Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditRobert Novak finally speaks--in a way.
In a column published in newspapers today, the conservative columnist finally discloses that he cooperated with the investigation of the CIA leak. Novak, of course, outed Valerie Wilson (aka Valerie Plame) as a CIA officer in a July 14, 2003 column on her husband's now-infamous CIA-assigned trip to Niger. In disclosing Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA--which was classified information--Novak cited two senior administration sources. After I read the original Novak column, I wondered if these leaks meant that Bush administration officials had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and wrote the first article that suggested the leaks might be evidence of a White House crime. (That article was posted on The Nation's website two days after the Novak column appeared.)
Novak's latest column answers only a few of the lingering questions. It has long been obvious that he cooperated with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald--otherwise, he would have been subpoenaed by Fitzgerald, as had Judy Miller, Matt Cooper, Tim Russert and Washington Post reporters. The only question was the manner of Novak's cooperation. In public, he had proclaimed he would not give up his source. So what did he disclose to the investigators?
It turns out that when FBI agents on October 7, 2003, first called on Novak, they already knew who his sources were. They did not need Novak to ID the senior administration officials. And Novak cooperated to an extent. As he writes, "I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources."
Three months later, he was questioned by Fitzgerald at his lawyer's office. Fitzgerald arrived wielding waivers signed by Novak's two sources. Most journalists did not accept such waivers--which were blanket statements signed by Bush administration officials under the threat of dismissal. Novak, too, did not believe these waivers, as he writes, relieved him of his "journalistic responsibility to protect a source." But since Fitzgerald already knew the identity of his sources (how Fitzgerald knew this Novak does not say), Novak discussed them by name--and avoided being subpoenaed and threatened with jail. He later testified about his sources before the grand jury.
Other reporters later took less accommodating stances. Even after Time magazine turned over emails indicating that Karl Rove had leaked information about Valerie Wilson to correspondent Matt Cooper, Cooper refused to cooperate with Fitzgerald. He only did so after his lawyer had extracted a personal waiver from Rove. Judy Miller went to jail rather than reveal that Scooter Libby had been a source, though Fitzgerald clearly knew Libby had spoken to her.
Novak took a different approach--which kept him out of jail and allowed him to duck a confrontation with Fitzgerald. He did not ask his sources for personal waivers. He confirmed for the prosecutor--even if begrudgingly--who his sources were without obtaining their permission to do so.
The leak case raised plenty of questions about reporter-source confidentiality and what journalists should do to protect sources--and how laws and ethics affect such decisions. Purists argued that reporters should never cooperate and not recognize either blanket or personal waivers. Others--such as reporters who faced jail sentences--advocated a sliding standard of sorts: they would go to prison to defend a confidentiality agreement with a source but would accept a personal waiver to avoid such trouble or to get out of jail. Novak found an even murkier middle ground: he would talk about a source whom the prosecutor had identified without first consenting with that source.
As a journalist who would not fancy doing hard time to protect an administration official, I am reluctant to judge another journalist's decision on such a matter. But, clearly, Novak's actions are not likely to win him many First Amendment awards.
Novak's new column also offers further proof that Karl Rove leaked classified information. This is no news flash. The Libby indictment pointed the finger at Rove. Rove's own lawyer has confirmed that his client confirmed the Valerie Wilson leak for Novak. And in the summer of 2005, Newsweek disclosed a Matt Cooper email that detailed how Rove had told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. (There is no question that Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA was classified. Fitzgerald stated so at a press conference last October.)
Still, despite all this evidence, the Bush White House has not honored the vow made early on in the leak investigation: anyone involved in the leak would be dismissed. Rove still is gainfully employed as George W. Bush's top strategist at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. There are no signs that he has even been disciplined or denied access to classified information. During the investigation, the president refused to say anything publicly about Rove and the probe. And after the investigation, the president has refused to say anything publicly about Rove's participation in the leak.
Novak's column is an explanation of how the columnist wiggled out of a legal jam. More important, it is a reminder of how the stonewall strategy mounted by the White House and Rove succeeded.
Share this article
David Corn
Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.
In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.
Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.
Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Mr Corn......
It's really starting to sound like Limbaugh, circa 1996, trying to vainly hope that "Whitewater" is "still not over, folks".
Patrick Fitzgerald, a man you praised earlier, let Rove go....not to put too fine a point on it. So to keep saying "I was right" means that a seasoned prosecutor was wrong and it starts looking like obsession...or just ego.
Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 2:02pm
From an article by By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, July 19, 2005
"In June 2004, Bush was asked if he would fire anyone found to have leaked the agent's name. "Yes," he replied."
Posted by drhammer at 07/12/2006 @ 2:30pm
Vainly, I searched for the words "I was right" in David's piece. In fact, anybody who can read has known for nearly a year that David Corn did not expect Rove to be convicted. Sure, he fanned the flames, but he invariably concluded that it was only an outside chance.
What's being done here is the accurate documentation of how the Bush administration goes about its business. History will show that there has never been such a case of a candidate running on virtue and so completely resorting to vice in office. And the so-called Plame affair, in spite of its flimsy legal basis, will be the metaphor for the whole charade.
Posted by MyParadigm at 07/12/2006 @ 2:32pm
"History will show that there has never been such a case of a candidate running on virtue and so completely resorting to vice in office."
Talking Jesus and doing Satan is the very backbone of our political history.
Posted by donboyes at 07/12/2006 @ 2:53pm
These Republican bastards have the temerity to spout their slanderous "anti-American" accusations against Americans who oppose the betrayal of our Constitution while wrapping themselves in the mantle of "protecting America". Simultaneous with that they were exposing a CIA agent who was tasked with WMD non-proliferation, along with her whole network.
The Republican Party is a party of treason, pure and simple. The American people made a terrible and tragic mistake when they gave these self-serving, hypocritical, right-wing ideologues control of our government. Let's hope that Americans have at least learned from experience.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/12/2006 @ 3:08pm
"...More important, it is a reminder of how the stonewall strategy mounted by the White House and Rove succeeded."
Really? I thought the way it worked was if there's evidence that you committed a crime, then you were indicted or convicted of a crime. Example - So, regardless of the evidence, if the Duke Lacrosse players simply stonewall, then they'll be set free?
Posted by woodyee at 07/12/2006 @ 3:09pm
"Talking Jesus and doing Satan is the very backbone of our political history." And that makes it ok?
Posted by Invention at 07/12/2006 @ 3:14pm
"These Republican bastards have the temerity to spout their slanderous "anti-American" accusations against Americans who oppose the betrayal of our Constitution while wrapping themselves in the mantle of "protecting America". Simultaneous with that they were exposing a CIA agent who was tasked with WMD non-proliferation, along with her whole network."
This is the crux of the Plame affair. It's just unfortunate that this duplicitous, even traitorous act comes packaged in such a wonkish and arcane wrapper. It makes it difficult for the average Joe to find it interesting enough to learn how his government cares more about controlling the message than actually providing for our security.
Posted by drhammer at 07/12/2006 @ 3:20pm
Posted by WOODYEE 07/12/2006 @ 3:09pm
(Straw Man Alert)
Posted by drhammer at 07/12/2006 @ 3:22pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 07/12/2006 @ 2:32pm | ignore this person
MYPARA, if David Corn has known "for a year" that Karl Rove was not going to be indicted....why did he post this, two months ago?
BLOG | Posted 05/15/2006 @ 4:04pm Asking Rove One Question
David Corn-
"I knew what not to ask Karl Rove: Are you about to be indicted in the CIA leak case?"
Because he knew it was a pointless question with an obvious answer?....Nope, read the piece. "the recent chatter in Washington--fueled in part by Rove's recent return to the grand jury room (for his fifth appearance)--that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was getting closer to indicting George W. Bush's master strategist."
Doesn't sound like somebody who "knew" that Rove was going to get off scot-free, does it?
Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 3:31pm
ALL
Some interesting questions, it bears reading
"Yesterday, Bob Novak reported that
'For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew--independent of me--the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.'
Notably, Novak states that by January 12 of 2004 Fitzgerald had waivers from the three people in the government with whom he had discussed the Mission to Niger (Harlow, the CIA's press officer who confirmed Plame's employment at the agency; Rove, who responded to Novak's inquiry that he'd heard the same thing; and Novak's original source, who refuses to release Novak to make his name public, the man whose identity Fitzgerald has not charged and continues to keep secret. (This individual is almost certainly Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's Deputy Secretary of State. The same man who almost certainly was Bob Woodward's source as well.)
Novak adds that he got Plame's name from Joseph A. Wilson IV's own biography in Who's Who, establishing yet again that Ambassador Munchausen was not exactly the sort of husband a cautious CIA would choose for an agent whose identity it meant to shield from public eyes."
In fact, several new questions arise as a result of Bob Novak's disclosures.
If Fitzgerald knew by January 12, 2004 who the leaker was and that it wasn't Libby or Rove, why did he later call them to testify before the grand jury? Was it simply to determine whether he could trap them into making perjurious statements, something the law does not permit?
If Fitzgerald knew by January 12, 2004 who the leaker was and knew it wasn't Libby, why in August of 2004 did he represent to the Court that Miller's testimony was "essential to determine whether or not Lewis Libby… has committed crimes involving the improper disclosure of national defense information or perjury"? Keep in mind that Miller spent considerable time behind bars to compel her testimony.
If Fitzgerald has known since January 12, 2004 of the name of the leaker, why is he still protecting him, and why is he treating the leaker's (that is, Armitage's) source, who is almost certainly Marc Grossman, former Under Secretary of State for political affairs, the man reportedly the source for the first accusations against Libby and Rove, as an impartial witness to the events? In the discovery process it turned out that Grossman was a longtime friend of Wilson's, dating to their college days at the University of California--Santa Barbara. Is it likely that the famous prosecutor missed this fact?
Finally (and I hope to report more fully on this soon) what role, exactly, did former Deputy Attorney General Comey, who set up this extra-statutory (and I think unconstitutional) appointment of his friend Patrick Fitzgerald, play in steering Fitzgerald toward the mistaken notion that Libby was lying, not Wilson or the CIA? How hard did his office work to ascertain the truth of the essential elements of the referral--that Plame was covert and that there had been harm to national security in the disclosure of her name--when the prosecutor fudged those issues in the indictment and at the press conference announcing it and has since backed off of those claims at all? Was that office simply trying to hamstring the Vice President's office which it viewed as a rival for the President's ear in determining the legal policies to be employed in fighting the war on terror? Did the statement of Congressman Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, revealed in the New York Times, to the effect that the Plame case was a set up by an anti-Administration clique in the CIA finally persuade Fitzgerald that he's been badly misled once again into indicting an innocent man?
Clarice Feldman is an attorney in Washington, DC. (From American Thinker)
Posted by CPT at 07/12/2006 @ 3:44pm
It is time to move on. There are more important fish to fry in this world.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/12/2006 @ 3:47pm
That's it. Clarice Feldman is RESE. Thanks, CPT.
Posted by k330k at 07/12/2006 @ 3:53pm
Melvin Lattimer(sp?) was also involved.
Posted by woodyee at 07/12/2006 @ 3:56pm
Should be interesting to watch Bush prevaricate at the next conference about why Rove has not yet been fired.
Posted by barnesgene at 07/12/2006 @ 4:05pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 07/12/2006 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person
Posted by MASK 07/12/2006 @ 2:02pm | ignore this person
Mark your calenders, guys....MASK and ILP just agreed on something. (What is this? Like twice now?)
Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 4:14pm
That's it. Clarice Feldman is RESE. Thanks, CPT.
Posted by K330K 07/12/2006 @ 3:53pm | ignore this person
No,no,no....otherwise, Feldman would have blamed it all on the "International Jewish/Jesuit/Hanso Foundation Conspiracy".
Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 4:17pm
MASK 07/12/2006 @ 3:31pm
I was careful to write convicted, not indicted.
Note also that I did not declare David Corn to be immune from the journalist's tendency to report fire when there is only smoke.
As much as I want some principal member of this malodorous administration to be convicted of something, it is indeed time to move on. I wanted the knockout. I'll take the TKO.
Posted by MyParadigm at 07/12/2006 @ 4:17pm
.
David Corn made the Valerie Wilson outing scandal his bread and butter. It turned into stale crumbs. The White House escaped serious embarrassment, Rove got off clean, Fitzgerald never did find his leak.
It was all foolishness. Such is the stuff of David Corn's life work.
.
Posted by nacl at 07/12/2006 @ 4:27pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 07/12/2006 @ 4:17pm | ignore this person
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I think you, and I, and ILOVPHYSICS seem to be on the same page, if not the same paragraph on this one.
Mr Corn has made "Plame-gate" his ...well...be kind and say "chief interest" for two years now and when it flopped last month with "Fitz-mas" stolen by the K.R.inch....he should have Moved On.org (too many puns???)
Posted by Mask at 07/12/2006 @ 4:35pm
Indeed; let's move on. But let's just go through it one more time, just so we're clear:
Some administration guy (probably Richard Armitage), whom Novak describes as "not a political gunslinger," told Novak "inadvertant[ly]" that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and probably recommended him for his trip to Africa;
Novak confirmed the information with Karl Rove and CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, although the particulars of these convos remain a matter of dispute;
Novak looked up Joe Wilson in "Who's Who in America" and discovered the name of his super-secret agent wife: Valerie Plame;
Thus fatally undermining fevered accusations that the White House plotted to "out" Plame as a matter of retaliation for Wilson's op-ed about his tea party in Niger.
Posted by woodyee at 07/12/2006 @ 4:52pm
WOODYEE 07/12/2006 @ 4:52pm
You wish. Libby's trial is coming up. We will see where the chips fall.
Posted by MyParadigm at 07/12/2006 @ 5:15pm
Posted by NACL 07/12/2006 @ 4:27pm: The White House escaped serious embarrassment, Rove got off clean, Fitzgerald never did find his leak. It was all foolishness. Such is the stuff of David Corn's life work.
Salty, the VP's Chief of Staff is under indictment for obstruction of justice, lying to the FBI, and lying to a grand jury. Surely you are not arguing that lying under oath is "foolishness"?
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/12/2006 @ 5:29pm
. . . what role, exactly, did former Deputy Attorney General Comey, who set up this extra-statutory (and I think unconstitutional) appointment of his friend Patrick Fitzgerald . . .
Posted by CPT 07/12/2006 @ 3:44pm
Great post CPT! We need someone like you who can find the REAL journalists who can uncover plotters, like this Deputy Attorney General Comey, within the Bush administration who are violating the Constitution (which everyone knows that Bush loves) in a vile effort to expose the truth. Hard to figure out why Bush appointed him, isn't it?
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! Pure genius!
Posted by fromredbird at 07/12/2006 @ 6:52pm
Saw Novak on Britt Hume tonight. When we will again see that memories about Plame conversations don't match? Bob Novak and Karl Rove and Bill Harlow have different recollections about their conversations. Bob Woodward and Walter Pincus recall their Plame/Wilson conversation differently. Judith Miller has different recollections than her NY Times editors. Time magazine's Viveca Novak and Rove's attorney Bob Luskin disagree about what was said over drinks. But Scooter Libby's memory is the only one that merits criminal charges and it appears that investigators have known that the disclosure of Plame's employment was "inadvertent" since the Fall of 2003. This investigation and the indictment are ridiculous.
Posted by woodyee at 07/12/2006 @ 7:32pm
Posted by WOODYEE 07/12/2006 @ 7:32pm: This investigation and the indictment are ridiculous.
So, Woodsy joins Mask in arguing that charging someone with lying under oath is ridiculous.
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/12/2006 @ 8:51pm
Sounds like sour grapes "0".
Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/12/2006 @ 9:44pm
Posted by USAPRIDE 07/12/2006 @ 9:44pm: Sounds like sour grapes "0".
I agree. Whining about Scooter's indictment for lying and obstructing justice is most certainly sour grapes.
In fact, you grapes are way beyond sour.
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/12/2006 @ 9:48pm
You all just keep grasping thin air.
Starting to get pissed off, ain't you?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/12/2006 @ 10:01pm
Saw Novak on Britt Hume tonight. When we will again see that memories about Plame conversations don't match? Bob Novak and Karl Rove and Bill Harlow have different recollections about their conversations. Bob Woodward and Walter Pincus recall their Plame/Wilson conversation differently. Judith Miller has different recollections than her NY Times editors. Time magazine's Viveca Novak and Rove's attorney Bob Luskin disagree about what was said over drinks.
Posted by WOODYEE 07/12/2006 @ 7:32pm
Most of the people you mention have different recollections of their conversations because they were different conversations. What are you- f'n totally, absolutely stupid?
The rest of the recollections differ because Busholini's followers are lying. And something like 65 - 75% of the American people agree with that conclusion. You remember the Americans, don't you- those people you hate?
Try PECKERWOOD on for size as a handle. That's what anyone other than an ideologically demented Republican thinks of if they read your posts.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/12/2006 @ 10:01pm
This is a good yardstick to measure the denizens of the ultra-right who swarm around here. They're such a tiny cohort of pariahs they couldn't fill a church bus:
But the first newspaper to officially drop Coulter's column since the latest uproar began seems to be The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where she had appeared for about 14 months.
Opinion Page Editor Doug Neumann told E&P, "Our decision was made before the plagiarism allegations. It did come after the publication of [Coulter's] book, but I would say it didn't directly play any role on our decision."
However, Neumann surmised that Coulter's incendiary book may have played an "indirect" role in the final decision. "I think it was the book that began to unwind support among her readers," Neumann explained. "Liberals have never liked her, and we've always gotten complaints [from them]. But the complaints that mattered the most were from the conservative readers," who felt that their views were being misrepresented. http://tinyurl.com/jnfs4
She's still got plenty of supporters among the ideological, neo-fascist, sucking lampreys that cling to the weathered skin of The Nation.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/12/2006 @ 10:27pm
Posted by USAPRIDE 07/12/2006 @ 10:01pm: Starting to get pissed off, ain't you?
Starting? I've been pissed off for a long time.
If you had any brains, you'd be pissed off too. But you don't. So just keep chanting "USA! USA! USA!" while you hide under your bed, unsure as to whether you are more scared of the tirrorists or that that someone will notice that you've just soiled yourself.
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/12/2006 @ 10:29pm
Posted by ZERO 07/12/2006 @ 10:24pm
even after it was made public that bush himself had selectively authorized the leak of classified data to the press - this from a presidency that has been about threats of jail to anyone who leaks - everyone involved excepting Libby has gotten a free ride on the issue, largely because of totally corrupt congressional leaders who are bush's henchmen.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the President, by definition, cannot 'leak' classified information; his very act of releasing it to the public is by definition, declassification.
But don't let me stop you; rant on.
Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 10:38pm
Yes! The good 'ol USA. Can't go wrong when you support the place where you were born, where your Mom and Dad raised you, where you work and where you enjoy freedom.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 07/12/2006 @ 10:40pm
Posted by ZERO 07/12/2006 @ 10:24pm
even after it was made public that bush himself had selectively authorized the leak of classified data to the press - this from a presidency that has been about threats of jail to anyone who leaks - everyone involved excepting Libby has gotten a free ride on the issue, largely because of totally corrupt congressional leaders who are bush's henchmen.
Oh, and actually, Bush only authorized the release of NIE data which proved that Joe Wilson and his wife were merely partisan hacks using their positions in government for fun, fame, profit, and political vendetta. Bush didn't authorize the leak of Plame's identity. Based on our best available info, that was accidental.
Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 10:47pm
So, the Plame case disappears from the political landscape with nary a whimper. All those leftist hopes raised and dashed, and for naught. Hey, you folks still have your hate, though. Sing a few bars of 'Bush lied, People died'. Nurture it and keep it warm.
Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 10:49pm
Posted by USAPRIDE 07/12/2006 @ 10:40pm: Can't go wrong when you support the place where you were born, where your Mom and Dad raised you, where you work and where you enjoy freedom.
It is not supporting the place you were born to blindly cheer for whatever we do. It is helping to tear it down.
It is not supporting the place where your Mom and Dad raised you to ignorantly support whatever fool's mission Dear Leader throws upon you. It is helping to tear it down.
It is not supporting the place where you work to deny your own morality by supporting the wanton killing of tens of thousands of innocents for no apparent purpose other than sending the "right" signal. It is helping to tear it down.
And it is certainly not supporting the place where you enjoy freedom to agree that yes, Dear Leader does indeed have the authority to crush a young boy's testicles if he deems it necessary to protect us from the tirrorists. It is helping to tear it down.
So go ahead, prideful one. Put your "Support the Troops" magnet on your Hummer. Put a couple of flags on it too. And remember to chant "USA! USA! USA!' whenever you can. Rest assured that you are doing absolutely nothing to support your country. You are helping to tear it down.
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/12/2006 @ 10:52pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/12/2006 @ 10:47pm: Bush didn't authorize the leak of Plame's identity. Based on our best available info, that was accidental.
I'm a little confused here, Potsy. I thought the Party Line was that Plame wasn't undercover. What leak are you talking about?
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/12/2006 @ 10:57pm
Posted by ORWELL2005 07/12/2006 @ 10:57pm
I'm a little confused here, Potsy.
You're right; you are confused.
I thought the Party Line was that Plame wasn't undercover.
There is no party line, but the statement is nevertheless demonstrably true. IF Fitzgerald alleged that she was covert, and IF he proved it in a court of law, then it would be false. Since he has done neither, it is true.
What leak are you talking about?
Bush authorized declassification of a portion of the NIE which showed that a politically-motivated Joe Wilson was being deceptive in his NYT hit piece. Bush admitted to that. Bush testified that he did not authorize the leak of Plame's identity. It appears that that was accidental.
Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 11:05pm
I should add that Joe Wilson is hardly the first politically-motivated Democrat to crawl out from under a rock during the Bush Administration, and probably not the last. Mary McCarthy, a CIA Administrator held over from the Clinton Administration, was found out to be a liar by a lie detector machine, whereupon she was fired but unaccountably not prosecuted for leaking classified information to the liberal media. There are obviously other traitorous Democrats still leaking information to the NYT, the terrorists, and everyone else regarding our secrets about how we are fighting the War on Terror. Hopefully, there will be some prosecutions and ass-pounding federal prison time forthcoming on those fronts.
Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 11:14pm
and, yes, i very much am imitating bill o'reilly when i tell you to shut up. bill needs to shut up. you "conservatives" in general need to shut up. those few of you that aren't billious gasbags are reprobates or morons or both. enough of you already. get in the back of the bus. you've made your mess, not let cleverer people with better ideas begin to clean up for you, as must be the case.
Zero, or Keith Olbermann?? Hmmmmmm....
Posted by Sliver at 07/12/2006 @ 11:15pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/12/2006 @ 11:05pm:You're right; you are confused.
Thanks, Pots. Its always nice when we can find points of common agreement.
There is no party line, but the statement is nevertheless demonstrably true. IF Fitzgerald alleged that she was covert, and IF he proved it in a court of law, then it would be false. Since he has done neither, it is true.
Oh, I get it. Sorta like saying "Potsy is a moron" is demonstrably true. IF Fitzgerald alleged that "Potsy is not a moron", and IF he proved it in a court of law, then it would be false. Since he has done neither, it is true.
Bush testified that he did not authorize the leak of Plame's identity.
Well now there you go confusin me agin. If Plame wasn't covert, (and we know she wasn't because its demonstrably true that she wasn't), then why would the release of her identity be a leak? Its not like her identity was a secret or anything...
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/12/2006 @ 11:23pm
Nobody is being charged with releasing Valerie Plame's identity. If she was actually covert as leftists charge, Fitzgerald has plenty of people to circumstantially charge.
Bush committed no crime, no leak in the release of the NIE estimates. As has been stated on numerous occasions, the moment a president elects to release classified information to the public, it is declassified. That is the law and no amount of leftwing complaining changes that fact.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/12/2006 @ 11:15pm
Hee, hee . . . they're a sight to behold. Valerie Plame worked with a commercial organization subrosa while her tasked mission was to gather information on nuclear proliferation. So, Bush decides to "declassify" that (OK, in your senseless reasoning) blowing the cover of the whole thing so badly that the commercial organization and all it's covert contacts had to be shut down. Just another day's work in a traitor Republican administration, right? You're one lamprey who could suck the chrome off a bumper hitch.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/12/2006 @ 11:24pm
The only reason that Fitzgerald hasn't filed indictments for revealing her CIA status is that all the guilty parties are lying about who actually exposed her. The American people know, overwhelmingly, that this is true so flap your gums all you want, goosesteppers. You'll all pay, in the end.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/12/2006 @ 11:28pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 07/12/2006 @ 11:28pm: You'll all pay, in the end.
Unfortunately, we will all be paying.
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/12/2006 @ 11:33pm
Posted by ORWELL2005 07/12/2006 @ 11:23pm
Oh, I get it. Sorta like saying "Potsy is a moron" is demonstrably true. IF Fitzgerald alleged that "Potsy is not a moron", and IF he proved it in a court of law, then it would be false. Since he has done neither, it is true.
Hey, if you want to believe Valerie Plame was covert, have at it. The fact is, the matter has been investigated thoroughly and no allegations have been made to the effect that she was, as you allege, covert or even that her classified status was leaked. Legally speaking, if she was covert, and somebody outed her, even accidentally, it would be a crime because the President authorized no such release of information, and sure enough Fitzgerald would have indicted as would be his duty. Since Fitzgerald, the only person with legal standing has made no such allegation, it is as if the allegation never existed. Except, of course, in fevered imaginations. But the legal system is not responsible for fevered imaginations.
Well now there you go confusin me agin. If Plame wasn't covert, (and we know she wasn't because its demonstrably true that she wasn't), then why would the release of her identity be a leak? Its not like her identity was a secret or anything...
The release of her identity, whether her status was classified or covert or both, would be, as I said previously, a 'leak' because it was not authorized by the President, as he made specifically clear to the investigators. Clearly, a 'leak' occurred because her identity was revealed by someone. But don't conflate the meaning of the word 'covert', which is a highly sensitive status, with the meaning of the word 'classified', which is a status enjoyed by practically everyone at the CIA, including presumably the janitors. I'm sure Fitzgerald would have been highly interested in the case if she was covert, and somebody leaked her identity. He'd be much less interested if her status was 'classified', which seems to be the case, and her status was leaked accidentally.
Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 11:47pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 07/12/2006 @ 11:28pm
The only reason that Fitzgerald hasn't filed indictments for revealing her CIA status is that all the guilty parties are lying about who actually exposed her.
So, they're all guilty, and they're all liars, and the fact that they're all such good guilty liars proves, to you, just how good these guilty liars are at lying about their guilt.
Is that it, in a nutshell?
The American people know, overwhelmingly, that this is true so flap your gums all you want, goosesteppers. You'll all pay, in the end.
Yes, we'll all pay. Don't worry. Now drink your milk, and go to bed.
Posted by pontificus at 07/12/2006 @ 11:53pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/12/2006 @ 11:47pm: Since Fitzgerald, the only person with legal standing has made no such allegation,
So let me see if I understand. Fitz had the legal standing to make the allegation that Plame was covert in court. And this would be some sort of standalone case? Who exactly would be the defendant in such a proceeding?
it is as if the allegation never existed.
Can you really do that? Can you just pretend that something that existed never existed? I am in awe. You are a True Believer my friend.
But don't conflate the meaning of the word 'covert', which is a highly sensitive status, with the meaning of the word 'classified', which is a status enjoyed by practically everyone at the CIA, including presumably the janitors.
Sorry about that Potsy. I didn't mean to do no conflatin...
So when I said "I thought the Party Line was that Plame wasn't undercover. What leak are you talking about?", and you replied "There is no party line, but the statement is nevertheless demonstrably true. IF Fitzgerald alleged that she was covert", I was conflatin...
Again, I apologize. I hope you understand.
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/13/2006 @ 12:04am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/12/2006 @ 11:58pm
Yes, they do seem a little more agitated than usual, but the shrillness seems to be elevated only a little, and the profanity hasn't even started yet.
Posted by pontificus at 07/13/2006 @ 12:05am
Posted by ORWELL2005 07/13/2006 @ 12:04am
Can you really do that? Can you just pretend that something that existed never existed?
I'm not pretending anything. There was reasonable cause for an investigation. An investigation ensued. The investigation found nothing, other than some apparent tangential misstatements under oath which were not consequential to the main intent of the investigation. The investigation was closed. All of the original targets of the investigation were thereby cleared.
What's the problem? Not what you hoped?
Again, I apologize. I hope you understand.
Actually, I don't. You'll have to be a little clearer.
Posted by pontificus at 07/13/2006 @ 12:11am
Posted by ORWELL2005 07/13/2006 @ 12:04am
Sorry, ORWELL, the time is late and I haven't any more time to explain the results of Fitzgerald's closed investigation, and the fact that no-one but Libby was charged, and how that means we must all presume that anyone NOT charged is therefore innocent. Doesn't seem to fit into your worldview, anyway.
Perhaps one day soon you can explain to me how George Bush, who will leave office in 2009, is a fascist, and how your hero, Chavez, who seems to have extended his term to life, is not. Should be entertaining. At least for some of us.
Posted by pontificus at 07/13/2006 @ 12:15am
Corn and the rest thought they had a Watergate like scandal. They hoped that it would mushroom and bring down the President. It did not. It has put some of them in a foul mood. Their greatest hopes dashed. It looks like the original leak was accidental and came from Richard Armitege. Armitege cooperated with Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury and no charges were brought. Libby is charged not with the leak but with lying to the Grand Jury. We will have to wait and see how that turns out. But all in all in was much a do about nothing----great expectations by the left dashed on the rocks of reality.
Zero apparently has given the order for all who disagree with him to shut up----So all the millions of people who disagree with him should snap to and follow orders ---right----ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha -----Zero you are a joke.
Posted by Len Mosse at 07/13/2006 @ 12:41am
uh, Fitzgerald confirmed that she was covert.
Posted by pretzel at 07/13/2006 @ 03:33am
uh, Fitzgerald confirmed that she was covert.
Posted by pretzel at 07/13/2006 @ 03:33am
"After I read the original Novak column, I wondered if these leaks meant that Bush administration officials had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and wrote the first article that suggested the leaks might be evidence of a White House crime. (That article was posted on The Nation's website two days after the Novak column appeared.)"
Just a piece of advice to David Corn, your articles will have more impact without the navel gazing. I know it's difficult (for most of us) to make a living these days and it's easy to want to throw in some subtle self-promotion in a piece, but it diminishes the work. If you're going to market yourself, then do just that. Forget about marketing synergy when the goal is to inform us.
Posted by WingaDing at 07/13/2006 @ 04:50am
IGNORE THE IDIOTS!! No, don't press the Ignore Button; just don't respond. For example, if you met USAPRIDE socially, and he started in with his simple-minded drivel, you would simply excuse yourself and find someone to talk to who didn't immediately insult your intelligence simply by opening his or her mouth, right? So why even respond to him and the other anti-American rightwingers who masterbate here? Let them rant, ignore them. Let's converse among ourselves and try to tease out trenchant analyses of the Nation's articles, rather than constantly reinvent the wheel for idiots who exemplify why our standing in the world is dropping like a stone.
Posted by bookmanjb1 at 07/13/2006 @ 06:17am
Holy crap....I forgot about "the book"!
Of course Mr Corn isn't going to just move on, as I and a political cross-section of the posters here as well have said.
He's got a "Plame-gate" book coming out this fall, in time for the midterms. To just "drop it" would mean dropping the sole purpose for his latest publication, regardless of its real relevance.
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2006 @ 07:02am
The NYT does a story about an ongoing and publicly known money laundering investigation, one mentioned and lauded by w and his minions. They are called out as traitorous bastards. (ignore the WSJ) We the people ask about the non-existent wmd's, the failure of Rummy to finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq (both cakewalks that would not take more than a few months), we are called out as traitorous bastards. Kerry asks why Usama was let go in Tora Bora, he is called a liar and a traitorous bastard. The press does stories about w breaking the law, they are traitorous bastards. W violates the Geneva Conventions, his oath of office and the very laws that make America special, we complain, we are traitorous bastards.
W outs a CIA agent whose job was not publicly known (sorry foolish ones that talk about the Whos who book, did it say " Valerie Plame, wife of Joe Wilson [republican] CIA agent ?) causing a whole investigation into Iranian wmd programs (which could be lent to Usama) to collapse, and he is not only not a traitor, he is a hero for exposing Wilson, a republican appointee, as a liar. A liar about w's lies about the childlessly forged documents alleging Saddam procurred uranium.
As Zero, I think, pointed out long ago, Fitz did not prosecute because he needed to prove knowledge and intent. The law he was working under is very specific about which conditions have to be met. Your boyz escped with a lib defense, a technicallity. But Libby has been charged with LYING to the FBI and the Justice Dept. Feel good about that do you, Pointi and pals? The first White House official to be indicted in almost 200 years.
Here we go again, Ollie North:hero, G. Gordon Liddy: hero, iran/Contra: misunderstood freedom program. Watergate: the lesson to be learned was "plausible deniability", not "don't break the law".
Make up your minds neo-cons, are we at war against terrorists or the Constitution? Why do you hate America soooo much? Why do you hate the Justice Dept soo much? Why do you hate the CIA soo much? Why don't you support our troops?
Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2006 @ 09:21am
Mary, oh confused Mary. Homophobic Mary. w was asked specifically about the Plame affair. He said he would fire anybody that leaked the name of an agent . He said he would. He did not. He is a liar. A long history of lies, obfuscations and pandering to fear. A damn fine Christian he is!
Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2006 @ 09:23am
Yes, Zero....by all means, Liberal policies are working so much better. I can give you 2 current ones that apply.
1.) Find out what terrorists want and negotiate : -See Israel's voluntary withdrawal from Gaza and how well that's working. Their reward for such behavior?? Rocket attacks on 2 fronts and hostages taken for leverage. Nice.
2.) Gun Control - Washington DC is now experiencing a murder a day, thanks to an unarmed populace made for easy pickings. Very well could be the same party involved in many of those incidents, but rest assured, an innocent victim with a Glock could have ruined their day and inadvertently saved lives in the process.
Posted by Sliver at 07/13/2006 @ 09:26am
Sliver, anybody that wants a firearm can have one. I do. Got a closet full. Feel lucky I am not one of your pissed of righties like Malvo or Mcveigh, or a child rapist like our Waco Christian friend. They may have to dance through some regs (...a well regulated militia...). I would suggest that the gun manufacturers have some blame here. After all they make way more weapons than are needed by us law abiding citizens. they KNOW they end up on the street, but they keep making them. And making money off each death.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2006 @ 09:32am
How about some neo-con poilcies that are going so well:
1: Iraq War (undeclared)
2: Afghanistan War (undeclared)
3: Deregulation of the energy industries
4: Saving marriage. 50% end in divorce.
5: Balancing the budget. (I will believe the latest numbers after the revised numbers come out post midterms. Remember, w has a history of book cooking, a looong history)
Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2006 @ 09:38am
Having waded through two pages of right wing pseudo commentary on this subject let me summarize there argument to bring anyone that might be just now accessing this thread quickly up to speed: Rove, Cheney ( so far ) and the decider dodged a bullet. Therefore the bullet never existed.
By the way, unlike Zero and some of the others I get a kick out of listening to their b.s. and trying to figure out what makes them tick so to speak. I would be inclined to "just move on" now also except that this subject seems to have struck such a nerve with the Tories that it's worth keeping alive just to annoy them.
Posted by Red Neckerson at 07/13/2006 @ 09:50am
One thing still puzzles me about the Plamegate kerfluffle. How come the left hasn't started attacking Fitzgerald as a Republican stooge? Very odd, indeed.
Posted by pontificus at 07/13/2006 @ 09:52am
One thing still puzzles me about the Plamegate kerfluffle. How come the left hasn't started attacking Fitzgerald as a Republican stooge? Very odd, indeed.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/13/2006 @ 09:52am | ignore this person
???????????????
Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2006 @ 09:57am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/13/2006 @ 12:38am
Have you noticed how quiet the Nation writers and leftwing bloggers are about the latest budget news of the huge lowering of the deficit thanks to a much larger receipt of corporate tax revenue.
Of course, LL, there has been a deafening silence. If you live inside the left wing bubble, inconvenient facts are simply wished away as if they don't exist, until a suitable rationalization is developed by the Party's deep thinkers. Until then, real economics don't exist. Only theoretical economics will do.
As of now, we have the opening salvo being road-tested by the Dem's deep thinkers. It seems the diabolical Bush actually purposely overestimated the budget deficits in the first place, just to make himself look good when he brought them down to what they really were all along!
Too obviously stupid a charge you say, for anyone to take seriously? No! Take a look!
1. Spins on Lower Deficit: Projections Inflated and Show Inequality The ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts on Tuesday delivered short items on how this year's budget deficit will be $296 billion, down substantially from the administration's predication of $423 billion, but while ABC anchor Kate Snow and CBS anchor Bob Schieffer stuck to how economic growth fueled increased tax revenue, NBC anchor Brian Williams decided to relay, without naming any names, a conspiracy theory: "Many economists and administration critics say the White House has deliberately inflated its own deficit projections in the past few years to score political points when the actual numbers came in lower." The Washington Post added negative caveats with this subheadline, "Long-Term Outlook Still Seen as Bleak," and by the third paragraph reporter Paul Blustein related a class warfare spin: "But the favorable news about the money rolling into the Treasury stems largely from shifts in the economy, including fatter corporate profits, executive bonuses and stock market gains, that reflect growing inequality, the administration's critics contend."
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060712.asp
Posted by pontificus at 07/13/2006 @ 10:01am
Not surprising for the MSM media. THat's why they've been antiquated.
Posted by Sliver at 07/13/2006 @ 10:18am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/13/2006 @ 08:51am
"Give it up."
No.
"A leak is when a secret source seeks out a journalist and gives confidnetial information. Novak called Rove and said, "is this true?" and Rove said, "yes."
Argue the semantics all you want. The administration, in one coldly cynical and totally hypocritical gesture, revealed the identity of a person who was not only one of our sub rosa assets, but a specialist in the WMD's that Bush claims so strenuously to be protecting us from. All this to silence an administration critic, who himself was once referred to by GHW Bush as a hero!
"Trying to characterize this exchange as a "leak" is a dishonest attempt to create a moral equivalence between Rove and the Rosenbergs."
I said nothing about any moral equivalence with any other act. This act is heinous enough on its face.
"That's preposterous and you look silly pretending it's true."
Thank you. I will consider the fact that you find me silly to be a ringing endorsement.
Posted by drhammer at 07/13/2006 @ 11:01am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/12/2006 @ 10:58pm: As illegal combatants wearing no uniform and bearing arms, they can rightfully be summarily shot under the terms of the Geneva Convention.
Please Potsy, show me where it says that in the Geneva Convention. Please pretty please.
I know. I will provide you with a link to the text of the Geneva Convention:
http://tinyurl.com/lioi [tinyurl.com] [tinyurl.com]
There. Now, you show me where it says that "illegal combatants wearing no uniform and bearing arms...can rightfully be summarily shot". Please.
And that's what should be done with them, even if they do have in common with the American left a burning hatred for America.
As the Dear Leader Moment goes down in flames, you guys get more and more bloodthirsty, doncha?
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/13/2006 @ 11:13am
Brewster Jennings - Hey Everyone - Brewster Jennings - I probably shouldnt leak this, but Brewster Jennings is a front company set up by the CIA to work against nuclear proliferation.
Thats right Everyone, Brewster Jennings, Brewster Jennings, Brewster Jennings - and Valeria Plame and Joe Wilson - everyone read up on it. Some of you will be surprised to find out that people there were tought to be your colleagues.
Posted by conshame at 07/13/2006 @ 11:21am
PONTIFICUS 07/13/2006 @ 10:01am
You don't actually mean to tell me that a 100% increase in corporate tax revenues over two years is just a natural consequence of good business, do you? Something is seriously wrong with these figures and simply reporting them as a result of good economic policy with no reference to any other possible explanation is irresponsible.
Posted by MyParadigm at 07/13/2006 @ 11:26am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/13/2006 @ 12:38am: Have you noticed how quiet the Nation writers and leftwing bloggers are about the latest budget news of the huge lowering of the deficit thanks to a much larger receipt of corporate tax revenue.
It really is a remarkable success story. When Jr. took office, we had a surplus of nearly $250 billion, with a projection of surpluses for years to come. Now, after 6 years of successful whackjob economic policy, the deficit is nearly $300 billion.
And you brag about it as a "huge lowering of the deficit". Most people would be reluctant to publicly demonstrate such excessive stupidity. Isn't it the least bit embarrassing for you?
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/13/2006 @ 11:39am
Pontificus -
A few things, first a minor point, the investigation is not "closed." Not saying anything further will happen, but I have not seen any announcement it is in fact over.
Second, you continue to focus solely on Fitzgerald re: Plame's status, but Fitzgerald cannot bring a case simply on that one fact alone. In any event, Harlow himself has said that he checked Plame's status after speaking with Novak, and confirmed that she was indeed an undercover operative. Harlow then tried to dissuade Novak from printing her name, and also refuted the notion that Plame authorized Wilson's trip.
Third, simply because nobody was indicted for the outing does not excuse Rove's conduct or anyone else who revealed Plame's identity to reporters. Conservatives want blood from the NYT based on financial monitoring of terrorists (a program that was not a secret; it was disclosed to the UN, Congress, and the media). Here, we've got people from the administration with security clearance revealing Plame to reporters, at first denying they were involved or even spoke to reporters, and one person being indicted for lying about it (and Pontificus, lying about what you told reporters in a criminal investigation ABOUT the revalation of classified info to reporters is hardly a "tangent"; if Libby lied about his favorite color, THAT would be a tangent)
But, since nobody was indicted for the underlying charges, everything is perfectly acceptable to some here. From the party that is supposed to be more apt at protecting national security - ha-ha.
Finally, what did Wilson lie about, exactly? I was not aware that Wilson claimed Iraq was trying to acquire yellowcake from Niger, that the documents were authentic and that Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear weapons program. If he said all that, Iguess he is a liar.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/13/2006 @ 11:42am
Follow along now kids: Plames cover was not blown, because w said so. They are not POW's, because w said so. We found the wmd, because w said so. Mission accomplished, because w said so. We are winning in Iraq, because w says so. Jose Padilla gets to live in a gulag, because w says so. Gitmo gets to stay open in CastroLand, because w says it is ok. The economy is benefitting all, because w says so. We all need to watch what we say, because w says so. The NYT is a traitorous paper, because w says so. Energy costs are skyrocketing because of enviromental concerns, w says so.
If you don't understand this, then you hate America and all of us that live here. It is that simple.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2006 @ 12:01pm
Hman,
Nicely put. Of course, you're explaining law to a simpleton who once wrote something to the effect of "I'm not going to read that link since it is a law and I can't understand it".
In grunting terms that even Pont could understand.
1. Somebody in the White House leaked the name of a CIA operative. 2. When Bush found out he was so outraged that he promised to deal with the culprit by ejecting them from his staff. 3. When Bush found out it would mean removing his own "brain" from the White House, Bush went back on his word (yet again).
Posted by freedomplease at 07/13/2006 @ 12:50pm
Last October, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced that vice-president Dick Cheney's former chief of staff Lewis Libby had been indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and two counts of making false statements. If convicted on all five counts, Libby could be sentenced to 30 years in jail, and fined $1.25 million U.S.
Which of the following statements best describes your view of George W. Bush in these matters--his possible involvement with the leaking of certain intelligence information to reporters--he did something illegal, he did not do anything illegal, but did something unethical, or he did not do anything seriously wrong?
Illegal 21% Unethical 42% Nothing wrong 28% No opinion 9% http://tinyurl.com/p5dkq
`````````````
Little is known of Plame's professional career. While undercover, she had described herself as an "energy analyst" for the private company "Brewster Jennings & Associates," which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations. "Brewster Jennings" was first entered into Dun and Bradstreet records on May 22, 1994, but D&B would not discuss the source of the filing. D&B records list the company as a "legal services office," located at 101 Arch Street, Boston, Massachusetts.
Valerie Plame's nuclear non-proliferation work (crucial to American interests) was ruined and Brewster Jennings as a cover was destroyed. All to cover up the lies that the Republican administration used to gangpress America into an armed conflict that benefited nothing other than their personal and political needs- a monumental increase in military spending, a rationale to eviscerate America's Constitution, and a climate of fear to help them cling to power.
In short- treason. America is not buying the fantastic rationales being proffered by all the ultra-rightists posting here to try to exonerate the Republican Party's treasonous behavior. There comes a point when you have to start questioning a political party whose every move seems intended to harm America. Specifically- are they in the employ of a foreign power?
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 1:42pm
Posted by CRABWALK 07/13/2006 @ 12:01am
Crab,
So now you understand and the debate is over.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/13/2006 @ 12:51am
Especially this one. Do you have any foreign bank accounts, LVLIBERTY1?
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 1:44pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/13/2006 @ 12:38am: Have you noticed how quiet the Nation writers and leftwing bloggers are about the latest budget news of the huge lowering of the deficit thanks to a much larger receipt of corporate tax revenue.
It really is a remarkable success story. When Jr. took office, we had a surplus of nearly $250 billion, with a projection of surpluses for years to come. Now, after 6 years of successful whackjob economic policy, the deficit is nearly $300 billion.
And you brag about it as a "huge lowering of the deficit". Most people would be reluctant to publicly demonstrate such excessive stupidity. Isn't it the least bit embarrassing for you?
Posted by ORWELL2005 07/13/2006 @ 11:39am
If you ask me, someone is paying him to post here, someone in a foreign country. There are any number of suspects- China, Russia, North Korea. Someone who wants America to go down the tubes. Or, maybe israel- which would find it easier to suck the blood of a weakened host victim.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 1:49pm
As if we need another way of differentiating the two extremes in American politics, we have some of us from the far left who might have thought that the two-term long investigation of Clinton was a little overboard, beginning with real estate and ending up with oral sex, but who still concluded that Clinton and his lying dingdong might be better sent out of White House on a rail; while we have unanimity on the far right that refuses to see any wrongdoing by this president even as his list of administration lowlights is makes Harding's two-year rape of the American people seem like a little peck on the cheek.
This is what we get when we have an elected official with the support of the most radical fundamentalists in our society, people who have long abandoned use of their physical senses because they make life too complicated. They feel no pain when our country tortures and kills, they are blinded by divine light so they don't see the decline of our country, their impaired hearing means that they applaud reflexively at every pause in presidential speech and dutifully wait for his aids to explain what he actually meant to say, their fatigued olfactory sense means they cannot tell the difference between the small of a burning flag and that of our torched Constitution, and their tongues which find pleasure in the non-taste of communion wafers find no displeasure as the growing number of families living in poverty go hungry as the "tricklers" of our economy decide that their 15,000 sq. ft. house just won't do anymore.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/13/2006 @ 1:59pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/13/2006 @ 12:38am:
This apparatchik is so out of touch with reality he sounds like something from Pravda in the 1930's or one of Julius Streicher's nazi rags from the same period. Which enemy of America is he working for? Someone who hates the rule of law and the reign of democracy or someone who just wants to suck our life's blood for all it's worth.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 2:01pm
. . . their fatigued olfactory sense means they cannot tell the difference between the small of a burning flag and that of our torched Constitution, and their tongues which find pleasure in the non-taste of communion wafers find no displeasure as the growing number of families living in poverty go hungry as the "tricklers" of our economy decide that their 15,000 sq. ft. house just won't do anymore.
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 07/13/2006 @ 1:59pm
They are one component of the Republican Party's base- the privileged who want ever lower taxes on their ever higher incomes and they couldn't care less about the effects on the rest of America. Their entertainment systems are bigger than most American's homes.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 2:07pm
Rove has done a number on us yet again. The ship of state sails along while the rest of us continue to swim like crazy in the flotsam and jetsam it's thrown overboard. The point is Joseph Wilson wrote an article casting the Bush administration in an unfavorable light and the Bush administration punished him for it. Conveniently for them his wife was a CIA agent. Rove's been doing this kind of stuff his entire political life.
Posted by felicity at 07/13/2006 @ 2:14pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 07/13/2006 @ 1:59pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 07/13/2006 @ 2:07pm | ignore this person
TJ, FROM....why is it automatically a "given" that stopping people from having 15K foot homes and large entertainment centers....
is the path to eradicating poverty?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2006 @ 2:29pm
On the topic of leaks, none of the neo-con posters or talking heads who want to hang the NYT for the so-called leak of the SWIFT program have much to say about the unauthorized leak of the uncovered plot to blow up NY-NJ tunnels.
Tunnel Plot [tinyurl.com]
Disclosure of the bomb plot coincided with the one-year anniversary of a terrorist bomb attack on London subways and a bus that killed 52 and injured about 700. Authorities said they hadn't intended to release details about the plot this early and that whoever leaked the information had compromised the FBI's relationship with some foreign intelligence services.
The person who leaked the details is clearly someone who doesn't understand the fragility of international relations,'' Mershon said. "We've had a number of uncomfortable questions and some upsetment (sic) with these foreign intelligence services that had been working with us on a daily basis."
I guess to some, a "bad" leak happens only when it has the potential to embarass the administration. And "good" leak compromising security is justified to defend politically the administration.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/13/2006 @ 2:43pm
Yeah, They made a mountain out of a mole hill - you may say - but have you ever seen what one rogue mole can do to your yard! These rodent bastards have have pursued every Machiavellian tactic possible to undermine the constitution and subvert our lush green principles!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/13/2006 @ 2:49pm
Posted by MASK 07/13/2006 @ 2:29pm
Who said it was a ""given""? Besides, I was on a roll and during such times my keyboard assumes a life of its own and it is my duty to honor that.
To your point, I still have a difficult time with the posh set believing that they are adding to our economy by hiring a construction crew to build them a mall-sized house. This nonsense has been told and retold for a quarter century now and there's not a shred of evidence to back up the trickle-down b.s. Meanwhile more and more of our tax payments are going to the debt, which seems to rise whenever the GOP decides to let the good times roll.
Perhaps it is just a coincidence that poverty is on the rise at the same time that mammoth houses are being built across the land. But it's hard to believe that it is coincidental since wealth in the hands of the wealthy is supposed to help even the littlest of boats rise. It appears that their yachts are rising by shooting holes in the dinghys, causing more water displacement.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/13/2006 @ 2:51pm
Anybody who still proudly professes to be a Republican is kinda like anyone who still bows to the Pope after the Catholic church molestation scandel. You would have to be a brainless , souless , blind faith idiot to still respect anything that this President says! Isn't it funny that it took a bunch of fundemenatalist Christians - to get into the White House - to assert their situational ethics and rationalize the use of torture!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/13/2006 @ 3:11pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 07/13/2006 @ 2:51pm | ignore this person
Sorry, TJ....haven't seen the "opposite story" prove with much evidence either, that having the Government take that money that the rich guy is spending on his new house (i.e. employing construction workers)....and spend it at 15-20 cents on the dollar on programs for UNEMPLOYED construction workers, works much better.
"Oh so you don't want the rich to pay taxes, huh?" comes the inevitable response from the Inevitable Responders (not you, TJ).
No...I'm saying that going around saying "If HE didn't have that 15,000 foot home and his mammoth entertainment center...WE could give YOU free health care and improve your kids' schools" plays EXACTLY into the hands of those who FIRST used "class warfare" (the Right) and which the Left has (so far) unsuccessfully tried to "steal back".
"Sink the yachts, so the dinghys can have Bimini tops" doesn't work compared with "rising tide raises all boats" (which was JFK by the way, not Sean Hannity).
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2006 @ 3:39pm
Novak. Another disgusting Republican traitor. Can you believe that people like this have the temerity to imply that it's "traitorous" to demand that the Republican President observe the norms of the US Constitution? They are renegades out to destroy America.
Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.
http://tinyurl.com/9qpdp
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 3:45pm
eat your heart out lefty
Posted by ftuccillo at 07/13/2006 @ 4:04pm
breaking news
Ex-CIA operative Valerie Plame sues Vice President Cheney, his former aide, Scooter Libby, and presidential adviser Karl Rove.
I love this woman.
Posted by MyParadigm at 07/13/2006 @ 4:06pm
LL
Hey Ponti,
Have you noticed how quiet the Nation writers and leftwing bloggers are about the latest budget news of the huge lowering of the deficit thanks to a much larger receipt of corporate tax revenue.
Actually, LL, it was lowered because the administration has been in the habit of overinflating their estimates at the beginning of the year. So when the actual number comes in below the inflated expectations, they can see, what we're doing works!
Ponti
I hate to burst your bubble, but the President, by definition, cannot 'leak' classified information; his very act of releasing it to the public is by definition, declassification.
Actually, there is a formal procedure for declassification. Further, if information is declassified, it is by definition available to the public, so why would it have to be leaked and why wasn't it made widely available?
which proved that Joe Wilson and his wife were merely partisan hacks using their positions in government for fun, fame, profit, and political vendetta.
It didn't prove anything of the kind, especially as the whole Nigerien yellowcake claim was a crock to begin with.
IF Fitzgerald alleged that she was covert, and IF he proved it in a court of law, then it would be false. Since he has done neither, it is true.
You keep trying to pass the same bad logic. Fitzgeralds non-charging doesn't prove that Plame wasn't covert, only that he didn't feel he had the evidence to prove the requisite intent.
I haven't any more time to explain the results of Fitzgerald's closed investigation, and the fact that no-one but Libby was charged, and how that means we must all presume that anyone NOT charged is therefore innocent.
Again, more of your bad logic. That presumption only applies as far as legal disabilities/penatlies are concurred. We are not required to draw it as a general inference.
Posted by brunowe at 07/13/2006 @ 4:09pm
She was not undercover and the proof is that neither Novak or anyone else is being prosecuted for supposedly revealing her covert status.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/13/2006 @ 4:00pm
That is hardly proof of that fact. If you knew anything about criminal law, you would recognize that that there are other elements for those crimes. The absence of a charge does not mean that every element is absent, only that the prosecutor concludes that he cannnot establish probable cause that every element is satisfied.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/13/2006 @ 4:22pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 07/13/2006 @ 4:06pm
If it proceeds, I guess we'll see if she was undercover.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/13/2006 @ 4:25pm
Liberty -
Take a simple example of the crime for "receiving stolen property."
The elements are
1. That the defendant knowingly received property of another;
2. That the property was stolen;
3. That the defendant either knew that the property had been stolen or believed that it had probably been stolen at the time he/she received the property.
Now, if the police find a stolen TV in a person's home, but the person bought it from a store and has a receipt, he likely will not be charged because the last element is not satisfied.
But even without a charge, the TV was still stolen.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/13/2006 @ 4:32pm
Question: Is the release of a covert agents name a crime even if they are no longer active in the field?
What about this, aren't the agents prior contacts and sources at risk if the agents name is outed with pics in the MSM. The fact that the agents file is stamped classified is to safeguard the others who have been associated with the agent.
In fact Mr Fitzgerald's responcibility in this is to uphold the law not roll over to the criminals who usurp it.
I see the great antichrist LvL is wrong again, matter of fact someone who has the gall to use LvLiberty as a handle and stands for those who continously usurp our libertys is nothing more than a hypocrite!
Posted by dycel8r at 07/13/2006 @ 4:40pm
Ex-CIA operative Valerie Plame sues Vice President Cheney, his former aide, Scooter Libby, and presidential adviser Karl Rove.
I love this woman.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 07/13/2006 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person
For you start counting chicks, MYPARA....seems from what I've read that Libby's indictment wasn't based on him "outing Plame", was it?
Obstruction, perjury, and false statements....so what does Plame sue him for?
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2006 @ 4:47pm
I see the great antichrist LvL is wrong again, matter of fact someone who has the gall to use LvLiberty as a handle and stands for those who continously usurp our libertys is nothing more than a hypocrite!
Posted by DYCEL8R 07/13/2006 @ 4:40pm
Oh, LVLIBERTY1 is much more than that- he's a clinical case and a danger to the public.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 5:01pm
Ex-CIA operative Valerie Plame sues Vice President Cheney, his former aide, Scooter Libby, and presidential adviser Karl Rove.
I love this woman.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 07/13/2006 @ 4:06pm
Dedicated, hard working, loyal Americans like her make the extreme-rightist sociopaths posting here look like- well, I guess it only makes it more obvious that they are what they are.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 5:04pm
Obstruction, perjury, and false statements....so what does Plame sue him for?
Intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of privacy, etc. Here's an analysis that was posted on CNN.com a year ago. [cnn.com]
Posted by brunowe at 07/13/2006 @ 5:08pm
The Army will rebid the multibillion-dollar contract under which a Halliburton Co. subsidiary has been providing services to troops around the world after years of complaints over how the deal has worked in Iraq.
Critics of the contract said the move was overdue and that hundreds of millions of dollars had probably been wasted.
Halliburton subsidiary KBR, also known as Kellogg Brown & Root, provides food, water, shelter, laundry service and other logistical support for troops under a 2001 contract that has been extended several times. ....... http://tinyurl.com/rds6f
The Republicans are like crazed locusts feeding on America's marrow. OK-- where are all this blog's neo-fascist goons? Go ahead. Start running around like red-assed apes screeching, "Halliburton hasn't been indicted for anything! That proves they're innocent. We represent the 25% of the American electorate who are intelligent enough to understand that." Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 5:18pm
Obstruction, perjury, and false statements....so what does Plame sue him for?
Posted by MASK 07/13/2006 @ 4:47pm
Mask, I'll take it you were joking. You do know that there are big differences between civil causes of action and criminal laws, right?
Posted by Hman23 at 07/13/2006 @ 5:22pm
Hman,
Can a sitting VP face a civil suit while still in office?
Posted by freedomplease at 07/13/2006 @ 5:24pm
If VP "Fuck you" Chenney with his temper has to answer questions on a civil case he'll explode! The guys likely to shoot a 78 year old in the face!
Posted by freedomplease at 07/13/2006 @ 5:27pm
It's a shame that it always has to be "ME! ME! ME!" for these yahoos. If the media leaks, soldiers die, people die! We defend their frivolous delusions for themselves and soldiers get shot in the process!!!
The Wilsons are not that important in the spyworld, yet they keep inserting themselves into everything! It's not about you Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame! We're soooo tired of you!
Mr and Mrs Wilson, please go away, to Iran, Iraq, France take your pick! Just get out of here! You only want Bush's blood anyway. Don't take the Americans out because of your hatred for this administration! If you love your country, work for the mob instead. That'll be the best job you can find! SHOO!!!
Raquel Rivera Ford
Mission Viejo, CA
Posted by catholicnurse at 07/13/2006 @ 5:36pm
Hman,
Can a sitting VP face a civil suit while still in office?
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/13/2006 @ 5:24pm
Sure thing. If not, Clinton wouldn't have gotten into hot water. He tried to make that argument to the Sup. Ct. and lost.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/13/2006 @ 5:41pm
Posted by CATHOLICNURSE 07/13/2006 @ 5:36pm
uhhhh Raquel ... I am sure that Mrs. Wilson would have gladly gone to Iran seeing how she was working on WMD proliferation for that country before she was outed.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/13/2006 @ 5:44pm
Hman,
Hmmm, it seems that so of the vitriol of the RW crusade against Clinton is coming back to Chenney / Rove.
Karma's a bitch huh righties?
Posted by freedomplease at 07/13/2006 @ 5:51pm
The Wilsons are not that important in the spyworld, yet they keep inserting themselves into everything! It's not about you Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame! We're soooo tired of you!
Mr and Mrs Wilson, please go away, to Iran, Iraq, France take your pick! Just get out of here! You only want Bush's blood anyway. Don't take the Americans out because of your hatred for this administration! If you love your country, work for the mob instead. That'll be the best job you can find! SHOO!!!
Posted by CATHOLICNURSE 07/13/2006 @ 5:36pm
Right. Valerie Plame inserted herself into the "controversy" (alternate word for Bush's treason?) by asking the Republican White House to expose her CIA status to the whole world, WMD proliferators included.
God forbid that I should ever have to be cared for by a nurse like this. How could someone be so detached from reality?
"If you love your country, work for the mob instead." (???) WTF?!
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 5:59pm
Enjoy your posts here because that is all you have or will have.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/13/2006 @ 5:45pm
Wow, could you be a little more melodramtic? Darth Vader had better lines.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/13/2006 @ 6:01pm
It's times like these that I miss Hunter Thompson's take on national affairs. Hunter might have characterised Rove as some sort of lizard-headed Nazi pulling the George Bush puppet's strings. The nation has been as savagely raped by Bush and company as that fourteen year-old girl was by soldiers run amuck in the Hell-hole that Iraq has degenerated into.
Posted by John Earl at 07/13/2006 @ 6:23pm
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 07/13/2006 @ 5:59pm
Yeah, Catholic nurse my ass!!!
Posted by Hman23 at 07/13/2006 @ 6:24pm
Geeez what's the world coming to when you can't smear and out spys like you can triple amputee war hero's and quadruple Purple Heart war hero's!
I saying getting sued for something that trivial is clearly anti-American!
Posted by freedomplease at 07/13/2006 @ 6:46pm
Geeez what's the world coming to when you can't smear and out spys like you can triple amputee war hero's and quadruple Purple Heart war hero's!
I saying getting sued for something that trivial is clearly anti-American!
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/13/2006 @ 6:46pm
What everyone really should note is how much more attention the US news industry devoted to Clinton's extramarital affairs than they are devoting to Bush's treason and attempts to destroy our Constitution. The same news industry that American neo-fascists call "left-wing" and "liberal". They are the more subtly deceptive enemy- therefore more dangerous.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 7:12pm
If you love your country, work for the mob instead. That'll be the best job you can find!
Raquel Rivera Ford Mission Viejo, CA
Posted by CATHOLICNURSE 07/13/2006 @ 5:36pm
Yeah, Catholic nurse my ass!!!
Posted by HMAN23 07/13/2006 @ 6:24pm
Watch your back- that's probably exactly where she wants to inject that Super Size syringe of morphine she always carries around with her.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 7:17pm
The leftists here keep singing to their own little choir but the rest of the world has passed them by. They have no real voice (ie, no representation in government), no power, just their mighty little blogger statements.
You make my days enjoyable with your little conspiracy themes and your constant claims of "the world is crashing down on Bush and the neocons" while each claim ends up in the dust heap of far left rumors and inuendos.
Enjoy your posts here because that is all you have or will have.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/13/2006 @ 5:45pm
What are you- a right-wing basket case? You spend a major part of your life unable to tear yourself away from this "liberal" blog and all you do is post the same infinitely dumb material again, and again, and again. If that's as good as it gets for you then life is going to really suck when you lose Congress and the White House. Bejeezus! You're going to be a train wreck when that happens. An interesting train wreck.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 7:25pm
David Corn's comments on the Valerie Plame leak by White House operatives are nothing new nor does Corn conclude with anything of substance other than the obscenely corrupt Bush mob of liars and thieves who once again prevailed in stonewalling the truth. Now, Karl Rove is set free to wreak his havoc of propaganda against our country's citizens and our entire democratic way of life.
The questions that we asked earlier was whether or not the federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, would pursue the truth and seek justice by indicting those perpetrators of treason, or abrogate his responsibility and acquiesce to the threats from the autocrat, G. W. Bush. It seems clear now that Fitzgerald has been intimidated into accepting the latter.
There is only one action that can be taken. That is by the voters in November. Americans must pour out to the polls in large enough numbers and give an overwhelming vote of no confidence to the Bush administration which has failed to offer our country anything close to leadership. Bush has had over five years to complete his on-the-job-training.
But, as Bush's own immutable philosophy revealed when he stated the qualifications for his first U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee, Harriet Miers, he expected her to remain as inflexible and unchangeable twenty years from now as she is today. Bush vouched for her judicial qualifications stating "I know her. I know her heart. I know what she believes," and added "I know her well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she'll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today." He added, "I'm interested in finding somebody who shares my philosophy today and will have that same philosophy 20 years from now."
There it is stated, quite simply and simplistically. Bush is the same intransigent, arrogant, irresponsible person today as he was 20 years ago and has not changed one whit in the last five years -- nor should we think he ever will. As former Chinese President Jiang Zemin described G. W. Bush on meeting him for the first time in 2001 as "logically unsound; confused and unprincipled; unwise to the extreme. ..." Nothing has changed.
Bush and the rest of his administration maggots are evil, corrupt and inherently dishonest and dishonorable individuals who have spat upon every law in our U.S. Constitution and trampled the laws which govern all civilized people in the world's democracies.
G. W. Bush has aided and abetted terrorists and America's enemies in every possible way. Each time he invokes his unchecked and unchallenged edicts he hammers another nail in the coffin of the U.S. Constitution, his most hated document and the main impediment in his quest to wield totalitarian powers.
Nothing Bush says or does reflects an iota of respect for the laws of our country nor for the respect for international laws or treaties, most of which he discarded almost from the day he set foot in the White House, having ascended there via a 5-4 judicial decree. The sooner this slime-infested, cancerous administration is relegated to the scrap heap of history's autocrats and totalitarian detritus, the sooner our country and the world will be able to begin righting one of the most breathtakingly nefarious Colossus of Arrogance and Evil ever foisted upon our great American nation. We can and will take democracy back in November.
Posted by richard38 at 07/13/2006 @ 7:27pm
This is funny. Three Fox sock puppets cut to a Fox news reporter in Gaza [tinyurl.com] who points out israeli soldiers down the road from him. He mentions that the area is "otherwise deserted". Then shots start zipping by. He does everything he can to avoid saying it was the israelis shooting at him. Think it'll prevent them from printing all the israeli lies about not targeting civilians? Don't count on it.
Posted by fromredbird at 07/13/2006 @ 7:42pm
Mr and Mrs Wilson, please go away, to Iran, Iraq, France take your pick! Just get out of here! You only want Bush's blood anyway. Don't take the Americans out because of your hatred for this administration! If you love your country, work for the mob instead. That'll be the best job you can find! SHOO!!!
Posted by CATHOLICNURSE 07/13/2006 @ 5:36pm
Aye Caramba !
Read John Dean's newest book "Conservatives Without Conscience" folks.
It's not enough to dismiss these idiots. We've got to start trying to understand them if we want to get at what's really wrong in the country.
Posted by Red Neckerson at 07/13/2006 @ 8:15pm
"As their chief method of punishment, the White House officials destroyed (Plame's) cover by revealing her classified employment with the CIA to reporters," the lawsuit said.
LL, is logic a foreign language to you? Maybe, just maybe, classified status is all that is needed for the civil suit.
Posted by brunowe at 07/13/2006 @ 9:04pm
Changing the subject away from the non issue of Valarie Plame. The recent events in Lebanon have deeply concerned me. I am beginning to come to the unfortunate conclusion that it will take a major conflict to rid ourselves of militant Islam. Countries such as Syria and Iran can not be permited to continue to subsidize such groups as Hezballah and Hamas. Years ago the Israelis controlled southern Lebanon ===in order to bring about a chance for peace they gave up control of this area. Today this region is used as a staging area for Hezballah to attack Israeli soldiers and civilians. When we will realize that it's not land for peace that militant Islam desires. It is the stated desire for the destruction of Israel. In the early part of the last century Facsism took root in three major European nations. It took a World War and millions dead to rid ourselves of this repugnant philosophy. Will it take something on the same grand scale to rid our selves of Militant Islam? I am beginning to believe that the answer is yes.
Posted by Len Mosse at 07/13/2006 @ 9:10pm
Fascism==sorry
Posted by Len Mosse at 07/13/2006 @ 9:15pm
One more thought concerning the problems in Lebanon. I hope that none on this board go down the road of blaming the U.S. for these problems. The blame belongs to those who are fanning the flames of war===Syria, Iran, Hamas,Hezballah, and Islamic Jihadist.
Posted by Len Mosse at 07/13/2006 @ 9:27pm
"The blame belongs to those who are fanning the flames of war===Syria, Iran, Hamas,Hezballah, and Islamic Jihadist."
This is exactly the perspective I fear. The Bush administration knows they can't cook up a lot bunk to widen their military objectives to Syria and Iran. Hmm, what can they do now to extend the conflict? How about destabilizing the Middle East and drawing Israel into conflict with Syria and Iran? Perhaps Israel would be willing to put the necessary boots on the ground and the US could provide air support or even additional ground support. It's a nightmare scenario, but it would not surprise me if the Bush administration were looking at the option. I doubt something like that would happen, but the rhetoric coming from the Bush folks does hint at that kind of disaster in the making.
Posted by WingaDing at 07/13/2006 @ 10:32pm
Posted by HMAN23 07/13/2006 @ 5:22pm | ignore this person
Too subtle a joke?...sorry.
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2006 @ 10:33pm
Wingading-a-ling, that's exactly the perspective I predict and fear everytime I view this blog!
Posted by barry25 at 07/13/2006 @ 10:37pm
Wingading--"drawing Israel into conflict with Syria and Iran?"
Dingaling now blames Bush for "drawing Israel into conflict with Syria and Iran" ---next he will Blame Bush for crop circles.
There are many responsible people on the left. I would hope they would speak up when people like Dingaling say outrageous things.
Posted by Len Mosse at 07/13/2006 @ 11:17pm
Lvlib(s), what exactly do you find so amusing about the lawsuit? The claims seem to fit what happened. Wilson called the lies of monkeysuitboy, rather than address the issue like adults they went after Plames source of income. They cost her her job. The government went after a civil service employee for something her husband did, voiced his opinion. That is a "Liberty" lvliberty! To express your opinion via public discourse. Do you not see the irony here? Just like you don't see the irony of you buying Chinese goods just to piss off the left. Or express a love for Jesus Christ, then call for the death of innocent people. You are full of paradox my friend.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2006 @ 11:28pm
Israel/Lebanon- I am so sick of the crap these two peoples foist on each other I can't stand it. they are children. Well armed children. Almost 60 years of this. 10% of each side controls the lives of the rest. Jews can't get along with Jews. Palestinians can't get along with Palestinians. They each hate the Other, of course. Israel has prosecuted a pogrom against the Palestinians since 1948, which is the ultmate irony. Now they build their Warsaw Wall. The Palestinians have let their leaders use them to amass wealth, while keeping the masses destitute. The Arab nations have failed to offer up some of their huge tracts of land for a people in dire need. We should withdraw all funds from Israel and move on. Leave them to their own devices.
Before you rant about anti-semitism you should know that as I write this, on the wall adjacent to my computer, is a little contract written in English and Hebrew that I had to sign before wedding my beautiful bride.
I have no problem believing that bushie would use this advancement of hostilities (way out of proportion!) to further the cause of his base, the onset of Rapture. It is easier to see the succes down that road lately than the road to freedom in the Middle East that he promised .
Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2006 @ 11:46pm
sorry, went off on a tangent about Israel/Palestine instead of Lebanon. All pieces of the same puzzle unfortunately. Israel can't get along wiht the neighbors, the neighbors can't admit Israel exists. Move on.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2006 @ 11:52pm
Follow along now kids: Plames cover was not blown, because w said so. They are not POW's, because w said so. We found the wmd, because w said so. Mission accomplished, because w said so. We are winning in Iraq, because w says so. Jose Padilla gets to live in a gulag, because w says so. Gitmo gets to stay open in CastroLand, because w says it is ok. The economy is benefitting all, because w says so. We all need to watch what we say, because w says so. The NYT is a traitorous paper, because w says so. Energy costs are skyrocketing because of enviromental concerns, w says so.
If you don't understand this, then you hate America and all of us that live here. It is that simple.
Posted by CRABWALK 07/13/2006 @ 12:01am
Crab,
So now you understand and the debate is over.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/13/2006 @ 12:51am | ignore this person
Times like this that I want Hillary to win the white House. Can't stand the woman, but would love to see you go apoplectic when it becomes "Hillary said it was legal, so it is". And you will say "Right on President Clinton, right behind you! 'cuz you my prez!"
Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2006 @ 12:04am
Len Mosse
"In the early part of the last century Facsism took root in three major European nations. It took a World War and millions dead to rid ourselves of this repugnant philosophy. Will it take something on the same grand scale to rid our selves of Militant Islam? I am beginning to believe that the answer is yes."
Why do you conflate fascism and militant Islam ? Is this just a rhetorical device i.e. an attempt to conjure up all the negative associations that the former calls to mind and by implication hope that they then attach to the latter ? Or do you honestly profess to see a connection between the two apart from the fact that both are militant and both are anti-democratic ? And if that's your only criteria what is it exactly that sets them apart from a certain other country, one which has the largest military the world has ever seen and that is daily becoming more authoritarian and that actually seems to be reveling in the fact ?
As to the larger issue raised by your comment above, frankly I've always thought you a good deal brighter than most of the hamsters that seems inexplicably compelled to profess their beliefs on this forum. But if you're suggesting that we need to expand this ill conceived holy war of the decider's and extend it to other Islamic countries, I may have to reassess my opinion.
Posted by Red Neckerson at 07/14/2006 @ 01:42am
seem for seems
Posted by Red Neckerson at 07/14/2006 @ 01:46am
One last thing: as to the outing of a CIA agent by a rogue vice president ? That's just a tiny example of what I had in mind by the country becoming more authoritarian. As to it being a "non issue" in your opinion ? A little example of the country "reveling" in this descent into lawlessness.
Posted by Red Neckerson at 07/14/2006 @ 01:57am
Cost her, her job? She just quit the CIA in January of this year
She was a covert agent--exposing her effectively ended her ability to do that, essentially ending her career.
Posted by brunowe at 07/14/2006 @ 05:35am
By the way...
Has anybody heard how much money the Wilsons are suing for?
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2006 @ 07:00am
DON'T FORGET! Mask, LL, USAPRIDE, PONTI, et al, are only repeating talking points. They don't think up any of the stuff themselves. It's like talking to a Fox News tape-player. Don't bother.
So let's talk about Corn's article and just ignore the wingnuts, okay?
Does anyone have the exact quote from Bush regarding firing leakers. I seem to remember that he said he would fire anyone who broke the law, which is why he (retrospectively) gave permission. Therefore Rove didn't technically break the law and technically is off the hook. Do I have that right?
Posted by bookmanjb1 at 07/14/2006 @ 07:08am
lvlib(s), you miss the point totally. As pointed out by Brunowe, she had the rug pulled out from under her. After the government sponsored attack on her she was unable to continue in her chosen profession. You still don't see the irony of your name and your position, do you? You are going to have to help this dumb person then.What liberties do you love exactly? Not freedom of the press, not freedom of the individual to express their political views free from interference from the guvt, not the freedom to marry someone of ones own choosing. What is it you hold so dear? The freedom to worship 2 princes? The Prince of Peace and the Prince of Incompetence.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2006 @ 07:43am
Asked in June 2004 if he'd stand by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked, Bush replied "yes." [Bush Press Conference: Savannah, GA, 6/10/04]
When the White House was asked specifically whether Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams or Lewis Libby told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands." [White House Briefing, 10/10/03]
"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [Bush Remarks: Chicago, Illinois, 9/30/03]
"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." [White House Briefing, 9/29/03]
BUSH THE CANDIDATE PROMISED TO UPHOLD THE HONOR AND INTEGRITY AT THE WHITE HOUSE...
"I will swear to uphold the laws of the land. But I will also swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God," said then-Governor George Bush [CNN, "Inside Politics," 8/11/00]
"Americans are tired of investigations and scandal, and the best way to get rid of them is to elect a new president who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and dignity to the White House." [Then-Governor George Bush on CNN's "Burden of Proof," 9/15/00]
"Americans want to be assured that the next administration will bring honor and dignity to the White House." [Then-Governor George Bush on CNN's "Capital Gang," 8/13/00]
nuff said.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2006 @ 07:48am
Len Mosse wrote:
"There are many responsible people on the left. I would hope they would speak up when people like Dingaling say outrageous things."
If you want to preach responsibility, then turn to the few responsible Republicans left and exhort them to enlist. An action like that will never remove all the blood from warmongerers' hands, but there's nothing like an all volunteer army stuck in a quagmire to improve the reasoning of jingoists.
Posted by WingaDing at 07/14/2006 @ 07:59am
I lied, here is more from the leader of the free world, a man that got the best education money and legacy can buy. Private middle and high school, Harvard and Yale for college.
I've reminded the Prime Minister -- the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship." (Jun. 29, 2006)
I tell people, let's don't fear the future, let's shape it. Jun. 7, 2006
I believe that a prosperous, democratic Pakistan will be a steadfast partner for America, a peaceful neighbor for India, and a force for freedom and moderation in the Arab world. Mar. 3, 2006
This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America. Feb. 23, 2006 (talking about the sale of terminal facilities to a corrupt guvt)
Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2006 @ 08:01am
But if you're suggesting that we need to expand this ill conceived holy war of the decider's and extend it to other Islamic countries,
Obviously I hope that this war does not escalate and I hope that we are not drawn in. However, if Iran and Syria continue to instigate trouble in the region, Israel will be forced to defend itself. At that point we would hope to stay out of this larger conflict, but circumstances may lead us to getting involved. Again I hope this does not happen---but the actions of Iran and Syria (and North Korea for that matter) defy logic. It seems to be in their best interest to stir up trouble and draw attention to themselves. One has to ask why? Could the answer be that in the past the United States has tried to placate such regimes by buying them off (food, nuclear reactors, etc.) when they begin to cause problems? Is this most recent effort by Hezballah nothing more than Iran crying out for attention like a spoiled child wanting to be rewarded for bad action? Maybe it's time to stop making deals with tyranical regimes. Maybe it's time to adopt the "spare the rod spoil the child' philosophy.
Posted by Len Mosse at 07/14/2006 @ 08:35am
Crab----Her suit is a last ditch effort to keep this scandal alive. It is nothing more than a political ploy. The Left wants to get some more political mileage out of this non issue. You have to know that the suit will fail. You have to see this for what it really is. So is your defense of this suit just a knee jerk reaction after the disappointment that this event did not bring down the Bush Presidency?
Posted by Len Mosse at 07/14/2006 @ 08:44am
Posted by BOOKMANJB1 07/14/2006 @ 07:08am | ignore this person
Uh, BOOK....what "talking point" did I repeat, exactly?
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2006 @ 09:03am
Mask
I haven't heard how much they're suing for. But I have heard that they've set up a fund which will be used to help anyone else the Administration decides to defame and to which they will contribute any settlement.
Posted by Red Neckerson at 07/14/2006 @ 09:26am
Moss
Reassessing !
Posted by Red Neckerson at 07/14/2006 @ 09:27am
Mask:
I really did think you were joking earlier, b/c I know you are smarter than that. In this written forum, sometimes it happens.
Liberty:
"Purely political." Yup, just like Cheney, Libby and Rove disclosing Plame to reporters to attack Joe Wilson. What comes around goes around.
Posted by Hman23 at 07/14/2006 @ 09:45am
Listen up you loonie leftie whacko's! I'm Karl Rove's Mommie and I'm outraged at this bitch Valerie!
How can that scarf wearing trollop besmirch poor Karl's name with such obviously purely political motivations.
Karl is utterly devastated that the trollop is using such low brow tactics.
So back off and leave little rollie pollie Karlikins alone.
Posted by freedomplease at 07/14/2006 @ 10:06am
While I agree her suit has political elements, I disagree that it is a "last ditch effort to keep this scandal alive". I do believe that one Scooter Libby will be going through a quite public trial for lying. That might get some airplay from the liberal media.
Wilson will be on the Dianne Rehm Show Monday. All you neo-cons are welcome to call in and ask him to clarify his lies.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2006 @ 11:17am
Len Mosse
However, if Iran and Syria continue to instigate trouble in the region, Israel will be forced to defend itself. At that point we would hope to stay out of this larger conflict, but circumstances may lead us to getting involved.
That's a little hysterical. Hezbollah and Hamas aren't capable of more than being skirmish-level irritants. Israel is more than capable of hitting them with stronger (if not totally effective) force. Unless something happens on the Golan Heights, Israel has no reason to go into Syria and Assad, Jr. isn't stupid enough to start something. Likewise, Iranian ties to Hezbollah are nothing new and go back to the early-80s.
You have to know that the suit will fail. You have to see this for what it really is.
We don't HAVE to know anything of the kind.
Posted by brunowe at 07/14/2006 @ 11:21am
Serious point....it's not going to work.
How are Wilson and Plame going to get a sitting Veep on the stand?....like Clinton and Paula Jones?
Therein lies a problem, all those old clips from 1995-1996, of Democrats and liberal pundits saying that "A President shouldn't be taken to court for political purposes, or to distract him".
The hypocrisy will be OVERWHELMING and back-fire on both supporters of Wilson/Plame and the case.
And again, why will the Wilsons be able to do...what Patrick Fitzgerald was NOT able to do....PROVE that Cheney, Rove and Libby leaked Plame's name? Novak?....not enough.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2006 @ 11:27am
The circumstances I refer to are probably unseen at this time, however they might include the direct involvement of Syria and Iran in the conflict. Also, missiles into the third largest city in Israel is a little moe than a skirmish level irritant.
As to the Valarie Plame case--the political value of this case has been used up---it is now dry on the vine and withering away---being left as nothing more than an obscure footnote in history.
Posted by Len Mosse at 07/14/2006 @ 11:35am
Posted by MASK 07/14/2006 @ 11:27am: How are Wilson and Plame going to get a sitting Veep on the stand?....like Clinton and Paula Jones?
Therein lies a problem, all those old clips from 1995-1996, of Democrats and liberal pundits saying that "A President shouldn't be taken to court for political purposes, or to distract him".
Zorro, no one can be this stupid. I have to assume that you are a paid political operative. (And not a very good one at that.)
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a President can be sued.
The hypocrisy will be OVERWHELMING and back-fire on both supporters of Wilson/Plame and the case.
But no hypocrisy from the hamster side, right? I mean, all those whackjobs relentlessly arguing that, in a country where the rule of law is paramount, civil suits against the President must go forward while he is in office. And, they won. 9-0. Civil suits against the Predident must go forward while he is in office.
But oops... Now they will have to argue that a vice-president can't be sued.
I know. 9/11 changed everything.
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/14/2006 @ 12:24pm
Posted by ORWELL2005 07/14/2006 @ 12:24am | ignore this person
For someone who calls ME stupid, you don't seem to read very well.
I NOTED the "Clinton v Jones" thing, ORWELL. What I SAID about it was that the hypocrisy of those who (I think rightfully) defended Clinton would come back to bite the Wilson/Plames in the butt.
SURE the Limbaughs, etc. who went after Clinton would be hypocrites on this one TOO....but they're not the ones suing this time, are they?
Make it clearer....BOTH sides would be hypocrites, from their Clinton-Paula Jones days....okay?
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2006 @ 12:34pm
Mask,
But the precedent has been set and so all must endure the consequences.....as the right would have said when Clinton was the President...."it's the rule of law".
The very moment some whackjob on the right complains that a sitting V.P. should not be civilly sued while in office for political reasons the Plame people will point out.....that's the way the right wanted it AND unlike the Paula Jones thing, which was political as well this one, was CAUSED by the political HACKERY of Cheeny et al, as opposed to the Libido of Bill Clinton.
Posted by freedomplease at 07/14/2006 @ 12:43pm
"nothing more than an obscure footnote in history."
Yeah, I't,s no big deal that a Bunch of Christians have proved to be the dirtiest politacal operatives to ever hold office!
I can hardly wait until something really serious happens and we really need to go somewhere and kick some ass - and there is no money, no public support and not enough recruits because W Squandered it all on a folly in Iraq.
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 07/14/2006 @ 12:44pm
Posted by MASK 07/14/2006 @ 12:34am: For someone who calls ME stupid
Gee Z. Its not just that I'm someone who calls you stupid. You are stupid.
The funny thing is, that you seem to think you're smart.
you don't seem to read very well.
Sorry about that Z. I know my reading comprehension skills are not up to your level. But it seemed like you were only saying that "Democrats and liberal pundits" would by hyprocrites. Could you show me where you claimed that those defending the VP from suit would also be hypocritical?
Make it clearer....BOTH sides would be hypocrites, from their Clinton-Paula Jones days...
Thanks for clarifying that, Z.
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/14/2006 @ 12:47pm
"And again, why will the Wilsons be able to do...what Patrick Fitzgerald was NOT able to do....PROVE that Cheney, Rove and Libby leaked Plame's name? Novak?....not enough."
Let's not forget that the burden of proof is lower in a civil trial than a criminal one...
Posted by drhammer at 07/14/2006 @ 1:00pm
Hammer,
The cases are not even close.
In one you have to show that the political hack was knowingly outing a spy that he knowingly knew was a spy.
In the other you just have to show that your covert career was damaged by the defendants of the suit.
Given that you can't be covert when your name has been revealed and given that there was a document about Plame which was marked "classified" that has notes written on it by Chenney and was requested after Wilson's OP Ed and Before Novak released her name for all to see it is pretty much a slam dunk.
Certainly much easier than Paula Jones showing that she was sexually harassed with little or no credible witnesses, little or no physical evidence of either the crime or the psycholigical damange inflicted.
Posted by freedomplease at 07/14/2006 @ 1:43pm
LM
The circumstances I refer to are probably unseen at this time, however they might include the direct involvement of Syria and Iran in the conflict. Also, missiles into the third largest city in Israel is a little moe than a skirmish level irritant.
In short, you have no plausible conjecture that would lead to escalation. Further, are the rockets (not missiles) any worse than suicide bombers?
Hammer,
The cases are not even close.
In one you have to show that the political hack was knowingly outing a spy that he knowingly knew was a spy.
In the other you just have to show that your covert career was damaged by the defendants of the suit.
That's true. Further, a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt while a civil victory requires a mere preponderance of evidence.
Posted by brunowe at 07/14/2006 @ 2:06pm
I just can't wait to see "fuck you" Chenney being forced to testify in a civil case. He's going to blow a gasket. The guy gets dismissive when puff piece Fox "reporters" ask him the same question twice!
Thank LVL's God for patriots like Plame!
Posted by freedomplease at 07/14/2006 @ 3:00pm
I wonder when the court date is going to be!!
Posted by freedomplease at 07/14/2006 @ 3:01pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/14/2006 @ 2:48pm: What complete nonsense.
Agreed. But everything you write is complete nonsense, LoveShack. Why did you single out this particular piece for heightened ridicule?
There is no allegation in her lawsuit that she was prevented from further opportunities in the CIA after the July 2003 so-called leak.
Really? So when they say "Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 Newspaper Column, Based on White House Leaks, Destroyed Valerie Wilson's Cover as a Classified CIA Employee", they are not alleging that she was prevented from further opportunities within the CIA?
And when they write "As a result of the Defendants' actions, Mrs. Wilson was impaired in her ability to carry out her duties at the CIA, and to pursue her career there serving her country, as she had planned", they are not alleging that she was prevented from further opportunities within the CIA?
If she doesn't even allege that, where is your evidence?
But she does allege that. So will you just go away? Your goose-stepping anti-reality propaganda has become quite tiresome. Don't you already have a full time job stealing gas from the citizens of this country?
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/14/2006 @ 3:12pm
Orwell,
Such words of ambiguity are not sufficient for a guy who can surmise from Leviticus that "God hates fags!"
Posted by freedomplease at 07/14/2006 @ 3:35pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/14/2006: Such words of ambiguity
Ambiguity? I must really be losing it. What was ambiguous?
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/14/2006 @ 3:47pm
Simple point, fellers....
Why are the claims THIS TIME that "Cheney, Rove and Libby will PAY!" (and drooling over "Cheney on the stand")....
going to be any more accurate than the LAST TIME they were made?
The sum total result of this lawsuit....Joe and Valerie get more air-time on MSNBC, Air America, etc. than they've had for a few weeks now.
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2006 @ 4:04pm
Posted by MASK 07/14/2006 @ 4:04pm: Why are the claims THIS TIME that "Cheney, Rove and Libby will PAY!" (and drooling over "Cheney on the stand")....
going to be any more accurate than the LAST TIME they were made?
The word according to Z: If at first you don't succeed...
Give up.
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/14/2006 @ 4:10pm
Given your INSTANT antagonism to me on anything I post, with little or no substance....any reason NOT to hit Ignore, ORWELL?
Posted by Mask at 07/14/2006 @ 4:17pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/14/2006 @ 2:48pm
It's known as "notice pleading," Liberty. She does not have to lay out her whole case or prove it through evidence, just give a short and plain statement of her claim showing that she is entitled to relief. Now, Cheney and the others might move that she has not done this in her complaint and that she has not stated a claim, but such a motion be based on law not evidence or facts.
Also, among other things, Plame does allege that the defendants' actions "impaired in her ability to carry out her duties at the CIA."
Posted by Hman23 at 07/14/2006 @ 4:26pm
Posted by MASK 07/14/2006 @ 4:17pm: Given your INSTANT antagonism to me on anything I post
I apologize if it seems like INSTANT antagonism. It is not. I only respond after reading your posts and fully appreciating the insane rhetoric you are spouting.
with little or no substance
Gee. I thought there was substance. Sorry.
You wrote that Plame does not allege that "she was prevented from further opportunities in the CIA after the July 2003 so-called leak.". I responded with allegations to that effect that were contained in her lawsuit. I thought that was substantive and relevant. Sorry. My mistake.
any reason NOT to hit Ignore, ORWELL?
None whatsoever. Hit away.
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/14/2006 @ 4:29pm
Oops. That was LoveShack who wrote that stuff about Plame. I get all you whackjobs confused. Sorry.
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/14/2006 @ 4:30pm
I do believe at the time hsuB was stating/implying/alluding, at various times, (already quoted on this thread), that he'd fire anyone having anything to do with leaking of the Plame cover, he already knew it was himself that initiated the whole thing. Why the msm won't play him stating such, along with testimony where hsuB directs his vd to go after Wilson, repeatedly, is just a matter of time. Would hsuB come out and state he didn't tell his vd to discredit Wilson, even thought there's corroborated testimony? I don't think so.
How many intuit Libby having a heart attack way before anything as publicly repetitive as Clinton's bj happens? I'm thinking when bumper stickers like--"hsuB Should'a Had A BJ Instead", or "Kill 150,000 or BJ – hsuB Picks Kill", will start popping up.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0406061libby1.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/
Quote of the Day:
"Security is a superstition--it does not exist in nature. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure." – Helen Keller
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/14/2006 @ 4:33pm
er, vd should read vp...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/14/2006 @ 6:16pm
Sorry to go off-topic, but "they started it!"
hee hee hee
I noticed "Liberty" (hah!) and Pontifidipshit crowing about the "huge lowering of the deficit" and its related causes and effects, and that Pontifitard was openly mocking the supposition that Bush's misadminstration regularly inflates budget numbers to come in below them...
So...
=============================================
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606220008
Lowry repeated Bush administration's reported budget deception
Summary: In an online column, National Review editor Rich Lowry wrote that President Bush, who in 2004 pledged to cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2009, may follow through on that pledge by the end of 2006. However, many experts have said that the Bush administration routinely offers inflated deficit projections so it can then take credit for actual deficits that come in below those projections.
In a June 20 National Review Online column, titled "The Wonder of Voodoo Economics," National Review editor Rich Lowry wrote that President Bush, who in 2004 pledged to cut the federal budget deficit (as a percentage of gross domestic product) in half by 2009, may follow through on that pledge by the end of 2006. According to Lowry: "The 2004 deficit had been projected to hit $521 billion, or 4.5 percent of gross domestic product. Bush's goal was to cut it to 2.25 percent of GDP by 2009 -- not exactly as stirring a national goal as putting a man on the moon, but one that was nonetheless pronounced unattainable. This year, the deficit could go as low as $300 billion, right around the 2009 goal of 2.5 percent of GDP."
But Lowry's analysis makes what some experts have said is an unwarranted assumption: that the Bush administration's deficit projections were genuine.
In fact, experts have said that the Bush administration routinely offers inflated deficit projections so it can then take credit for actual deficits that come in below those projections. The 4.5 percent number Lowry cites is an example -- the actual 2004 deficit turned out to be 3.5 percent of GDP.
Lowry wrote:
Who says you can't cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce the federal budget deficit all at the same time? That's what the Bush administration has managed to do. Two decades after then-presidential candidate George H.W. Bush characterized Ronald Reagan's idea that tax cuts would spur revenue-generating economic growth as "voodoo economics," the witch doctor is again at work.
When President Bush pledged in 2004 to cut the deficit in half by 2009, critics guffawed. The Boston Globe headlined a story, "Bush's plan to halve federal deficit seen as unlikely; higher spending, lower taxes don't mix, analysts say." "Fanciful," "laughable" and "all spin," said the critics.
Well, it turns out that 2009 might be coming early this year. The 2004 deficit had been projected to hit $521 billion, or 4.5 percent of gross domestic product. Bush's goal was to cut it to 2.25 percent of GDP by 2009 -- not exactly as stirring a national goal as putting a man on the moon, but one that was nonetheless pronounced unattainable. This year, the deficit could go as low as $300 billion, right around the 2009 goal of 2.5 percent of GDP.
Lowry was referring to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) May 2006 Monthly Budget Review, which stated: "CBO now expects that the 2006 deficit will be significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps as low as $300 billion."
But at the time Bush made his promise to halve the deficit by 2009, the White House's projected deficit of $521 billion was viewed as inordinately high, as it turned out to be. As Investor's Business Daily noted on June 13: "Bush made his vow when the White House had a dour 2004 deficit forecast of 4.5% of GDP, or $521 billion. The actual '04 deficit came in at $412 billion, or 3.5% of GDP, before falling to $318 billion, or 2.6% of GDP, in 2005."
On Feburary 3, 2004, The New York Times reported:
William Gale, a budget analyst at the Brookings Institution, said Mr. Bush had implicitly made his deficit-reduction goal easier by projecting a surprisingly high budget deficit of $521 billion this year. Under the current budget plan, Mr. Bush can fulfill his deficit pledge even if the government has a shortfall of $237 billion in 2009. By contrast, the administration's budget plan last year proposed reducing the deficit to $190 billion by 2008.
Washington Post staff writer Jonathan Weisman also reported that the White House routinely issues deficit projections that are very high, and then boasts when the actual numbers are below their estimates. The CBO's May 2006 projection differed significantly from the White House's January 2006 prediction that the deficit would exceed $400 billion by the end of the fiscal year.
Weisman reported on January 13:
This is the third straight year in which the White House has summoned reporters well ahead of the official budget release to project a higher-than-anticipated deficit. In the past two years, when final deficit figures have come in at record or near-record levels, White House officials have boasted that they had made progress, since the final numbers were below estimates.
"This administration has a history of overestimating the deficit early in the year, lowering expectations, then taking credit when it comes in below forecast," said Stanley E. Collender, a federal budget expert at Financial Dynamics Business Communications. "It's not just a history. It's almost an obsession."
Indeed, the dire new forecast came the same day that Treasury Department officials were touting a very different picture: The federal government posted the first budget surplus for December in three years, buoyed by a rush of corporate tax payments that more than offset record spending. On Jan. 6, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for the first three months of the fiscal year was about $119 billion, almost exactly where it stood for the first quarter of fiscal 2005.
So, which is it, boys? Inflated, or just plain false?
For a couple of supposedly smart guys, I don't know about you two...
Posted by New Dawn at 07/14/2006 @ 6:20pm
Lowerring deficit, uuuhhhmmm, is that including the current up to date war costs and incoming non-locked box ssn taxes projected to 2019? Yep, the flimflam man can!
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/14/2006 @ 6:44pm
The Rove-Fiztgerald debacle raises serious questions about whether known tresonous acts can even be prosecuted in a "zero-sum" game and political system without the teeth to protect itself from the real enemies within of the worst kind. This is monoploy politics! The case that never was confirms the extent of systemic corruption that allows "in-your-face" criminals to act with total disdain and disregard against the values that are supposed to represent this nation that are now proving to be "undefendable"!
We worry about "terrorists" trying to destroy our way of life and heritage of a political philosophy "awkwardly" founded on the virtues of freedom and the rule of (blind?) law, while those espousing these values around a disbeliving world are seen for what they have proven to be time and time again -liars, traitors and thieves! And we stupidly, like too many of the good old unquestioning loyal Americans, trade our freedoms for less and less security around the world and wonder and question: Why do they hate us?
Every one knows full well that King George III called or thought of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Paine, Attucks, the Minute Men and all other "patriots" as all terrorists and traitors. You can bet he hated them!
What goes around comes around! Where are you now oh George, oh George?
Posted by labarton at 07/14/2006 @ 7:03pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/14/2006 @ 11:27pm: Just another error on your part. I never quote Leviticus on the homosexual issue.
Who cares what mystical Book of Truth you quote to justify your vile bigotry, LoveShack? You are a moron. A fool. A bigot.
And a sap.
Enjoy the rapture.
Posted by orwell2005 at 07/14/2006 @ 11:55pm
Freedom,
Just another error on your part. I never quote Leviticus on the homosexual issue.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/14/2006 @ 11:27p
Gasp! Censored Scripture? Gasp again!
What, those passages don't count?
Posted by New Dawn at 07/15/2006 @ 12:39am
Mosse wrote:
"Crab----Her suit is a last ditch effort to keep this scandal alive. It is nothing more than a political ploy. The Left wants to get some more political mileage out of this non issue. You have to know that the suit will fail. You have to see this for what it really is. So is your defense of this suit just a knee jerk reaction after the disappointment that this event did not bring down the Bush Presidency?"
"As to the Valarie Plame case--the political value of this case has been used up---it is now dry on the vine and withering away---being left as nothing more than an obscure footnote in history. "
You have to see this for what it really is. How could it possibly escape your attention that liberals or anyone who disagrees with the fringe GOP is shamelessly smeared, compared to terrorists, and attacked with Brown Shirted retribution? Take off your partisan glasses and attempt to see the issue from the perspective of the Left. For many of us Lefties Plamegate is about safeguarding American freedom. It's about restoring honor to American politics.
Here are just a few examples of the brass knuckle, freedom-hating, rhetoric of the Right that liberals have dealt with for decades:
* George Bush: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
* Joe Lieberman: "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril."
* Ann Coulter: "Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy."
* Saxby Chambliss compared Max Cleland, a Silver Star and Bronze Star recipient, to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
* GOP supporters paid off the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth to smear the patriotism of John Kerry.
* The flag burning amendment that comes up before every major election for the purpose of smearing the patriotism of liberals.
Fringe conservatives can jump up and down and cry that Plamegate is a liberal tactic for the purpose of persecuting George Bush, but they're simply swift-boating again. The case is about restoring decency to our political process and bringing justice to tyrants at the highest levels of government who actively disdain honest debate. Plamegate might get slow-walked into oblivion, but I can guarantee you that the Left will continue to fight against the Right's embrace of tyranny exemplified by the attack on Joseph Wilson by the Bush administation. Perhaps one day we'll restore some semblance of honest political debate.
Posted by WingaDing at 07/15/2006 @ 03:07am
i cant believe they are still trying to claim that Plame was not undercover. then i realize, some of these gasbags still claim hussein had vast piles of wmds.
Posted by pretzel at 07/15/2006 @ 12:14pm
Mark your calenders, guys....MASK and ILP just agreed on something. (What is this? Like twice now?)
Posted by MASK 07/12/2006 @ 4:14pm
To quote Homer Simpson: "D'oh!"
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/15/2006 @ 6:18pm
You wrote that Plame does not allege that "she was prevented from further opportunities in the CIA after the July 2003 so-called leak.".
Posted by ORWELL2005 07/14/2006 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person
Where did I write that?
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2006 @ 09:42am
To quote Peter Griffin "It's like that time that..."
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 07/15/2006 @ 6:18pm | ignore this person
Posted by Mask at 07/17/2006 @ 09:43am
Whoever wrote that the American people made a mistake by giving this administration power was mistaken. We did not. Let us not forget that the elections, both of them, were stolen. Perhaps that is the saddest part. We truly didn't ask for it, but got it anyway!
Posted by stevea66 at 07/20/2006 @ 05:13am
Hey LVLIBERTY1.
If that's the law, then why did they deny it? Why lie? They lie about everything...everything. It's disgusting. Hell, Cheney even lied about the shooting incident. It goes on and on. I suppose you don't believe that 'bull' about Cheney's creative accounting while at Halliburton either. It's so interesting how so many of you sit there and smile at his wife's "children's books" publication thinking they're oh so pious and just can't find it in yourselves to look the truth in the face. My guess is you're either a fundamentalist chrisian or drive a gas-guzzler or receive tax breaks from this administration...or all of the above?
Posted by stevea66 at 07/20/2006 @ 05:20am
My last comment before I turn off the conservatives by ignoring this site forever. I say this with the most respect I can muster. Any person who still supports this administration is either in great denial or has an ego too large to admit that they voted the wrong way (not that a truthful count of all votes won the elections). I beg you, for your own future sanity and clear conscience, consider the truth. Can you TRUTHFULLY say that this administration serves the people of America? All people...equally? It would take several books (which have been written by the way) to count the deceits of this administration, but look at them again and ask yourselves the above question. Please. It's not that liberals are completely without fault...it's just that the conservatives seem to have cornered the deception market. No wonder they spend so much time at church pretending to beg for forgiveness. In peace and love...goodbye.
Posted by stevea66 at 07/20/2006 @ 05:33am