Libby Trial: Final Arguments about Scooter, Cheney & Truth

posted by David Corn on 02/20/2007 @ 10:36pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (149)

Subscribe Now

Cover-up or scapegoating.

Nine conversations or two.

Scooter Libby the liar, or Karl Rove the liar.

A cloud unfairly placed over Dick Cheney, or Libby and Cheney placing a cloud over the White House.

As the prosecution and the defense teams in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby presented closing arguments on Tuesday, each side tried to encapsulate its case--and portrayed distinctly opposing views of reality.

"This case was about lying," prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg said at the start of the government's summation. He maintained that during the CIA leak investigation Libby, the former chief of staff for Vice President Cheney, lied to the FBI and grand jury about how he had learned that Valerie Wilson was a CIA employee, whom he had talked to about her, and what he had told others about former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife. Referring to the opening argument of lead defense attorney Ted Wells, Zeidenberg pointed out that Team Libby had contended their client was an innocent man who had been turned into a sacrificial lamb by a White House desperate to protect Karl Rove, the administration's uber-strategist. But, he continued, Libby's lawyers introduced no evidence to support that flashy charge. "Unfulfilled promises from counsel," he added, "do not constitute evidence."

Zeidenberg asked the jurors to recall that nine witnesses had each said they had spoken to Libby about Wilson's wife and her CIA connection In June and July 2003. They contradicted the tale that Libby had told the FBI and the grand jury. In his FBI interviews and grand jury appearances, Libby had conceded that around June 11, 2003, Cheney told him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA's Counterproliferation Division (which is part of clandestine operations directorate). But he claimed that he had been struck by total amnesia regarding this critical fact in the following weeks and learned about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment "anew" on July 11--three days before the leak appeared in a Robert Novak column--when NBC News' Tim Russert told him that "all the reporters" knew Wilson's wife was CIA. In Libby's account, when he had talked to reporters about Wilson's wife prior to the leak he had merely been passing along gossip (not official and classified information) he had picked up from Russert. (Russert testified he had said no such thing to Libby.)

This was nothing but a cover story, Zeidenberg charged: when Libby was questioned by the FBI in October 2003, he had reason to fear being caught up in the criminal investigation and to worry about losing his job. The prosecutor reviewed for the jurors the conversations Libby had during the relevant time period. Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, senior CIA officer Robert Grenier, CIA briefer Craig Schmall, Cheney press spokesperson Cathie Martin--each testified he or she had talked to Libby about Wilson's wife in mid-June, within days of when Cheney had told Libby about Wilson's wife. Zeidenberg reminded the jurors that former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer testified Libby told him about Wilson's wife on July 7, 2003, and that Matt Cooper, formerly of Time, and Judith Miller, formerly of The New York Times, testified that Libby had spoken to them about Wilson's wife and her CIA employment prior to the leak.

The defense had taken shots at several of the prosecution witnesses, and Zeidenberg did his best to bolster their credibility. None, he argued, had reason to lie, and their accounts all pointed in the same direction. Could they all be lying or misremembering in a similar fashion? When Russert had been on the witness stand, Wells had accused him and NBC News of harboring a bias against Libby and the office of the vice president. Then why, Zeidenberg asked the jurors, did Cathie Martin testify that she had suggested that Cheney appear on Russert's Meet the Press in July 2003 to combat charges the White House had misrepresented the prewar intelligence?

Zeidenberg took on the defense's claim that Libby had been too busy with national security matters in 2003 and 2004 to remember accurately what he had known and said about Valerie Wilson. Listen to this, Zeidenberg told the jurors, and he played a portion of Libby's March 2004 grand jury testimony during which Libby was able to recall in detail a conversation he had with Rove on July 11, 2003. In that discussion, according to Libby, Rove told him that Novak had informed Rove that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that he (Novak) would be publishing a column about Wilson. Libby also told the grand jury that during this conversation he said to Rove that he had just heard from Russert about Wilson's wife. (Oddly--or not--the defense never called Rove as a witness to confirm Libby's claim that he had given Rove the same account of his Russert conversation that he had provided the FBI and grand jury.) Why could Libby, Zeidenberg asked rhetorically, recount specifics of this discussion but couldn't "recall one out of nine conversations that he himself had about Mr. Wilson's wife because it is a trivial detail?" There is a pattern, Zeidenberg added: Libby remembers the conversations he had with the government witnesses but never "the piece about Mr. Wilson's wife."

Libby, he argued, could even "remember with specificity what he didn't talk about" the week before the leak. When Libby appeared before the grand jury, he testified that in the days after Joe Wilson published a July 6, 2003, op-ed article--in which Wilson revealed that he had gone to Niger for the CIA to check if Iraq had been uranium-shopping there and reported back the charge was highly unlikely--he and Cheney talked about Wilson's mission. But Libby maintained that Cheney and he had not discussed the wife's CIA position until after the leak appeared in the Novak column. Zeidenberg reminded the jurors that Cheney had written a series of questions on a copy of the Wilson op-ed, including one asking whether Wilson's wife had sent him on a junket? "Ask yourself: the vice president has those questions," Zeidenberg said, "who is he going to discuss them with? Is he pondering these things on his own? Or discussing them with his chief of staff?" And is there nothing suspicious, he added, that Libby told the grand jury that he and Cheney in the week before the leak discussed all of Cheney's questions about the Wilson trip except the one about Wilson's wife?

The case has pitted Libby (and his claimed recollections) against several reporters (and their claimed recollections). And Libby's lawyers tried to knock down the testimony from Cooper, Miller and Russert. But Zeidenberg emphasized the core issue: could Libby have completely forgotten about her CIA connection and then learned it "anew." Addressing the jurors, Zeidenberg said, "Forget for the moment about the testimony of those nine conversations...it's simply not credible to believe that he would have forgotten this information about Wilson's wife from June 11 to July 11.....The vice president's office [at this time] is in the hot seat...They're asked the question over and over: why did Mr. Wilson say he was sent [on his Niger trip] by the vice president....Mr. Libby thinks he has an answer: the wife....And he wants you to believe...that he so completely forgets the information about Mr. Wilson's wife that when Russert tells him about it...it rings no bell?...It's just not credible."

Zeidenberg's summation of the case was straightforward and compact. He poked at Libby's hard-to-accept position: I knew, I forgot, then I knew again but forgot that I had forgotten. He explained there was a motive for Libby to lie to the FBI and the grand jury. It was a coherent tale about a fellow who tried to fib his way out of a tough spot. Perjury cases can be difficult because the prosecution has to prove the defendant's intention and state of knowledge. Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and Zeidenberg argued a hard case well.

"Maybe I was drunk when I made my opening," Ted Wells said, as he began his closing statement. He was referring to Zeidenberg's characterization of his opening presentation: "Sure sounded like I said a lot of things I could not deliver on." Wells claimed he had not promised to put on "a whole case of evidence" about a White House conspiracy to sacrifice Libby for Rove. "I promised I would show you a note," he said. And Wells pointed to a note written by Cheney in October 2003--after the White House had declared (erroneously) that Rove had not been involved in the Valerie Wilson leak--that said, "Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder."

Why is this so significant? According to Wells, the note--written by Cheney in response to Libby's request that the White House also clear him of any wrongdoing in the leak case--is evidence Libby is innocent. Only an innocent man, Wells contended, would ask the White House to absolve him publicly and then--when rebuked by chief of staff Andrew Card and press secretary Scott McClellan--would beseech the vice president. Wells insisted that Libby had been hung out to dry by a White House eager to protect Rove.

But this was not a strong argument. After Cheney wrote that note, McClellan did clear Libby. And given that the White House had declared that Rove had not participated in the leak--even though Rove had been Robert Novak's second source--the fact that Libby wanted similar treatment does not prove his guilt or innocence. Sometimes guilty people want to be declared innocent.

Wells moved to another line of defense. He told the juror the case was simple: it was about two conversations. He meant Libby's phone call with Russert and a conversation Libby had with Matt Cooper. And, Wells added, this is all "he said/she said." He revisited questions about Cooper's and Russert's powers of recall that he raised earlier in the trial. But Wells was also being sly. The case is not merely about whose recollections are more accurate: the reporters or Libby. Wells was trying to distract the jurors from the nine conversations Zeidenberg had reviewed. A case based on two conversations--where there are no notes or third-party witnesses--is "madness," Wells proclaimed, adding, "there's a craziness to this case."

The defense team's closer had an air of disorganization. But that was the point. Wells and co-counsel Bill Jeffress threw whatever they could at the jury. That Russert has a memory problem and a vendetta against Libby--and that Russert actually may have known about Wilson's wife prior to his conversation with Libby. That Libby talked to eleven reporters and did not volunteer information to any of them about Valerie Wilson. That only Judy Miller said he leaked to her--and, Wells added, she cannot be believed. That Libby was too busy protecting the United States from terrorists to recall what had happened. That Libby would not have concocted such a cockamamie cover story that positioned Russert (whom Libby barely knew) as an alibi. That Rove and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage were the real leakers. That Libby was not at all worried about losing his job. That every participant in the case has forgotten one fact or another. That Valerie Wilson and her CIA connection was not important to Libby because, Wells said, "nobody cared at the office of the vice president." That Libby had no reason to fear any investigation because he had not known that Valerie Wilson was a clandestine CIA employee.

The defense was not linear. There was no narrative. There were many assertions and questions. The closest the defense came to a competing explanation of what happened was its tale of the Libby sellout. Noting that the White House had said that Rove had not leaked, Wells declared, "Rove lied....Rove did talk to Novak." And he put up a slide for the jury that showed photographs of Rove and Libby and carried the bottom-line explanation: "Save Rove/Sacrifice Libby." By complaining about this in October 2003, Scooter Libby, Wells reiterated, had demonstrated he was innocent of any wrongdoing in the leak case. (Wells was operating under the assumption that leakers never lie.) And Libby's lead lawyer slammed the Bush crew for not initially standing by his man: "That's not a team I'd like to be part of. The sure didn't treat [Libby] like he was part of the team."

Over and over, Wells and Jeffress did what defense layers routinely do: drill into the jurors that the government has the obligation to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby lied deliberately. The prosecution must present "powerful" evidence, Wells said repeatedly, and the jurors have to base their deliberations upon the presumption of Libby's innocence. Wells told the jurors, "There was memory problems with every witness" and he recalled that Grenier, a prosecution witness, had testified that his recollection of a conversation with Libby had "a fair amount of vagueness attached to it." Jeffress asked, "Which witness came in here and didn't get something wrong?"

Wells finished his case by returning to the sacrifice quasi-narrative, asking the jurors not to treat Libby as he was mistreated by the White House: "[If] someone [in the jury room] starts to say, 'He was a Republican, he worked for Cheney, let's do him,' help that person....Don't sacrifice Scooter Libby for how you may feel about the war in Iraq or how you may feel about the Bush administration. Don't sacrifice Scooter Libby."

His finale was emotional. Scooter Libby is "a good person," Wells proclaimed, noting that Libby, during the trial, had been under Wells' care and protection. "I give him to you," he told the jurors. "Give him back to me. Just give him back." Wells voice broke; he choked back a sob. He sat down.

Then it was Fitzgerald's turn. After three years of working on this case, he, as is customary for prosecutors in a criminal case, would have the last word. "Madness," he exclaimed. "Madness. Outrageous....The government brought a case about two phone calls." He was mocking Wells. This was not a case of he-said/she-said, he explained; it was a case of he-said/he-said/he-said/she-said/he-said/he-said/he-said/she-said/he-said and he-said. "Is this the world's greatest coincidence?" he asked, contending that there could not be nine conversations with everyone remembering the wrong thing. And forget about Russert, he said. If Russert had been "run over by a bus and gone to the great news desk in the sky," the prosecution's case would stand: Libby learned about Wilson from Cheney and others yet claimed he had not.

Valerie Wilson and her CIA affiliation was no trivial matter for Libby and Cheney, Fitzgerald insisted. For Libby and Cheney, Fitzgerald said, Valerie Wilson "wasn't a person...she was an argument...a fact to use against Joe Wilson." He pointed out that there is physical evidence. According to the notes of Libby's CIA briefer, Libby told the briefer about Wilson and his wife a full month before Novak's column--and Libby did so during a briefing that covered heavy-duty national security issues, such as terrorist plots and the war in Iraq. This document, Fitzgerald said, "is a fingerprint of the defendant's brain."

Fitzgerald called the jury's attention to other documents that showed Libby and Cheney were nearly obsessed with the Wilson matter. He demonstrated that Cheney himself had helped create a set of talking points in early July about the Wilson imbroglio that began, "It is not clear who authorized Joe Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger." This showed, Fitzgerald argued, that the boss was concerned with the origins of Wilson's trip. (Cheney and Libby believed the media accounts made it appear that Cheney had directly dispatched Wilson, though Wilson had only been sent by the CIA in response to a question Cheney had put to his intelligence briefer.) Fitzgerald recounted how prosecution witnesses had testified that when Libby talked about Wilson's wife he did so in an unusual manner, as if Libby knew the subject was sensitive.

Fitzgerald came to the rescue of Judith Miller, whom he had sent to jail for 85 days before she agreed to cooperate with his investigation. The defense had had easy work in undermining her credibility--especially because she had forgotten in her first grand jury appearance to recall an entire meeting with Libby. But Fitzgerald walked the jurors through key portions of a memo on the Wilson trip that was sent to Libby on June 9, 2003. He then showed the jury portions of Miller's grand jury testimony in which she noted that Libby had shared these same specifics with her during a July 8 meeting at the St. Regis Hotel. This exercise was a twofer for Fitzgerald. He demonstrated that Miller could be a reliable witness and that Libby had been quite interested in and able to recall details about the Wilson matter. It seemed Libby did have a good memory on this topic.

Fitzgerald chugged along. He undercut the defense team's contention that Cooper's notes back up Libby's claim that he only shared scuttlebutt with Cooper. Fitzgerald scored points in rebutting the defense attorney's attacks on Russert. And he took on Wells' charge that the prosecution had throughout the trial attempted "to put a cloud over" Cheney. "There is a cloud on the vice president," Fitzgerald replied, explaining that Cheney had written notes indicating he was interested in the Valerie Wilson connection and that Cheney had sent Libby to the meeting with Judy Miller where Libby (according to Miller) told her that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. "And that cloud remains," Fitzgerald declared, "because this defendant obstructed justice....That cloud was there. It was not something we put there." Cheney and Libby, Fitzgerald noted, could have held in July 2003 a press conference to reveal information they believed would undermine Joseph Wilson's attack on the White House. Instead, they went with a leak to Miller. But why would Libby rely on a Russert-told-me cover story that could not withstand close scrutiny? "The sad truth is that sometimes when people lie it looks dumb when they get caught," Fitzgerald said.

The prosecutor brushed aside the argument that Libby merely failed to remember what he had known and discussed about Valerie Wilson. Use your common sense, Fitzgerald asked the jury. Wells had earlier said that prosecuting Libby for not accurately recalling in October 2003 details of conversations he had in June and July 2003 was akin to asking a college student, who had spent a summer on a beach, to remember in the fall the specifics of a conversation he or she had the previous semester. That's nonsense, Fitzgerald retorted, noting that memories are dependent on "uniqueness, importance, and anger." Valerie Wilson's CIA connection was certainly unique, he maintained, and the vice president's office believed the Wilson trip was a significant topic. And Libby, according to the testimony of several prosecution witnesses, was angry about Wilson's claim that the White House and the vice president had manipulated the prewar intelligence. "When you think it's important, when you're focused on it, when you're angry about it--those are the things you remember," the prosecutor said. And, Fitzgerald added, Libby's CIA briefer had testified that he told Libby and Cheney that the disclosure of a clandestine CIA officer could lead to the harassment, torture or death of others. Even a 21-year-old, Fitzgerald said, would consider that important.

Winding up, Fitzgerald aimed at the entire Bush crew. "There's a cloud over the White House as to what happened" in the leak affair, he told the jury. There were questions as to whether the law was broken when Valerie Wilson's CIA cover was blown and "what role the defendant played...what role the vice president played." Looking straight at the jury, Fitzgerald asked, "Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury is entitled to straight answers." Instead, he said, Libby made up a story and obstructed justice. Echoing Wells' last lines, Fitzgerald declared of Libby, "He stole the truth from the judicial system. Give truth back." With that, Fitzgerald was done.

After weeks, each side had presented the expected arguments. The prosecution marshaled a set of concrete facts that appeared compelling and that supported a narrow narrative. The defense picked at each witness, raised a host of other matters, suggested alternative theories (and conspiracy theories) without proving any, cited reporters to whom Libby had not leaked, and claimed that Libby had testified accurately to the grand jury and the FBI and that if he had not he had merely committed good-faith memory slips.

Fitzgerald offered a solid case. Wells offered several possibilities for any juror looking for a peg for a reasonable-doubt argument. Now twelve jurors will have to answer the question: who was sacrificed--Scooter Libby or the truth?

******

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.

Comments (149)

Fitzgerald offered a solid case. Wells offered several possibilities for any juror looking for a peg for a reasonable-doubt argument. Now twelve jurors will have to answer the question: who was sacrificed--Scooter Libby or the truth?

Shocked? Surprised? This is what happens when you have a legal system, instead of a justice system.

..."Can I get an amen, OJ?"

Posted by Sliver at 02/20/2007 @ 11:27pm
So, its 50/50 that Libby walks? No smoking gun? No hard eveidence? No bomb or silver bullet to send anyone to jail?

...BTW, what was Fitz looking for in the first place? Anyone remember?

Yawn......but the real question is...will this verdict have enough energy to takes Corns book off the 3 for 1 table at the book stores?

Posted by john maasch at 02/20/2007 @ 11:39pm
"Now twelve jurors will have to answer the question: who was sacrificed--Scooter Libby or the truth? "...or Corns book?

MASK,... will Corns book be sacrificed? If Libby walks then Corn has delivered nothing but a boring novel at best...refunds anyone?

Posted by john maasch at 02/20/2007 @ 11:41pm
I do believe intelligent people understand what this means when Corn writes:

There were questions as to whether the law was broken when Valerie Wilson's CIA cover was blown and "what role the defendant played...what role the vice president played." Looking straight at the jury, Fitzgerald asked, "Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury is entitled to straight answers." Instead, he said, Libby made up a story and obstructed justice. Echoing Wells' last lines, Fitzgerald declared of Libby, "He stole the truth from the judicial system. Give truth back." With that, Fitzgerald was done.

VVVVvvvvvVVVVvvvvVVVVvVVvVVVVVvvvvvVVVVvvvvvVVvVVVVvvv

Of course it becomes rather difficult for repub new cons to absorb as either their eyes, ears or mouths are always covered... Are they chimps or chumps? It does not matter as they always project only their own incompetence and arrogance. A guilty verdict will only cause repub new cons to shift the position of their hands; nothing more.

Posted by hsuBfools at 02/21/2007 @ 01:07am
My first question when I read "choked back a sob" was: "What award do they give for 'best performance in a defense attorney's supporting role?' Can't be an Oscar or an Emmy-- no cameras in the courtroom. Maybe a Tony?"

I just have to hope that the jury does the right thing, and then Libby flips rather than go to RealPrison (TM).

Posted by bewarethisboy at 02/21/2007 @ 02:13am
Mr. Corn, thank you for your coverage of this trial. It is clear to me that Libby lied, that he was one cog in a machine designed to discredit a critic of prewar intel by outing his wife as CIA. Libby broke the law; he committed perjury. He lied to the FBI. Wells did a pathetic job of trying to confuse the jury. He didn't knock holes in the prosecution's case, at least none large enough to get his client an acquittal. If there is such a thing as justice anymore, Libby will be convicted.

The question now remains, however. Given the revelations of Cheney's involvement in the leak, what now? Will Fitgerald now seek an indictment against Cheney? What will this do to the Shrub's plans for war with Iran, if his vice dictator is publicly implicated in the leak just as the White House is kicking into high gear with its war plans? And what will happen if or when Bush pardons Libby?

I think this case is far from closed.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 02/21/2007 @ 08:18am
My first question when I read "choked back a sob" was: "What award do they give for 'best performance in a defense attorney's supporting role?' Can't be an Oscar or an Emmy-- no cameras in the courtroom. Maybe a Tony?"

yes, a Tony Soprano.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 08:34am
So Fitzgerald isn't even convinced that the law was broken!

The classic defense from the conservatives, again. No laws were broken.

"I am not a crook."

Repeat as necessary, for generations if need be.

Posted by MyParadigm at 02/21/2007 @ 08:36am
BTW, what was Fitz looking for in the first place? Anyone remember?-MAASCH

why yes ,John, I remember. Chimpy said Iraq was getting uranium from Niger.This was total BS, that you bought. Then, instead of owning up, they went after the wife of a Bush appointee. Then they lied about it to the people, then Libby lied to the FBI (probably).

Sad.

chimpy can do no wrong, he has God on his side. He takes care of the troops too! Missed all you sycophants over at the Walter Reed thread. I was looking for some fancy dancin'. But even you knobs can't shill for that sad story of soldiers left to rot.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 08:56am
"after the White House had declared (erroneously) that Rove had not been involved in the Valerie Wilson leak-"

"Wells declared, "Rove lied....Rove did talk to Novak.""

Go after the defense neo's!!! He voiced blasphemy!!!

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 09:01am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/20/2007 @ 11:41pm

Unknown. He actually MADE Wells case, in case nobody noticed.

Look, the defense is trying to blame Cheney and Rove, to say that Libby is being a scapegoat....okay.

What does David Corn's book say...that Cheney and Rove were responsible.

Unfortunately, "Fitzmas" didn't come and Cheney and Rove weren't indicted (nor appear they EVER will be)....so, the question becomes-

Will the jury believe...David Corn and Michael Isikoff...that it was all Cheney and Rove?

If so....Libby can walk.

Posted by Mask at 02/21/2007 @ 09:06am
Mask, have you never been on a jury? When decision time comes, it's on the merits of the case, not whether someone else was really to blame.

This case is narrow and quite strong. If he gets off, it'll be because the jury sets the bar really high for convicting a government official for doing the best he can under pressure. Unfortunately for Libby, he's a really bad liar. And at some point a juror has to wonder, if he can't even lie under pressure, why should I think he was doing his job so well under pressure that I should ignore the law?

Posted by MyParadigm at 02/21/2007 @ 09:21am
Crab,

"why yes ,John, I remember. Chimpy said Iraq was getting uranium from Niger.This was total BS, that you bought."

You forget, I, myself, never cared about yellow cake or WMD...I believe Iraq was and is another cog in the wheel in the fight against terror....I never pinned these issues alone to the invasion of Iraq...Saddam violated enough of the precious UN resolutions to warrent a harsh response and he got it.

Unforunately for him(Saddam), Iraq has a huge role in the fight against terror and it is better to fight them there than in NYC...Iraqs history is full of evidence that they were not to be trusted and the emboldened Islamo facists would have found some sort of home or relationship advantageous to them selves and Iraq over time...IMO.

Posted by john maasch at 02/21/2007 @ 09:36am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/21/2007 @ 09:36am | ignore this person

What a load of balderdash. Honestly, MAASCH, you are an emminent dope with an exhaustive talent for regurgitating the maudlin swill that you're hammered with day after day by your puppet masters. That you say things like "emboldened Islamo fascists" with utter sincerity makes me wonder if you piss sitting down. And your comments about Iraq's history do nothing but emphasize your unflagging hypocrisy, for if you actually knew anything about that country's history, you'd know how his friends in the US government handed him lists of supposed communists to be erased from the earth, how they gave him the germs necessary to carry out the atrocities in Halabja or how the Shia majority suffered immensely under his rule. Bottom line, the most flagrant violations of international law and the most brutal crimes against humanity perpetrated by Saddam were done so while an ally to the US.

As you probably have no idea (and no care) for the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion in 2003, I imagine you don't have any idea or care about the number of casualties produced under the inhumane sanctions imposed on Iraq and carried out for 13 years, killing an average of 4500 children under the age of five every month. Was this not terrorism? Surely you can't blame it on bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi or random suicide bombers, because none of them existed then. The only role Iraq serves in this war is to fork over its resources to the US and Israel, serve as a lever by which to exert power over the economies of Japan, China and western Europe, and serve as a trampolin for future assaults and usurpations in the future. "Cogs?" Your rhetoric is no better than that of the ghosts and goblins drawn into your American Dreamscape.

Posted by chimichenga at 02/21/2007 @ 10:07am
Mask, have you never been on a jury? When decision time comes, it's on the merits of the case, not whether someone else was really to blame.

Posted by MYPARADIGM 02/21/2007 @ 09:21am

Let me go tell that to LA Police Chief Mark Fuhrman and call O.J. on death row and let him know.

Posted by Mask at 02/21/2007 @ 10:14am
Mash Potatoes,

You are incredible!

You're so touchy feely wishy washy I don't know how you don't just drain down a sink!

Libby is on trial for obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI and the Grand Jury.

He (allegedly) did these things because he was asked questions about Valerie Plame and he either couldn't remember straight or intentionally lied to either get the heat off himself or off his boss.

If the Admin truely thought that invading and occupying Iraq was a legitimate and worthy front in the GWOT then they should have presented the case to their employers (the electorate given that you seem to have forgotten who they work for). But instead, they were not up front with the electorate, they instead fabricated reasons and played on human emotional fear which was magnified by an all too willing mainstream media.

When the truth about those reasons started to see the light of day rather than standing up and saying "mea culpa" the Administration seems to have dug their hole deeper by attacking purveyors of truth. In this case they went a bit over the line and allegedly tried to lie themselves out of the jeopardy.

I understand that you are of the opinion that you could care less what rules, ethics and laws were broken as to you the end justifies the means (the end being the occupation of Iraq and the means being the lies that got the support to get us there in the first place). But the rule of law does not recognize one mans views of what is best for us all (our system is probably not patriarchal enough for you, but tough shit).

Posted by freedomplease at 02/21/2007 @ 10:21am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/21/2007 @ 09:36am | ignore this person

another post entirely free of reality. it is irrelevant if YOU cared about WMD, the country did and it was the basis of congressional votes supporting the war. the entire country does not revolve around you.

islamowhatevers had no home in Iraq under Saddam. that is a fact. now? they are legion in Iraq. that war thing has worked out well.

with every endeavor there are two questions to be asked. one: is it going well? two: was it worth doing in the first place. the american people were and are quite clear on their answer.

remember the few dozen hostages the iranians held? well now 150,000 american soldiers are held hostage in Iraq. their fate is not dependent on their commander, now they are there until the Iraqis, well "our" Iraqis, get it together and make their country again the garden of eden it was said to be in prehistoric times.

this war was and is based on lies. this will be a bitter pill to swallow for the survivors of the soldiers died in Iraq, as well as for the soldiers who survived. the big lie now is "complete the mission". and what is the mission? why victory, of course.

better to fight them there? if by them you mean the Iraqis, that's a lie. no Iraqis were on the planes that attacked the WTC.Saddam had no possibility to attack new york or any city in america.

this war has been a boon to IRAN. they could not have done better if they had their manchurian candidate in the white house. here is the sequence: the Iraqi exiles living in Iran sell Bush a bill of goods as far as Saddam's weapons are concerned.he and the american public fall for that flim flam hook line and sinker. america invades Iraq and promptly unleashes a civil war, which they fight on the side of the shia, who are Iran's clients. the enemy which Iran fought in an 8 year long war, will never threaten Iran again. perfect.

in the run up to the Normandy invasion the allies tried a little trick. they concocted an identity for a corpse who then washed ashore in France, carrying papers that revealed the invasion plan to take place in Brittany rather than normandy. and the germans fell for it. remind you of anything?

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 10:22am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/21/2007 @ 10:22am | ignore this person

Great post, JR - always well-armed and bringing a lot to the table.

MAASCH, that's like four in a row against you, turkey. Why don't you take your sow's ears and get lost?

Posted by chimichenga at 02/21/2007 @ 10:51am
Curious....if Libby walks (or even if he doesn't)..

will he become the "Clay Shaw" [en.wikipedia.org] of future (or even NEAR-future) conspiracy theorists?

And who will play Patrick Fitzgerald in the 2028 movie...Liam Costner?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 02/21/2007 @ 10:54am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/21/2007 @ 09:36am | ignore this person

CHIMI and JR: You are far too kind.

JOHN MAASCH is a disgusting sub-human piece of shit. With tits.

The estimates are that 650k Iraqis have died since the invasion and that there are almost 4 million refugees ("liberated" Americastanis), about evenly divided between internal and international camps.

And this blubbering mindless sheep MAASCH-wiper bleats for more bloodshed and misery so that he can waddle around Omaha with bacon-stripes in his panties in a touchy-feely state of security for which he will look like a trained dog to rightwing freaks to tell him when he has obtained it; that is, until the next time this obseqious laughingstock bozo MAASCH is summoned to a 10-minutes hate by the rightwing freaks to whom he is mindlessly obedient.

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/21/2007 @ 10:55am
so instead of the promised testimony from the defendant we get tears from the defense attorney. a disgusting spectacle.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 11:01am
So Fitzgerald isn't even convinced that the law was broken! The silence from the left will be noticable on this issue as they mimic Corn and focus in on their Bush/Conservative hatred rather than this glaring omission.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/21/2007 @ 12:58am

Your point is immaterial to Libby's charges. You do not get a free pass at perjury and obstruction of justice even if there is no underlying crime. As Fitzgerald has explained numerous times, one of the negative consequences of perjury and obstruction is that it frustrates the ability to determine if a law has, in fact, been broken.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/21/2007 @ 11:10am
with Clinton there was no underlying, pun intended, crime either. there was only the perjury. he was accused of sexual harassment but not tried, as the case was settled.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 11:15am
Posted by MASK 02/21/2007 @ 09:06am

A key point missing from your hypothesis is that, even if Rove and Cheney were ultimately responsible for the decision to go after Ms. Wilson, jurors could still conclude that was following their instructions - no reason, then, that the jurors could not reasonably find Libby guilty of perjury/obstruction.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/21/2007 @ 11:16am
thanks Chimi. Glenn, if it is sometimes cruel to be kind, perhaps it is also sometimes kind to be cruel.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 11:17am
"they should have presented the case to their employers (the electorate given that you seem to have forgotten who they work for). But instead, they were not up front with the electorate, they instead fabricated reasons and played on human emotional fear which was magnified by an all too willing mainstream media.'

Sure they did...to congress where your Dems saw the same intelligence that everyone else did, including the some of the same points under Clinton..but you must have forgot..and Congress, the electorate, gave the Admin the go ahead...which they conviently now,....like you,... "forgot"..

"I understand that you are of the opinion that you could care less what rules,"

You understand vry little, IMO.

Posted by john maasch at 02/21/2007 @ 11:17am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/21/2007 @ 11:15am

That little fact will not matter much to Liberty.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/21/2007 @ 11:17am
to congress where your Dems saw the same intelligence that everyone else did

ALERT . . . ALERT . . . BASELESS RIGHTWING TALKING POINT

Posted by Hman23 at 02/21/2007 @ 11:19am
"with every endeavor there are two questions to be asked. one: is it going well? two: was it worth doing in the first place. the american people were and are quite clear on their answer. "

I agree....

1. Is it going well...somedays yes, and some days no...it is not finished..

2. Number 2 should be asked before number 1., but I believe in what the Admin was trying to do...which IMO, is nothing like what you believe they are doing and tried to do from the beginning...which is to lie to get oil for their buddies and set up a dictatorship here....so you and I aren't even on the same page premise wise and can't seem to get there, so it is difficult to speak on each others sides or see the others...

Posted by john maasch at 02/21/2007 @ 11:22am
Chimi,

"MAASCH, that's like four in a row against you, turkey. Why don't you take your sow's ears and get lost?

Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/21/2007 @ 10:51am

Four in a row? Million man march math for sure... I don't see it that way..but as far as my sows ears and leave...I can do that, I guess...and probaly will soon..it is getting boring here with the same old shit...

I mean, look at Glen LEMONRIND as an example.....

"JOHN MAASCH is a disgusting sub-human piece of shit. With tits.

The estimates are that 650k Iraqis have died since the invasion "

Gotta make his momma proud with the intellectual wit...but the million man march math...embarassing for her I am sure..the rest is just baseless insults in place of anything reasonable thought. Typical and disappointingly predictable.

Glen is not worth commenting on a separaqte post...a clod for sure.

Posted by john maasch at 02/21/2007 @ 11:31am
JR,

gotta go to work...plenty of time to discuss and rehash in NY.

Posted by john maasch at 02/21/2007 @ 11:31am
Hman,

"ALERT . . . ALERT . . . BASELESS RIGHTWING TALKING POINT

Posted by HMAN23 02/21/2007 @ 11:19am

A little weak, old sport...

Really? stop by the good office of your man Kerry or the moral giant of our times and Congress. Teddy, and ask them, away from the cameras..what they saw and why Kerry was all for it, until he wasn't...

Posted by john maasch at 02/21/2007 @ 11:33am
JR,

gotta go to work...plenty of time to discuss and rehash in NY.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/21/2007 @ 11:31am | ignore this person

NOTACHANCE. our meeting will be politics free, as agreed.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 11:43am
Posted by HMAN23 02/21/2007 @ 11:16am

True...but it could still enter into their minds that Libby was a scapegoat or "little fish" and blame Fitzgerald for not getting the "big fish" into court.

Not saying it will happen...but that it could. Despite MYPARA's belief in the jury system's innate logical and rational thinking.

Posted by Mask at 02/21/2007 @ 11:48am
If we don't fight them there we we will have to fight them here was the pro war mantra during Nam.I used to ask how are they going to get here and what will they do when they get here considering that we are the most heavily armed nation on the planet?Mostly,the only ones who came here were harmless refugees and now we mainly get college students who learn about our way of life and take that knowledge home with them.How are the new "they" going to get here?Why are you going to let them in the country? Saddams Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorists.Islamic states breed terrorists.The new Iraqi government is,by definition,an islamic state.

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/21/2007 @ 11:54am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/21/2007 @ 11:33am

Well, you tell me, what did Kerry and Teddy tell YOU . . . away from the cameras that is?

You seem to know.

The "Congress knew what the president did" line has been debunked so many times. Tell me the mechanism where the full Congress gets intelligence briefings on par with the White House. Tell me when this briefing happened. And who attended.

Or read . . .

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/iraq-intel/

Posted by Hman23 at 02/21/2007 @ 11:56am
Posted by MASK 02/21/2007 @ 11:48am

Essentially, you are talking about nullification.

Sure, it could happen. But, I think it is a stretch.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/21/2007 @ 11:57am
Hman,

Of course I wasn't at any meeting, and if I were, would you believe me?

Maybe I should pose the question...did congress see the same intelligence that the president saw ? Why did they vote to give the president the power to go?

I think they saw the same thing from all agencies available to them, includidng forgein help, and voted based on what they saw and believed...now it is convient to come off as "What? me? I was robbed! No body told me!!!"..and the MSM carried their water and excuses.

Posted by john maasch at 02/21/2007 @ 12:04pm
Actually John, it was Bush for whom the MSM who carried water and excuses in the pre-war phase. More than once, administration sources leaked juicy tidbits about aluminum tubes and portable bio-weapons labs to Judy Miller, who splashed them breathlessly on the front page of the New York Times. And days later, administration figures, usually Cheney, would soberly cite the articles as documentation of the danger of Saddam. All while CIA and Pentagon intelligence were concluding that the original sources of the so-called intelligence were not credible.

Posted by MyParadigm at 02/21/2007 @ 12:24pm
excellent point, MY. a pity it needs to be made over and over again with Tories, who are far more comfortable discussing the events of four and five years ago, than the disaster that is Iraq now.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 12:29pm
I have not heard much about the "fact" that Judith Miller was sleeping with Libby. anyone out there know more?

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 12:30pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/21/2007 @ 11:54am | ignore this person

I believe Reagan also made a similar remark about the Sandinistas - that they were only "a three-days drive from Texas", and that without training and arming the Contras in Honduras to terrorize and pulverize them , the Sandinistas just might hop aboard all those dilapidated Blue Bird school busses we donated to them after they could no longer pass inspection in the US and head north to swallow the stars and stripes. People in the US (like MAASCH, CPT, LL and a whole mongrel assortment of curs, clods, noddies and imbeciles) actually believed this and thus gave their blessings to the devilish Contras, some of whom I actually worked with when collaborating with World Vision in southern Honduras in the past. What the Sandinistas wanted to do was lift the lot of Nicaraguans out of abject poverty and ignorance, andt though they weren't free of error or corruption, they improved the lives of many people before they were pulverized - well, mainly the civilian population and infrastructure were pulverized.

While the Nicaraguan massacre has nothing to do with WMD or terrorism besides the fact that the nation (and region) suffered the latter, it explains the extent to which the US despises those nations that do not follow orders and bend to their will, while displaying the utter ignorance and abominable degree to which los gringos will abdicate their capacity to use their minds when confronted with any and every cry of "wolf", whether the wolf happens to be a small-time Latin peasant leader produced by a level of democracy not-yet seen in the US or a bound dictator whose usefullness had expired. And the result? Barbarous and unnecessary war, which as invariably happens, highlights the worst aspects of humanity, including numerous examples by the "good guys", "freedom fighters" or "coalition of the willing". But the idiot Americans will still cheer for Contras (the "equivalent of our Founding Fathers"), Shia death squads, Salvadoran killing batallions, genocidal generals of Guatemala, assassins of religious leaders, or any other breed of warrior so long as he kills anyone deemed "the enemy".

That this infinitude of American Dream Spoilers, produced daily and for no apparent reason but to hate and destroy all that is good in the world, is feared to be on its way to the US is as believable as these agents of "evil" assuming the people of the US might actually become infected with curiosity and step outside their bubble to see for themselves what the world and its inhabitants are really like.

Posted by chimichenga at 02/21/2007 @ 12:32pm
JR,

NOTACHANCE. our meeting will be politics free, as agreed.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/21/2007 @ 11:43am

Good point.

Posted by john maasch at 02/21/2007 @ 12:34pm
Hman,

A Boston trip appears to be solidifying for me in the next 30 days....

where and how do I pay my bets?

Posted by john maasch at 02/21/2007 @ 12:35pm
"Fight them over there..." is a morally bankrupt position from my viewpoint. To me that is a "hide behind their women and children" policy.

From news stories of just the past week show that Islamic fundies are using the Iraq war to rally people to their cause. Many of these people would indeed stay farmers, dentists were they not whipped into frenzy over the occupation of Muslim lands. India just showed us that the Iraq war has done nothing to help their conflict. We have actually supplied a doctoral laboratory for terrorism. Good cause or not, Chimpy has failed in Iraq and he has failed our returning solders.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 12:46pm
McClatchy Newspapers Government Misstated Statistics on the War on Terror, Audit Shows by Marisa Taylor

The Justice Department has routinely misrepresented the number of terrorism prosecutions, possibly undermining decision-making in the war on terrorism, an independent government audit has found.

The report, released Tuesday by the Justice Department's inspector general, concluded that the department in most cases "could not provide support for the numbers reported or could not identify the terrorism link used to classify statistics as terrorism-related."

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 12:47pm
oof, sorry about the bad writing and formatting.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 12:50pm
Chimi Good post.

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/21/2007 @ 12:54pm
I have not heard much about the "fact" that Judith Miller was sleeping with Libby. anyone out there know more?

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/21/2007 @ 12:30am

eeeww.

More like Novak and Rove.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 12:57pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/21/2007 @ 12:46am | ignore this person

Right on, but what's scary is the fact that all of this was predicted by high-level officials well in advance of the invasion. If you want to keep your country at war indefinitely you're going to need a lot of enemies who create tumult, spit anti-American rhetoric and have enough problems in their own little yards before the world's colossus plants its foot in it. It also helps if the enemies look, think and speak in a way that appears completely alien to the pop-cultured Americans. So why not smash Iraq and set up an incubator for terrorists there? Though they're much more feared than they should be, they've gone from a small tribe of extremists to a world-wide rallying cry for Arabs and Muslims the world over. That's a pretty important achievement if you want to keep the wargames going...

Posted by chimichenga at 02/21/2007 @ 12:59pm
Posted by HMAN23 02/21/2007 @ 11:57am

Or just "reasonable doubt"...or reasonable doubt that it's "that big a deal".

Wells could have pulled out a "Vogue" with Wilson and Plame's photo on the cover and said..."Under cover operative!?!?!?!"

Inaccurate?...legalistic trick?...cheap stunt?...sure, why not, if it works. Cuz that's the way the system works.

End of the day...which should come next week...maybe Friday if we're LUCKY...we'll get the Final Word, both from the jury and Mr Corn.

Then maybe he can try his hand at either supporting Barack Obama...or pointing out his love of coal mining and support of Israel's attack on Lebanon....or atleast something a little more relevant.

Posted by Mask at 02/21/2007 @ 1:09pm
Maybe I should pose the question...did congress see the same intelligence that the president saw ?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/21/2007 @ 12:04am

It's a pure sign you are on the losing end of an argument when you respond to a question with a question (or you are a law professor). But, see my link above - it's pretty clear and not very controversial.

As for a meet - let me know the details when they firm up. Maybe after a few pops we can head over to Kerry's place in Beacon Hill and ask him your questions (w/o cameras).

Posted by Hman23 at 02/21/2007 @ 1:28pm
Maybe I should pose the question...did congress see the same intelligence that the president saw ?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 02/21/2007 @ 12:04am

No they did not.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 1:40pm
JOHANNES,

I am not sure what you mean with your Shakesperian riddles but ... it is long past time to be humoring buffons when the facts on Iraq are there to see if one opts to take off the sensory deprivation googles for a brave confrontation with reality. MAASCH is clearly not ready for such and continues to suck helplessly at the desecated Bush bosom, thereby further atrophying any capacity for independent reason of which he may (or may not have) once have had a faint flicker.

Then again there are still dispicable lowlifes who parade around Europe in Nazi regalia. 30 million dead on site apparently did not make much of an impact on them; should such people be humored? Reasoned with? Patiently exposed to one exhbit of evidence after another in hushed tones? C'mon ...

In MAASCH's case of pompously (if whinily enacted) self-inflicted agnosia, my answer is to forget about the polite entreaties and vigorously throw the cold water of truth in his face. Let him puzzle out why he keeps getting humiliated.

More on Iraq, excerpted in yesterday's London GUARDIAN. Another "heckuva job" this time, in the blood-stained Americastan that is saluted by the shabby crew of self-hating Americans/Bush Vanity Invasion Apologists. They are the ConservaClowns, the born losers who love death and childishly resent the excellence of which they are congenitally incapable while pursuing their failing tilt against reason and reality:

The project

President Bush wanted the 'right' people in charge of the reconstruction of Iraq. Unfortunately for the country, that meant loyalty to the president rather than expertise - including a 24-year-old estate agent put in charge of the stock exchange, writes Rajiv Chandrasekaran in the second exclusive extract from his new book.

Tuesday February 20, 2007 The Guardian

The opportunity to participate in the US-led effort to reconstruct Iraq as part of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which ran Iraq's government from April 2004 until June 2004, attracted all manner of Americans: restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon. To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for defence department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration. ...

The selection often followed a call from a well-connected Republican on behalf of a friend or trusted colleague. Some people were personally recruited by the president. O'Beirne's staff asked questions in job interviews that could have got an employer in the private sector hauled into court. (The Pentagon was exempted from most employment regulations because it hired people - using an obscure provision in federal law - as temporary political appointees.) Did you vote for George Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two CPA staffers said that they were asked if they supported Roe v Wade (the ruling that effectively legalised abortion in the US). One former CPA employee, who had an office near the White House liaison staff, wrote an email to a friend describing the recruitment process: "I watched resumés of immensely talented individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown in the trash because their adherence to 'the president's vision for Iraq' [a frequently heard phrase at CPA] was 'uncertain'." ...

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the CPA lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance - but had applied for a White House job - was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13bn (£6.7bn) budget, even though they had little experience in accounting.

"I'm not here for the Iraqis," one staffer said. "I'm here for George Bush."

The decision to send the loyal and the willing, instead of the best and the brightest, is now regarded by many as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many who participated in the reconstruction effort.

...

But many CPA staff members were more interested in other things: in instituting a flat tax, in selling off government assets, in ending food rations and otherwise fashioning a new nation that looked a lot like the United States. Many of them spent their days cloistered in the walled-off enclave of the Green Zone.

Jay Hallen, aged 24, was restless. He didn't much like his job at a real-estate firm. His passion was the Middle East, and although he had never been there, he was intrigued enough to take Arabic classes and read histories of the region in his spare time.

He had mixed feelings about the war to topple Saddam, but he viewed the US occupation as a ripe opportunity and was delighted when the CPA said it wanted him in Baghdad. But the day he arrived in the city, his new boss, Thomas Foley, the CPA official in charge of privatisation, told Hallen that he wanted him to take charge of reopening the stock exchange.

"Are you sure?" Hallen asked. "I don't have a finance background." He had not followed the US stock markets. He had not studied economics.

"It's fine," Foley replied. ...

The job of rehabilitating Iraq's health-care system had previously been held by Frederick M Burkle Jr, a physician with a master's degree in public health and postgraduate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth, and the University of California at Berkeley. Burkle was a naval reserve officer with two bronze stars and a deputy assistant administrator at the US Agency for International Development (USAID). He taught at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, where he specialised in disaster-response issues. During the first Gulf war, he provided medical aid to Kurds in northern Iraq. He had worked in Kosovo and Somalia. And in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, he had been put in charge of organising the US response to the expected public health crisis in Iraq. A USAID colleague called him the "single most talented and experienced post-conflict health specialist working for the United States government".

But Burkle was replaced. A senior official at USAID told him that the White House wanted a "loyalist" in the job. Burkle had a wall of degrees, but he didn't have a picture of himself with the president.

Haveman was well-travelled, but most of his overseas trips were in his capacity as a director of International Aid, a faith-based relief organisation that provided health care while promoting Christianity in the developing world. Prior to his stint in government, Haveman ran a large Christian adoption agency in Michigan that urged pregnant women not to have abortions.

He faced a considerable task: preventing disease, providing clean drinking water and improving care at hospitals were a matter of urgency; so, too, was obtaining drugs and medical supplies. And hospitals and clinics were out of antibiotics, painkillers, and other medicines.

Haveman arrived in Baghdad with his own military aide, his own chief of staff and his own priorities. He approached problems the way a health-care administrator in America would: he focused on preventive measures to reduce the need for hospital treatment. He urged the health ministry to mount an antismoking campaign, and assigned an American from the CPA team, who turned out to be a closet smoker, to lead the public-education effort. Several members of Haveman's team noted wryly that Iraqis faced far greater dangers than a little tobacco.

Medical care in Iraq had long been free. Under Saddam, the government picked up the tab. That was anathema to Haveman, who insisted that Iraqis should pay a small fee every time they saw a doctor. He also decided to allocate almost all of the health ministry's $793m (£407m) to renovating maternity hospitals and building 150 new community medical clinics. His intention was "to shift the mind-set of the Iraqis that you don't get health care unless you go to a hospital".

A noble goal, no doubt, but there was no money set aside to rehabilitate the emergency rooms and operating theatres at Baghdad's hospitals, even though injuries from insurgent attacks were now the country's single largest public health challenge.

Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/21/2007 @ 2:01pm
good stuff Glenn.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 2:51pm
Hman,

You're on!!

"As for a meet - let me know the details when they firm up. Maybe after a few pops we can head over to Kerry's place in Beacon Hill and ask him your questions (w/o cameras).

Posted by HMAN23 02/21/2007 @ 1:28pm

but lets not bother with him...let check out his daughters.... ;-)or better yet, meet at Teddys for some drinks, gotta be happy hour around him somewhere...I'll bet he will even buy a few rounds.....

Posted by john maasch at 02/21/2007 @ 2:55pm
Posted by HMAN23 02/21/2007 @ 11:10am

As Fitzgerald has explained numerous times, one of the negative consequences of perjury and obstruction is that it frustrates the ability to determine if a law has, in fact, been broken.

The only problem being, of course, that no-one, including Fitzgerald has absolutely any idea what that crime might be. Are you saying the Special Prosecutors are given unlimited fishing licenses? No exactly due process, is it?

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 3:48pm
Okay, let's run down the Scenario List...see if I missed any.

1. Libby acquitted. Leaves the courthouse and does his "Labor Sec'y. Ray Donovan" speech. Mr Corn back on "The Nation" minutes later to explain how he knew it was going to happen and how "it doesn't end the questions OR the likelihood of new indictments".

2. Libby convicted, but gets probation, wrist-slap. Leaves the courthouse does his "Susan McDougall" impersonation. Mr Corn back on "The Nation" minute later to explain how he knew it was going to happen and how "Libby's conviction isn't the end, just the beginning of other potential indictments".

3. Libby convicted, gets some stiff time (1-5 years). His lawyers go to the courthouse steps, talks about appeals, while the phone to "people who know people who know people at the WH" start talking pardon. Mr Corn back on "The Nation" minute later to explain how he knew it was going to happen and how "Libby could possibly rat-out Cheney and/or Rove for a lighter sentence".

miss any?

Posted by Mask at 02/21/2007 @ 3:59pm
And as we all know, Plame was not covert, because no-one (moonbats with no legal standing excluded, of course), including the CIA, has even alleged that she was. Fitzgerald has not, either. Of course, it's illegal to 'leak' classified information, but unauthorized people doing so (Congressional staff, mostly Democrats) and those receiving and publishing these classified leaks (the NYT, the WaPo) are almost never prosecuted. And of course, if the Vice Pres did, in fact, release Plame's identity, it would have been perfectly legal, and fair play to boot.

So what was the Fitzgerald investigation all about, you might ask? Why did he continue the investigation when he did not know of any laws that might have been broken?

The use of the legal system for partisan vendetta, that's what.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 4:00pm
Posted by MASK 02/21/2007 @ 3:59pm

miss any?

Do you think Mr. Corn will mention that he wrote a book about this whole affair?

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 4:01pm
Golly, Pontifurbator, I was under the impression that the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate the "Plame Leak" because she was undercover.

Could you please post the link here that explains why the Justice Dep't. actually did investigate the "Plame Leak"....thanking you in advance....

Posted by nathanhale at 02/21/2007 @ 4:12pm
Posted by NATHANHALE 02/21/2007 @ 4:12pm

Golly, Pontifurbator, I was under the impression that the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate the "Plame Leak" because she was undercover.

If you can explain to me exactly what that means in terms of what law Fitzgerald thought was broken, I'd be grateful.

Could you please post the link here that explains why the Justice Dep't. actually did investigate the "Plame Leak"....thanking you in advance....

I was hoping you could answer that for me. Fitz knew it was Armitage who 'leaked' Plame's name first before anyone else, including Libby, and Fitz has never alleged that Plame was covert. So what, exactly, was Fitz investigating?

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 4:19pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/21/2007 @ 4:19pm

Gee, Pontifurbator, I didn't think Fitz was even on the job until after the FBI had interviewed Libby a couple of times. And, it says in Wikipedia that the CIA asked the Justice Department to launch the investigation.

Posted by nathanhale at 02/21/2007 @ 4:33pm
Ponti,

You go round and round peddling this same crap all the time.

For the umpteenth time...Plame WAS covert. As per both the CIA and Fitzgerald. It is not in doubt. The reason that law was not prosecuted is either because the web of lies suuronding the investigation was too thick to penetrate or that the highly defined law in question is so narrowly written and there is no precedent to widen the scope of the law that after review it was determined by the prosecuter that there would not be a conviction on that law.

Just because Fitzgerald didn't indict on the "outing" law is not sufficient to make the quantum leap to "she was not covert".

Posted by freedomplease at 02/21/2007 @ 4:34pm
Prediction: Libby convicted because he looked like a skeevy-lying-little weasel; he acted like a skeevy-lying-little weasel; and the evidence shows he was, and is, a skeevy-lying-little weasel. Plus he had no Marine Corps LT.COL. uniform to wear to trial.

Guilty, sentenced to 1 year in minimum security, Lewisburg PA.

Won't even be pardon-bait for Chimpy. He was a gopher, at best, and Chimpy had Rumsfeld's resignation in hand before the Nov. 7 election results. Chimpy not too loyal to nobody not do him no good. They be expendable.

Posted by goyadad at 02/21/2007 @ 4:38pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/21/2007 @ 4:34pm

For the umpteenth time...Plame WAS covert. As per both the CIA and Fitzgerald. It is not in doubt.

Really? Do you have a source for this? Can you post a link where either Fitz or the CIA alleged that Plame was covert? I think you are talking out of your ass. Please attempt to prove me wrong.

The reason that law was not prosecuted is either because the web of lies suuronding the investigation was too thick to penetrate or that the highly defined law in question is so narrowly written and there is no precedent to widen the scope of the law that after review it was determined by the prosecuter that there would not be a conviction on that law.

What the heck is that supposed to mean? The law is too complicated or difficult to enforce, so opened ended investigations of any type are justified?

Just because Fitzgerald didn't indict on the "outing" law is not sufficient to make the quantum leap to "she was not covert".

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 4:38pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/21/2007 @ 4:34pm

For the umpteenth time...Plame WAS covert. As per both the CIA and Fitzgerald. It is not in doubt.

I mean really, FREE, for the umpteenth time you've told me this, and for the umpteenth time you have failed to substantiate it. I know Goebbels said that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it, but I just haven't started believing it yet, at least not until you provide some proof.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 4:44pm
So what was the Fitzgerald investigation all about, you might ask? Why did he continue the investigation when he did not know of any laws that might have been broken?

The use of the legal system for partisan vendetta, that's what.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/21/2007 @ 4:00pm | ignore this person

Pontificus,

Give it up loser.

Judge Walton already gave that pre-trial Hail Mary the slap down, ruling that Fitzgerald was "unambiguously" authorized to investigate and prosecute not only the disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, but also "any violations of federal law that arise during the course of that investigation."

Go ahead, make your whiny accusations of the judge being part of this vast, leftwing conspiracy found not only in private, for-profit media corporations, but in the judicial system. If only poor, uninfluencial institutions like Exxon or the military industries could compete with the pervasive wealth and power of the real titans of American decison making: the Sierra Club and Moveon.

Posted by Oustbush at 02/21/2007 @ 4:46pm
goyadad,

I disagree. If the jury finds him guilty he's looking at a lot more than a year.

If convicted, the crimes charged in the indictment carry the following maximum penalties on each count: obstruction of justice – 10 years in prison, and making false statements and perjury – 5 years in prison, and each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000, making the maximum penalty for conviction on all counts 30 years in prison and a $1.25 million fine. Note, however, that the Court would determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed.

He probably could have plea bargained down to about a year....but he elected to gamble on aquital meaning that if convicted the courts will be less leniant.

He's looking at about 5-7 years if convicted. That will definitely be enough to get Bush to provide the pardon.....any which way I don't see Libby actually spending more than 3-4 months.

Posted by freedomplease at 02/21/2007 @ 4:48pm
Posted by NATHANHALE 02/21/2007 @ 4:33pm

And, it says in Wikipedia that the CIA asked the Justice Department to launch the investigation.

That's what I've heard, too, but early on in the investigation, as I understand it, before Fitz interviewed Libby, Fitz knew that Armitage 'leaked' Plame's identity first, and Fitz hasn't even alleged that THAT was a crime, because he has never alleged that Plame was covert. So that should have been the end of the investigation. Why wasn't it?

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 4:49pm
Hey, Pontifurbator, it's from FoxNews, so maybe you'll believe it...

The person who leaked the name could face up to 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines. Already, the FBI has interviewed more than three dozen Bush administration officials, including political adviser Karl Rove (search) and press secretary Scott McClellan, as well as members of the Defense and State departments and the CIA itself...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106983,00.html

Posted by nathanhale at 02/21/2007 @ 4:50pm
I know Goebbels said that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it,

Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/21/2007 @ 4:44pm | ignore this person

Did you first read that quote in your Frank Luntz Republican Talking Points Playbook email?

Posted by Oustbush at 02/21/2007 @ 4:50pm
Fitz/CIA: Plame was covert [msnbc.msn.com]

Posted by MyParadigm at 02/21/2007 @ 4:51pm
The only problem being, of course, that no-one, including Fitzgerald has absolutely any idea what that crime might be.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/21/2007 @ 3:48pm

I am pretty sure he excluded arson, rape, embezzlement, possession of a Class A substance and a host of other potential charges.

And have you gone nuts or been stricken with amnesia? The whole world knew the potential charges that at play - and they were the few that dealt with disclosing classified/covert info. You have made numerous posts yourself about them.

As to the rest of you posts, you are like a zombie in the "Night of the Living Dead" No matter how many times your arguments get shot down you come back with the same attack.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/21/2007 @ 4:53pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/21/2007 @ 4:46pm

Judge Walton already gave that pre-trial Hail Mary the slap down, ruling that Fitzgerald was "unambiguously" authorized to investigate and prosecute not only the disclosure of a CIA employee's identity,

Assuming you are representing that correctly,if she was not 'covert', and no-one has alleged that she was, under what law did the judge justify the investigation? If she was not covert, what law was broken? And if Fitz knew in advance that Armitage was the 'leaker', why did he continue to investigate?

I mean really, if you cannot answer that simple question, you're proving my thesis. It was a political-motivated investigation, and it's a politically-motivated prosecution.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 4:54pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 02/21/2007 @ 4:51pm

You do know that Pontificus will not respond to you. He will come back within six months - asking again for "proof" that Plame was covert.

I'd bet $1000 on it.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/21/2007 @ 4:55pm
Ponti, in the lexicon of the Right...Shut Up!

fitz press conference October 28, 2005:

Fitz: "Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

"The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 4:59pm
Posted by HMAN23 02/21/2007 @ 4:53pm

I am pretty sure he excluded arson, rape, embezzlement, possession of a Class A substance and a host of other potential charges.

Meaningless, of course. Investigations are launched to address specific potential charges, not the universe of charges.

And have you gone nuts or been stricken with amnesia? The whole world knew the potential charges that at play - and they were the few that dealt with disclosing classified/covert info.

Again, you're being ridiculously vague, and hoping that answers the question. Please tell me exactly which crime Fitzgerald was investigating.

As to the rest of you posts, you are like a zombie in the "Night of the Living Dead" No matter how many times your arguments get shot down you come back with the same attack.

Because people like FREE make claims they can't substantiate. If Plame wasn't covert, and Fitz has not charged that she was, what crime was he investigating? Disclosure of classified info? How come we don't appoint prosecutors to investigate the NYT and WaPo?

As I said, it's a political prosecution. Be honest with yourselves.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 5:02pm
I'm with hman....ponti will put his hands over his eyes, hum loudly and say "show me Fitz / CIA ever thought she was covert"

Posted by freedomplease at 02/21/2007 @ 5:03pm
Why wasn't it?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/21/2007 @ 4:49pm

Because you understand it wrong. Journalistic integrity (which can somtimes be an oxymoron) compels a reporter to get his facts corroborated by multiple sources. So, even if Armitage was a known source for Novak's column, there would be reason to suspect that another individual was leaking the same information.

Posted by nathanhale at 02/21/2007 @ 5:03pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/21/2007 @ 4:59pm

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

And we know that it was Armitage who leaked the identity. Fitz knew this from the beginning. And yet the investigation went on. Why?

If you folks keep refusing to answer the question, I'll just keep on asking it.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 5:04pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/21/2007 @ 5:03pm

Got those links for me yet? Or were you just talking out of your ass?

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 5:04pm
Fitz: "Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.

And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.

...But as important as it is for the grand jury to follow the rules and follow the safeguards to make sure information doesn't get out, it's equally important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth.

It's especially important in the national security area. The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they're not so clear.

...I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime."

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 5:08pm
ponti Please provide proof that Fitzgerald has a history of going on political vendettas for the democrats.Thank you. ps You were given a link to show that she was covert.

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/21/2007 @ 5:11pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS

How do you find your way to work everyday? Short bus?

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 5:13pm
Pontificus,

Since you haven't read the link Posted by MYPARADIGM 02/21/2007 @ 4:51pm, I'll paste some of it for you to digest and then counter. Before you try and slander the author of the article, recall he is the same who revealed Armitage as the original leaker...

"Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information,"

Posted by Oustbush at 02/21/2007 @ 5:16pm
Hey Pontifurbator, the investigation went on because multiple people were leaking the same information. It's sort of like, if I punch you in the nose, I may be guilty of assault...but that doesn't mean that HMAN & FREEDOMPLEASE can't be guilty of assault if they kick your ass after I break your nose.

Posted by nathanhale at 02/21/2007 @ 5:17pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/21/2007 @ 5:11pm

ponti Please provide proof that Fitzgerald has a history of going on political vendettas for the democrats.Thank you.

Why should I? In never charged this. I would say he's merely doing what he's told, like a priest in the inquisition investigating witchcraft.

ps You were given a link to show that she was covert.

I was? Huzzah! Where?

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 5:18pm
Pontificus -

You are the one who said Fitzgerald had "no idea what that crime might be." So, don't accuse me of saying meaningless things.

If you must know, Fitzgerald clearly was investigating 18 USC § 793 [the Espionage Act] and 50 USC § 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act]. But, as pointed out above, the judge did give him authority to investigate other crimes that may have been committed in connection with those charges and the investigation as a whole.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/21/2007 @ 5:20pm
Ponti keeps hiding behind the word "covert". this is a beeyro-cratic classification. Her status at the CIA was classified. Secret. Unknown to anybody outside of the CIA or maybe the NSA. Her job was to protect you from missiles from Iraq. Short busses don't offer much protection from mushroom clouds.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 5:20pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/21/2007 @ 5:03pm

Yeah, I guess it's no use...the Pontifurbator: just another cave-dwelling Bushie with an internet connection...

But, I have to wonder, how can anybody be so fucking dumb that they would even try to pull that "this is a 'politically motivated' investigation" canard out of their ass...

Posted by nathanhale at 02/21/2007 @ 5:22pm
ponti You said that Fitzgerald was just doing what he was told.Told by who?Be specific.

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/21/2007 @ 5:23pm
I would say he's merely doing what he's told, like a priest in the inquisition investigating witchcraft.- PONTIFICUS 02/21/2007 @ 5:18pm

Who gives him his orders? Ashcroft? Gonzalez?

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 5:24pm
Pontificus:

What is true is only that Fitzgerald never alleged that anyone violated 18 USC § 793 or 50 USC § 421. You have said for years now that he never alleged Plame was covert, which is only ONE element of 50 USC § 421. Prosecutors do not make public allegations of only one element to satisfy the press or bloggers like yourself. They either bring a charge, in full, or they do not.

But as to what Fitzgerald may have determined regarding Plame's status, I think his own affidavit, submitted under oath, mind you, makes it pretty clear:

August 27, 2004 Affidavit from Fitzgerald:

If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered "information respecting the national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.

So Fitzgerald is admitting the element that they cannot satisfy as to Libby. Note that Fitzgerald did not say, they failed to find evidence that Plame was covert or that they found evidence she was not covert.

Simply put, Fitzgerald seems to have been unable to bring charges against Libby because he could not find evidence that Libby "knew or believed" Plame was covert. One could surmise that this was frustrated because Libby allegedly lied to investigators and otherwise tried to obstruct the investigation.

And what did the Court write about Plame's status?

Judge Tatel's February 15, 2005 opinion:

As to the leaks' harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame's work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years" -- representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support.

I have presented this to you before and never got a response. As someone who seems to profess a lot of knowledge about what Fitzgerald knew and what he did not, I would think this is highly relevant. If you cannot or will not comment on this, the right-wing zombie dig stands.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/21/2007 @ 5:25pm
Mel Brooks?

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 5:25pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/21/2007 @ 5:16pm

Okay, so let's say that Plame was covert. Why isn't Armitage being investigated? After all, he's known to be the first one who leaked the info. As I understand it, plenty of journalists knew about Plame before Libby talked to Russert. Further, if Fitz knew that Libby hadn't broken the law, why was he still investigating him? Why is he being prosecuted at all?

If Plame really did fit the definition of a 'covert' agent, I would call this a pretty sophisticated ploy by two Clinton CIA moles. Joe Wilson got his wife to volunteer him for the trip, then he went and lied about the results. When Administration officials caught on and revealed that Plame had referred Wilson in the first place, they were caught in a trap. Neat.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 5:29pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/21/2007 @ 5:20pm

Ponti keeps hiding behind the word "covert". this is a beeyro-cratic classification. Her status at the CIA was classified. Secret. Unknown to anybody outside of the CIA or maybe the NSA. Her job was to protect you from missiles from Iraq. Short busses don't offer much protection from mushroom clouds.

Crabbie, you are as dumb as a post. The status of every employee of the CIA is 'classified', including the janitors. Why don't you go tell the janitors they're secret agents, you dumb shit.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 5:31pm
That Pontificus, you can't torquemada anything.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 5:31pm
ponti There is no evidence that saddam was seeking uranium so what did Wilson lie about?

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/21/2007 @ 5:32pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/21/2007 @ 5:32pm

There was evidence. Wilson found that the Iraqis had made trade contacts with a country whose only significant export was uranium ore. Wilson concluded that there was no evidence that Saddam had sought it. His CIA superiors concluded from Wilson's report exactly the opposite. Either Wilson was an idiot, or he was lying.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 5:38pm
Joe Wilson, appointed by George HW chimpy? That democrat? the guy that gave money to Chimpy in 2000? that democrat? The guy whose wife DID not send him to Niger?

I know, it is all of the liberal commies over at the CIA, infiltrated by Clintonistas.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 5:38pm
Judicial Watch, I don't think these blokes are libs:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, today released a declassified "Secret/NOFORN" State Department intelligence analysis cable, dated March 4, 2002, from the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Office of Analysis for Africa. The analysis, entitled, "Niger-Iraq: Sale of Niger Uranium to Iraq Unlikely," was part of a larger analysis document for the week of February 25 – March 3, 2002, approximately ten months prior to President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, where he claimed Iraqi leadership attempted to obtain uranium from Niger, and one year before the war in Iraq was initiated.

The possibility that a corrupt, former President of Niger – Bare Mainassara – may have negotiated with Iraq is discussed in the analysis, but discounted since his presidential guard killed him in April 1999 during a coup."

Crayons made it into the SOTU speech, while a felon gazed down Lauras blouse.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/21/2007 @ 5:43pm
PREDICTION: LIBBY GETS 10 YEARS HARD LABOR...

As a Halliburton exec.

Posted by w_m_bear at 02/21/2007 @ 5:44pm
ponti the CIA did not confirm that saddam was seeking uranium.That's why bush only mentioned British intelligence.Wilson found that saddam tried,but failed to reach a trade agreement.It's a long time before seeking a trade agreement turns into mushroom cloud over iran.There was no hurry to protect the iranians from a saddam bomb.He wasn't even close to a trade agreement let alone a bomb.

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/21/2007 @ 5:48pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/21/2007 @ 5:38pm

Joe Wilson, appointed by George HW chimpy? That democrat? the guy that gave money to Chimpy in 2000? that democrat? The guy whose wife DID not send him to Niger?

I doubt that GWB personally had anything to do with sending Wilson to Niger. Even if he did, I doubt if he would have investigated Wilson's personal politics beforehand anyway, at that point GWB was still trying to be bi-partisan and I'll bet he would have bet on Wilson's professionalism (about which GWB would have been wrong). And Wilson did not give money to Bush, he gave it to Gore. And Wilson WAS sent to Niger based on his wife's referral.

I know, it is all of the liberal commies over at the CIA, infiltrated by Clintonistas.

The CIA as a bureaucracy has been at war with the Bush Administration from day one. It's my opinion that it was pretty much guttedd by left-wing Clintonista flunkies during 1992-2000, rendering it useless for national security, hence the many successful attacks against us both at home and abroad, both during and after the Clinton years. Anyone who is familiar with the hatred the left has always had for the CIA would understand the motive there.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 5:49pm
I am amazed how many people here, lemming like, argue with that fool Ponti, wether or not Plame was a covert operative, a fact that long ago was well established. I take a nap and the whole thread goes to shit.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 5:49pm
ponti your desperation to blame everything on the left is childish.

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/21/2007 @ 5:50pm
ponti the CIA did not confirm that saddam was seeking uranium

look out nobody, next he'll start with that Saddam HAD the storied WMD. ponti is an ass who belongs on every thinking person's ignore list.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 5:56pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/21/2007 @ 5:48pm

ponti the CIA did not confirm that saddam was seeking uranium.That's why bush only mentioned British intelligence.Wilson found that saddam tried,but failed to reach a trade agreement.

Any trade agreement with Niger would necessarily involve uranium, since that is all they have to sell. And the fact that they failed to reach an agreement does not refute the fact that they sought it.

It's a long time before seeking a trade agreement turns into mushroom cloud over iran.There was no hurry to protect the iranians from a saddam bomb.He wasn't even close to a trade agreement let alone a bomb.

True, but not relevant. In any case, I think most Americans would prefer not to wait for the bomb.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 5:57pm
JR, you just joined my iggy list with Will, Rese, and Plunger. Enjoy the company.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 5:58pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/21/2007 @ 5:50pm

ponti your desperation to blame everything on the left is childish.

I believe the disastrously misguided utopianism of the left is inimical to the foundations upon which this country is built and flourishes. Call me a child of the Jimmy Carter years. The left spells nothing but disaster for this country.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 6:01pm
ponti your posts say you know little about the left,the principals this country was founded on,or current events.you seem to have fear and paranoia.

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/21/2007 @ 6:05pm
Pontificus,

Just in case you are still in doubt of her status here's another source: a fellow classmate who worked with her in the CIA.

But I think you're missing the point that while Armitage was the first source, prior to Rove, in the Novak column, Libby and Rove were talking with other reporters in an attempt to leak out their filthy rag of a story; the problem for Fitzgerald, as pointed out by others, was proving to a jury that Libby and others knew her status.

Larry C. Johnson is "a former CIA analyst who was in Plame's officer training class in 1985-86," and left the Agency in 1989.[11] He served as Deputy Director for Special Operations, Transportation Security, and Anti-Terrorism Assistance in the U.S. State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism until October 1993. On 13 June 2005, posting as an invited "Special guest" in a blog called tmpcafe.com, Johnson stated that, prior to Novak's column of 14 July 2003, Valerie Plame was indeed a "non-official cover" (NOC) operative:

Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. . . . Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card. A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed. The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

Posted by Oustbush at 02/21/2007 @ 6:09pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ isn't this over yet?ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz

Posted by davebarlett at 02/21/2007 @ 6:34pm
What award do they give for 'best performance in a defense attorney's supporting role?'

A Perry (Mason)

Posted by Balrog at 02/21/2007 @ 6:36pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/21/2007 @ 6:09pm

The only opinion that counts is that of people with legal standing in this case, i.e., Fitzgerald. There are plenty of knowledgeable people on both sides of the issue who can argue it either way much better than either you or I could. Since Fitz has not, to this date, alleged that she was covert, that's really all that seems important to me, because he's the only person who can make an issue of it. Everyone else is just offering their opinion.

When you talk about the 'filthy rag' of a story I think you're giving it a moral tone that it does not deserve. I would call both Plame and Wilson political moles who were using their positions in order to damage the Bush Administration with well-publicized half truths or outright lies. The fact that Rove and Co fought back, if that's really what happened, seems to me to be simply fighting fire with fire. Plame and Wilson were not, in other words, simply people guided by their conscience, which might have justified your tone.

Is this a political investigation? Absolutely. Was the investigation of Clinton politically inspired? Sure. But the difference was, Clinton was a liar who actually had something, possilby criminal, to hide. I don't see anything criminal here, just misstatements made in the investigation of a non-crime. And I think everyone should just admit that.

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 7:12pm
"perry Mason" was gay, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 7:15pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzreminds me of a conversation with a liberal about whether Bill Clinton had committed perjery in the lewinsky affair, to which he replied loudly, "He didn't lie, and if he did, it doesn't matter!"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Posted by davebarlett at 02/21/2007 @ 7:22pm
Beepin' Slooty returns.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 7:37pm
Posted by MADLIB 02/21/2007 @ 8:10pm

lol

That was the funniest thing that I have read in a looooooong time.

Well, isn't that special? Did it make the kool-aid come out your nose?

Posted by pontificus at 02/21/2007 @ 10:16pm
I would call both Plame and Wilson political moles who were using their positions in order to damage the Bush Administration with well-publicized half truths or outright lies

Wilson served in the U.S. Foreign Service from January 1976 through 1998. First as a General Services Officer in Niger under the Ford Administration, as an Administrative Officer in Niger, Togo, and Washington D.C. under the Carter Administration, Deputy Chief of Mission in Burundi, Congo, and Iraq under the Reagan Administration, and continued as DCM in Iraq under George H. W. Bush.

He was praised by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than one hundred Americans at the embassy, despite Saddam Hussein's threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. Wilson publicly repudiated the dictator by appearing at a press conference wearing a homemade noose around his neck and saying "If the choice is to allow American citizens to be taken hostage or to be executed, I will bring my own fucking rope"

Wilson then continued to serve HGWB as Ambassador to Gabon, Sao Tome, and Principe.

Under the Clinton Administration, he served as Political Advisor to the Commander in Chief, EUCOM. He also served as Special Assistant to The President and as Senior Director for African Affairs, National Security Council.

Although retired, in February 2002 Wilson went to Niger when the CIA asked him to investigate whether Sadaam Hussein was attempting to buy enriched uranium yellowcake. On March 1, 2002 the CIA published an intelligence assessment, "Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely," which was unrelated to Wilson's trip. On March 8, 2002 an intelligence report written from Wilson's findings, but not by Wilson, confirms that in 1999 Iraq had approached Niger for increased trade, which was interpreted by the former Prime Minister as suggesting that Iraq was seeking uranium.

In the July 6, 2003 issue of The New York Times, Wilson contributed an "Op-Ed" entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa," in which he accuses the Bush administration of "exaggerating the Iraqi threat" in order to justify war.

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ultimately concludes in its Iraq Report (issued on July 7 and updated on July 9, 2004): "Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."[32]

As far as Plame goes, nobody even heard of her until she was outed. About all we know is that Valerie Plame suggested her husband travel to Niger to look into an alleged Iraq uranium deal. Due to the nature of her clandestine work for the CIA, details about Plame's professional career are still classified.

Your suggestion, sir, that Wilson was a political mole that began his career under a Republican Administration, served several more Republican Administrations, was in fact praised for his service by a Republican President, and, after 28 years of service, suddenly decided to surface "in order to damage the Bush Administration with well-publicized half truths or outright lies" is pure bunk.

Posted by Balrog at 02/21/2007 @ 10:37pm
Posted by BALROG 02/21/2007 @ 10:37pm | ignore this person

well done, as a;ways. if on trial I would like to have you do my due diligence in the discovery.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 10:52pm
always

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/21/2007 @ 10:53pm
Posted by BALROG 02/21/2007 @ 10:37pm

Your suggestion, sir, that Wilson was a political mole that began his career under a Republican Administration, served several more Republican Administrations, was in fact praised for his service by a Republican President, and, after 28 years of service, suddenly decided to surface "in order to damage the Bush Administration with well-publicized half truths or outright lies" is pure bunk.

I disagree. In fact, I believe that Joe Wilson all along had an agenda to use his and his wife's position to damage the Bush Administration, because he was and is a committed Democratic partisan who was willing to lie and connive in order to gain the trust of the Bush Administration, and then use that trust to further his own partisan objectives.

I don't dispute that for many years, Joe Wilson may have been a good and committed diplomat. What I do contend is that he is a registered Democrat, a significant contributor to both Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, and a consultant to the Kerry campaign. Further, he has written a book to cash in on his story, and he and his wife are very active in participating in Democratic Party fundraisers and the cocktail party circuit. In short, he's hardly a disinterested observer. People's political leanings and hunger for fame and fortune can, and often do, influence their behavior. Joe Wilson was no exception.

Of particular concern with Mr. Wilson, moreover, are two known problems with his story: first, his claim that his wife did not propose him for the trip to Niger, which is known to be false, and second, his misrepresentation of the results of that trip.

It's a simple known fact that his wife put forth a significant effort to get him sent to Niger (something conveniently omitted from your account), and it's hardly reasonable to suggest that he was unaware of that. So why did he lie?

In the second case, it appears that Wilson misrepresented in public the results of his trip as conclusively refuting the President's assertion that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger. In fact, it did nothing of the sort:

Wilson Claims His Trip Proved There Was Nothing To The Uranium "Allegations." "I knew that [Dr. Rice] had fundamentally misstated the facts. In fact, she had lied about it. I had gone out and I had undertaken this study. I had come back and said that this was not feasible. … This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations." (NBC's, "Meet The Press," 5/2/04)

Officials Said Evidence In Wilson's Niger Report Was "Thin" And His "Homework Was Shoddy." (Michael Duffy, "Leaking With A Vengeance," Time, 10/13/03) Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: "Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador's Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts' Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

* "For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

CIA Said Wilson's Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. "Because [Wilson's] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said." (Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence," Press Release 7/11/03)

The Butler Report Claimed That The President's State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, "Was Well-Founded." "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' was well-founded." (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, "Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," 7/14/04)

Thus, in two signficant cases, we know that Joe Wilson either lied or manipulated information in order to damage the Bush Administration. Thus, he was a political mole, and his wife was his accomplice.

Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2007 @ 06:26am
In light of the fact that interested parties have scoured Iraq, searching in vain for evidence of a nuclear program, the continuing belief that Saddam was out to buy yellowcake is simply insane.

And the oft-quoted Butler Report is the very definiton of a whitewash. There is nothing in the actual report that supports the "well founded" conclusion(s).

Posted by MyParadigm at 02/22/2007 @ 08:21am
Posted by MYPARADIGM 02/22/2007 @ 08:21am

In light of the fact that interested parties have scoured Iraq, searching in vain for evidence of a nuclear program, the continuing belief that Saddam was out to buy yellowcake is simply insane.

You're asserting that because he never got it, that's proof that he never tried to get it? I don't think that's reasonable.

And the oft-quoted Butler Report is the very definiton of a whitewash. There is nothing in the actual report that supports the "well founded" conclusion(s).

Really? Not even this statement:

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' was well-founded." (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, "Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," 7/14/04)

?????

Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2007 @ 08:42am
I believe that Joe Wilson all along had an agenda to use his and his wife's position to damage the Bush Administration

All along? Even way back in 1976, when Wilson was serving the Ford Administration in Niger, while Bush II was getting popped for drunk driving in Kennebunkport? Or was it sometime later, perhaps when Wilson was serving the Bush I adminstration in Iraq while Bush II was "managing" Harken Energy and The Texas Rangers?

The WAS no Bush Administration to damage until 2000, at which time Wilson was retired.

because he was and is a committed Democratic partisan

Yet this is a man who literally put his head in a noose while serving Bush I, an action for which GHWB dubbed Wilson "A true American Hero". The majority of his career was spent serving Republican administrations.

who was willing to lie and connive in order to gain the trust of the Bush Administration, and then use that trust to further his own partisan objectives

I can't find any documentation of any contact at all with the Bush Administration until the Niger trip, much less any lying and conniving to gain any trust. Remember, he was retired in 2000. How did he wiggle and finagle his way into the Bush Administration's trust?

It's a simple known fact that his wife put forth a significant effort to get him sent to Niger (something conveniently omitted from your account)

Not omitted at all: "About all we know is that Valerie Plame suggested her husband travel to Niger to look into an alleged Iraq uranium deal."

and it's hardly reasonable to suggest that he was unaware of that. So why did he lie?

Simple: To protect her cover as a CIA agent, which hadn't been blown yet.

it appears that Wilson misrepresented in public the results of his trip as conclusively refuting the President's assertion that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger

All evidence I've seen suggests that Sadaam, in fact, DIDN'T seek uranium.

I don't have time right now to pursue this any further, but I will investigate some of the evidence you presented further on in your post. In closing, allow me to simply reiterate:

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ultimately concludes in its Iraq Report (issued on July 7 and updated on July 9, 2004):

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."[32]

Which was Wilson's conclusion all along...

Posted by Balrog at 02/22/2007 @ 09:42am
Ponti is the epitome of a lost cause. Just read his crap about Wilson being a mole. One has to assume that Wilson had been priming for 20 years to eventually come out against a repube.

You are detached from reality, your hatred of "the left" skews your thoughts, just like the other trolls here. As I have stated enumerable times here, every time you take a sick day, every time you take a paid vacation, every time you take a drink of fresh water, breathe (relatively) clean air, every time you don't have to work 70hr weeks in dangerous conditions for a buck an hour; thank the Left.

Ponti, you are a stooge, lead by the nose by people that don't give a crap about you, they want your vote and your undying, un-inquisitive loyalty. they put your life at risk exposing Plame, but you bent over and asked for another gerbil.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2007 @ 09:51am
BALROG has pretty much knocked you over the head with Wilsons history, but:

Joe Wilson, appointed by George HW chimpy? That democrat? the guy that gave money to Chimpy in 2000? that democrat? The guy whose wife DID not send him to Niger?-CRAB

I doubt that GWB personally had anything to do with sending Wilson to Niger. Even if he did, I doubt if he would have investigated Wilson's personal politics beforehand anyway, at that point GWB was still trying to be bi-partisan and I'll bet he would have bet on Wilson's professionalism (about which GWB would have been wrong). And Wilson did not give money to Bush, he gave it to Gore. And Wilson WAS sent to Niger based on his wife's referral.-PONTI

I know, it is all of the liberal commies over at the CIA, infiltrated by Clintonistas.-CRAB

The CIA as a bureaucracy has been at war with the Bush Administration from day one. It's my opinion that it was pretty much guttedd by left-wing Clintonista flunkies during 1992-2000, rendering it useless for national security, hence the many successful attacks against us both at home and abroad, both during and after the Clinton years. Anyone who is familiar with the hatred the left has always had for the CIA would understand the motive there.-PONTI

Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/21/2007 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person

You totally missed it here, PonitiifiDorkus. George 41 APPOINTED Wilson as an ambassador, not chimpy. that is George Herbert Walker (chimpy Sr.) Bush, thats what the "H" and "W" stand for in that sentence.

And your second paragraph...well I just don't know what to say. tis is an opinion dealt weekly here by the likes of LUVSWAR. Got proof? Or just the rumblings of the sycophant choir in the corporate media? It is possible that many in the CIA didn't like the way they were being used by ChimpCo, but "at war from day one"? You join ReseWorld.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2007 @ 10:02am
And as we all know, Plame was not covert, because no-one (moonbats with no legal standing excluded, of course), including the CIA, has even alleged that she was. Fitzgerald has not, either. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/21/2007 @ 4:00pm | ignore this person

{BACK TO SQUARE ONE}

Posted by MYPARADIGM 02/21/2007 @ 4:51pm | ignore this person

Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/21/2007 @ 5:16p

Okay, so let's say that Plame was covert. Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/21/2007 @ 5:29pm | ignore this person

{SEEMINGLY MAKING PROGRESS}

Since Fitz has not, to this date, alleged that she was covert

Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/21/2007 @ 7:12pm | ignore this person

{BACK TO SQUARE ONE}

HAS THERE EVER BEEN SOMEONE AS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST….OTHER THAN MASH (POTATOES), LEVAE LIBBY(ERTY ALONE), RIO DIPPYO AND CAPTAIN PUGWASH AS IS OUR FRIEND PUNT (THE FACTSICUS)?

We all owe HMAN $1,000.00 as he bet us all that PONTI would revert back to his ridiculously debunked talking point.

Posted by freedomplease at 02/22/2007 @ 10:15am
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/22/2007 @ 10:15am

Yup. Pontificus is intellectually bankrupt and, even though I should know better, he is not worth the effort. He will cherry-pick the posts he responds to; the better the argument, the more chance he will ignore it. Yesterday he was asking for links long after MyP gave him one. Look back to my posts later - nothing from him in response. It's like arguing with a robot that has only a half-dozen pre-selected points to make.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/22/2007 @ 10:33am
Pontificus:

Okay, so let's say that Plame was covert. a short-lived concession

Why isn't Armitage being investigated? a reasonable guess is probably because he told the truth to investigators and Fitzgerald determined that the other elements of 18 USC § 793 or 50 USC § 421 were not satisfied in Armitage's case

After all, he's known to be the first one who leaked the info. does not mean further "leaks" are not a crime so long as the information is not published

As I understand it, plenty of journalists knew about Plame before Libby talked to Russert. And how do you think they came to have that information? From leakers in the Administration; the reporters did not dig it up on their own.

Further, if Fitz knew that Libby hadn't broken the law, why was he still investigating him? If you mean for the underlying crimes, Fitzgerald never said affirmatively that he knew Libby did not break those laws, only that he was not bringing those charges – an important distinction

Why is he being prosecuted at all? uhh . . . for perjuring himself and obstructing the investigation. Haven't you been paying attention?

Posted by Hman23 at 02/22/2007 @ 11:10am
Posted by BALROG 02/22/2007 @ 09:42am

I believe that Joe Wilson all along had an agenda to use his and his wife's position to damage the Bush Administration

All along? Even way back in 1976, when Wilson was serving the Ford Administration in Niger, while Bush II was getting popped for drunk driving in Kennebunkport? Or was it sometime later, perhaps when Wilson was serving the Bush I adminstration in Iraq while Bush II was "managing" Harken Energy and The Texas Rangers?

The WAS no Bush Administration to damage until 2000, at which time Wilson was retired.

If you're going to make me repost the same old points over and over, this is going to be a long discussion. Here's how I dealt with this issue before:

I don't dispute that for many years, Joe Wilson may have been a good and committed diplomat. What I do contend is that he is a registered Democrat, a significant contributor to both Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, and a consultant to the Kerry campaign. Further, he has written a book to cash in on his story, and he and his wife are very active in participating in Democratic Party fundraisers and the cocktail party circuit. In short, he's hardly a disinterested observer. People's political leanings and hunger for fame and fortune can, and often do, influence their behavior. Joe Wilson was no exception.

Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2007 @ 12:16pm
Posted by HMAN23 02/22/2007 @ 11:10am

Further, if Fitz knew that Libby hadn't broken the law, why was he still investigating him? If you mean for the underlying crimes, Fitzgerald never said affirmatively that he knew Libby did not break those laws, only that he was not bringing those charges – an important distinction

I still say that what you're asking for here is an open-ended investigation. If the investigator is not willing to stipulate that there was an underlying crime, I think any sane person would ask why there is any investigation at all. Based on the current case, I would say that Libby is being prosecuted for having a memory that differs from other peoples. And Fitz is saying, "Well, he must be lying, and lying up to cover up a crime that even I don't know about, the very crime I'm supposed to be investigating."

Kind of like in the Seinfeld episode where Kramer wears his pants back to clothes store in order to return them. When Elaine asks what he thought he was going to wear home, Kramer says "Aren't you paying attention? I never even got there!"

LOL

Whatever. In one of JR's lucid moments, he wrote that this is all moot anyway. And so it is.

Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2007 @ 12:29pm
lucid moments? moi? I thank you anyway Bridgefig

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/22/2007 @ 12:38pm
Give us a break, Pontificus! If your flaccid point had any merit at all, the Libby trial would have been killed off in pre-trial motions.

Posted by MyParadigm at 02/22/2007 @ 12:40pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 02/22/2007 @ 12:40am

Yeah, right. Our legal system always does the right thing. Ask OJ!

Posted by pontificus at 02/22/2007 @ 12:48pm
Yeah, right. Our legal system always does the right thing. Ask OJ!

Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/22/2007 @ 12:48am | ignore this person

this is just nonsense.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/22/2007 @ 12:57pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/22/2007 @ 12:29am

For these underlying charges, which turn on knowledge and intent, a prosecutor would be out of bounds to "stipulate" that there was an underlying crime if he is not charging anyone. This is different than a homicide, where you have a body clearly caused by another hand.

And given your reasoning, I take it you took issue back in 1998 with Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky? And subsequent impeachment proceedings based upon perjury.

Posted by Hman23 at 02/22/2007 @ 2:13pm
Extreme positions as the norm are the bread and butter of the fearful...

gay marriage will lead to man/dog marriage.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2007 @ 2:14pm
Ponit still won't answer those questions, HMAN. Soem Palestinians were convicted on obstruction charges, but Ponti won't say he thinks they should be let go, Nor will he admit that his farfetched legal theories equate to Clinton being innocent of everything.

He believes what the admin wants him to believe. They can do whatever they want, therefore there never will be a crime.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2007 @ 2:18pm
grr, bad fingers. bad.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2007 @ 2:19pm
I don't dispute that for many years, Joe Wilson may have been a good and committed diplomat. What I do contend is that he is a registered Democrat, a significant contributor to both Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, and a consultant to the Kerry campaign. Further, he has written a book to cash in on his story, and he and his wife are very active in participating in Democratic Party fundraisers and the cocktail party circuit. In short, he's hardly a disinterested observer. People's political leanings and hunger for fame and fortune can, and often do, influence their behavior. Joe Wilson was no exception.

Remember the timeline...and what you've posted.

You originally said that Wilson (and Plame) were "political moles who were using their positions in order to damage the Bush Administration", which is very different from being "hardly a disinterested observer"...

Since Wilson went to Niger in 2002, the fact that he contributed/consulted on the 2004 Kerry campaign, wrote a book, and participated in Democratic fundraisers is, IMO, irrelevant, because he did all those things AFTER THE FACT. I would suggest to you that Bush's actions against Iraq and his administration's actions against Valerie Plame pushed Wilson to become the activist he is today...but that too is irrelevant, because it all happened AFTER Wilson's Niger visit, which, again, you claimed was the action of "political moles who were using their positions in order to damage the Bush Administration".

You have, seemingly, backed off that unsubstaintiated statement to calling him "hardly a disinterested observer". I would agree with you that, at this point, he is indeed hardly disinterested, but given the shabby treatment he and his wife have received from the Bush Administration, this is not surprising. I disagree that in 2002 he had a political axe to grind. I would welcome an investigation into the matter.

Again, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ultimately concludes in its Iraq Report (issued on July 7 and updated on July 9, 2004):

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."[32]

Which is what Wilson has been saying all along. What Wilson reported following his Niger visit, while damaging to the Bush Administration, seems to be the truth.

The Wilson saga is, of course, but a small part of the larger issue that is Iraq - how we go there and what we're doing there now. I, for one, would like to see Congessional Investigations into the entire matter, as it appears there are many, many unanswered questions...and not only about Wilson/Plame.

Posted by Balrog at 02/22/2007 @ 2:23pm
somebody throw in the towel, bridgefig is a bloody mess.

Posted by johannesrolf at 02/22/2007 @ 4:51pm
i think pompy is hoping that libby, like o.j., will get off, even though he is probably guilty. typical of treason supporting republicans everywhere.

Posted by pretzel at 02/22/2007 @ 10:10pm
"Unforunately for him(Saddam), Iraq has a huge role in the fight against terror and it is better to fight them there than in NYC...Iraqs history is full of evidence that they were not to be trusted and the emboldened Islamo facists would have found some sort of home or relationship advantageous to them selves and Iraq over time...IMO."

Two points, John;

1) Can you explain why it's better to fight them in Iraq rather than NYC. Many people, including the president, make this case without explaining why.

2) You've just stated that 'Iraq', a sovereign state of the united nations, is a liar, which you seem to do without recourse to their leadership. You've essentially just made a sweeping generalisation about an entire country. Would you like to clarify that?

Posted by Draconis at 02/23/2007 @ 09:03am
Ponty,

"Really? Not even this statement:"

Paragraph 499 is followed by para 500;

"We also note that, because the intelligence evidence was inconclusive, neither the Government's dossier nor the Prime Minister went on to say that a deal between the Governments of Iraq and Niger for the supply of uranium had been signed, or uranium shipped." Bulter Report.

By the president decided to use the material anyway. In the same report, which has widely been considered in the UK as a CYA exercise, there are explicit details of the IAEA's conclusion that there was nothing to it. Your Wilson plot has a lot more actors than the Bush administration plot, and less whistleblowers and people willing to talk about it. Other than you, of course.

Posted by Draconis at 02/23/2007 @ 09:15am
"Okay, so let's say that Plame was covert. Why isn't Armitage being investigated? After all, he's known to be the first one who leaked the info. As I understand it, plenty of journalists knew about Plame before Libby talked to Russert. Further, if Fitz knew that Libby hadn't broken the law, why was he still investigating him? Why is he being prosecuted at all?

If Plame really did fit the definition of a 'covert' agent, I would call this a pretty sophisticated ploy by two Clinton CIA moles. Joe Wilson got his wife to volunteer him for the trip, then he went and lied about the results. When Administration officials caught on and revealed that Plame had referred Wilson in the first place, they were caught in a trap. Neat.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 02/21/2007 @ 5:29pm "

The reason that the dipshit Armitage hasn't been charged is that they can't prove that HE knew she was undercover/covert/classified EITHER, you dope! Same holds for Ari Fleisher. Rove also spilled enough of his guts enough to avoid perjury, and they all held the 'we didn't know she was covert' story.

As for the Clinton mole theory, does it hurt when you pull this stuff out of your ass? Boy, if they were 'Clinton Moles' they sure had MOJO deep cover, Wilson worked for several presidents, including the previous Bush (given an award of merit from Bush Sr, and I also believe that he worked as an ambassador during Reagan's administration) and the Clinton administration.

So, Pontificus, why don't you pull your head out of your ass, and smell the coffee? Not ready for the change of pace?

Posted by brantl at 02/23/2007 @ 11:10am
scooter, cheney and the truth

one of these things is not like the others...

Posted by Will C. at 02/23/2007 @ 11:56pm

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

Libby Trial: Final Arguments about Scooter, Cheney & Truth

posted by David Corn on 02/20/2007 @ 10:36pm

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

Libby Trial: Final Arguments about Scooter, Cheney & Truth

posted by David Corn on 02/20/2007 @ 10:36pm

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!