Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit"Would any of you have any difficulty fairly judging the believability of former or present members of the Bush Administration?"
In a Washington courtroom on Tuesday morning, federal district court Judge Reggie Walton read that question to the pool of potential jurors, and that was a fair way of summing up the big question of the trial: did Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff lie to cover up his own participation in a White House campaign that was mounted to protect the Bush administration's misleading case for war in Iraq?
Libby is on trial for having made false statements to FBI and a grand jury investigating the leaking of Valerie Wilson's CIA identity. But his credibility (or lack thereof) is a reflection of the administration's credibility (or lack thereof). Yet due to the normal workings of a federal court, Libby will be judged by Washington, DC, residents who are in a distinct minority: people who have not already concluded that Bush officials are not to be trusted.
Libby's defense is that he forgot the truth when he appeared before FBI agents and the grand jury. At issue is what he said about his involvement in the CIA leak. The reality is this: in June and July 2003, when the White House was trying to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson (who was accusing the administration of exaggerating the prewar intelligence), Libby, as part of this effort, disclosed information about Wilson's wife (a.k.a Valerie Plame) to two reporters--Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time. After the Plame leak became a criminal matter, Libby (who was not a source for the Robert Novak column that outed Valerie Wilson) told investigators that he had learned about Valerie Wilson and her CIA connection from reporters and had passed this information along to other reporters. In other words, he was just sharing gossip, not official information; he had no reason to know if this hearsay was true.
The problem (for Libby) is this: Fitzgerald has developed plenty of evidence showing that Libby actively sought and received information on Joseph Wilson and his wife before the whole Wilson imbroglio detonated and before Libby spoke to reporters. This information--which noted that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer--was classified. It came to him from the State Department, the CIA and Cheney.
So Libby's faulty memory defense goes beyond a simple I-forgot-who-said-what. What he--or his lawyers--claim is that he completely forgot his own attempts to gather material on Wilson (and also forgot the information he obtained) and that when reporters several weeks later supposedly passed him rumors about Valerie Wilson, this did not jog his memory and cause him to recall what he had previously known. One major obstacle for Libby is that the reporters in question--including NBC's Tim Russert, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Cooper and Miller--do not support his version of events.
More important, Libby's account relies on two purported major memory lapses that may be difficult for a jury to accept: that after collecting material on Wilson and his wife, Libby had no memory of doing so and that he completely confused his recollection of conversations he had with the reporters. Libby is essentially arguing that he forgot to remember what he had once known but had forgotten.
Yet Libby's advocates claim that Cheney's former chief of staff was the victim of a minor memory slip because he was a busy guy. On NPR the day the trial began, Ted Olson, the former solicitor general and conservative activist, said, "It's true. If you are involved in high-pressure situations....in the afternoon you don't remember exactly what you did in the morning." And when I ran into Lanny Davis, the former spinner for President Bill Clinton and Yale classmate of George W. Bush, during the trial's lunch break, he insisted that Libby might have indeed misremembered events. "That's what happens when you're doing push-back," Davis insisted. If Cheney is called as a witness by Libby's attorneys--as is expected--his testimony will presumably bolster such an argument.
Will a jury go for this? Will jurors believe that Libby, the ever-attentive aide, forgot within weeks that Cheney had told him that Valerie Wilson worked at the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA?
All that will be decided when the jury votes. But first, jurors have to be selected. As Judge Walton, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and Libby's lawyers reviewed the initial nine prospective jurors--searching for people with little knowledge and few opinions of the case--they found some who said they could not be impartial. One young woman noted that she was "completely without objectivity" regarding the integrity of Bush administration officials. She did not believe them. She was gone. After being extensively questioned, a financial planner conceded that if Cheney's testimony was contradicted by another witness he could not regard the vice president as equally credible. He, too, was excused.
Walton hopes to have jurors selected by the end of Thursday, and opening arguments are scheduled for Monday. But it may be tough for the judge to find citizens who truly have no hard-and-fast views on the honesty of Cheney and the Bush administration. And that's the point.
******
DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.
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
My guess is Libby wins...there is nothing there even close to the original charge of outing oo7. Waste of time..I'd go after Sandy Burgalar, a real criminal.
Posted by john maasch at 01/16/2007 @ 3:38pm
Waste of time..I'd go after Sandy Burgalar, a real criminal.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/16/2007 @ 3:38pm | ignore this person
another prediction. what is your track record on predictions? zilch.
allow me to draw a consequence to your predictions. when Maasch predicts it, bet the farm on the opposite. it's a lock.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/16/2007 @ 3:44pm
Then gentlemen....,place your bets..
Posted by john maasch at 01/16/2007 @ 3:55pm
Totally of thread...
but where are the articles condeming the OIL companies? Oil has dropped!!! Could it be the market forces?
Naw.
..big oil has made enough of Bush friends rich and now they are slowing down..right?
Posted by john maasch at 01/16/2007 @ 4:01pm
Also would be a good time for higher taxes..
Posted by john maasch at 01/16/2007 @ 4:02pm
but where are the articles condeming the OIL companies? Oil has dropped!!! Could it be the market forces?
Naw.
you're right, it's not the market, it is the political manipulation of the market by the Saudis. not to worry, a temporary trough in prices. the market dictates prices up, demand is huge, supply not unlimited, you do the math.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/16/2007 @ 4:06pm
Waste of time..I'd go after Sandy Burgalar, a real criminal.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/16/2007 @ 3:38pm
Did someone named Sandy Burgalar also calculatedly and traitorously expose the identity of an American CIA agent for self-serving political purposes as the Bush administration did?
Why do Republicans think it's OK to commit treason if it advances their personal political agenda? That's a hard question to answer but one thing is certain- Americans must never again give political power to the kind of people that the Republican Party represents. They are America's worst enemies.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/16/2007 @ 4:06pm
"Did someone named Sandy Burgalar also calculatedly and traitorously expose the identity of an American CIA agent for self-serving political purposes as the Bush administration did? "
No, Wilson did. Evryone to the right of Zero knows this.
Posted by john maasch at 01/16/2007 @ 4:13pm
No, Wilson did. Evryone to the right of Zero knows this.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/16/2007 @ 4:13pm | ignore this person
speak only for yourself with this nonsense.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/16/2007 @ 4:34pm
Speaking of predictions, has the prediction of "Fitz-mas" been forgotten?
"Rove indicted, convicted....Cheney indicted, convicted, impeached...maybe Bush as well".
All you heard since 2004...and none of it happened.
And what's with Mr Corn's paragraph on the jury selection? Does he want himself and Michael Isikoff on there...or anybody who said "Yep, Libby's guilty and Cheney's a liar"?
Would he have wanted Richard Mellon-Scaife and Rush Limbaugh on the Susan McDougal "Whitewater" trial???
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2007 @ 4:40pm
Sandy Burgular certainly is someone to also consider for review, now that you have identified what some may perceive as nefarious activities on-going in this matter regarding Libby.
Posted by Gunner at 01/16/2007 @ 4:43pm
Corn's world - Guilty until proven innocent. Now buy his book!!!!
Posted by woodyee at 01/16/2007 @ 4:50pm
Posted by MASK 01/16/2007 @ 4:40pm
...it may be tough for the judge to find citizens who truly have no hard-and-fast views on the honesty of Cheney and the Bush administration. And that's the point.
What's Cheney's approval rating, 18%? National figures who are deemed trustworthy do not have approval ratings of 18%.
Posted by nathanhale at 01/16/2007 @ 5:24pm
Now buy his book!!!!
Posted by WOODYEE 01/16/2007 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person
lame.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/16/2007 @ 5:26pm
Evryone to the right of Zero knows this.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/16/2007 @ 4:13pm
Are you talking IQ? Why don't you go back to the Bill O'Reilly show. It'll raise the IQ of both venues.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/16/2007 @ 6:37pm
Geez...
Just seeing the words "trust" and Cheney" next to one another...
Like "love" and "demon".
Posted by New Dawn at 01/16/2007 @ 6:39pm
What's Cheney's approval rating, 18%? National figures who are deemed trustworthy do not have approval ratings of 18%.
Posted by NATHANHALE 01/16/2007 @ 5:24pm
Which explains why the courtroom outcome is irrelevant as far as the Republicans future prospects. They've already been convicted by the American people, the mid-terms were proof of that. It would be good, though, if both Libby and Cheney got the thirty years their worthless asses deserve.
Can anyone recall a Democratic administration . . let's make it easier for the ethically handicapped Republicans . . can anyone recall any Democrat of national prominence ever . . EVER . . calculatedly exposing the identity of a CIA agent for personal political gain?
Need it to be even easier, Republicans? OK- can anyone recall any Democrat of national prominence ever . . EVER . . accidentally exposing the identity of a CIA agent with no self-serving motive?
Why do Republicans suck? Let us count the ways.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/16/2007 @ 6:46pm
Would he have wanted Richard Mellon-Scaife and Rush Limbaugh on the Susan McDougal "Whitewater" trial???
Posted by MASK 01/16/2007 @ 4:40pm | ignore this person
If only, our worst fears of political wrongdoing, once again revolved around shady real-estate deals that lost money for the accused-- rather than high level executive officials lying to Grand Jury prosecutors investigating why a covert CIA operative working on Middle East WMD analysis was exposed to the American press in retaliation for her husband's criticism of a heinous war launched on false pretexts by a gang of sleezy oil executives.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/16/2007 @ 8:03pm
Just like former heroes to the crazy-right: Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, any mother of a GI who breaks silence to criticize the war; those banned from their "Americanness" following any critical commentary against the Holy War-- former biking sensation, Lance Armstrong, had better watch his words or he too will find his way on the Limbaugh List of traiterous, treacherous Americans that need to be loathed by Conservatives.
Mr. Armstrong has had the audacity to point out the hundreds of thousands of Americans dying preventable cancer deaths due to lack of medical funding for many Americans- this while we piss away hundreds of billions to subsidize our petrol addiction. He is enough of a hater of America to mention that a September 11-equivalent death toll occurs every day for Americans dying of cancer, while we prepare to fight windmills in Iran.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/16/2007 @ 8:29pm
Please refresh my memory, why isn't anyone being prosecuted for outing a covert CIA field agent?
Posted by WallStreet at 01/16/2007 @ 9:57pm
you're right, it's not the market, it is the political manipulation of the market by the Saudis. not to worry, a temporary trough in prices. the market dictates prices up, demand is huge, supply not unlimited, you do the math.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF
Johannes,
Yes, it is manipulation of oil prices by the Saudis, but did it occur to you that they are doing their part to squeeze the Iranians ( with a bonus of squeezing the venezuelans ) for their own reasons? Watch as the price of oil gets, and settles to the range of $45 to $50...high enough for everyone to do well, low enough to squeeze countries with low grade crude, and high production costs like Venezuela....High enough to maintain demand and profit margins, low enough to discourage substantial investment in feasible alternative sources.....
It isn't just the US with interests at stake in the Middle East, but every country that consumes oil...that would be just about everyone, now wouldn't it.....This is one of those times when it's good to have the Saudi's with us, rather than against us....
In case you need a reminder, it's called REALPOLITIK
Posted by davebarlett at 01/16/2007 @ 10:02pm
But back to Scooter Libby, there's no there there, to quote the famous cartoon charactor of Gary Truedeau's Doonesberry, when speaking about Bill Clinton's intern troubles (And quite right)
Posted by davebarlett at 01/16/2007 @ 10:05pm
But back to Scooter Libby, there's no there there, to quote the famous cartoon charactor of Gary Truedeau's Doonesberry, when speaking about Bill Clinton's intern troubles (And quite right)
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 01/16/2007 @ 10:05pm | ignore this person
er, no. the quote is from Gertrude Stein.
What is behind the oft quoted stein phrase "there is no there there"? The quote "There is no there there" appears in Stein's Book _Everybody's Autobiography_. When Stein returned to California on her lecture tour to the United States in the 1930s, she wanted to visit her childhood home in Oakland, CA. She records that she could not find the house. Hence, "there is no there there." –Sonja Streuber
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/16/2007 @ 11:10pm
In case you need a reminder, it's called REALPOLITIK
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 01/16/2007 @ 10:02pm | ignore this person
thank you, Dr. Kissinger.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/16/2007 @ 11:11pm
Please refresh my memory, why isn't anyone being prosecuted for outing a covert CIA field agent?
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/16/2007 @ 9:57pm | ignore this person
your guess is as good as mine, or anyone's
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/16/2007 @ 11:12pm
"Can you trust Cheney?" I cannot believe that anyone could even ask such a question. As the old saying goes, you can tell when Dick Cheney is lying. It's whenever his lips move.
Posted by robgo2 at 01/17/2007 @ 12:19am
Please refresh my memory, why isn't anyone being prosecuted for outing a covert CIA field agent?
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/16/2007 @ 9:57pm
You're flogging a dead horse. The American public has already decided that the Bush administration committed treason by exposing an American CIA agent's identity for personal political gain. All the lies and coverups in the world aren't going to change that. It would be nice, though, to see Libby and Cheney get the thirty years in prison their traitorous asses deserve.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 02:05am
It would seem that a fair an impartial jury would be a statisticallly based cross-section of Americans, well-informed and with a diversity of opinions. Given the large pool of data available that most Americans no longer trust the Administration, this is a critical issue in ensuring a fair trial . As opposed to the something like the O.J. trial, this is a matter of genuine national interest, a crime perpetrated on the entire country in the name of larger crimes perpetrated on this country and on the world at large.
In other words, if I were Fitzgerald, I would not be content with allowing Libby's lawyers stack the jury with "backwash."
Posted by drbatgirl at 01/17/2007 @ 07:30am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/16/2007 @ 11:10pm
It's often confused and people think Stein was insulting or running down OAKLAND, not just commenting on the loss of her family home.
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 08:46am
Apparently, the "Young Turks" on Air America read Mr Corn.
Heard them this morning discussing...or actually just "Morning Zoo" yuk-yuking....this issue of jury selection.
Not sure what they were driving at except they wanted Libby to be tried by people who had already decided that a defense witness (in this case, Cheney) was a liar.
I'm sure it would satisfy THEIR sense of justice, but I wonder if they'd accept that same standard if the defendent was Sandy Berger and the prosecution wanted to put a lot of Limbaugh ditto-heads on the jury.
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 08:48am
Posted by MASK 01/17/2007 @ 08:46am | ignore this person
this is exactly what I posted, though with Gertude Stein nothing was ever simple.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 09:15am
Let's cut through the BS: Cheney, Bush, and the other cohorts of the ninth circle of Hell leaked; just as they lied to take us into an unjust war for profit; just as they stole an election to get this whole dung ball rolling. Ethics are good (not that this administration or its supports cares much about ethics), but if the American people are smart (jury still out on that one), specifically the ones called to jury duty, they should smile, and yes, by golly! I'd believe Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby whatever they'd say . . . and then freaking stick it to Libby. Let's not confuse this as being unethical--what is unethical is letting bullshit take its course and not punishing criminals who deserve punishment. Be smart, people, and get on that jury.
Posted by tensity1 at 01/17/2007 @ 09:52am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/17/2007 @ 09:15am
Not trying to start a fight, JR....Hi-5'ing you, if you want to take it that way...okay?
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 09:59am
What kind of defense is "I forgot"? Sure, it worked for Ronald Reagan, but this guy is not a senile, old fool. "I forgot"--if they allow him to get away with that, why not everyone else? It's kind of like attempting to employ ignorance as an excuse for breaking a law.
Posted by mtspence05 at 01/17/2007 @ 10:00am
Posted by TENSITY1 01/17/2007 @ 09:52am
Curious, TENS....what would you have said to a RIGHT-winger who said "Tell them you love Bill Clinton, but get yourself on that Paula Jones case...and then screw the adulterous bastard!"?
"Not the same"....fine. How fine can we grind the ethic "The ends justify the means if we FEEL as if we are in the right"?
Perhaps even to the point of "cherry-picking intell" if we feel that invading Iraq is necessary????
As the little green guy said "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 10:03am
Posted by MASK 01/17/2007 @ 10:03am | ignore this person
I agree. I wish only that all of us could enjoy such fair proceedings in a federal court.
Posted by mtspence05 at 01/17/2007 @ 10:06am
Posted by MASK 01/17/2007 @ 09:59am | ignore this person
that's fine.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 10:24am
Ok, Libby is on trial for forgetting a conversation that he had witha reporter. Which for a man in his position he would talk to how many and have how many conversations? And everyone here cries scandal, treason, impeach, blah blah.
Sandy Berger gets caught stuffing classified papers down his pants and "the Nation" is silent...and everyone here says...oh thats ok
Libby trial what a waste of time and money
Posted by CPT at 01/17/2007 @ 11:32am
Ok, Libby is on trial for forgetting a conversation that he had witha reporter. Which for a man in his position he would talk to how many and have how many conversations? And everyone here cries scandal, treason, impeach, blah blah.
Sandy Berger gets caught stuffing classified papers down his pants and "the Nation" is silent...and everyone here says...oh thats ok
Libby trial what a waste of time and money
Posted by CPT 01/17/2007 @ 11:32am | ignore this person
The "law and order" crowd...nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.
Posted by mtspence05 at 01/17/2007 @ 11:36am
Ok, Libby is on trial for forgetting a conversation that he had witha reporter
that is not true. he is on trial for lying under oath, same crime as Clinton. what you trotted out is his defense. you are entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/17/2007 @ 11:44am
Ok, Libby is on trial for forgetting a conversation that he had witha reporter. Which for a man in his position he would talk to how many and have how many conversations? And everyone here cries scandal, treason, impeach, blah blah.
Sandy Berger gets caught stuffing classified papers down his pants and "the Nation" is silent...and everyone here says...oh thats ok
Libby trial what a waste of time and money
Posted by CPT 01/17/2007 @ 11:32am
Why do Republicans think it's OK to expose the cover of an American CIA agent to further their personal political agenda? Why did Americans ever make the mistake of giving political power to traitors like this?
Especially, why does someone like you, who wears an American uniform, think it's OK to expose the cover of an American CIA agent to further your personal political agenda? You're the kind of soldier that no one would want behind them in a battle.
Whatever became of your many times bragged about depoloyment to Iraq in October last year? Why no mention of that anymore? Was it just another fabrication to paint yourself as "more American"? Similar to, "I never told that reporter anything."
Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 12:07pm
Yeah, you're right CPT. Why would a busy man like Libby recall a little thing like exposing the cover of an American CIA agent to further the Republican Party's personal political agenda?
Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 12:09pm
Bill Clinton lied under oath . . after the fact about a personal sexual encounter. It wasn't something inconsequential like exposing the cover of an American CIA agent to further his personal political agenda. It was something vitally important to the security of our country- Clinton's sex life.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 12:13pm
Sandy Berger gets caught stuffing classified papers down his pants and "the Nation" is silent...and everyone here says...oh thats ok
Libby trial what a waste of time and money
Posted by CPT 01/17/2007 @ 11:32am
Can you point out one single instance of anyone saying it's OK? Even one?
By the way- how many American CIA agents did Sandy Berger expose? Any? Even one?
Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 12:17pm
I'm enjoying the mummified defense based on Sandy Berger's screwup. If they'd venture out of the rightwing bubble, CPT and Maasch might someday find out the legal process is complete in that case - Berger was found out, shamed in the media, subjected to legal authority and appropriately punished.
Now it's Scooter's turn.
Of course, if any one of the accused in this case were smart enough to say "I was wrong" a couple years ago, we'd have nothing to discuss. Alas, they must go down fighting.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/17/2007 @ 12:21pm
In all of American history is there even one single instance of the office of the President exposing the cover of it's own intelligence agents and taking down and placing at risk of death that agent's whole network? What kind of people are these in the White House? Aren't they simply rank traitors who shouldn't be just impeasched but placed on trial for treason?
Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 12:21pm
The Bush administration said it needed to invade Iraq to prevent the spread of Iraq's nuclear weapons. Even the dumbest among us now know they never existed and that the Bush administration knew they didn't.
Along the way the Bush administration decided it would be personally politically beneficial to expose the cover of an American CIA agent who had been running clandestine networks to combat proliferation of nuclear weapons. Republicans think both of these things are OK.
America, please never again put people like this in control of our government.
Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 12:30pm
Are Americans beginning to think Republicans suck?
Do Americans no longer think the earth is flat?
Posted by fromredbird at 01/17/2007 @ 12:35pm
Yeah, you're right CPT. Why would a busy man like Libby recall a little thing like exposing the cover of an American CIA agent to further the Republican Party's personal political agenda?
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 01/17/2007 @ 12:09am | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Exactly, that is why he is going to hanged for treason, wait, what was the charge again?
Who is making up facts now? If you know that he "exposing(ed) the cover of an American CIA agent" you had better give that information to the prosecutor. That will change the whole dynamic of this trial, maybe they will even add that to the charges.
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 2:00pm
A reminder from our legal department: exposing the identity of an intelligence agent is a crime only in relatively narrow circumstances. Which is why Fitzgerald indicted no one for the leak itself.
Okay, back to making up facts.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/17/2007 @ 2:21pm
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/17/2007 @ 2:00pm
"Well, he may only be charged with light perjury, but we KNOW what his real crimes are"......hmmmmm?
That sounds vaguely FAMILIAR to me. Did FROMREDBIRD have a radio show back in the 90s and call himself "Maha-Rushi"?
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 2:41pm
This case almost directly mirrors the Bill Clinton case, with one subtle difference, the women. Hillary knew her place, Valerie did not.
Hear me out, in most circles, people who have multiple partners with the knowledge of thier spouses are called "swingers". Hillary may or may not have known while the events were going on, but even after she doesn't seem to upset. Hillary knew her place however, like a good wife, she did the right thing and sucked it up. Married men should be allowed to fool around on their wives, and thier wives just accept it. Hillary is a dutiful wife, like al women, she is nothing without her husband.
Valerie, if she was a good wife, would not have been in the CIA to begin with. If she was at home with the kids making dinner, she would never have gotten on CNN, or gotten a book deal, or ever gotten invited to a VIP party. We can all see how shaken up she and her husband are because of the leak. Their lives have been destroyed. Valerie is not a dutiful wife, and it has caused her family pain.
Since someone labeled me a "right winger" on another post... So, I thought I'd throw this out. And it is even revelant to lots of posts here Please note sarcasm and absurdity of the preceeding post.
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 2:46pm
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/17/2007 @ 2:46pm
Haha....prepare for general (in in DARLA's case, specific) ass-whuppings for that.
The hypocrisy is on BOTH sides. Same people who said "Perjury is an impeachable offense", now giving Scooter a pass.
AND same people who played down perjury or said Craig Livingstone was acting alone in "File-gate"....now claim perjury proves, not just Libby, but Cheney and Rove "outed" Plame; and that it MUST extend beyond Libby regardless.
And like Rush and Hannity, years later when Libby walks, we'll get the "Question still remain" articles from Mr Corn....or more bluntly, "Cheney wanted Valerie Plame killed by foreign operatives so he outed her secret identity" by the Blogosphere!
Hey, maybe Joe Wilson killed Vince Foster?!??!?!?!?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 3:05pm
Its all speculation here... But...
If Plame met the definition of someone who could be outed, this case would matter.
I bet that long before she got outed, Rove, Cheney, Libby, et al asked their attorneys about it, got the green light and ran with it.
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 3:30pm
Haha....prepare for general (in in DARLA's case, specific) ass-whuppings for that.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Is it just me or is Darla one of the few posters out here that sounds like she barely graduated from the 3rd grade. All she seems to do is post "oh KVH, I love your post", "oh, KVH your column will make a difference" blah blah.
I purposely don't "ignore" her becasue she makes me laugh. I love people who pretend their opinions matter. I know mine doesn't, and mine is more important than KVHs, ouch.
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 3:42pm
bet that long before she got outed, Rove, Cheney, Libby, et al asked their attorneys about it, got the green light and ran with it.
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/17/2007 @ 3:30pm | ignore this person
Wanna make that bet before AND after I ask if that was the case....how come Libby "forgot" the whole episode???
Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2007 @ 3:42pm
Libby forgot nothing. He slipped up and didn't keep his lies consistent. Happens to everybody.
The case will end with Libby walking, regardless of the truth. And I could care less. If what he lied about made a difference, maybe I would care.
If her work were so secret that any hint would bring devastation, then she prolly wouldn't have sent her husband on a vacation to Africa. What kind of NOC does crap like that?
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 3:53pm
CIA Director: "Hey, NOCs! Glad to ahve you all in today for the company picnic. By the way, does anyone have any relatives that want to go on a trip to Africa?"
Plame: "I do sir. My husband knows a few Africans"
CIA Director: "Excellent, now what is your code name again? Is it Sneakersoles? BackalleyCat? Missy Montanas?"
Plame: "No sir, it is Valerie Plame"
CIA Director: "Serious? I thought your real name was Valerie Wilson?"
Plame: "It is sir, the super secret code name form was due, I was running late, had to make yellow cake for my husband for breakfast, I couldn;t think of anything else."
CIA Director: "Serious?, well ok, I guess you can always wear a scarf and sunglasses, that should be enough to keep you double super secret. Oh, and only drive early model convertibles, then nooone will know..."
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 4:13pm
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/17/2007 @ 3:42pm
She's odd, but I think kind of sweet and naive in her own simplistic world.
Her "background" sounds almost made-up sometimes though. She's claimed she is...black...Jewish...lesbian and only buys food from farmer's markets. That along with being from San Francisco, makes her sound like some kind of RIGHT-wing stereotype that some conservative blogger might take up as a "liberal poser".
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2007 @ 4:22pm
He slipped up and didn't keep his lies consistent
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/17/2007 @ 3:53pm | ignore this person
Nice choice of words (for a person of your apparent integrity)
You said that Libby (among other's) legally verified, prior to leaking, that it was perfectly OK to out Valerie Plame.
If that was the case then when Fitzgerald starting probing why wouldn't the cabal just say "yeah I told Matt Cooper" what's your point?"
But since they KNEW they we're on shaky legal ground....not sure either which way, they figured they'd try to outsmart the prosecuter....which is why Libby finds himself on trial today.
Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2007 @ 4:30pm
Her "background" sounds almost made-up sometimes though<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You forgot the "communal" computer, that runs on beet juice
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 4:30pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/17/2007 @ 4:30pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You forgot to mention how you love America, find it appaling that someone would damage the Intel community this way... blah blah.
I do like how you pretend to care, but you need to fake some patriotism to make it sound legit.
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 4:39pm
But since they KNEW they we're on shaky legal ground....not sure either which way, they figured they'd try to outsmart the prosecuter....which is why Libby finds himself on trial today.
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/17/2007 @ 4:30pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Um, they did outsmart the prosecutor.
Which is why Fitz had to get Libby on charges of jay-walking. If he broke a real law, Fitz would charge someone.
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 4:41pm
Libby forgot nothing. He slipped up and didn't keep his lies consistent. Happens to everybody.
The case will end with Libby walking, regardless of the truth. And I could care less. If what he lied about made a difference, maybe I would care.
If her work were so secret that any hint would bring devastation, then she prolly wouldn't have sent her husband on a vacation to Africa. What kind of NOC does crap like that?
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/17/2007 @ 3:53pm | ignore this person
Your argument is very close to the one used by the Washington Post editors, that says Ambassador Wilson "ought to have known" (Post) that the Bush administration would make his under-cover CIA Weapons of Mass Destruction analyzing wife "fair game" (Karl Rove to reporter Chris Matthews)-in retaliation for Wilson exposing the lies peddled by Bush in his State of the Union address. You also place a great deal of faith (the preminent principle securing most Conservative ideas) in a defense that revolves around "mis-remembering", or whatever that is supposed to mean. It does conjure up romantic memories of a Reaganesque era that seems to never die; all the lies, death, hatred, and cynicism introduced by corporate governance.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/17/2007 @ 4:46pm
Which is why Fitz had to get Libby on charges of jay-walking. If he broke a real law, Fitz would charge someone.
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/17/2007 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person
Watergate burglaries were not the worst of Nixon's offences, but hell, it worked.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/17/2007 @ 4:49pm
Oh God, here comes "WALLSTREET", the pretentious swollen head who likes to drop knowledge on the little people here when not raking in dollars with a swagger in the big markets. Yup, he's a ganador hijueputa who blogs when not counting his c-notes or dabbling in real estate or looking at his bulbous noodle in the mirror. Gee Mr. Finance, tell us why you're such a big shot again for those who've forgotten since your last barrage of egotistical rot? Looks like you're making yourself at home here, at least today, but how much money have you lost by spending your valuable time here waxing to the choir? Now that's what I call sacrifice. Someone give this mensch another slap on the back!
Posted by chimichenga at 01/17/2007 @ 4:57pm
Watergate burglaries were not the worst of Nixon's offences, but hell, it worked.
Posted by OUSTBUSH 01/17/2007 @ 4:49pm | ignore this person
Yeah!!! We got I Lewis Libby...! Take that Republicans, um, you know Libby right? Here, let me spend about 8 hours trying to explain who he is and why we can spin this into a story.
Does anyone know of a survey that asks "Do you know who I Lewis Libby is?
I tried to google it, nothing came up, my guess, Gallup doesn't even know who he is.
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:00pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 01/17/2007 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person
Oh, here comes Chimichenga, pretntious fried burrito. Thanks for the welcome.
So you have heard of me. Nice.
I wish I could repay the favor by remembering something you said, or your general position on politics, economics, etc. Sorry.
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:03pm
my guess, Gallup doesn't even know who he is.
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/17/2007 @ 5:00pm | ignore this person
The "pompador" is now only "guessing" when throwing out ridiculous, broad sweeping statements (it's an improvement from a few hours ago when he would "bet")
Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2007 @ 5:05pm
By the way. I love chimichangas with chicken mole. Those rock. Good screen name.
Let me guess, you are a cook at Taco Bell?
I love stereotypes
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:05pm
Yes, it is manipulation of oil prices by the Saudis
It isn't just the US with interests at stake in the Middle East, but every country that consumes oil...that would be just about everyone, now wouldn't it.....This is one of those times when it's good to have the Saudi's with us, rather than against us....
In case you need a reminder, it's called REALPOLITIK
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 01/16/2007 @ 10:02pm | ignore this person
Those pesky externalities never considered by free-market addicts-- such as the cost to US taxpayers for having to maintain a compliant monarchy that rules the richest oil territory on earth soley through military force and violence. As if the annual bill of $400 billion per year for a military devoted to protecting and subsidizing our petrol-economy wasn't enough!
Yeah, it sure looks like mistakes were made back in 1980; voting out of office the only president committed to a real and functioning energy policy. Too bad we hadn't retained those policies over the past 25 years. In fact, it was Saudi Arabia, back in the mid-80s, who successfully stalled the inevitable transition away from oil overdependence, by cutting production to levels low enough to lull Americans back into the misguided belief that oil is the best and only way.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/17/2007 @ 5:05pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/17/2007 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Do you love America yet?
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:06pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/17/2007 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Riddle me this. Who is Libby? What % of Americans know who he is? How many care?
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:07pm
I "bet" that more Americans know "Plame" than know "Libby". Just a "guess".
Am I wrong?
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:09pm
Who cares what percentage know the accused???
How many people know "John Edwards who is on trial for shoplifting in Bangor Maine?
Does the rule of law only apply to famous people?????
Posted by freedomplease at 01/17/2007 @ 5:10pm
Funny BALLSTREET, it seems I found you here a month ago claiming some friends had told you to check out this blog, that it was so ridiculous it exceeded your wildest ideas of what is pathetic. Then you posted 7 times in a row, the last post actually asking some virtual friend to engage you. Now you're here again, and posting more often than some people who have been here for years.
Claro eres bolsero de la puta madre tanto que puedes pasar todo el pinche tiempo aquí enseñando a los mococos lo que es ser sabio mientras tu plata se mulitplica haciéndose el amor. ¡Qué vida más linda! Sigue con tus lecciónes cabrón...
Posted by chimichenga at 01/17/2007 @ 5:11pm
Oh wait, maybe I was supposed to be offended by Chimi, and make up an excuse an leave the board.
Sorry to get off topic, but Chimi, do you have an opinion of Libby?
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:11pm
BS,
Yeah, he's small peanuts, but you're supposed to be preoccupied with him while the more important events go down and the bigger players do their magic backstage. Good job.
Posted by chimichenga at 01/17/2007 @ 5:15pm
Riddle me this. Who is Libby? What % of Americans know who he is? How many care?
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/17/2007 @ 5:07pm | ignore this person
Currently, 58% of Americans believe that the noble administration of Bush lied the nation into war. If few people actually know who the former number one crony to the vice president facing felony charges for lying to a Grand Jury prosecutor regarding the leak of a CIA operative was, they will. A few years ago close to half the population actually believed the stories they saw on Fox News. Time is up.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/17/2007 @ 5:16pm
Claro eres bolsero de la puta madre tanto que puedes pasar todo el pinche tiempo aquí enseñando a los mococos lo que es ser sabio mientras tu plata se mulitplica haciéndose el amor. ¡Qué vida más linda! Sigue con tus lecciónes cabrón...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I don't know much, however si quiere escribir en espanol en este blog, y usar palabras como cabron y puta, necissitas una vida. O si piensas que hablar espanol es "chevere", debe de pensar de nuevo. Y puta madre? no conoces mi madre, o si la conoces, decirle "Hola"
Loser. Maybe I should post in pig latin, will that impress anyone?
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:18pm
Riddle me this. Who is Libby? What % of Americans know who he is? How many care?
Are you for real? You could ask this question of 98% of people in government and you'd get the same response. Now ask those people who Paula Abdul is or Borat and you'll get a better response. It must be tough with such a big and active brain but so few people to stimulate it.
Posted by chimichenga at 01/17/2007 @ 5:19pm
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/17/2007 @ 5:18pm | ignore this person
Obviamente no conoces nada de España ni de la "jerga" aquí en Latin America. Not bad though. Shouldn't you be stealing some dotard's pension about now or at least bragging about your wallet?
Posted by chimichenga at 01/17/2007 @ 5:21pm
Are you for real? You could ask this question of 98% of people in government and you'd get the same response. Now ask those people who Paula Abdul is or Borat and you'll get a better response. It must be tough with such a big and active brain but so few people to stimulate it.
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 01/17/2007 @ 5:19pm | ignore this person
Up here we have to take what we can get. Sure, most Americans despite their opposition to the war in Iraq, could care less about the dead Iraqis; our government, consistent with Vietnam and other conflicts, doesn't even count the people it murders in foreign lands (what are the stats: 40,000--or 655,000, who knows, who cares?), but tabulates with great efficiency its own casualties. People are not really against the war due to it any ethical consideration, but more because it's not going swimmingly well, and the costs are absurd. If people really cared about the troops they might suppport them with some kind of GI Bill initiative, or concern would be raised about the use of depleted uranium and its effects on the soldiers.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/17/2007 @ 5:38pm
Are you for real? You could ask this question of 98% of people in government and you'd get the same response. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
My point exactly. Someone is trying to make this out to be a big deal. It is not.
And I don't need to brag about my wallet. Watch your penion though, especially if you live in California. Those morons are going to drive CalPERS broke.
I love Mexico. I go to to Potrero Chico every couple of years. There is a great restraunt near Hidalgo. I screwed up my first time there, ordered 3 kilos of beef fajitas for 3 guys, thought it was .75lb/ kilo. I couldn't understand why the lady looked at me like I was crazy. We found out soon. Only cost $8.
I also dig Guatemala. Chuu Pal Mun ici na yntel iich ma-alo. A little Ketchi fo you. Not too bad for a moron eh?
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:44pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 01/17/2007 @ 5:38pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Best post I have read in weeks.
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:45pm
Loco no, una persona se llama "chimichenga" sabe mas espanol que mi. Wow! no lo puedo creer..! Si dios quiere tecatareamos mas tarde. Sabes?
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:52pm
Anyone want to go in German? Latin maybe?
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:54pm
Chimi, did you like that future subjunctive? Good stuff I'm telling you.
Are you really latino? you kind of lumped all spanish speaking countries together. Spain and Argentina speak castellano, everyone knows that. Maybe you are from Peru, and get offended when someone calls you mexican.
How do you like your tamales? Corn husk or Banana Peel (Platano)?
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 5:58pm
While most Americans remain ignorant to the likes of a man called "Scooter", they do know potential star witness, Dick Cheney. Cheney, a man whose evil-looking appearance match his work experience/resume, has an 18% approval rating. How does that compare to other public figures? The Washington Post made some comparisons:
"How bad is a rating of 18 percent? According to a quick review of polling archives, it arguably makes Cheney:
· Less popular than singer Michael Jackson , bedmate of little boys and world-class screwball. One in four Americans -- 25 percent -- told Gallup polltakers last June they were still Jackson fans after the onetime King of Pop was found not guilty of child molesting.
· Less popular than former football star O.J. Simpson was after his arrest and trial for murdering his estranged wife and her companion. Three in 10 -- 29 percent -- of all Americans had a favorable view of Simpson in an October, 1995 Gallup poll.
· Less popular with Americans than Joseph Stalin is with Russians. In 2003, fully 20 percent said Stalin, blamed for millions of deaths in the former Soviet Union during the 1930s and 1940s, was a "wise and humane" leader. Thirty-one percent also said they wouldn't object if Uncle Joe came back to rule again, according to surveys conducted by Russian pollsters.
· Much less popular than former Vice President Spiro Agnew in his final days in office. Forty-five percent approved of the job that Agnew was doing as President Richard Nixon's veep in a Gallup Poll conducted in August 1973, little more than a month before Agnew resigned and pleaded no contest to a criminal tax evasion charge arising from a bribery investigation."
Posted by Oustbush at 01/17/2007 @ 6:07pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 01/17/2007 @ 6:07pm | ignore this person <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So the moral of the story is try not know anyone that knows Cheney, or else everyone will hate you by association?
Point taken.
So, does Cheney get to go to jail to? Cause he knows Libby, and Libby lied about a crime that no one is alleging occurred. Oh, and Libby worked for a guy with an 18% approval rating.
Therefore Cheney is Guilty.
Good logic. Keep that coming.
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 6:12pm
You liberals look for any small transgression and try to turn it into a constitutional crisis, provided it is committed by a Republican. The charge against Libby is lying to a cop. If they put in jail everyone who lied to a cop, we would all be cell buddies. Far more serious is Sandy Berger destroying evidence against Bill Clinton. What, no outrage?
Here is a real stunner for you. During the 2004 campaign someone created false documents and leaked them to Dan Rather in an effort to effect the outcome of the election. That is a constitutional crisis. Have you been reading about the investigation? Is there an investigation? Oh, I forgot. The false testimony was against George Bush so it is all right. Not as serious as not outing a non-undercover CIA agent. What a bunch of losers.
Posted by wredner at 01/17/2007 @ 6:17pm
"Currently, 58% of Americans believe that the noble administration of Bush lied the nation into war."
There is a difference between belief and knowlege.......maybe thats the reason there have been no charges....except Libby...there is no knowlege since there is no evidence...only libs beliefs and hopes....so you end up with a page 3 player who gets off, again because there is nothing there....thats my belief.
Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2007 @ 6:19pm
You liberals look for any small transgression and try to turn it into a constitutional crisis, provided it is committed by a Republican. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It goes the other way just as often. BC got a BJ, lied about it, and the country is going to hell in a hand basket
Posted by WallStreet at 01/17/2007 @ 6:19pm
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/17/2007 @ 5:58pm | ignore this person
I'm heading out but will say that if you're a gringo your Spanish is pretty good. And though I gave you a hard time, I'm glad to see your posts are more relevant than that first day I saw you (which may have been your first here, don't know). Anyway, I'm plenty guilty of clowning so I've very little room to criticize.
Platicamos otro día. Y pa' que sepas soy gringuito. Pásalo chido.
Posted by chimichenga at 01/17/2007 @ 6:23pm
"Far more serious is Sandy Berger destroying evidence against Bill Clinton. What, no outrage?"
Not here it isn't..Bill is God.
Posted by john maasch at 01/17/2007 @ 6:25pm
So the moral of the story is try not know anyone that knows Cheney, or else everyone will hate you by association?
Point taken.
So, does Cheney get to go to jail to? Cause he knows Libby, and Libby lied about a crime that no one is alleging occurred. Oh, and Libby worked for a guy with an 18% approval rating.
Therefore Cheney is Guilty.
Good logic. Keep that coming.
Posted by WALLSTREET 01/17/2007 @ 6:12pm | ignore this person
BS,
Since you obviously overestimate your own intellect, I will spell it out for you. Libby is planning on defending himself by convincing the jury that he did not lie, but merely forgot his conversations with multiple reporters concerning the status of a CIA operative. And his expert witness expected to validate this nonsense is the man who, as vice president to the most unpopular president in recent memory, is less popular to the American public than Michael Jackson, or OJ Simpson. Sounds very comforting. Good luck with this one.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/17/2007 @ 6:31pm
Here is a real stunner for you. During the 2004 campaign someone created false documents and leaked them to Dan Rather in an effort to effect the outcome of the election. That is a constitutional crisis. Have you been reading about the investigation? Is there an investigation? Oh, I forgot. The false testimony was against George Bush so it is all right. Not as serious as not outing a non-undercover CIA agent. What a bunch of losers.
Posted by WREDNER 01/17/2007 @ 6:17pm | ignore this person
Here's a real winner: George W. Bush relied on forged documents that were provided by the former Italian prime minister (since thrown out by the electorate, despite being the richest man in Italy and controlling the media). The documents were so ridiculous it took the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about 15 minutes to expose them as crude forgeries, and yet Bush still used them. How many investigations have uncovered the source of false evidence used by Bush to drag us into a war?
Posted by Oustbush at 01/17/2007 @ 6:43pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 01/17/2007 @ 6:23pm | ignore this person
Most of these guys appear to be nice and decent individuals-their ideas, however, need a strong dousing of disinfectant- similar to that persistent mold found at the base of a toilet.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/17/2007 @ 6:53pm
Hey maybe Libby's statements to the prosecutor weren't lies after all, but are now just "inoperative"!
Posted by bwaslo at 01/17/2007 @ 9:40pm
Posted by MASK 01/17/2007 @ 10:03am | ignore this person
Please, Mask, dissembling again. Let's get to the heart of the matter. First, note how you don't argue against the gist of what I say, only the structure. Fine, Bush and Co. feel okay in lying to justify going into Iraq. Then the important question is, for what gain? Revenge for Daddy? Controlling oil interests? Justification to make some contractors rich? Pawns of an Israeli conspiracy? Maybe to show how a "democracy" can be corrupted and we must be always vigilant, and he's doing us a favor? Blah blah blah . . . whatever the case may be, was it important enough to damage our international standing and kill 3000+ of our sons and daughters who are patriotic and willing to give their lives because they believe in the ideals of the USA, which Bush has shit on? What has it done for our national interest? Not that we oafs of empire deserve anything more than we already have.
Fine, Clinton was a bad man for lying about Paula or Monica or any number of unknown hussies; would've been more of a non-issue if he was "more of a man" and flaunted his balls and just said "so what?". Great. Go after him for lying. Can you say with a straight face that it's the same. Well, you've already admitted it's not, yet you keep arguing about the structure. Enough with the structure of logic crap. This Yoda, dark side analogy doesn't matter because WE create the structure, it wasn't there already--it's not going to corrupt us. What is corrupt is our intentions to begin with. Clinton is a liar covering up his peccadilloes. Bush is a liar for . . . ego? War profiteering at the expense our citizens' lives? Living out his fantasy of being a Old West sheriff? Go ahead, make a good argument out of that.
To end with Libby, if the man can't remember such minor details as to whether someone is a CIA agent and maybe shouldn't be mentioned, or doesn't have the intelligence to make some note of it or have an assistant keep him straight on it, should he really be working for the Number 2 man of our nation? It's not about FEEL as you so put it. All the evidence is out there on the criminality of this administration, but most people don't know because they're too busy living their lives or rely on superficial, obfuscating media (if any at all), or they're too afraid to care and see the truth of what's going on, because the disillusionment would be too crushing.
Anyway, I've taken the bait, and wasted more time out of my life on you. But I do feel a little better, so thanks. People, none of this matters except to make you feel good by venting, or for your own ego gratification on a nice turn of phrase or argumentative line. If that makes you happy, then great--really; but don't fool yourselves in thinking your comments on this board are going to really do anything. If your feel that way, best go outside and get some sun to burn that fog out of your brain. Better yet, pet a dog or call your mom and say hi. Even best, get on that jury and stick it to Scooter. Bye.
Posted by tensity1 at 01/18/2007 @ 09:11am
dear editor, let this poor libby go. if he were a bigger liar, or could manage his lies well, he will still be in white hosue, as some others are. Or would have become one of the great presidents, forgetting iran-contra. Let the poor libby go, like we did for baker, gates, north and many others. thanks arun misra
Posted by misrausa at 01/18/2007 @ 3:27pm
Excellent mapping of what promises to be the salient issues of the Libby Trial. It may seem catty, but I'm glad this trial is getting going so that we can glimpse, over a decent period of time, the mechanics of how absolute power corrupts absolutely, before the presidential pardon arrives. I expect our de facto leader, Mr. Cheney, aka Philburn Svengali, is watching all this through a peephole in the wall, and, at some point will collect his servile servants all into the basket of his hot air balloon and wiz aloft in a puf of smoke to get "out of harms way", a Beltway buzzword these days, n'est-ce pas.
Posted by mikecassady at 01/19/2007 @ 12:57am