp where he can play cards with Andrew Fastow and assist Edwin Edwards in the prison library.

For a down-to-earth preview of the rest of Libby's life, read on:

http://tinyurl.com/3ade5b

This gang begins in the Nixon White House; they brought us Iran-Contra and lied the United States into a war. They specialize in private project-wars. They are not caring patricians, but ruthless opportunists on the make. They’re not chastened by Libby’s conviction. They are thinking up ways to get out of it or to spin away the damage. They are representatives of a political movement that lacks conscience. Criminality is in their blood.

It is a rare day that I agree with Andrew Sullivan, but he is absolutely correct here. It is Dick Cheney and his boss (ha-ha), George W. Bush, who should be on trial here. Were that to happen, I'm sure Dick would be sitting right next to George. Their weird, puppet-master relationship became painfully obvious when Bush could not even testify to the 9-11 Commission about the events that occurred on that fateful day, without Cheney coaching him on every response. Although Bush fatuously likes to compare himself to Harry Truman, the buck clearly does not stop on his desk.

Noah - Please refer to the impeachment charges against William Jefferson Clinton; if my recollection serves me correct, Count One is for perjury. There was a corresponding discussion of the definition and meaning of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" and supporting briefs filed somewhere in the records of the US House of Representatives and the impeachment managers, as well as a discussion by the Senate in relation to the impeachment trial. Should you need further remedial education; I am sure any of the fine folks here can help you out.

The Clinton impeachment was the payback for the Iran-Contra prosecution by Walsh.

yeah, and the prosecution was "payback" for breaking the law. like you care.

and walsh was a republican, idiot.

So what happens when Mr. Libby gets a blow job from his cell mate & lies about it ?

Just wondering how far the sillyness of trolls goes

"Politics is just high school with guns and more money" - Frank Zappa

Guys named "Scooter" don't pitch. They catch.

Noah:

The problem is we don't know any of the things you have asserted. You may suspect they are true, you may dearly wish they are true, but you will have a difficult time trying to demonstrate they are true.

"First, we didn't need a conviction in this case to prove that Cheney lied about pre-war intelligence on Iraqi nuclear capabilities. We know that he received a report saying the aluminum tubes was bullshit."

And he received other reports saying they weren't bullshit. And there was ample other evidence (though some of it clearly weaker than the rest and, ultimately, most of it wrong) regarding Iraq's nuclear program.

"We know that inquire about the Niger yellowcake to the CIA. But somehow he never received a report? I'm asking what Chris Matthews is asking, where's the report you received Mr. Cheney."

That's a question, not a fact so let's move on.

"We know he cooked the books on the intelligence."

Every independent look into this question (not to mention the independently-arrived-upon conclusions of the preponderance of the world's intelligence agencies) refutes this assertion.

"And now we know that Libby lied on his behalf."

Oh we do? Because Kevin says so? All we actually know is a jury concluded Libby lied to a grand jury about what he spoke to journalists about.

"I just hope we will at some point learn everything they were trying to cover-up. Worst Vice-President ever and that's saying something given the weakness of the office."

Well, hoping for something and proving it is true aren't the same thing now are they?

The Clinton impeachment was the payback for the Iran-Contra prosecution by Walsh.

Lawrence Walsh was a Republican, and the prosecution took place under a Republican administration.

You are barking up the wrong tree.

Not that this is a new phenomenon.

Anyone with a third grade education could have easily realized that Bush's Iraq War was built on half-truths and murky intelligence. All these Democrats that say they were 'misled' weren't truly misled, as they knew Bush was lying, but they voted for the war because it was popular at the time. Just like the neoconservatives who blame the failure of the War on Bush's execution and not on the brutally flawed concept, the Democrats, too, are trying to avoid responsibility by whining and wailing that they were "lied to".

If the Democrats truly believe what they stand for, they should focus on preventing the next war, a war with Iran, than on avoiding taking responsibility for their complicit role in launching the last one.

Will the Democrats, as 2008 nears as the Israeli lobby demands attacks, do this? Or will they hail Bush as Churchill for bombing Iran without conducting good-faith diplomacy beforehand?

It's time for a foreign policy based on the true conservatism, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers that the U.S. should not intervene in regions or countries in which no vital interest is at stake, and especially should not wage war when no vital interest is at stake.

Will the Democrats, however, who bombed Serbia, voted for the Iraq War, and are pushing for war in Darfur, do this?

Or is Bush less of unique problem than he seems to be?

On Page One of The Washington Post Online a few minutes ago -- it's called "an unfortunate juxtaposition" --

ATTACKS IN IRAQ KILL MORE THAN 100 SHIITE PILGRIMS

and, next to that:

BUSH SAYS U.S. AND IRAQI FORCES MAKING PROGRESS

Merry Fitzmas!

Everybody's doing it, huh Mike?

I suggest you stop using the phrase "I know" and substitute "I believe", in the future.

You seem so think that the Whitewater investigation was morally or criminally equivalent to Iran-Contra.

What?!? Don't be ridiculous.

I think the personal snarks do not make much of a debate point.

Oh, come on now. A couple of us got another laugh just the other night, remembering how you once responded to a challenge of mine by demanding to know whether my paternity can be traced to the milkman, the garbageman or the gardener (we particularly loved the last one)!

Mike, I'm trying to be patient with you here, but you've got to try to focus. This thread is about Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney and their embrace of fabrication as a way of life, career preserver and recreational sport. Let's assume that you weren't just flailing around hysterically saying anything that came into your mind--let's say you really believe that this somehow "proves"--or even relates to--the nonsensical idea that progressives don't believe that terrorism exists.

I'm giving you the largest of breaks here by trying to identify a thread of connection between these thoughts. In the absence of you providing any kind of breadcrumb trail on your way into your misty post, I'll assume that you're the last guy in the world to still believe that Saddam did 9/11 and swapped spit with al Qaeda. Still, if that is indeed what you're befuddledly arguing, you're going to need to explain why you think that perjury is acceptable when it's done to protect an administration's falsification of its reasons for invading another sovereign nation and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. And then, please have a go at telling us why you think a justice system that holds perjurers accountable is moving our nation toward "ungovernability."

Take your time.

Gotta hop or I'll really be late now. Back later.

it's called "an unfortunate juxtaposition" --

Yeah, an unfortunate juxtaposition of lies with facts.

So we were sitting around last Friday night eating pizza and drinking cheap wine and listening to the Dixie Chicks' award-winning CD, The Long Way Home.

If the Right Wing Nutters hadn't politicized this group during the invasion of Iraq, I probably wouldn't ever have purchased and enjoyed a Dixie Chick album, since I rarely listen to country. Probably without their intense anger and sorrow over the reaction to Natalie's 2003 remark, the Dixie Chicks wouldn't have been inspired to write these fine songs. Apparently millions of other people have had an experience similar to mine.

But what I want to know is, why aren't rightwingers/Republicans/conservatives all over America jerking in stiff-limbed little dances around their living rooms, quivering in an ecstasy of Bush Hate? Why don't Republicans exhibit the symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome?

In 2000 they had it all. The Republicans owned Congress. Despite his meager personal gifts, Bush was handed the presidency by the Supreme Court.

Republicans and their ilk rejoiced that the economy would thrive so much from tax cuts and deregulation that everybody would get richer, as the incomes of the richest approached infinity with the speed of light. Certainly government would shrink under the regime of the party against Big Government. The fiscally responsible Republicans would cut government spending and cut it again. America would talk tough to the world, and back it up with bombs and guns. The Bush administration wouldn't indulge in namby-pamby diplomacy. Everybody would cower before our mighty military. The president would be noted for his straightforward, truth-telling speech.

Well, the rich did get richer. Even 9/11 could be spun as a painful wake up call, offering an opportunity to swagger into the theater of war with guns blazing. The Republicans had a War President! You could almost see the dozens of lines of dominoes, just waiting for a nudge to knock them into a pattern of endless Republican political domination. It was the perfect set-up. Instead, Bush tore into the room like a beered-up, belligerent frat boy, and scattered the dominoes in every direction. The War President proceeded to piss away all the power, good will and moral capital America had built up since Vietnam and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Why aren't the rightwingers/Republicans/conservatives simply insane with rage at Bush and Cheney?

Something shiny in Iraq distracted the War President from Afghanistan. Osama disappeared to devote himself to a life of snarking and planning terrorist attacks. At best, the decision to invade Iraq could be attributed to gross incompetence. Most people believe it was an emotional and ideological decision sold to Americans with lies. The implementation of the decision was bungled spectacularly in every possible way. Now the armed forces, including the National Guards and reserves are being destroyed there in a civil war that we can't solve.

Bush didn't confine himself to failure in outright war. The administration was caught engaged in illegal spying on Americans and lying about it. All pretence at honoring human rights and the Constitution was dropped when dealing with those accused of terrorism. Yet terrorist acts have become more prevalent around the globe.

Bush persistently indulged his lazy approach to government and appointed incompetent cronies to important jobs. His vacation couldn't be interrupted. Thus the Katrina debacle.

The middle-class and poor are not faring well in this economy. More Americans are poor, and more middle-class Americans are going without health insurance than ever before. Bush responded by trying to whip up a fake "emergency" involving Social Security. Even Republicans saw through the lies. Now he proposes taxes on health insurance lucky Americans currently enjoy instead of tackling the real emergency of unsustainable growth in health care bureaucracy. The national debt has soared. China owns us, credit-wise.

Bush's vacuous saber-rattling resulted in North Korea developing the plutonium bomb. Bush has responded with an attempt to reinstate an agreement with Korea that he had previously trashed as appeasement, because the Clinton administration negotiated it. In the interval, North Korea got plutonium bombs. Iran is heading down the same path as North Korea, inspired by the Bush record of illegally invading non-nuclear powers--UNLESS maybe the Bush administration attends diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria without those countries first meeting all the U.S. demands. Or maybe Iran will talk to the U.N. instead of the U.S. So Bush is being forced to back down from tough talk rhetoric and negotiate, AND he has also weakened our power at the negotiating table.

The Democrats won big in November, and even if the war is stopped before 2008, will win even bigger in that year.

Now the appointees of this administration have been proven negligent in caring for the wounded soldiers they claim to support. They tried to cover up that neglect rather than fix it. And the conviction of Libby for perjury adds to the general belief that we were lied into Iraq. Not to mention the fact that Bush originally vowed to kick out the leakers if anyone in the White House was involved. Is anyone holding their breath to see if Cheney is forced to resign?

It is almost unbelievable how much of a Miserable Failure BushCo is, except from the perspective of people so rich they are independent of the laws of economics and nations.

Bush fucked up the wet dream of right wing Americans everywhere. Now the Dixie Dicks can flip off rightwingers/Republicans/conservatives all over America. Those young, female country singers had more perception and judgment in the matter of Iraq than the Republicans running this country.

Why aren't the rightwingers/Republicans/conservatives in the streets of Washington D.C. by the tens of thousands, screaming in inarticulate rage? Why aren't they protesting in the offices of their Republican representatives, to demand that they stop enabling the executive branch in its destruction of America?

I think they've got as much to be angry about as us liberals--maybe even more.

It is time for Dick Cheney to resign.

He can plead health issues or whatever.

It is time he resigns.

This is one of those times where I totally agree with Sullivan, not exactly a common occurrence. The nuclear case made for the Iraq war was provably bogus prior to the invasion, indeed Knight Ridder news service had done exemplary work in providing that prior to the invasion, but for some reason every other news service ignored what K-R had turned up by doing old fashioned investigative journalism. It was clear that the aluminum tubes allegation was disputed by the best nuclear experts in American intelligence from DoE (which since this was the sole piece of physical evidence ever provided on the nuclear charge is no small matter), that the uranium from Niger/Africa was equally false, and K-R were the ones to report three weeks later that the IAEA report cited by Bush/Blair at Camp David Sept 7 2002 that Saddam was as close as six months away from a nuclear device never existed. The nuclear case being lied about was what drove me into massive opposition to the Iraq war by Oct 2002. Any Administration that would lie about nukes will lie about anything.

Therefore when Wilson started to directly challenge this case he was directly challenging the VP even more than the President since it was Cheney that was the core salesman on the nuclear case/argument/claims regarding the need to deal with Iraq and Saddam. Which in turn explains why there was such a concerted and coordinated effort to discredit him any way they could, and when they found out Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA that gave them a way to spin it away from the OVP being behind this questioning of the nuclear case and instead make it some sort of junket by a wife for her husband (the fact that Niger is not exactly known for being a junket destination nor a party place notwithstanding, nor that the fact that Wilson did this pro bono undercuts this premise from the outset notwithstanding). Cheney was the mastermind behind this outing and cover-up, while I could always see the WHIG being involved in the mechanics of the smear I suspected it would be Cheney's office that originated it because of their focus on the nuclear case and because let's face it Cheney always has been the driver of foreign policy in the Bush Administration especially in the first term. What has come out during this trial in the testimony and evidence only confirmed that.

Mike K wrote: Still, you took one more step toward making the country ungovernable.

I'm curious...how does holding a government official accountable for a criminal act make the country ungovernable?

I'll grant you, holding government officials accountable for criminal acts is liable to make the country ungovernable by Republicans, but still...

Kevin deduces (with no evidence) that Libby lied to try to protect Cheney. That's possible. On the other hand, maybe Libby lied to try to protect.....Libby.

Cowalker - Very nicely stated. That is a question that has bugged me since prior to the 2004 election and that I have posed to every Republican apologist for the Bushies I encounter. If they truly believe in the crap they spew, and that the Republicans have the right answer for America, how in the world could they support Bush/Cheney? The answer is that they don't really care about their so called "principles" they are just lip service for an ideology of gaining maximum power and control in order to use it for personal enrichment.

Come on trolls you don't need a reality check this stuff is so obvious.You have been lied to cheated on and you have been expected to carry water for this Adm. who would lock you up in gitom and forget you.Stop the spin nobody here wants to hear you shit we know the truth when it slaps us in the face a thousand time.You however appear to be ignorant or a koolaid drinker.

holding government officials accountable for criminal acts is liable to make the country ungovernable by Republicans,

i'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

...and everyone' favorite faux-moderate concern troll, brian, tries to hijack the thread by criricizing Democrats' response to the Iraq War. Hilarious!

Get this, brian: The Iraq War is the Republicans' mess, and the American people know it, your bullshit concern trolling notwithstanding.

Just as they know now the war was sold with a pack of lies.

Just as they know now that Vice President Ceney's chief of staff is a convicted felon as a result of the White House's damage control to protect those lies.

The S.S. Republican Party is sinking. It's sadly amusing to see cultists like you, Hacksaw, Mike K, Nathan and your ilk still clinging to the rails.

Nobody else lied to the FBI and the grand jury. Only Libby.

Didn't Cheney talk to the grand jury too?

And if he told the truth, what was there for Libby to lie about?

"ex-liberal" wrote: Kevin deduces (with no evidence) that Libby lied to try to protect Cheney. That's possible. On the other hand, maybe Libby lied to try to protect.....Libby.

Given that you're lying to protect Cheney, the premise that Libby lied to protect him -- the evidence of which, of course, was presented at Libby's trial, you mendacious neocon toad -- seems all the more likely as a result of your post.

Incidentally, Libby's conviction doesn't validate Joseph Wilson's lies. As the Washington Post wrote in 2004:

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

"Mike K wrote: Still, you took one more step toward making the country ungovernable.

I'm curious...how does holding a government official accountable for a criminal act make the country ungovernable?

I'll grant you, holding government officials accountable for criminal acts is liable to make the country ungovernable by Republicans, but still..."

Posted by: Gregory on March 6, 2007 at 4:28 PM

But don't you know that only the GOP is capable of leading America and that to allow anyone else to have power is to betray the great nation itself? That is why it is perfectly ok to have double standards for a senior Republican in the WH (Libby was CoS to the VP AND was an advisor to the President as well as national security advisor to the VP) convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in a national security CRIMINAL investigation and a Democratic President found guilty of one count of perjury lying about an affair in a CIVIL case totally unrelated to his job nor that of national security. It never ceases to amaze me how much GOP spin is pure projection, since one of their favourite claims is that the left/Dems is the home of the moral relativists when in reality it is clearly the GOP/Right that has its main political strategies and beliefs premised on having one standard apply (nothing is happening until one is caught, then it is a frame-up by political enemies because you know they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and as we are seeing in the Libby convictions that isn't always enough and then if finally it is proven beyond any doubt that the GOPer is guilty then they are cast to the wolves as a bad apple and an isolated case and not typical of the larger problem)for the GOP and another impossible standard for the Dems (where any hint of anything that might possibly be wrong is sufficient evidence for full scale hearings, investigations, charges and convictions and that they are guilty until proven innocent, if even then).

cowalker left out mortgage defaults. I would guess a large percentage of those who cannot make their mortgage payments voted for W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Thanks, bmaz.

The answer is that they don't really care about their so called "principles" they are just lip service for an ideology of gaining maximum power and control in order to use it for personal enrichment.

You must be correct, since BushCo has discredited the Republican party six ways from Sunday, and yet there is little anger from the right. But heck, they even failed to prolong the Republican party's power and control to the end of Bush's second term. Just a little restraint, a little display of intelligence in decision-making, just getting his butt back to Washington before Katrina hit, and the Democrats probably wouldn't have won in November. Halliburton could be sopping up money in Afghanistan like a bloody sponge, not to mention supplying troops deployed to keep the pressure on Saddam. The world would still be in awe of U.S. military might AND intelligence when the U.N. inspectors verified the absence of WMDs in Iraq.

It wouldn't have taken that much to change the whole picture and keep Republicans in power. Yet BushCo failed. I'm glad, because I don't share the goal of gaining maximum power and control in order to use it for personal enrichment. But why aren't those who do, presumably, share it, a lot madder at Bush?

Come on ex-liberal,Get real,Are you a man or a mouse.Your spin here does no good,You have lied and spun so much your mother doesn't believe you anymore.Nobody here believes a word you say why do you post here.

"I think the personal snarks do not make much of a debate point.

Oh, come on now. A couple of us got another laugh just the other night, remembering how you once responded to a challenge of mine by demanding to know whether my paternity can be traced to the milkman, the garbageman or the gardener (we particularly loved the last one)!"

I did ? That must have been one of my better days as I don't recall. Care to provide a date ?

"Mike, I'm trying to be patient with you here, but you've got to try to focus. This thread is about Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney and their embrace of fabrication as a way of life, career preserver and recreational sport."

No, it's about using the criminal justice system to score political points. Try to focus now----

Richard Armitage was Novak's source for the Plame story.

Got that ?

OK, next.

Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the source when he was appointed or shortly after.

Now, let's really, really focus. Fitzgerald was appointed to find the person who "leaked" the Plame identity to Novak. He found out.

Then he interviewed a bunch of people and went so far as to imprison a New York Times reporter to force her to tell him SOMETHING HE ALREADY KNEW !

"Let's assume that you weren't just flailing around hysterically saying anything that came into your mind--let's say you really believe that this somehow "proves"--or even relates to--the nonsensical idea that progressives don't believe that terrorism exists."

Ok, let's.

"I'm giving you the largest of breaks here by trying to identify a thread of connection between these thoughts."

I know this is hard for you.

"In the absence of you providing any kind of breadcrumb trail on your way into your misty post, I'll assume that you're the last guy in the world to still believe that Saddam did 9/11 and swapped spit with al Qaeda."

No, I didn't ever believe that. So ?

"Still, if that is indeed what you're befuddledly arguing, you're going to need to explain why you think that perjury is acceptable when it's done to protect an administration's falsification of its reasons for invading another sovereign nation and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. And then, please have a go at telling us why you think a justice system that holds perjurers accountable is moving our nation toward "ungovernability."

Perjury requires intent. Try to focus now. If I ask you to tell me why you broke into your neighbor's house and pee'd on his bed. And you didn't. Whatever you tell me is not perjury.

"Take your time."

OK. I got it.

"Gotta hop or I'll really be late now. Back later.

Posted by: shortstop "

Try to come up with something better next time. Especially that stuff about me saying the milkman was your father. Was he ?

Oh, and when you come back, you might read this and comment. Another right wing source, I guess.

Mike K wrote: "Now, let's really, really focus. Fitzgerald was appointed to find the person who "leaked" the Plame identity to Novak. He found out."

Dear heart, you really should learn to focus a little harder. That Armitage was one of the leakers and that he leaked to Novak says nothing about other leakers to other reporters. Fortunately, Fitz is smarter than you are.

"Perjury requires intent."

Yes, it does, which means that Libby was appropriately convicted of this offense. Do try to keep up.

Posted by: cowalker on March 6, 2007 at 4:16 PM

Excellently written cowalker, simply excellent! You are exactly right and you underscore that the modern conservative is not motivated by principles first but rather by brand loyalty first regardless of the actual quality of said brand in truth/reality. Real conservatives should be furious at how Bushco has discredited the mainstays of the GOP brand/myth, yet where is their rage? BDS was always a piece of rhetoric and not a real diagnosis, yet I would argue the real Bush Derangement Syndrome applies to those that support unquestioningly Bushco no matter how incompetent, how corrupt, and how criminal their actions have shown/proven them to be. That is the real BDS I'd say.

bmaz,

You are honestly going to assert the documents culled by the "house managers" as evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's ridiculous. Why don't you just assert that Andrew Johnson's impeachment was justified? Just because an impeachment happens doesn't mean it was justified according to the law.

Perjury is not a high crime and misdemeanor and until you show me how the framers or the 17th or 18th century British legal scholars would define such as high crimes and misdemeanors you're just talking out of your ass. The fact is that perjury is not a "high crime."

Let's compare it by the sentence that perjury receives vs. the penalty that the crimes the constitution lists as justifying an impeachment.

Perjury = 5 years &/or $250,000 fine

Treason = Capital Punishment

Bribery = 10 years &/or $350,000 fine

Looks to me like Treason & bribery are not equal to perjury.

Mike, that Senate report was directly contradicted by sources at the CIA. You want to argue, take it up with them. This is not exactly news.

Similarly, the WP editorial cited by our lovely troll, faux-liberal, was simply wrong in what it reported about the results of Wilson's trip.

cowalker left out mortgage defaults. I would guess a large percentage of those who cannot make their mortgage payments voted for W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

You're right, brojo. And I also forgot making it much harder to declare bankruptcy, even in cases where catastrophic medical expenses or consequences of reservists and National Guard members being unexpectedly sent repeatedly to Iraq were the cause of non-payment of bills.

I just heard some interesting commentary from one of the jurors. He said the reason they took so long is that they were very systematic and careful and took their time and examined every piece of evidence in detail. They took their jobs very seriously and it sounds to me like they did a great job.

He also said they felt a little sorry for Libby at the end because they felt he was taking the fall for Rove or Cheney and they wanted to convict those two, too.

For those of you who predicted not-guilty because of the length of the deliberations, it looks like you got stung by a concentious jury.

I would argue the real Bush Derangement Syndrome applies to those that support unquestioningly Bushco no matter how incompetent, how corrupt, and how criminal their actions have shown/proven them to be. That is the real BDS I'd say.

You nailed that one, Scotian. It's like staying with the guy who beats you senseless every Friday and Saturday night because he goes to church with you on Sunday and tells you you've got a purty mouth.

Hacksaw,

I would refer you to Scotian, because I don't want to waste my time with you.

Given the standard level of criminality in this administration, Scooter Libby is the least guilty guy in town.

Kevin,

You are usually better than this. It is not obvious that Libby learned of Plame from Cheney. Where is the evidence for this accusation? It is a guess and nothing more.

Libby thought it was worth lying about this because it threatened to provide a clue to just how involved Cheney had been in spinning the prewar intelligence on Iraqi nukes.

Exactly so. Once the trial got underway, this became clear from the testimony.

The trial and verdict lay the foundation for the Congress to start investigating Cheney with a mind toward impeaching him. They should do so quietly, "more in sorrow than in anger", in the quiet, yet dogged, style of Fitzgerald, for most effectiveness.

I can't say I am happy, but Fitzgerald did the country a world of good.

Yancey -
Libby already admitted that he learned about Plame from Cheney. His claim was that he then forgot. Of course this does suggest Kevin is talking out of his tuchas.

Faux-Liberal,

I'm still waiting for demonstration of past liberal leanings.

Leaving that aside, did you ever read the report?

Wilson spoke with two former Nigerian officials (the former president & foreign minister) and a current official (foreign minister). These officials said that they had no knowledge of any Iraqi deal that was done. They said they were approaced by the Iraqis, but it never got beyond that first meeting.

The main finding of Wilson, though, was that THE FRENCH CONTROLLED THE URANIUM. Iraq couln't get it without France's say-so.

Cheney and the rest of the White House knew this because the CIA told them to take this statement out of an earlier speech in October 2002.

Let's stop the ridiculousness and talk about the facts: Cheney and Bush lied about the Nigerian uranium. Now we have to deal with the war they gave us. STOP DENYING THE TRUTH.

Yancey Ward:

"It is not obvious that Libby learned of Plame from Cheney. Where is the evidence for this accusation?"

No, KD is not guessing as this was one of the things shown/proven in the trial itself. I take it you did not pay close attention to the details of the evidence presented to convict Libby then? Otherwise you would already know that Cheney was the one that first told Libby by Libby's own GJ testimony. So sorry Yancey, this is not an example of sloppy reasoning by KD but rather your lack of information on the matter at hand.

daCascadian: Have much patience Grass Hopper, first act has only begun

Yes, indeed.

Noah - I learned at an early age not to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man; so I am done with you.

Posted by: ex-liberal on March 6, 2007 at 4:39 PM: Incidentally, Libby's conviction doesn't validate Joseph Wilson's lies.

Bullshit from a liar. Gregory is right: You are a neocon toad.

As the Washington Post wrote in 2004: Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.... ....The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.

Yet, on page 52 of the same Senate intelligence committee report:

"Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on."  Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford."

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

What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.

These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney's office -- and Libby in particular -- pushed to be included in Powell's speech, the sources said.

The new information that Cheney and Libby blocked information to the Senate Intelligence Committee further underscores the central role played by the vice president's office in trying to blunt criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence data to make the case to go to war.

The disclosures also come as Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wraps up the nearly two-year-old CIA leak investigation that has focused heavily on Libby's role in discussing covert intelligence operative Valerie Plame with reporters....

More bullshit from ex-liberal. Kevin just wrote about the CIA's efforts to remove the 16 words on Feb. 13, 2007:

Remember the "16 words" in the 2003 State of the Union address? About how Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa? In the Scooter Libby trial today, the defense played a tape recording of a Bob Woodward interview with Richard Armitage and the subject came up. Here's what Armitage said:

Armitage: We're clean as a [expletive] whistle. And George [Tenet] personally got it out of the Cincinnati speech of the president.

....Woodward: It was taken out?

Armitage: Taken out. George said you can't do this.

Woodward: How come it wasn't taken out of the State of the Union then?

Armitage: Because I think it was overruled by the types down at the White House. Condi doesn't like being in the hot spot. But she--

So that's Armitage's take: the director of the CIA tried to get the uranium nonsense taken out of the State of the Union but Condoleezza Rice didn't have the backbone to stand up to the hardliners in the White House and get it excised...

'Mike K wrote: Still, you took one more step toward making the country ungovernable.

I'm curious...how does holding a government official accountable for a criminal act make the country ungovernable?

'

You have to read Leo Strauss. Holding government officials accountable means the people get to know the full truth. This is bad for maintaining political order.

'BDS was always a piece of rhetoric and not a real diagnosis, yet I would argue the real Bush Derangement Syndrome applies to those that support unquestioningly Bushco no matter how incompetent, how corrupt, and how criminal their actions have shown/proven them to be. That is the real BDS I'd say.
'

This is called projection. They accuse "you" of doing what they actually (sometimes unknowingly)are doing.

Noah:

I don't really see why scoation's assertions should be taken any more seriously than your or Kevin's.

For one thing, the biggest flaw in this Bush lied argument is that so many of the lies Bush-haters claim were used to snow the public into supporting the war were openly debated long before the invasion. Aluminum tubes? A quick google search will let you know the debate over what they were was all over the papers, way back in the fall of 2002. And of course Bush-haters will pick and choose their experts to fit the topic - for example, happily citing foreign intelligence agencies when they contradicted the administration but ignoring cases (such as these tubes) where they were even more adamant that the tubes had nuclear uses.

Moving on, scoation claims that "he uranium from Niger/Africa was equally false" but of course offers no evidence. Crucially, the Brits continue to stand by the claim. And of course, Wilson's trip confirmed rather than disproved the British claim.

The rest of scoation's post is simply following the same path Kevin took. Assertion without any evidence. "Cheney was the mastermind behind this outing and cover-up..." Really? And the proof is, what exactly? 'He's evil and I hate him' isn't proof, it's motive. "Cheney always has been the driver of foreign policy in the Bush Administration especially in the first term. What has come out during this trial in the testimony and evidence only confirmed that." Really? What transcript demonstrates this? Again, 'Bush is an idiot and I hate him' isn't proof, it's motive.

Sorry, but I'm still waiting to see an actual case be made that any of this conspiracy-mongering is true.

"Nobody else lied to the FBI and the grand jury. Only Libby"

Well, and Rove. But Rove managed to weasle through it.

Plame movie. Assassinate VP, using agent in Afghanistan, Chayes; kill Russian, battle of wits; it's all good for the movie.

Apollo 13 - Excellent comment. You're killing them.

All evidence points to the fact the world is round,That is what Clinton told me.We know the world is round,but because I said Clinton told me you will argue the fact that the world can't be round.You trolls are not smart enough to get yourself out of a wet paper bag.

Hacksaw: Libby lied to investigators looking into who leaked Plame's identity therefore Cheney lied about pre-war intelligence on Iraqi nuclear capabilities.

That's about the size of it.

In the course of investigating the Plame leak, or lack thereof, Fitzgerald learned that Libby was lying to the investigators and to the grand jury. He indicted Libby for perjury and obstruction, and the jury convicted. Now, why was Libby lying? Fitzgerald never said, and the statute doesn't require it, but it is pretty clear if you read the semi-transcriptions published at firedoglake and summarized on many other weblogs. He was trying to cover up Cheney's pre-war manipulations of intelligence about Iraqi nukes.

I don't really know whether that is a high crime or misdemeanor, but it is a terrible policy mistake, and worthy of a congressional investigation. If Cheney didn't lie outright in his public appearances (and it looks from here as though he did), he also was not completely truthful. Not too many Congressional Republicans, I imagine, would want to speak forcefully in Cheney's defense, especially since the 2006 elections.

Make Bush eat yellowcake.

"Crucially, the Brits continue to stand by the claim."

Of course they do, but that issue has already been addressed elsewhere. Suffice to say that they have nothing, just as their other "intelligence" on Iraq was shown to be completely bogus.

"And of course, Wilson's trip confirmed rather than disproved the British claim."

Not at all. Wilson, along with the two other contemporaneous investigators, found that the British claim was entirely false.

Interestingly, what those on the right seem to forget is that the claim was addressed by the ISG, which had access to the scientists, officials, and records of the Iraqi government. They found no evidence to support the claim.

Additionally, the claim was nonsensical from a common sense standpoint since a) Saddam Hussein already had tons of yellowcake and b) he had no nuclear program and, hence, no need for yellowcake.

Hacksaw: I'm simply asking for more than the slender threads of conspiracy-mongering to connect the very real conviction of Libby to the very specious claim that this 'proves' Cheney was lying about Iraq's nuclear capabilities. In other words, I'm asking him to make a case, not a claim.

I think that will be done by Congress, and you won't have to wait overly long for it.

Joe Wilson's column was not a bunch of "toothless allegations". Joe Wilson's comments were exceedingly harmful to the Administration because everyone in the Bush Administration knew the yellowcake story was a lie from the Fall of 2002 on, and once people began to focus on it they feared that the truth would come out, and it has. It is now common knowledge that the Bush handlers were all lying about yellowcake and knew they were lying after October 2002. THAT is why Wilson's column in the Sunday NY Times in early July 2003 was so destructive. It didn't matter that Wilson hadn't seen the forged documents--what mattered was that the American people began to want to know the truth about what the Bush Administration knew and when did they know it. Wilson's column got that conversation started and it hasn't yet stopped.

"The answer is that they don't really care about their so called "principles" they are just lip service for an ideology of gaining maximum power and control in order to use it for personal enrichment."

Wow, bmaz. You hit it.
And I thought the answer to life, the universe, and everything was 42.
Wasn't K Street about exactly that, which alone should have made any red state average citizen realize that no matter how authentic an application of pure white faith and moral frosting, it cannot make up for the underlying wormy and thoroughly corrupted party cake.
My question is what keeps the red staters believing. Seven years of this stuff seems a bit long to refuse to address even one of the Republican short comings.

Spider:

OK, let's pretend for a moment I am as dumb as some people assume I am. Help me understand then, how does Libby lying to investigators about what he told journalist regarding Valerie Plame prove that Cheney lied about pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

At most, it could "prove" that Cheney was actively involved in leaking Plame's name to discredit Wilson. But even that doesn't prove he lied about pre-war intelligence.

I wouldn't call Wilson's allegations toothless. He point blank said that Cheney and the Bush Administration deceived the American people by falsely claiming Iraq was a nuclear threat. His trip to Niger gave him a leg to stand on.

The Bush Administration felt that they had to respond. So they lied some more and went after Wilson and his wife in a pathetic, dispicable fashion.

Hacksaw just doesn't get does he.A true conservative you are sir.

Bob c:

I think your line of argumentation would work a lot better if the "16 words" issue had only come up publicly after we went to war. The fact is that all these "controversial" pieces of evidence (the 16 words, the tubes, the Atta meeting, the mobile trailers, etc.) were openly challenged and debated in the media prior to the war. No one can reasonably claim to have supported the war based purely on these items only to discover later on that they were in dispute. It was the leading topic in new coverage for months and months leading into the invasion.

Hey Hacksaw, have read any of the trial reporting that makes it chrystal clear that Cheney told Libby to spread the word to reporters that Valerie Plame was a CIA Agent who sent her husband to Niger. Do you really think Tricky Dick II did nothing wrong? Please, you're going to make people think that you're too stupid to understand plain English.

Hacksaw:

See Apollo 13's post at March 6, 2007 at 5:36 PM, he gives more than enough backup to my argument regarding Niger and the uranium. Incidentally, I wasn't trying to prove to you anything, you are clearly Trolletariat by your conduct and your words here and I learned a long time ago that Trolletariat care nothing for the facts when they go against their programming (ideological, religious, whatever) and that all it does it waste my time. I would further caution you that I have a well established history and reputation here for generally knowing of what I write and for working from a fact based perspective. IOW the only people that will believe what you have to say about my commentary (incidentally, my alias is not that hard to spell, you really need to learn how to be less sloppy in such things if only because that kind of sloppiness over something so easy makes it that much easier to see you as sloppy on more important and less easy matters to handle) are other Trolletariat members. Please though feel free to try it, just ask Cheney, Chuckles, Nathan, and a whole host of Trolletariat just how poorly they came out in the end for doing so.

Scotian: Therefore when Wilson started to directly challenge this case he was directly challenging the VP even more than the President since it was Cheney that was the core salesman on the nuclear case/argument/claims regarding the need to deal with Iraq and Saddam.

That's the way it looks now.

The S.S. Republican Party is sinking. It's sadly amusing to see cultists like you, Hacksaw, Mike K, Nathan and your ilk still clinging to the rails.

Awww cmon Gregory, I think they are bailing with very tiny teacups.

wow just wow hacksaw,We know Cheney lied because we have been in Iraq for 4 years and found nothing that would make a mushroom cloud.We did not find x amount of anthrax,we did not find x amount of serin gas,We did not find x amount of mustard gas.We also found out those trailers where not for making nerve gas.We also found out there was no remote planes with gas spraying equipment.So if it looks like a lie and quacks like a lie and shits like a lie.well then you know the rest,Wait I guess you don't.

Congratulations. You didn't "get" Rove although that DC jury wanted to.

Yeah, but we know for sure that Rove participated in outing Plame. Great guy. Talk about making the country ungovernable. What good people want to work for the government when they may be double-crossed by corrupt Republican politicians?

Yes, I said Republicans.

Watergate: 25 felons convicted for crimes directly related to their government service for the President.

Iran-Contra: 28 felons convicted for crimes directly related to their government service for the President.

Whitewater: 0 convictions for crimes related to their government service for the President.

GWB: 1 and counting, even without the special prosecutor law.

Bob C:

I already noted that it is possible to take the trial and make the case that "Cheney was actively involved in leaking Plame's name to discredit Wilson." And, if it turns out she was actually undercover that would be quite wrong.

But people here aren't claiming that the Libby trail proves Cheney was involved in the effort to discredit Wilson, they are claiming that the Libby trail proves that Cheney lied about pre-war intelligence on Iraq's nuclear capabilities. And it is that claim that I am challenging.

I'm listening to the House hearings on the Purge, and it appears that the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have decided that the best course of action is to attack the integrity of the GOP USAs.

Good luck with that.

Libby deserves his convictions. The only unfair thing about the whole trial is that his boss, the guy who was behind the whole thing, wasn't in the dock with him.—Kevin Drum

While pretty much the entire Bush cabinet and administration needs to be Abu Ghraib'd with extreme prejudice, there was one man who could have put a stop to all this, but he didn't have the guts. Colin Powell could have stopped the run-up to the Iraq war by resigning and going public on why he was doing so. He knew it was all crap, yet he agreed to go to the UN and compound the lie, and then chose to show his dissatisfaction with the Bush administration by declining to serve during the second term. Pussy.

Shrub has always been stupid. Cheney has always been evil. Rumsfeld has always been venal. But Powell was thought to be a decent man.

if it turns out she was actually undercover

That Plame's status at the CIA was classified is not in dispute (except, of course, by wingnuts who refuse to accept any fact that undermines their devotion to the Cult of Bush).

John John:

What I know is the difference between a broad failure of the intelligence community versus a politician lying about that intelligence.

Put simply, the fact that Cheney was wrong does not automatically make him a liar.

Scotian: Real conservatives should be furious at how Bushco has discredited the mainstays of the GOP brand/myth, yet where is their rage?

Rage might not be the right word, but George Will has written numerous scathing criticisms of Bush and the Congressional Republicans. And even if you don't like Bushco, the Democratic alternatives are not much improvement, where they are any improvement at all.

but for now, celebrate the conviction of Libby. Worry about the Democrats on another day.

Too little, too late.

Hacksaw just doesn't get does he.A true conservative you are sir. Posted by: john john

Actually, no. True conservatives have always been against the Iraq debacle. Idiots like Hacksaw only attach themselves to the what passes as the Republican party today because they know America still isn't quite ready for full-on authoritarian state.

Disputo:

Really? Should be easy to prove then. Got a link? A source? An answer to what no one (i.e. Armitage) has been charged with outing her?

Ooooh JeffII you got me.

I just can't wait to slip into my jackboots and goose-step down Constitution Avenue. Meantime, I'll just have to be satisfied with BushHitler,

Spare me.

"Really? Should be easy to prove then."

Yup, which is why the case was allowed to move forward after review by the CIA, the Justice Department, several judges, and Fitzgerald, all of whom agreed on Plame's status.

"OK, let's pretend for a moment I am as dumb as some people assume I am."

Pretend???

Check out the indictment, idiot. Or the fact that the CIA would have never asked the DOJ to handle the matter if she wasn't.

And why Armitage wasn't charged? Read the statue, idiot. Simply outing a NOC is insufficient to be charged.

But, please, don't let facts and logic get in the way of your five-times daily prayers towards the WH.

Put simply, the fact that Cheney was wrong does not automatically make him a liar.

I'm willing to let an impeachment trial show us the evidence of whether Cheney is a liar or not.

What has been proven in the fact that Cheney was so egregiously wrong is that he is incompetent, ineffective, and bad for America's national security. He's done a heckuva job!

As Joseph Wilson said back in 2005, "The stakes are enormous. This is all about whether our government can take us to war on lies without any fear of being held to account, and whether our democracy can survive the coalition of fascist forces that have seized control of the levers of powers."

As William River Pitt also said in 2005, "Psst....Joe Wilson is right. They are fascists, and this is what fascists do. They make people afraid. They turn a populace into an outsider while at the same time denying that populace information or even hope of a peaceful resolution. They mobilize for attack through intimidation and scare-tactics. Ask Herman Goering, who explained during the Nuremburg trials, "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

"Ideologically vetted yes-men who all agreed on a singular course of action."

Guilty. That's the verdict today. It is so significant that Libby would lie under oath.
Public confidence in this administration should plummet. ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN--REVISITED

Noah: The fact is that perjury is not a "high crime."

Unfortunately a high crime is whatever the house of representatives says it is at any particular time.

'What I know is the difference between a broad failure of the intelligence community versus a politician lying about that intelligence.

Put simply, the fact that Cheney was wrong does not automatically make him a liar.'

Maybe not automatically. Its the circumstantial evidence that indicates he's a liar. But because its circumstatial and not directly on point you have room to maneuver. Right wing think tanks will provide lots of points of dismissal for the circumstantial evidence, this gives you the warm and fuzzy you've been needing as the party you've hitched you're wagon to has come under attack by dirty hippies.

Oh, wow--the Bush and Cheney apologists are having a collective bowel movement. Sean Hannity was especially loud on his radio show. I listened in to hear him weep. He had that loser Ann Coulter on too. She paid a price for her hateful comments as advertisers bailed from her website

Hacksaw: Help me understand then, how does Libby lying to investigators about what he told journalist regarding Valerie Plame prove that Cheney lied about pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

You have to read the trial transcripts. The individual lies only show that Libby was lying. The full testimony shows what he was attempting to conceal, namely Cheney's pre-war attempts to manipulate the intelligence about Iraq's nukes. It's the unifying theme behind all the individual lies. Four or five excerpts really do not do justice (!) to the full structure of his lying. Read all the trial testimony in chronological order in a few sittings.

In a sense you are correct: although we now have a verdict that Libby was lying, we only have evidence that Cheney was manipulating the nuke intelligence. But we have a lot of it in the open now, and the keys to finding more.

Which, I expect, Congress will now do.

spider:

I was saying this about Cheney a year and a half ago as can be found in the thread KD references in this post as his long time guess. As for Will, he is a tiny minority in the conservative pundit class alas, but you are correct in how you characterize his work regarding Bushco especially over the past months.

You need to understand that for me this was a very serious issue from the outset, first the nuclear lies that I could tell were lies before the invasion. That was what sent me into opposition to that war in October of 2002, for any Administration that would lie about nuclear threats will lie about anything given how serious most people consider that threat after four decades of Cold War threatening global destruction by those weapons. However the outing of a CIA covert officer dealing with nuclear proliferation really sent me off the deep end because I was raised by someone that worked in the top levels of the intelligence community of my nation during WWII and the first half of the Cold War. I understood the implications and the potential damages that act would do, and that this outing was done by those charged with the protection of such was something that horrified me on levels I can never fully express in words alone. This for me stopped being about politics and about something far more fundamental, because we share intelligence with American intelligence (which led to one of our citizens being put in Syrian hands for nearly a year as a terrorist despite no government charging him at any time with anything see/Google Maher Arar) and therefore when American intelligence is massively betrayed and screwed around with it has implications for ours as well. That nuclear proliferation covert assets would be destroyed given they are some of the most valuable and critical assets in the age of terrorism for a political purpose is a betrayal so fundamental and so egregious that anyone that does take intelligence and security issues seriously would react the same way. Which I might add appears to be the case from those that actually have worked in intelligence (including classmates of Plame that confirmed she had been a NOC) like Larry Johnson and others. This is where this story/issue is rooted in for me, not the political aspect but the intelligence/security aspect of my nature and personal/family history.

Hacksaw: No one can reasonably claim to have supported the war based purely on these items only to discover later on that they were in dispute.

That works for me, up to a point. But Cheney and his group worked assiduously to twist every item of evidence that they got, and to hype the nuclear threat in every way. The 16 words appeared in the SOTU (and may have been determinative for some war supporters) precisely because Cheney worked to overrule CIA judgments. As someone once wrote on another occasion: that was worse than a crime, it was a blunder. It supports the view of those people who think the Bush administration is incompetent, because it is an instance of gross incompetence. In a manner of speaking, and perhaps literally true, it was the incompetence that Libby was trying to keep hidden by lying.

I have written too much already, so I'll close with:

this is a disaster for Republicans, unless perhaps Cheney resigns and performs penance by walking on his knees at Canossa.

A juror was interviewed after the verdict and said they found Tim Russert credible. He was calm, impressed the jury. So, obviously Scooter Libby made up the story about what Russert told him. And don't you think the Cheney handwritten note shown at the trial is quite the indictment?

Spare me.

What, pray tell, have you or any of your ilk done to deserve mercy?

i strolled through the comments here to see what the usual gang of clods and idiots had to say, and i'm not disappointed (mike k in particular is in fine fettle!), but really, to read that people are still claiming that joe wilson's report was not accurate? astonishing the extent of denial.

but what really prompts me to post is hacksaw: listen, sport, the very first "let's go to war" speech was delivered by dick cheney to the VFW in august, 2002. in that very speech he said that "we know that saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons." (i'll be generous and acknowledge that he meant to say nuclear weapons program, but his office never did issue a formal correction.)

that is called a lie, and that lie was the central organizing premise of the entire drive to war (don't ask me, ask wolfowitz). given that wilson was the very first person to question some of the basis of that claim, it makes total sense that cheney would overreact to that questioning in order to preserve the basic storyline. if you have a more reasonable explanation that fits the facts we do know, have at it, but the idea that cheney simply didn't like an obscure former ambassador and therefore set out to discredit him without any further motivation doesn't pass the laugh test.

as for cheney himself, well, let's face it: he's a thug, an idiot, and a dangerous and pernicious influence upon american national security policy, and for all i know, he still believes the yellowcake fairy tale, but that doesn't make him an honest man.

What I know is the difference between a broad failure of the intelligence community versus a politician lying about that intelligence.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Still, it's amazing that these dead-ender Bush Cultists are still insisting that Bush, Cheney and the whole scurvy crew didn't lie us into this war. Remarkable.

I have written too much already

On that, we agree.

Scotian on March 6, 2007 at 6:45 PM,

sorry, but I have to ask. Are you doubtful that Plame was actually outed by Armitage?

Hacksaw has been beat over the head with facts so much I think it may have dented his head and bruised that grape he calls a brain.CHENEY IS A LIAR, SIMPLE FACT !!! anyone who would not agree should go have there mother tuck them in for the night.

So...Where is egbert? Maybe he was moved by the events of the day to the point of enlisting. But then, the way he is always trembling (and I assume the trembling is accompanied by pissing, like with any yipping little whelp) he'll never pass a physical.

Lots of public relations nightmares--the speaking out of soldiers and their families, emphasis of war casualties, the sad and devastating cases of warehoused troops, the neglect and oblivion of the mal-administration, false statements and perjury of a major player in the vice president's office. Big time fall out for these elusive criminals. Finally, one is indicted. And pre-war intelligence is in the news again, on the heels of Douglas Feith's lies as the war began

A juror just said Libby seemed like the fall guy. So what does that mean? Cheney is guilty as well. Joseph Wilson says Cheney was obsessed with it, writing notes on Wilson's article.
As cable subscriber, I can say that the news channels are talking negatively about Cheney.
Demons in need of an exorcism, John Roberts just said.
Civil lawsuits are next.

Jack Cafferty on CNN is criticizing the Bushies, saying Bush is the sole reason for the problems with the care of our wounded troops

Hacksaw: "Put simply, the fact that Cheney was wrong does not automatically make him a liar."

You know, I'd love to see things from Mr. Cheney's point of view -- really I would -- but I pulled a back muscle while trying, and anyway, all that icky Astro-Glide messed up my hair and made my face break out ...

spider:

Did I say that? No, I did not. I do not care who was first what I care about was that it was done, and worse that there was a clear organized attempt to make sure it was leaked multiple times by multiple senior Administration figures to have published by the media. The fact that Armitage was the first leaker does not change the fact that others leaked as well, to more than one person unlike Armitage, and that unlike Armitage who appears to have outed her to Woodward to support Wilson's credibility the rest were clearly leaking it to undercut it not just with the reporters but wanted it out in the public domain for that purpose as well. Part of the misunderstanding that the GOP spinmeisters have used regarding this entire issue is the idea that Fitzgerald was tasked with investigating only the first leaker of Plame's CIA identity to Novak and that was all. That was not what he was tasked with though, while I do not have the exact words handy I do know it was broader than that scope which is why even knowing Armitage was the leaker prior to even Fitzgerald's appointment this investigation was continuing and clearly DoJ felt it had to continue given the fact Ashcroft had to recuse allowing for the Comey appointment of Fitzgerald after DoJ knew about Armitage's role. Remember, if this had been solely about finding the first leaker only Fitzgerald would never have been appointed since that was known to the Ashcroft DoJ prior to recusal of Ashcroft and subsequent appointment and taking of Fitzgerald.

So no, I have no doubt that Armitage was the first one to leak her CIA indentity but he was far from the last nor anyhere near the most prolific and intent in his efforts to do so until it finally was published in Novak's op-ed. I am no more pleased with Armitage for doing so and think he just like everyone that leaked her name to anyone should have all security clearances revoked. However, as I said the fact he was first does nothing to absolve the rest of their actions nor does it invalidate the Fitzgerald investigation and subsequent Libby prosecution since his tasking was never that limited despite all the GOP spin to claim otherwise which alas too many in the media appear to have swallowed without actually going back to read the actual tasking instructions given to Fitzgerald when he was appointed during the Christmas-New Year's week of 2003.

I hope that helps answer your question.

146 posts already! Boy, you liberals sure like to gloat over a good man's misfortune.

I'm not going to read all your posts because people like me have a life to live.

Suffice to say that this will come to nothing. It will be over in a few weeks, unlike the scandals that dogged Clinton.

Are you doubtful that Plame was actually outed by Armitage?

Among others, old boy, among others.

Al--it will never be over. As with Richard Milhous Nixon, this will be the Bush-Cheney legacy. Historians will write. Bloggers will type. And the congressional oversight committees loom largely for it all.

Scotian: Did I say that? No, I did not.

Hence my question. I was just curious.

Part of the misunderstanding that the GOP spinmeisters have used regarding this entire issue is the idea that Fitzgerald was tasked with investigating only the first leaker of Plame's CIA identity to Novak and that was all.

quite so. Fitzgerald did the right thing not to stop with Armitage.

I have no doubt that Armitage was the first one to leak her CIA indentity but he was far from the last nor anyhere near the most prolific and intent in his efforts to do so until it finally was published in Novak's op-ed.

you write very full and complete sentences, and that is one of them. I have my doubts about Armitage's story, but no real basis for them. I am sorry that I missed your posts at FireDogLake. That group performed a real service with their real-time near-trasncripts. That's among the best original reporting on the web to date.

"Who forged the Italian yellow-cake documents, and who knew."

Cal Gal gets it exactly right. If there were one question I could get answered throughout the entire last six years of deceit from the Bush Administration. it would be Cal Gal's question.

spider:

Until the last few weeks I was a lurker at FDL and not a commentator, so you haven't missed much. Most of my comments on this issue are at this blog. I thank you though for the compliment and the honour of being considered good enough to be on a level with those at FDL. After all as you said they have provided a real service and some of the most original (and IMHO best) reporting on this issue on the web. As for your doubts with Armitage, would you mind being a bit more specific as I am not entirely sure I know what you mean and I am curious. Thank you.

Scotian--I too felt you were esoteric in your remarks.

Was it ever explained why MatthewRMarler is now posting as "spider"?

Here you go, Mikey; work your way down from here.

Your analogy about peeing is, not to put too fine a point on it, piss poor. A proper comparison would be this: You accuse me of peeing on the neighbor's bed (I still want to know what slice of Mike K life this scenario comes from), I claim I did not, but inexplicably lie my ass off under oath to every law enforcement official and officer of the court about where, when and on who I've been doing my peeing. Funny thing, that.

Especially that stuff about me saying the milkman was your father. Was he ?

She wasn't, no.

...You didn't "get" Rove ... 60 Minutes gets it but not you. Mike K at 3:15 PM

Perjury is a very serious offense against the judicial system- unless it... about sex.mh rat 3:22 PM

"Scotian--I too felt you were esoteric in your remarks."

Posted by: consider wisely always on March 6, 2007 at 7:59 PM

I have had my writings called many things over the years here, but I think you are the first one to call them esoteric. Might I ask exactly what you meant by that?

bmaz and Scotian... my pleasure.

Another morsel from the Libby trial: testimony from Cathie Martin, the former Cheney communications director. From WaPo, Friday, January 26, 2007; A01 (with emphasis):

Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," [Martin] wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."

...the trial has already pulled back the curtain on the White House's PR techniques and confirmed some of the darkest suspicions of the reporters upon whom they are used. Relatively junior White House aides run roughshod over members of the president's Cabinet. Bush aides charged with speaking to the public and the media are kept out of the loop on some of the most important issues. And bad news is dumped before the weekend for the sole purpose of burying it.

With a candor that is frowned upon at the White House, Martin explained the use of late-Friday statements. "Fewer people pay attention to it late on Friday," she said. "Fewer people pay attention when it's reported on Saturday."

Martin, perhaps unaware of the suspicion such machinations caused in the press corps, lamented that her statements at the time were not regarded as credible. She testified that, as the controversy swelled in 2004, reporters ignored her denials and continued to report that it was Cheney's office that sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate allegations of Iraq's nuclear acquisitions. "They're not taking my word for it," Martin recalled telling a colleague.

Martin, who now works on the president's communications staff, said she was frustrated that reporters wouldn't call for comment about the controversy. She said she had to ask the CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow, which reporters were working on the story. "Often, reporters would stop calling us," she testified.

This prompted quiet chuckles among the two dozen reporters sitting in court to cover the trial. Whispered one: "When was the last time you called the vice president's office and got anything other than a 'no comment'?"

At length, Martin explained how she, Libby and deputy national security adviser Steve Hadley worked late into the night writing a statement to be issued by George Tenet in 2004 in which the CIA boss would take blame for the bogus claim in Bush's State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Africa.

After "delicate" talks, Tenet agreed to say the CIA "approved" the claim and "I am responsible" -- but even that disappointed Martin, who had wanted Tenet to say that "we did not express any doubt about Niger."

During her testimony, Martin, a Harvard Law School graduate married to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and a close pal of Bush counselor Dan Bartlett, seemed uncomfortable...

On jurors' monitors were images of Martin's talking points, some labeled "on the record" and others "deep background." She walked the jurors through how the White House coddles friendly writers and freezes out others. To deal with the Wilson controversy, she hastily arranged a Cheney lunch with conservative commentators....

Questioned by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Martin described how Hadley tried to shield White House spokesmen from the Niger controversy. "Everybody was sort of in the dark," she explained. "There had been a decision not to have the communicators involved."

But Martin, encouraged by Libby, secretly advised Libby and Cheney on how to respond. She put "Meet the Press" at the top of her list of "Options" but noted that it might appear "too defensive." Next, she proposed "leak to Sanger-Pincus-newsmags. Sit down and give to him." This meant that the "no-leak" White House would give the story to the New York Times' David Sanger, The Washington Post's Walter Pincus, or Time or Newsweek. Option 3: "Press conference -- Condi/Rumsfeld." Option 4: "Op-ed."

Martin was embarrassed about the "leak" option; the case, after all, is about a leak. "It's a term of art," she said. "If you give it to one reporter, they're likelier to write the story."

Cheney's active role in the campaign to undermine Wilson has been known, but Martin's testimony was the first inside account of the administration's attempts to manage the affair.

Martin said she learned that Plame worked for the CIA after Libby directed her to call the agency to get more information about Wilson's trip to Niger. Martin said she quickly reported the information about Plame to Libby and Cheney.

She described details of a White House media strategy, designed at the highest levels, that sought to rebut charges that Bush had misled the public in his January 2003 speech.

Martin said Cheney's talking points disputed Wilson's allegation that Cheney had authorized the trip to Niger. They also included information from a secret National Intelligence Estimate.

The vice president ordered press aides to start tracking press coverage closely, while Libby was directed to contact reporters. At one point, the vice president gave a note card to Libby with information to give to a Time magazine reporter covering the case, while Cheney and Libby were returning on Air Force Two from the christening of an aircraft carrier.

Martin also described how she discussed with Libby media "options" to rebut Wilson that included a strategic "leak" to a handful of reporters....

..."[Cheney] dictated to me what he wanted to say," Martin said.

The detailed response covered eight points, including a reference to a sensitive intelligence-community assessment. Martin testified that she was "not sure if I could use that point" because she believed at the time that the report was classified.

Later, she said, she discussed with Cheney and Libby how she had learned from Harlow that two network reporters were writing stories about the case, and how Cheney ordered Libby to call them personally, including one call that Libby made from his private anteroom outside of Cheney's office...

What did America get? A disastrous war in Iraq and the loss of a CIA operation including Valerie Plame, who, according to David Shuster on Hardball (May 2, 2006)... "Wilson was not just undercover but, according to intelligence sources, was part of an effort three years ago [in 2003] to monitor the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran."

Let the impeachment(s) begin!

Uhhh, Mr. Hacksaw you seem to be getting duller by the moment.

Time to change your blade I think...

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Apollo 13: Let the impeachment(s) begin!

Terrorist lover!

Forgot to compliment you on the other thread for your latest greatest haiku. Truly, there is no topic matter you can't haiku with ease and aplomb.

Was it ever explained why MatthewRMarler is now posting as "spider"?

Tacit acknowledgment that Marler lacks credibility, and that we're familiar enough with his bullshit that the only way he can present more bullshit is to use a sock puppet?

This is a case of parallel worlds so I will give it up after this small item.

"That Armitage was one of the leakers and that he leaked to Novak says nothing about other leakers to other reporters. Fortunately, Fitz is smarter than you are."

Nobody was charged with LEAKING !!!

Once Novak wrote his column, nothing more was a leak. She wasn't protected because of the Identities Protection ACt and because her husband had been shooting his mouth off all over the world.

Anyway, congratulations on a small win.

I confirm that Egbert is missing on this board--good call, BGRS. I suspect he is out enlisting for the aggressive wars of the administration.
Did you notice the one juror said "this sucks" when implying Libby was the only one going down.
It was said on CNN that the juror was a former reporter for wapo.
Now I have Keith Olbermann on and whoopie--does this invoke a presidential plan to fire anyone involved. Keith doesn't forget.
Keith feels there is another crime in outing Valerie Plame. Again the replay of the juror. Prosecutors argued it was also the White House effort to discredit Wilson. 4 guilty verdicts. In a case 4 years old. The defense trying to prolong the case, planning to appeal--they say he is totally innocent. Here's Joe Wilson on Keith's show: Valerie and I will sleep easier tonight. I take no satisfaction in this. It re-confirms, the constitution is defended by the prosecution, by the jury's decisions. Valerie wept when she heard the news. This administration has done awful things to our service people. Worse than what it did to us. Frankly, the President and VP should tell the people what they know, stop hiding. The Wilson's civil suit will get the statements of Cheney, Armitage, others-- in abusing the public trust in the exercise of a public vendetta.
The indictment was narrowly drawn and understood.
As for the VP being saddened by the verdict, Wilson says the president should be saddened by the exposure of a CIA covert agent, give some acknowledgement of what the president put the troops through in this war.
Wilson says this is America, and Valerie has the right to tell her story. A book is coming.
As to the pardon by Bush, there are ethics to consider. They should recuse themselves.
Pardon in the future?
Scooter Libby, convicted felon.
Bright side--for the constitution

Very kind of you, shortstop.

Impeach! Indict! Jail!
Slam Bush-Cheney in
Gawd-forsaken hell.

Nobody was charged with LEAKING !!!

Yeah, and you don't have a fiucking clue as to why, do you?

BTW, I'm from the South... shee-yat, mofo, and fi-ucking... par for the language here. : )

Zit,

"And I thought the answer to life, the universe, and everything was 42."

It is.

Bmaz,

Great response. Did your mommy just tell you that yesterday or have you already graduated kindergarten?

Hacksaw,

I would like to direct your attention to the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence report on Iraq WMD and Terrorism. I think you would find the analysis on Aluminum tubes particularly interesting. But I am going to quote for you the analysis of the Niger yellowcake claim:

"Until October 2002 when the intelligence community obtained the forged foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other intelligence information."

This I hope proves to you that any attempt after October 2002 to claim that Iraq was seeking to obtain yellowcake uranium from Africa was a lie. This is why the CIA pulled from a Bush speech prior to the State of the Union the claim about yellowcake uranium. Bush, in the State of the Union, and Cheney on several occasions said AFTER October 2002 that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake uranium from Africa.

Is that enough evidence for you or am I still making conjectures?

"The fact is that all these "controversial" pieces of evidence (the 16 words, the tubes, the Atta meeting, the mobile trailers, etc.) were openly challenged and debated in the media prior to the war."

The fact that people were challenging the authenticity of these claims prior to the war and our discovery of their falsehoods does not mean that the administration did not lie. The question is not whether the information was challenged or not; the question about whether adminstration lied is did the administration have the information that proved what they were saying was not true. We have learned from several studies that they did have that information and thus THEY LIED.

scotian: As for your doubts with Armitage, would you mind being a bit more specific as I am not entirely sure I know what you mean and I am curious.

When the news about Armitage became public it just seemed fishy to me. As though all of a sudden someone decided to try to throw the bloodhounds off Libby's trail.

I wouldn't call your writing "esoteric". I would call it informed. But that's faint praise as I am known in these parts as a dunce, liar and a shill.

Anandine,

"Unfortunately a high crime is whatever the house of representatives says it is at any particular time."

In practice, unfortunately, you are correct. But the term as understood by the framers had a specific group of crimes in mind.

The trolls are definitely getting nasal here.

Yes, Kevin, you saw the obvious Cheney connection, and somehow, with all his resources, Fitzgerald totally whiffed it. Maybe he's just not as smart.

Now Fitzgerald is closing the investigation down. In fact, he said he shut it down when the trial started.

Other than imagination and guesses, there's no "there" there, and everyone knew it the day the indictments came down.

Give it up, already.

Scotion--esoteric is complimentary--very special, understood by the initiated, for a select number. Esteemed and very sound. It's an English major's word. Good job on your astute comments.

Now that "Plame-Gate" will fade from the collective consciousness of many, it's time to ponder why so many explosives (of the "conventional" sort) fell into the hands of the insurgents.

Our troops (9 just recently) are being killed by devices fabricated from explosives that were left unguarded as we rolled across the desert 4 years ago.

Our troops are often being blasted into vegetative states by these same explosives.

It's odd that we went to war in search of WMDs while TOTALLY missing the boat on securing oodles of weapons-grade HMX and RDX explosive powders.

The Uranium-Wilson-Plame-Libby story is history, the bombing and maiming of our troops is NOW.

The American public needs to realize the magnitude of the debacle Cheyney-Bush have unleashed on the world.

Libby was convicted. Big deal.

The whole war sucks.

We are appalled at the conditions at W.Reed where privatization (and the flaws therein) once again reared it's ugly head.

We privatized security in Iraq folks! Why do you think the explosives went a missing?

I am known in these parts as a dunce, liar and a shill.

You don't say.

Live blogging: John Dean says he is depressed by the day, that he was wrong with his book title--
it is much, much worse than Watergate.
He would think Joe Wilson can bring out issues in his civil suit.
As for Watergate, all the people who lied--Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichlman, --all foolish. They can't get away with it. It doesn't work.
There is no degree or minutia this (Bush)administration will not go--to put this kind of effort, time, devotion to discredit a man, it leads to all kinds of questions.
Dean says they are not hesitant to dissemble when needed. This is an unfortunate,to sell, or if they did sell the war.
The last stone unturned on this--Dean doesn't know. He thinks a pardon will happen, a question of timing, based on appeal. But a dangerous pardon that will ring through history, not unlike his father and the pardoning of Casper Weingarten.
The timing is tricky. Reality may change that dimension for this administration.

I maintain that the privatizing trends or predilections of Libby's bosses is a far greater crime than his perjury conviction.

From 4/04

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11242

Private Social Security accounts. Private FEMA related services. Private mercenaries in Iraq. Private hospital management at W. Reed. Privating our own privates into oblivion and beyond.

What a wonderful world Cheyney-Bush have in store for us all.

"Nobody was charged with LEAKING !!!

Yeah, and you don't have a fiucking clue as to why, do you?

Posted by: Apollo 13 "

I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man (or woman).

Idiot.

"scotian: As for your doubts with Armitage, would you mind being a bit more specific as I am not entirely sure I know what you mean and I am curious.

When the news about Armitage became public it just seemed fishy to me. As though all of a sudden someone decided to try to throw the bloodhounds off Libby's trail.

I wouldn't call your writing "esoteric". I would call it informed. But that's faint praise as I am known in these parts as a dunce, liar and a shill."

Posted by: spider on March 6, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Last 'graph first: You have not with me so far called such nor treated as such, otherwise I would not be having this exchange with you so far as I have, no? Even if you are MRM in disguise, which clearly some here have decided upon by this time (I am not yet so convinced, as I have not been as involved in the comments over the past few months as I once was, and I do not take anyone's word about such things, that is one of those things I feel it is always best to determine for myself and while I will consider what others think as an element ultimately I make that call for myself in all cases), that does not discredit automatically as a shill with me as I always saw MRM as more than that. Misguided, wrong, and misinformed on more than a few things I had no problems saying but I generally considered MRM one of the few conservative voices at this blog worth my time to read, consider, and reply to. That was also why when I thought he was being particularly blind about something I could get rather frustrated and somewhat, shall we say, bitingly disappointed in tone. In any event you have not discredited yourself with me, I thank you for the compliment and am quite comfortable taking it at face value as you have yet to give me cause to feel otherwise.

As for the first 'graph, yes, I would have to say there was a certain deliberative feel to it, I felt that then and do now although then I was unwilling to assume it was the most obvious possibility (diversionary tactic as you mention) while now I would be more comfortable doing so. The fact that it was from all I've seen true does make the timing of it becoming publicly known given the context of that time worthy of serious consideration, and one thing I learned to use as a general rule of thumb with Bushco is never to assume the obvious is either the main and/or only reason they have for their actions, especially when viewing "coincidental" common interests in some respect(s). I can speculate a lot but I suspect it will be years before I am comfortable treating things like this as near certainty level consideration. The world is a very complex and non-absolute reality despite all of the absolute conceptual constructs we have in our language and perceptual frameworks. This alas I think barring some new revelatory piece of information is going to be one of those long suspected but never quite confirmed examples of that less than absolute reality. *rueful chuckle*

consider always wisely:

I know what esoteric means, I wasn't sure the context and manner it was being applied as I can make that work either positively or negatively where my writing is concerned. Hence why I asked what I did, and your answer deals with that question sufficiently, thank you...:)

Scotian: This alas I think barring some new revelatory piece of information is going to be one of those long suspected but never quite confirmed examples of that less than absolute reality. *rueful chuckle*

You write really well. Do come back.

Maybe some day we can talk about Sandy Berger.

Meanwhile, this is a good day for the U.S., not so much for the Republicans. And I really do have to leave.

You liberals have stuck Mr. Scotian in the side with your spears, and now he is flailing at you.

Is that what this place has dissolved into? Where did all of that censorship go? I thought calling people names and using profanity was banned for good so that the red little ears of your more sensitive liberals could be spared.

There was no crime here, liberals, and you all know it. You know in your heart of hearts that a good man with young children now gets to go to a minimum security prison for no good reason, well--he gets to go to prison because of your deranged hatred for the greatest President of the United States since Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Bah!

That's what I think of your victory dance. Bah!

Someone call a Waaahhhh-mbulance for Mr. Rogers.

Bah!

You all dance like you have ants in your pants.

Won any Presidential elections lately?

Bah!

The last four, as a matter of fact.

Posted by: Mike K on March 6, 2007 at 9:21 PM

You refuse to battle because you have no wits, Mike K. I am well-prepared but you are still clueless and have to resort to calling me an idiot, a projection of your own lack of knowledge.

There is a reason why no one has been charged with leaking Plame's CIA identity but you can't say why, can you? Nah, I didn't think you could.

Ferreted? That implies covert. Someone who looks up my name in the phone book can hardly lay claim to ferreting.

Anybody ever wonder why Cheney was so upset about his reported request for Wilson's Niger trip?
Maybe the connection of the name Cheney to Niger was a little too close for comfort? The Libby verdict is really small potatoes. Someone needs to find out about the real crime, as in who ordered the Niger forgeries. I think we'll find that Cheney wasn't far removed from that person and probably had something to do with it.

"Posted by: Mike K on March 6, 2007 at 9:21 PM

You refuse to battle because you have no wits, Mike K. I am well-prepared but you are still clueless and have to resort to calling me an idiot, a projection of your own lack of knowledge."

I would be willing to match knowledge but you are an anonymous dope.

"There is a reason why no one has been charged with leaking Plame's CIA identity but you can't say why, can you? Nah, I didn't think you could.

Posted by: Apollo 13"

The reason, of course, is that it was not secret. She was not covered by the IPA and therefore there was no crime.

I'm sorry to be harsh but I do have trouble with fools.

All this talk about "perjury", yet Clinton was never convicted of perjury.

Yes, he lied in a deposition to a civil suit, but that doesn't necessarily meet the definition of perjury.

And for the record, does anybody remember Mark Furman from the OJ Simpson trial? He lied under oath and said he never used the N word. A tape was produced showing him saying it repeatedly.

After being convicted of perjury, what was his sentence? A 200 dollar fine and probation.

spider:

If you want some way to know what I have thought contemporaneously about Berger and his troubles over the 9/11/01 hearings prep issues at the National Archives, just go look for the threads/posts here at PA from that time to find out, I assure you there are several there. While I thought he broke the rules and deserved some censure I also recognized he was dealing with copies to use for prep work for testimony to that commission and therefore the intent was not to damage originals and by doing so interfere with the official record. I by when enough was known thought he’d acted in a fairly foolish manner and he needed to be held to account for the narrow scope of what he actually did wrong in improper handling, taking, and destroying of national security sensitive documents still classified and was by the end of it unlike those within this WH and their security clearances. I am not a newbie but an oldie, I just have been mostly lurking the last year and a bit because I have been more focused on dealing with the closer threat from the dark tides of movement conservativism here at home. Indeed, I have a long extensive writing history here on issues ranging from the original Plame outing to the SBVfT fraud to the Schiavo final fortnight and the Congressional debacle to Katrina, although I started tapering off a lot around that last point onwards.

The fool responds: The reason, of course, is that it was not secret.

Yeah, sure, know-nothing. You are wrong. Still clueless, as usual.

Scotian and I have been engaging in thoughtful discourse for a couple of years now. I have never read a post that I felt to be lacking in the application of thoughtful analysis or critical thought.

I am glad to see him back here posting more often.

Hey there Apollo, how the hell you been? Survive those killer storms okay?

Hey, know-nothing, Mike K. Tune into CNN where they are discussing that Plame was undercover and her status was classified... you know, "top secret," in case you don't know what that means.

Globe,
Is Mike K really a doctor?! Sheesh!

I hope to hell he's a pathologist - that way the worst tahat could happen is maybe he would get a pulse..."Honey, it was a nightmare. I almost gained one on the table today."

The Democrats goal, and mission, was to bring down Cheney or Rove, or both.

The result was a second tier player convicted of perjury, in the course of the investigation to determine whether or not a crime was actually committed.

Well done.

And for the record, does anybody remember Mark Furman from the OJ Simpson trial? He lied under oath and said he never used the N word. A tape was produced showing him saying it repeatedly.

Huh?

What kind of monosyllabic putz tries to bring up the OJ Simpson trial in order to argue any point of law, real or imagined?

I mean, I do this because I happen to believe Mr. Libby is innocent and you libs are off your rocker again.

But whoever has decided to bring up OJ is only hurting the cause. Please--shut your yap and let the professionals handle the blogging, for the love of God. You are embarrassing yourself and causing sensible people to crinkle their nose and look away from their computer screens. OJ? Furman? Have you lost your mind?

Hysterical musings just aren't as entertaining as they used to be, I am afraid...

Survived the storms just fine, Globe. Good to see Scotian here as well. How's the new place? Y'all hooked up OK now?

Actually, as a member in good standing of the American Society of Clinical Pathologists, I retract that last statement. Next full moon I will chant the retraction three times while turning counterclockwise circles at midnight.

The thought makes me tremble for my profession.

Yeah. I tore AT&T a new one for their mendacity in the installation process. But everything is cool now. As of Thursday at 12:15, I will be on spring break - always a welcome respite.

LOVE the wood floors and the crown mouldings and the gallery entry.

Like the new dwelling so much that I moved the blog to a new URL. New look, same attitude.

Yeah, I've been to your new blog URL. Just lurking recently but still checking it out regularly. Glad to hear your new home suits you.

Mike K - Apollo 13 took you to woodshed. Also, next time you attempt to defend your totally flacid arguments, use your own material; if you are going to use my lines you need to pay accordingly.

Mike K., You've been served.

Hello, is this the “Argument Clinic�?

I thought I was late, but nope.

The first phase of the Libby trial is now recorded. Now the negotiations begin and for Libby it’s about 700 bucks an hour. Ouch.

My question is…

Will he run out of money or time, first?

Nah, too many rich friends, his enemy is time.

GC/BG,RS:

Why thank you for those kind words, especially given how much your stock has risen in the NA progressive blogosphere over the past year. I have been seeing your blog cropping up on more and more blogs of others that I read including up here in the Canadian political blogosphere. As I said it is having to deal with PM Harper that has kept me at lurking status these days for the most part, but you know how seriously I took this issue from the outset so how could I not return to where I have the longest record of my views on this debacle and atrocity from the outset? Trust me; as soon as the greater forces of darkness here are defeated I will be able to spend more time kibitzing American politics again. Indeed, it is because I have spent so much time following American domestic politics so closely that I was able to recognize exactly how dangerous Harper truly is for us. Not to mention his connections to Luntz, Norquist, Reed, and many other College Republican "luminaries" and how serious a concern that should be.

I am just glad to finally be seeing the intelligence community seeing at least some justice done to it. It has been a sad irony that this case has always given a massive edge to those that betrayed the intelligence community to smear and confuse/spin this issue since by their very nature intelligence agents (especially covert) cannot come forward defend Plame nor explain just how horrific the damage from this sort of outing occurs. We have seen an incredible amount of deception regarding her role at the CIA and what it meant to expose her CIA connections. We have seen an incredible amount of nonsense passed off as informed opinion on intelligence issues by political operatives from the GOP and the real intelligence operatives (the few that can speak publicly to begin with like Larry Johnson) rarely even get air time and are usually lumped in/described as Democrats because of their opposition to Bushco on this issue regardless of what their actual political affiliations might be. So this truly is the first sign of evidence that the American those intelligence agents have risked all for (not just their lives but those close to them as well by the very nature of the risks of the profession) still exists under all the slime that Bushco and the GOP Congress that so recently was defeated have coated her and her Constitution with.

Let me lob those thanks right back over the net. I never imagined, when I had a hissy fit at my 12-year-old legacy governor that anyone would notice, let alone care.

In one of my study groups at the CC we have been discussing Social Contract theory and I have been giving the Constitution center stage.

GC/BG,RS:

Hey, when you demonstrate the quality of reasoning and grasp of facts upon which you base it that you have from the outset what else could and should one expect, at least in any community that prizes such in practice as well as in claim? Then there is your clear heart and deep convictions that shine through your thinking/writing and have since I first remember encountering you here. You have provided some of the commentary I most enjoyed here at PA over the years along with those like cmdicely, Apollo 13, Gregory, Pale Horse (although in his case he could have gotten away with high horse for an alias on occasion, he does have a knack for it I find although thankfully it is well directed as a rule) and others of that calibre, and it is because of such exchanges and commentary by others that kept me here all those years and why I still come back to comment from time to time as well as simply lurk. I lurk because when I write a comment I then tend to come back to check from time to time, and as you have no doubt noticed I am not one to write short comments so it does eat up more time than simply lurking does. One of the reasons I enjoy the blogs that allow commentary is that I encounter so many diverse and well informed voices such as yours as shown itself to be. I like to think I occasionally provided a similar service to others in this regard as they do for me, even if I do tend to be more than a little prolific in my commentary.

"The fool responds: The reason, of course, is that it was not secret.

Yeah, sure, know-nothing. You are wrong. Still clueless, as usual.

Posted by: Apollo 13"

What an authority ! CNN says it so it must be true. I'll bet you watch Olberman too.

Why don't you read the law ? Have fun. I can't take it anymore. Dopes.

Poor Scotian--

You forgot me!

That's fine, my old friend. Occasionally, when I am setting up a business deal that will net me a nice profit and bankrupt a small company, I forget to pay homage to liberals like yourself.

Bon boyage, liberals! Enjoy your drugs and your bad haircuts. It is all that you have to keep you warm until President Giuliani takes over and figures out how to incarcerate the lot of you...

Bah!

i thought i'd stop back in some 60 comments later, and while it's a closely run thing, mike k continues to be leader in witlessness today! job well done, mike k!

valerie plame was covert: the only people who deny this are those with a vested interest in lying.

and i have no idea what you mean by "read the law." i, for one, have read the IIPA; it sets a very high bar for conviction (why, you'd almost think thank toensing feared that someday an ally of hers would get in trouble) requiring a prosecutor to prove "intentionality," which is very tricky.

were i fitzgerald, i'd have rolled the dice, but he was a responsible prosecutor, although one who let us know, in general terms, what really happened: the rogue ovp, which among its many charms claims to have discovered a unique constitutional role for the little thug who occupies the office, not only was running a smear campaign but in the course of it illegally outed a cia agent. if libby had told the truth, odds are good that fitzgerald would have gone after cheney, but libby is committed to omerta.

but i digress: what was your point again? other than to demonstrate that you are among the liars?

Why don't you read the law ? Have fun. I can't take it anymore. Dopes.

Mike K, the doh-dee-doh-doh-doh doofus who can't cite a fact or the law for spouting off insults that are limp and empty. You, Mike Know-Nothing, don't know the law apparently because you have failed to prove your point in any way whatsoever. CNN is far more credible than you, dopey, because they discussed the law and that's something you have not done.

First of all, it's the IIPA, not the IPA, idiot.

Kevin Drum pointed out a long time ago on Jul. 27, 2005, that the bar for prosecution under IIPA is extremely high. If you click the link in Kevin's post, you find a WaPo article that explains:

The law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, was enacted in 1982 and was designed to protect the identities of covert U.S. agents. It was a response to an organized campaign led by former CIA agent Philip Agee to identify CIA and other U.S. covert agents around the world.

After it was signed into law, the measure quickly faded into obscurity. Government officials said yesterday they could not recall a single prosecution under the law, although they said they could not completely rule that out....

... The statute includes three other elements necessary to obtain a conviction: that the disclosure was intentional, the accused knew the person being identified was a covert agent and the accused also knew that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

The law says no person other than the one accused of leaking the information can be prosecuted, a provision that would protect journalists who report leaked classified information identifying a covert agent. But there is one exception to that protection.

The measure says people who engage in a "pattern of activities" intended to identify covert agents and who have "reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States" can be prosecuted. Smith said that language was aimed at the publishers of the Covert Action Information Bulletin and others who made it a practice to identify undercover CIA agents.

As for Rove, Fitz would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karl knew Plame was covert, knew that the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her identity, and that Karl intentionally outed her as an undercover agent. Same goes for Cheney. Now if Libby provides some new information (if he flips and provides proof) that would satisfy all those points required by the IIPA (which I doubt) perhaps others could be charged under the IIPA. However, Scooter's obstruction of justice makes it unlikely that evidence would be available to prove the elements necessary to obtain a conviction as Fitz elaborated during his press conference on the Libby indictments...that Libby's obstructions prevented Fitz and the grand jury from determining whether the leak violated that federal law. Federal prosecutors don't pursue crimes when they know they cannot secure a conviction. Got it, moron?

Now don your dunce cap, Mike K, and wear it proudly, fool. CNN has repeatedly blown your favorite bullshit talking point tonight and so has the record of credible sources (of which, you are not) if only you could read them.

Here's another source about Plame's covert status from David Shuster from Hardball (May 2, 2006) that I cited at at 8:12 PM this evening that you overlooked or ignored. I'll put it in boldface to hopefully improve your reading comprehension so you can refrain from spreading false information as you previously stated... that it was no secret that Plame was undercover:

"Wilson was not just undercover but, according to intelligence sources, was part of an effort three years ago [in 2003] to monitor the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran."

howard,
Can you believe the willful ignorance of Mike K? Oh, wait, he must be another of the many liars who infect these threads with bullshit.

Mike K, clueless twit
Offers no facts, just insults.
Moron or liar?

What it is really about -- what it has always been about -- is whether this administration deliberately misled the American people about WMD intelligence before the war.

I did not believe this even after the grand jury passed the indictment, though I accorded some respect to Fitzgerald and to the jurors. I thought that the case would fall apart when the witnesses were cross-examined. Instead, the trial jurors found him guilty, and I have to confess that I came to agree with them, and I think it looks really bad for Cheney.

Praise and more praise for Fitzgerald. He saw the forest and the trees (using the old metaphor) and pursued the quarry (mixing metaphors, for the fun of it.) I'm disappoointed.

Jay: The Democrats goal, and mission, was to bring down Cheney or Rove, or both.
...
The result was a second tier player convicted of perjury, in the course of the investigation to determine whether or not a crime was actually committed.

Jay, I think our team let us down. Libby obstructed the investigation. This might be Cheney's line in the history books: he intentionally perverted the intelligence concerning nuclear weapons in Iraq, and his right-hand man committed perjury to cover it up.

Democratic critics of the Bush administration were right on this one.

Fitzgerald did a good job.

Mike K writes:

Still, you took one more step toward making the country ungovernable.

Your silence about the responses to your comment speaks volumes.

Norman Rogers writes:

Is that what this place has dissolved into?

And yet, you come back to post here. Is it because this liberal-run blog is clearly superior to the half-dozen conservative blogs, namely the strangely-named "Free Republic," which censors comments that presents an opposing viewpoint?

By all accounts, this trial was fairly handled. Fitz is as even-handed as they come. Because of this, you conservatives need to learn to respect the process of our justice system and the decision it rendered in this case.

Weinberger, Consider Wisely—not Weingarten.

Normal Rigor: "Hysterical musings just aren't as entertaining as they used to be, I am afraid..."

That must make it even harder to justify your existence these days. That and the bad spelling.

hey, apollo 13!

ya know, it's people like mike k that have soured me kevin's comments section, despite knowing that there are some truly sharp folks like you here. god, if there were just some intelligent conservatives, i've love to mix it up, but the trained dog rhetoric we get from (as i noted up above) "the usual gang of clods and idiots" is just so cloddish and idiotic that i can't bear to plow through it that much anymore.

The real question is not whether Cheney told Libby Plame's name, nor even if he directed Libby to leak it. Neither would be self-evidently illegal. The explosive question, one which now hangs prominently in the air, is whether Cheney suborned perjury and obstructed justice by urging Libby to lie or through his own lying in his interviews with the FBI and prosecutors.

Democratic critics of the Bush administration were right on this one.

Marler, Democratic critics of the Bush administration are right on every one.

Which is why your continued water carrying for this Administration forfeits any possibility of considering you an honest conservative.

One would hope that this verdict would make Bush's apologists go back and re-examine their support of his mendacious, incompetent and corrupt regime -- but nooooooooooo, as Mike K and Jay prove. (Mike K, your continued clinging to the fantasy that Plame was not covert marks you as both dishonest and an idiot.) Cognitive dissonance is truly an awesome force.

Meanwhile, Marler basically spends his time here gloating about the difficult position Bush's fecklessness -- on fiscal, domestic and foreign policy -- has put the Democrats.

Well, that's pretty much true, Marler. Great party you support there. Your continued support reflects really well on you -- not.

the trained dog rhetoric we get from (as i noted up above) "the usual gang of clods and idiots" is just so cloddish and idiotic that i can't bear to plow through it that much anymore.

A fact that, I'm sure, is/was not lost on the likes of Charlie in his many guises, "American Hawk," "Frequency Kenneth" and his/her/its sock puppets, the neocon shill "ex-liberal", and the various and sundry other purveyors of bullshit GOP spin.

I noted in these threads some time ago that the presence of these vermin was ruining Kevin's brand. Although some moderation has been applied, I think the damage has been done.

Kenji--Yeah, I messed up the last part of the name as I rapidly typed John Dean's remarks while he spoke on one of the evening news shows.
I just had a labor relations course where we discussed the Weingarten decision.
So that's how Casper Weinberger became Casper Weingarten.
Kind of interesting how the mind works, or doesn't...

Look, you folks think insults are facts. That's why I don't post here much anymore. I still respect Kevin and look to see what he is posting. He is no more responsible for his commenters than Charles Johnson is. CNN made a business decision several years ago that they were losing market to Fox and turned left. Fair enough. But that doesn't make them an authority on anything but what you folks want to hear. Ditto for MSNBC.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act was written narrowly because it was skirting the first amendment. A communist sympathizer was publishing the names of CIA station chiefs and one was killed. The LA Times recently did something very similar in publishing the home locations of ex-CIA pilots involved in that Italian case where the Italian politicians decided to renounce an old cooperation in grabbing a jihadi leader in Italy. The LA Times came close to being a better candidate for prosecution than Libby.

Wilson is a liar and was sent at the suggestion of his wife, a non-covered analyst, to Niger. He had no expertise in nuclear proliferation matters but he still learned that Iraq was seeking something and Niger has nothing to sell but yellowcake. The 16 words were correct. Bush is at fault for the Libby prosecution because he should not have backed away from the SOTU statement, he should not have allowed Schumer to stampede Gonzales into appointing Fitzgerald. There was no crime.

Now you can resume the ignorant rants.

True, the first sentence is a bit long, but this tasty paragraph reminds me of why I miss old howard's luscious exposition so much:

were i fitzgerald, i'd have rolled the dice, but he was a responsible prosecutor, although one who let us know, in general terms, what really happened: the rogue ovp, which among its many charms claims to have discovered a unique constitutional role for the little thug who occupies the office, not only was running a smear campaign but in the course of it illegally outed a cia agent. if libby had told the truth, odds are good that fitzgerald would have gone after cheney, but libby is committed to omerta.

And Apollo13, you're simply on fire, my friend.

Posted by: Mike K on March 7, 2007 at 9:14 AM

Not only did you NOT back up your wildly inaccurate assertions with a link or a cite, you began the insults way up thread and acted as if they were facts. You are seriously out of touch and your state of denial is pathological. Even the Bush WH said the 16 words were wrong. But not you! See a professional mental professional. You need help. You're insane.

"I don't give a good goddamn what the post-1548 medical research says. No, don't bother trying to explain it to me, fool. Those research institutions are run by fag terrorists. I'm going to continue using leeches on my patients, so suck it up, liberal dopes."

Mike, that last comment is trollish and make me wonder. It is only one comment, but it makes me wonder.

At any rate, today I would not trust you if I were an undercover agent. You exhibit a scary ability to deny facts (e.g., she was undercover) and to rationalize (e.g., what Libby and Rove did was pretty bad).

Shortstop!

That was funny!!! Scary part is that it could be true!

The 16 words were correct. Bush is at fault for the Libby prosecution because he should not have backed away from the SOTU statement, he should not have allowed Schumer to stampede Gonzales into appointing Fitzgerald. There was no crime.

This kind of mendacious, blatantly dishonest bullshit is why no one here puts any stock in anything you post, and in fact dismiss you as a pathetic, laughable, loser.

I pity your patients more than Nathan's clients.

I love how Gregory jumps out, wacks people on the head with a quick verbal club, and dashes back to his cave. It's so...so....

Guerrilla blogging.

Deal.

"Now you can resume the ignorant rants."

ROFLMAO.... Oh, the irony, given what he wrote in that post, most of which was flatly incorrect and the rest of which was wholly unsupported. Not one single verified fact in the whole ignorant rant.

"Mike, that last comment is trollish and make me wonder. It is only one comment, but it makes me wonder.

At any rate, today I would not trust you if I were an undercover agent. You exhibit a scary ability to deny facts (e.g., she was undercover) and to rationalize (e.g., what Libby and Rove did was pretty bad).

Posted by: jackohearts"

Would you accept a statement from The Nation ?

Why is Armitage, who did leak the name of Plame, never criticized on the left wing sites like this ? Maybe because it doesn't fit Bush Derangement Syndrome ?

I wouldn't have you as patients anyway, as I don't do charity.

Just kidding. I wanted you see what a real snark looked like. Actually, I do a lot of charity with teaching. I know students and you folks don't look like students I would want.

An open letter to my friend Mike K:

Wilson is a liar and was sent at the suggestion of his wife, a non-covered analyst, to Niger.

My friend, these liberals do not understand either one of us. We are warriors for the truth and we will beat all of them senseless with the truth. However, I must quibble with a few pieces of information that you are throwing out at them and help you firm up your arguments.

First of all, Joe Wilson was a Republican, my friend, and Republicans don't lie. Joe was an experienced ambassador, knew the Middle East and Africa quite well, and had the critical skills needed to stand up to that monster Saddam Hussein. Do you remember the story about how he put a noose around his own neck in defiance against Saddam's promise to hang the Americans? That's the kind of Republican I would like to think that I have always been. True, Joe left the reservation--but if we keep up with this line of talk, he'll never come back to the reservation when he realizes just how sickening it is to be aligned with a bunch of Godless liberals. Once Joe comes back to the reservation, let's welcome him back.

He had no expertise in nuclear proliferation matters but he still learned that Iraq was seeking something and Niger has nothing to sell but yellowcake. The 16 words were correct.

No, we have it on record that the 16 words weren't true and they had to pull those words out. Any liberal with a half a bag if wits can prove you wrong on that point. What it would be better to say is that Joe didn't call up Dick Cheney and ask for the Ambassadorship in Belgium or Spain in return for being quiet--that's how things are normally done. I fault Joe for not calling up and threatening Cheney. Cheney knows how to countermand a good threat. Wilson asks for Spain, Cheney offers him Finland. Wilson asks for Belgium, Cheney comes back and says, fine, you Son of a Bitch, you can have Belgium, now shut up. I fault Joe for not doing that--but like I said, let's hope he comes back to the reservation.

Bush is at fault for the Libby prosecution because he should not have backed away from the SOTU statement, he should not have allowed Schumer to stampede Gonzales into appointing Fitzgerald. There was no crime.

No, my good friend--this is all the fault of that ridiculous Missouri God-boy hick John Ashcroft, who went eeny-meenie-miney-moe and landed on the WRONG prosecutor. Everyone knows you're supposed to have three or four rubes stashed in the back of your company to trundle out for fall-guy assignments. I used to keep a cubicle full of these clowns on salary in one of my former incarnations as a partner in an investment firm. If the SEC sent someone to look into what we were doing, I'd send one of these mouth-breathers into a conference room and stall while we shredded documents and ran a magnet over the hard drive on the computer we used to keep track of the transactions we kept off the books--standard practice.

I hear what you're saying, old friend. No, there was no crime. No, Mr. Libby is, in fact, innocent and he should get his pardon for his crimes. You and I should continue to give to his legal defense fund and I hope you can match my $25,000 contribution. Can I forward your pledge to my contact on his defense fund--Ms. Comstock?

What you fail to realize is that these liberals are getting pretty good at organizing their little facts and they can come back with their own version of events--let's not hand them another victory, shall we?

Mum's the word, old friend. Let's keep our ranting on the down low...

"The reason, of course, is that it was not secret. She was not covered by the IPA and therefore there was no crime."

"I'm sorry to be harsh but I do have trouble with fools.

And, once again, "oh, the irony...." ROFL....

"Would you accept a statement from The Nation ?"

Not without supporting evidence? Got any?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Look, you folks think insults are facts.

If the facts abotu you and your ilk are insults, Mike K, it reflects on you, not us.

That's why I don't post here much anymore.

Whatever works.

Who needs your bullshit? If I want GOP talking points, I can tune to Faux News. If I was deranged, cowardsly, authoritarian Bush Cultism, there's always PowerLame or the Ole Perfesser.

I love how Neanderthal doesn't have any substantive rebuttal, so he/she/it resorts to ad hominems. I'll take that as a concession that you have no convincing retort, coward.

I know there's no honest way of defending the mendaicty, incompetence and corruption of Bush, his malfeasant amdinistration and the Republican Party in general, but no one forces you to try. If you can't stand the heat of being called on your bullshit, as Harry Truman said, stay the hell out of Nagasaki.

And by the way, I'm still here (inasmuch as work permits, of course.)

Guerrilla blogging.

Deal.

Ah, BGRS, if there's anything the Republicans have demonstrated in my generation, it's that they have no idea how to deal with guerillas. ;)

I'm vastly amused that our resident purveyors of bullshit GIOP spin -- not an honest conservative among them -- and their loony libertarian allies prove to be, to no one's surprise, a bunch of whiny cowards.

I call Dumbfuck!
Fitgerald - appointed by Comey, not Ashcroft.

If Plame had not been covert, the CIA would not have referred the issue to DOJ. Simple fact.
No referral to Justice by CIA, no recusal by Ashcroft, no appointment of Fitzgerald by Comey, no cover-up by Libby, no lying by Libby to FBI or Grand Jury, no indictment of Libby by Fitzgerald, no conviction of Libby by Jury.
All of which have happened, therefore ...

Irony alert Sepaking of bullshit GOP spin, Mike K sums it up for us thus:

Wilson is a liar blah balh blah... There was no crime.

...and then sneers about "ignorant rants.". Talk about projection!

Seriously, Mike K, where do you get that crap? Driect from the GOP blast-fax, or is it filtered thru shills and liars like PowerLine?

Loony libertarian?

Sir, I resent that remark. The only loonies I see around here are the ones yelling "Fitzmas!" and calling for the impeachment of the finest public servant who ever held office in this country, Vice President Richard Cheney.

Out of courtesy, I shall not insult you. It is my fervent belief that the power of my convictions and the strength of my command of the facts overwhelms any mere name-calling that I might suffer.

You may fire away; the fortress of truth that I command is made of granite and is hewn from the living rock of a mountain that towers over your rolling hills of misguided derangement. My mountain cannot be washed away.

Loony libertarian? Sir, I resent that remark.

Loony libertarian?

Sir, I resemble that remark.

There. Fixed it for ya.

Oh, indeed, "Norman;" I agree with you that the libertarian faith is impervious to facts, data, experience, and example.

We need only to look to the Libertarian Utopias of Somalia and Iraq to see that Hobbes was right. It's a truly impressive feat that loony libertarians manage to overlook centuries of political philosophy in their fervor to embrace Ayn Rand (whose turgidity, at least, if not veracity, surpasses any political philosopher).

I would like to hear from the CIA about Brewster-Jennings.Did Dick Cheney warn them to pull in agents from overseas,or did Cheney let these people hang from there nads in foreign countries.If he did let them hanging he should be put in front of a firing squad.

If Plame had not been covert, the CIA would not have referred the issue to DOJ. Simple fact.

That's not entirely true; Plame's relation to the US government could have been or involved classified information without her meeting the IIPA definition of "covert", its even quite possible for an agent's relation to be very hard to characterize as within or without IIPA protection with certainty.

Speaking of the IIPA, since, when obstruction occurs in a criminal case, the crime being investigated factors into the severity of the offense under the federal sentencing guidelines, it'll be interesting to see how the sentencing goes; a lot of the media predictions seem to assume either that the severity won't be calculated based on IIPA being the crime being investigated, or that there will be a large downward departure.

We need only to look to the Libertarian Utopias of Somalia and Iraq to see that Hobbes was right.

Yes, he WAS right, and Mr. Hobbes was correct in saying that when man is not subject to a "common power" that

Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man.

And that is what you have in lawless places. Anywhere that the Republican Party is not in control of things, running things, and making the decisions, there is what Hobbes called "warre" and by that I think he means to say "war."

The conflict in Somalia began when Clinton cut and ran; the conflict we see in Iraq began when President George W Bush handed over power to the Iraqi people, lest liberals accuse him of being a crusader and a conqueror, and the Iraqis have botched their own country so badly, we may end up having to invade it once more in order to wipe the slate clean.

Liberals--do you sing yourselves to sleep at night with delusional lullabies?

My goodness...the stupid is so thick, you can stir it with a straw around here.

Norman, "No, we have it on record that the 16 words weren't true and they had to pull those words out. Any liberal with a half a bag if wits can prove you wrong on that point. ", This just isn't true. The British still stand by their report. The supposed Italian forgery was later and may have been disinformation.

These folks get mad at Washington Post when it agrees with me and swear by CNN when it agrees with them. See any trend ? I do.

Have a great day. Have a little fun with the Libby conviction before you give in to BDS again.

The Washington Post, liberal but rational

The Washington Post is "liberal" only by comparison to the Moonie Times. I don't see any evidence that its particularly rational compared to the rest of the major media, either (though again its "rational" compared to the Moonie Times.)

t's fascinating, really, the extent to which the Bush Apologists have to believe the libby verdict represents "partisan politics" -- notice how many of our rhightard commentators refer to it as "a win for our side", and not justice in general. Why, it's as if Libby's guilt, and the public record of the trial, reflects poorly on the Bush Administration and reveals that the whole "yellowcake" theory (which Mike K is still defending!) was a tissue of lies.

Cognitive dissonance, much?

The British still stand by their report. The supposed Italian forgery was later and may have been disinformation.

Sorry, sir. I do not trust the British. I regard them as traitors for abandoning our flank in Iraq.

You do know that Tony Blair is a liberal poodle, do you not? A man with no principles? A convenient fool who follows the whims of current events?

I am shocked that a man such as yourself would believe the British and not realize that our own vaunted CIA has withdrawn those 16 words. A pity. Are you a closet liberal acting up in public in order to get a rise out of these cretins, sir?

These folks get mad at Washington Post when it agrees with me and swear by CNN when it agrees with them. See any trend ? I do.

No, again you are wrong and you're assumptions that folks get mad at WaPo unless they report or editorialize something incorrectly and swear by CNN unless they report or editorialize something accurately is again a misrepresentation and false. You just can't get anything right! You don't see a trend other than your own faith-based opinion which is worthless.

ROTL...you are an insane coot! Thanks for the entertainment!

what Hobbes called "warre" and by that I think he means to say "war."

I just had to Heimlich myself bent over a chair. Serves me right for eating lunch while reading this.

Norman, I can sense the smile behind the post. Unfortunately, another one of those right wing hack publications agrees with me that Plame was not covert and there was no crime. Just an overzealous prosecutor.

The end result of this will be a Republican president in 2009 (probably Rudy) as the Democrats are torn apart by furious lefties.

Just like 1972. Yawn.

Poor Mike K. You're not one of us. You're one of those liberals who believes what he reads in the Washington Post. They were wrong when Bradlee was running the place and they're wrong now that Len Downie is running things.

The fact of the matter is, Dick Cheney was too easy on Wilson. Look what being soft has brought us too--a good man is going to prison, liberals are running amok, and Al Qaeda is building nuclear weapons to use against our cities and towns.

Stop lying, Mike K. You're just another apologist for the intelligentsia that will live underground when the bombs go off.

Unfortunately, another one of those right wing hack publications agrees with me that Plame was not covert and there was no crime. Just an overzealous prosecutor.

You don't know the difference between news and an op/ed.

WaPo has published op/eds by Liz Cheney, Victoria Toensing, among other ill-informed kuckoo-for-coconut righttards. So? You have proven only that even morons that you think are right can get an op/ed published in WaPo.

Come back when you have a viable argument supported by some verifiable facts, not opinions. We can tune into Faux News anytime for the same kinda nonsense that you spout.

... another one of those right wing hack publications agrees with me that Plame was not covert and there was no crime.... Mike K at 1:28 PM

...Dick Cheney was too easy on Wilson... Norman Rogers at 1:40 PM

Bush Derangement Syndrome is characterized by overwhelming sycophancy to an incompetent, inarticulate leader who institutes policies inimical to his county's interest and welfare. Those suffering BDS, as it is commonly called, are able to make a statement defending their leader on moment, and argue the exact opposite the next. Indeed, most of those afflicted with this bizarre disease are incapable of cognitive functions when involves their Dear Leader.

...Cognitive dissonance...Gregory at 12:53 PM

...liberal but rational, deplores the conviction ... mh rat 12:15 PM

... Somalia ...Iraqis have botched their own country so badly... Norman Rogers at 12:23 PM

Somalia: George H. W. Bush attacked the country after he lost the election in a fit if pique to hamstring an incoming government with it. After Clinton took office, the rightwing began to criticize the war for "mission creep" inasmuch as it was begun to ease starvation among the Somali people. Unfortunately, that could not be done because there was no functional government there. It became a matter of stay and create a country or leave. Clinton made the right choice.

The conflict in Iraq began when George W. Bush saw that he could use his failure to take the threats of a terrorist attack on the US seriously and gratify his jones for Saddam. The chaos began as soon as the American's took charge and failed to stop the rioting and looting. From that time, the insurgency became stronger with every passing month. If Iraq had a government and had no oil, the US would have left. So much for neo-Con attempts at being the crusader behind rabbit Bush.
The biggest problem for Americans is that, as an occupying force, they are responsible under international law for the peace and security of Iraq. Unfortunately, Bush is incapable, incompetent, and in denial.