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.