Libby Trial: CIA Leak Case Ends with Guilty Verdict

posted by David Corn on 03/06/2007 @ 6:29pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (494)

Subscribe Now

Several minutes after noon on Tuesday, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby sat in a crowded Washington court room and somberly watched as the forewoman of the jury in his obstruction of justice trial pronounced the verdict. "Guilty," she said, regarding Count One. She moved on to the other counts and repeated that word three times. The jury had found Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff guilty on four out of five counts. Libby stared straight ahead. He showed no reaction.

Eleven Washingtonians had convicted a former senior Bush White House aide of lying. The case was narrow. It was not about who had leaked classified information outing Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA officer; it was not about whether the Bush administration had manipulated the prewar intelligence to whip up public support for the invasion of Iraq; it was not about the war. Still, Libby had been on trial for having deliberately misled government investigators to protect himself--and perhaps the vice president--from a criminal inquiry that had come about because the White House had not been straight with the public about the war. In the face of criticism that the administration had hyped the prewar intelligence, the White House in June and July 2003 went on the offensive and mounted a campaign that included passing information to the media about a high-profile critic, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Cheney's office conducted a push-back operation of its own. In this swirl of damage-control and finger-pointing, administration officials leaked Valerie Wilson's CIA identity. And that leak beget the criminal investigation that caused Libby to lie.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald charged that Libby obstructed justice, committed perjury and made false statements when he told FBI agents and the grand jury investigating the leak that he had possessed no official knowledge of Valerie Wilson and her CIA connection in the days before the leak appeared in Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column. Libby acknowledged to the investigators that Cheney had told him weeks before the leak occurred that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. But Libby claimed that he completely forgot this and that when Meet the Press host Tim Russert told him days before the leak happened that all the reporters in town knew Wilson's wife was CIA, he believed he was learning this information "anew" as gossip. He then, Libby maintained, passed along this scuttlebutt to two reporters--Judith Miller, then of The New York Times, and Matt Cooper, then of Time--only as unconfirmed rumor.

In Libby's telling, he had not disclosed any official and classified information to journalists. (Valerie Wilson's employment with the CIA was classified.) And a government official cannot be prosecuted for sharing chitchat he or she picked up from journalists. Such a story would take Libby (and any official who had passed him information on Valerie Wilson) out of the line of fire. But only if it were true.

Libby's account, Fitzgerald charged, was a cover story designed to remove him and the vice president from a leak investigation that was targeting the White House. At the trial, Fitzgerald methodically presented a series of witnesses who testified that weeks before the leak they had told Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA: Marc Grossman, who had been undersecretary of state for policy in 2003; Robert Grenier, a former top CIA official; and Cathie Martin, who had been Cheney's communications director. Craig Schmall, Libby's CIA briefer at the time, testified that Libby had discussed Valerie Wilson with him. Schmall also testified that after the leak occurred, while he was briefing both Cheney and Libby, they asked him what he thought about the leak scandal. Noting that some commentators had dismissed the leak as "no big deal," Schmall explained that he considered it a "grave danger." He explained to Libby and Cheney that foreign intelligence services could now investigate everyone who had come into contact with Valerie Wilson when she had served overseas. "Those people," he said, "innocent or otherwise, could be harassed...tortured or killed

Fitzgerald also called Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary, as a witness. Fleischer, who had struck an immunity deal with Fitzgerald in return for his testimony, testified that on July 7, 2003--the day after Joseph Wilson published an op-ed piece accusing the White House of having twisted the prewar intelligence--Libby disclosed Valerie Wilson's CIA link to him at lunch and said this information was "hush-hush." The conversation Fleischer recalled, was "odd." (Fleischer also testified that he had leaked information to two reporters about Valerie Wilson--although it was unclear whether he had done anything more than egg on these reporters to discover her CIA connection. Later in the trial, Washington Post reporter testified that Fleischer had disclosed Valerie Wilson's CIA connection to him.)

Fitzgerald presented three journalists as witnesses who contradicted Libby. Judy Miller claimed Libby had told her about Wilson's wife in three different confidential interviews, beginning with a meeting on June 23, 2003. Matt Cooper testified Libby had confirmed for him the leak about Valerie Wilson he had received from Karl Rove. Russert said there was no way he could have been Libby's source for any information on Valerie Wilson because he knew nothing about her before reading about her in the Novak column.

It was a powerful case. All these witnesses--except Russert--said they had spoken to Libby about Wilson's wife prior to the leak. Three said they had provided Libby information about her. (And Libby had conceded that Cheney had done so, too.) Libby, though, had told the FBI and the grand jury he had known nothing concrete about her at the time of the leak. And his explanation was convoluted: yes, Cheney had told him that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA; but he had forgotten that the vice president had done so; he then heard about her from Russert and believed this was the first time he was learning about her. This defense--I knew, I forgot, I learned it anew and was surprised--was implausible.

Ted Wells, a tall and charismatic attorney leading Libby's defense, tried to convince the jury that these witnesses were unreliable (and all were similarly misremembering similar events that had not happened). He attempted to make the case seem bigger and deeper than it was. It's a twisted, complicated and dark tale, he said during opening arguments, one of conspiracies, bureaucratic infighting, turf wars, backroom deals, terrorist plots (involving nuclear weapons and anthrax) against the United States, and assorted memory lapses, convenient and accidental. Libby merely had engaged in no-harm-intended forgetfulness about a few "snippets" of conversation, Wells insisted. Moreover, Libby had been "set up" as a "sacrificial lamb" in a White House melodrama starring Cheney, who supposedly was defending Libby from a White House effort designed to protect Rove at all costs. "The case is far more complex than what you heard," Wells told the jurors. He suggested that he would bring Cheney to the stand--and Rove and Libby.

But Wells did none of that. He let Cheney off the hook. (Fitzgerald had prepared for a cross-examination that would last hours.) Rove, too, was not called--even though Libby had claimed he had told Rove about his call with Russert right after it happened. If that had been true, testimony from Rove presumably could have corroborated Libby's version of the Russert phone call--and could have blown a big hole in Fitzgerald's case. A sharp-eyed juror could have read Rove's absence from the witness stand as a sign that Libby had lied. And Libby himself stayed mum during the trial. His lawyers decided it would not be useful to place Libby in the position of having to repeat the same rhetorical acrobatics he had performed during his grand jury appearances. The defense ended its presentation without submitting any evidence to support its dramatic contentions that Libby had been set up by the White House, the CIA, the State Department or NBC News.

The jurors did not appear to have much trouble cutting through all the clutter tossed up by Libby's defense. They spent a week reviewing and organizing all the testimony and evidence (on 34 pages of poster-size paper) before assessing whether Fitzgerald had proved his case. They convicted Libby on the single obstruction of justice count, two perjury counts (regarding his testimony to the grand jury) and one false statement count (stemming from an FBI interview). The jury acquitted him on the weakest count in the indictment--a false statement count related to what he had told the FBI about his conversation with Matt Cooper.

Libby said nothing as he left the courtroom. He looked neither resigned nor surprised. Minutes later, he appeared with his lawyers in front of reporters and camera crews outside the courthouse. Wells declared his client was "totally innocent" and that they would continue to fight. He said he would file a motion for a new trial and that if that motion is denied, he will file an appeal. "Mr. Libby will be vindicated," he proclaimed. Libby made no comment.

After Libby and his lawyers walked off, Fitzgerald strode toward the microphones. He noted he was "gratified" by the verdict and explained that he had had no choice but to pursue Libby once he suspected that Cheney's former chief of staff had lied under oath. "It's every prosecutor's duty," he asserted. He declined to say what the verdict and case said--if anything--about the White House and the vice president's office. During the trial, he had declared that Libby's lies had placed a "cloud" over the vice president. Was such a cloud still present? he was asked. Fitzgerald refused to answer the question, but he said that by lying to the grand jury and the FBI, "Mr. Libby had failed to remove that cloud....Sometimes when people tell the truth, clouds disappear. Sometimes they do not."

Fitzgerald defended his decision to subpoena reporters--and to imprison Judy Miller for 85 days--stating that he had to question journalists in order to determine if Libby had lied to the investigators. But he cautioned that other prosecutors ought to be "very careful" when considering whether to chase after journalists as witnesses. He added that he did not expect to file any further charges. His investigation was done.

The trial was not a satisfying end to the leak case. Fitzgerald's mission was not to discover the whole truth of the saga and reveal all to the public (as he pointed out when speaking to reporters today). He was on the hunt for a crime--and for criminals. He ultimately concluded he could not prosecute the leakers--Rove, Libby, and then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage--for having disclosed information regarding Valerie Wilson. (The law prohibiting government officials from intentionally revealing information about clandestine intelligence officials requires a prosecutor to prove the leaker knew the officer was undercover.) So his criminal investigation focused on whether Libby lied. (He also investigated Rove for having possibly lied to the grand jury but ultimately decided not to indict him.) Consequently, only information from his investigation related to the Libby cover-up became public. What else Fitzgerald uncovered remains a secret. And per the rules governing criminal cases, it will stay a secret, he told reporters.

After the verdict was delivered, only one juror, Denis Collins, a Washington Post reporter in the 1980s, spoke to the press. He noted that jurors more than once asked, Why was Libby here, not Rove, not someone else? "Where are these other guys?" he said. The jurors were convinced, he noted, that Libby was guilty as charged (on four of the counts). But the jurors also believed he had been ordered by Cheney to talk to reporters as part of the White House's spin operation. In other words, some White House wrongdoers or conspirators (if not conspirators in the strict legal definition of the word) had gotten off. But there was nothing the jurors could do about this, he said: "It was not a question of who we could punish about going to Iraq." What about the prospect of a presidential pardon? one reporter asked Collins. Will you feel cheated if Bush pardons him? No, Collins replied: "He's been pilloried. We found him guilty." (Conservatives have already started a campaign for a Libby pardon.)

Scooter Libby, once Cheney's top aide and one of the chief architects of the Iraq war, is now a criminal. He is the first White House official convicted of a crime since the Iran-contra scandal that tarred the administrations of President Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush. He is also a symbol of an administration that has lost credibility. How Bush and Cheney misrepresented the case for war and their disingenuous and dishonest post-invasion assertions about the war are more serious matters than the lies of the leak case. But the leak affair represents how this White House has done business and how it has mugged the truth. Libby is not only a fall guy for Cheney; he's a poster-child for the Bush administration. The guilty verdict applies only to Libby, but the guilt extends beyond.

******

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 (494)

I guess they shoulda put Libby on the stand.hahahahahahah

Posted by johannesrolf at 03/06/2007 @ 6:40pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/06/2007 @ 6:40pm

My thoughts exactly :)

The only thing I can surmise from Libby's very passive defense (no Rove, no Cheney, no Libby) is that he somehow got word that if he played ball and did not widen the scope, a pardon will be forthcoming.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/06/2007 @ 6:52pm
Libby was not convicted on one of the five charges filed against him (a juror said he only beat that one by 10 guilty to 1 not guilty; it was, in effect, a hung jury on that one charge). So how does Fox News play it? Someone tell me this is not an appendage of the Republican Party [aycu40.webshots.com].

Posted by fromredbird at 03/06/2007 @ 7:06pm
How can there be no further investigation into the leak? Cheney knew Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA; this fact was revealed during the trial. He undoubtedly knew what she did, given that her WMD counter-proliferation operation was part of the regime's drive to trump up the charges against Iraq. He had to have known that the identities of the CIA officials working for him were classified.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/06/2007 @ 7:42pm
They go after the bos for stealing money from the company and end finding the janitor guilty of parking violations...and the left thinks this is a victory...ridculious waste of time...compare this to Burger or Jefferson in Louisana...amazing 2 tier clown show...

Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2007 @ 8:18pm
Conservative Republicans who voted for George Bush will be put on trial by God, found guilty, and burned alive forever, because of what they have done to America. Dick Cheney himself will have already been sent to Hell for being a terrible, terrible father in his own family. God wont even get to the serious charges before Cheney and Bush are convicted and sent to Hell. Republicans are bad, corrupt, dis-honest people. They lie, they commit perjury, and they EXPOSE American CIA Operatives and their front company Brewster Jennings.

The Republican Party and everyone still involved with it are GUILTY of burning alive foreverable offenses, there is just NO DOUBT about it whatsoever.

Posted by conshame at 03/06/2007 @ 8:24pm
Posted by CONSHAME 03/06/2007 @ 8:24pm

Anybody now still doubt that CS's politics are his religion?

Posted by Mask at 03/06/2007 @ 8:39pm
So ends "Fitzmas"...as he said himself the investigations are over.

Libby will do SOME time, not so much as to be onerous and probably in some nice Minimum Security...no "country club", but not "Oz" by a long shot.

January 15th 2008...Hillary or Obama has won the Iowa Caucus the night before...and Bush pardons Libby with Tony Snow going out to the FEW reporters not discussing the "historic events in Iowa" and says that "the President feels that Mr Libby was the victim of an 'out-of-control prosecutor'" (echoing talk of Ken Starr a decade earlier).

And the day that Cheney goes back to Halliburton (January 20th, 2009)...Scooter goes with him and gets $5 Million a years, plus bonuses, plus options...and plenty of ghost-writers to help him with his self-pitying "tell-all".

Posted by Mask at 03/06/2007 @ 8:43pm
The Congress should give Libby immunity and then ask him to explain how he got himself into the mess. "What was the content of his discussions with Cheney" should be a central question, even if it is met with an endless series of "I don't remember." Cheney should be also be asked to testify. Would the Congress need to offer him immunity also?

Posted by jkrogman at 03/06/2007 @ 9:17pm
Mask:

Your analysis seems to be that the consummation of the Libby trial will be "business as usual."

I don't think so. "Poster child for the Bush administration" has a certain ring of truth to it, after all. Corn has a point. Libby is not simply a 'sacrificial lamb' or 'fall guy.' He was a major actor, the chief of staff for the Vice President of the United States.

For many people, irregardless of how the Federal government disposes of the Libby conviction, this trial and its outcome raises a thick cloud of suspicion concerning the Bush gang. McCain, the supporter of Bush, is fading in the polls of likely Republican voters. We are having an early Presidential campaign, one that has already started.

No. "Business as usual" is not an apt analysis for this case.

Posted by jkrogman at 03/06/2007 @ 9:28pm
x/////; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx c4650trrrrrr]t\12Nicky's first blog!

Posted by davebarlett at 03/06/2007 @ 9:28pm
Mask:

Your analysis seems to be that the consummation of the Libby trial will be "business as usual."

I don't think so. "Poster child for the Bush administration" has a certain ring of truth to it, after all. Corn has a point. Libby is not simply a 'sacricial lamb' or 'fall guy.' He was a major actor, the chief of staff for the Vice President of the United States.

For many people, irregardless of how the Federal government disposes of the Libby conviction, this trial and its outcome raises a thick cloud of suspicion concerning the Bush gang. McCain, the supporter of Bush, is fading in the polls of likely Republican voters. We are having an early Presidential campaign, one that has already started.

No. "Business as usual" is not an apt analysis for this case.

Posted by jkrogman at 03/06/2007 @ 9:28pm
Sorry for the previous double post.

Posted by jkrogman at 03/06/2007 @ 9:29pm
Sorry all, 19 month old at the keyboard, couldn't resist......

Posted by davebarlett at 03/06/2007 @ 9:30pm
To me, this feels like a hollow victory somehow. We couldn't get any of the "big dogs," so we get the ignored poodle in the corner.

More soldiers dying every day in Iraq, New Orleans is practically ignored, still no medical coverage for all Americans. Geez, this country is just so messed up and all this admin. can focus on is the war. I know more about Iraq than what's going on in my own country. I am so sick of this crap. Sorry, I am venting now. I just can't wait until 2008.

Posted by NM Dem at 03/06/2007 @ 9:55pm
"How Bush and Cheney misrepresented the case for war and their disingenuous and dishonest post-invasion assertions about the war are more serious matters than the lies of the leak case. But the leak affair represents how this White House has done business and how it has mugged the truth. Libby is not only a fall guy for Cheney; he's a poster-child for the Bush administration. The guilty verdict applies only to Libby, but the guilt extends beyond."

Just wanted to savor these lines from the article. They're so apt.

Posted by RLawrence at 03/06/2007 @ 10:03pm
It's very significant that the U.S. has finally been able to convict one of the criminals in the White House. As the scandal involving the firing of the US Attorneys shows, this Administration uses club-and-fist politics to make the system work for them and avoid all accountability. Someone criticizes you? Attack and smear 'em. Someone too independent from the party line? Fire 'em. Some awful scandal in the news like Abu Ghraib? "No resignations" is the offiical policy, as descibed by Seymour Hersh. Someone looking for Congressinal oversight? Fat chance, the GOP Congress will prevent it.

But it's over. Now we have a conviction; they know they can go to jail. The Dems are in control of Congress; the oversight hearings have started and won't stop for some time. A scandal at Walter Reed? Heads roll at DoD. The US Attorneys scandal makes the news? A resignation gets submitterd at the Executive Office of US Attorneys.

Their playhouse is getting torn down, brick by brick. Today is a highly significant day.

Posted by RLawrence at 03/06/2007 @ 10:11pm
Posted by JKROGMAN 03/06/2007 @ 9:28pm

But it will be..."business as usual". And your post on "Congress should give Libby immunity" is the reason-

He HAS immunity. Atleast partial immunity. The kind where he only has to do less than a year in jail and gets a "Get Out Of Jail Free Card" from Bush.

Can Congress offer Libby a nice, cushy $5 Mill a year job after that? No, but Dick Cheney and Halliburton can. And Congress can't offer pardons either.

So...what CAN they offer Libby to get him to "rat out" his boss? Nothing.

What can Cheney offer Libby to do some jail time, but keep his mouth shut?....Lots.

And if the Dems try to run with THIS...it means the other stuff (NSA spying, WMD intell, Katrina) gets another thing added to the pile and it starts to look like "all investigations and no legislation" (especially with social legislation killed in the Senate, "non-binding resolutions", and "Murtha plans with the guts cut out of them")

Posted by Mask at 03/06/2007 @ 10:20pm
Mask: I think there is something to be gained by creating some embarassment at Congressional oversight hearings for Libby and other actors in the Vice Presidential office. Was Libby acting solely on advice from Cheney or was there other conversation with or input from other people in Cheney's office, etc.?

How could the Libby mess be prevented in the future?

I can't say what tangible results will ensue from further Congressional hearings and inquiries, of course, but I still think this provides opportunities in the ongoing Presidential campaign. McCain looks dead.

Posted by jkrogman at 03/06/2007 @ 10:37pm
Earth to wanker massch the only "clowns" here are the conservative wankers who repeatedly boasted that Fibby would walk. Of course masschy once again you have the analogy backwards should read "They go after the janitor and convict their bosses.

Reminds me of a recent poitical cartoon showing the tip of the iceberg "libby trial", over the investigation into gw & co's intel on why we went to war below.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/06/2007 @ 8:18pm They go after the bos for stealing money from the company and end finding the janitor guilty of parking violations...and the left thinks this is a victory...ridculious waste of time...compare this to Burger or Jefferson in Louisana...amazing 2 tier clown show...

Posted by dycel8r at 03/06/2007 @ 11:04pm
"As the scandal involving the firing of the US Attorneys shows, this Administration uses club-and-fist politics to make the system work for them and avoid all accountability. '

I believe they serve at the presidents discretion...and they can be fired and hired at will...what doesn't change a the cases they are working on....I think Bill Clinton fired EVERY single one when he took office, as was his right to do....so whats the beef?

Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2007 @ 11:06pm
"Reminds me of a recent poitical cartoon showing the tip of the iceberg "libby trial", over the investigation into gw & co's intel on why we went to war below. "

It is a cartoon and the whole thing is over..done and the janitor gets convicted..

Yes, I thought Liddy should walk and I still think so..and it will cost me a case of ale..so what..oh, and the connection to the war?

Fitz obviously didn't find one, so he came down hard on the janitor...

wanker... it still is a cartoon.

Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2007 @ 11:11pm
massch

The trial was for lying to a grand jury, the inquiry into the information and who leaked it hasn't started yet, this little teaser trial is the opener for the big investigations get ready there coming. Next on the agenda is Cheney's war manipulations and which laws were broken to start it, followed by the Halliburton war profiteering inquirys.

Posted by dycel8r at 03/06/2007 @ 11:23pm
When was the last time a senior White House administration official was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice? The Reagan administration! The Republicans are serial liars and justice obstructors. There's no reforming these kind of people. Their recidivism rate is 100%.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/06/2007 @ 11:25pm
Redbird:

Will Bush pardon Libby, like his father pardoned Weinberger around Christmas time before he left office?

Or will this Decider pardon Libby sooner?

Or not at all if Bush is asked for such a pledge?

If Bush pardons Libby now, will it look like a coverup?

This is getting interesting.

Posted by jkrogman at 03/06/2007 @ 11:31pm
"When was the last time a senior White House administration official was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice?"

Bill Clinton..perjury.

Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2007 @ 11:32pm
I can't say what tangible results will ensue from further Congressional hearings and inquiries, of course, but I still think this provides opportunities in the ongoing Presidential campaign. McCain looks dead.

Posted by JKROGMAN 03/06/2007 @ 10:37pm

I think he actually is physically dead. They put a borg implant in him (anyone notice a bulge between his shoulder blades) and are fueling him with formaldehyde. I don't think that corpse is going to make it to 2008, though, and Giuliani's campaign is looking like a traveling freak show. They're going to have to bring in Bob Dole.

When Dole's campaign gets to Lincoln, Nebraska, Maasch will be the only one at the rally. He'll have a sign that says, "Kooks of America, unite!" Dole won't be able to help noticing the only person there and he'll repeat over and over again, "It's our time!"

Posted by fromredbird at 03/06/2007 @ 11:32pm
Or will Bush stage a confrontation with Iran to distract us?

Posted by jkrogman at 03/06/2007 @ 11:32pm
Mr. Corn: "The trial was not a satisfying end to the leak case. Fitzgerald's mission was not...."

David, thank you for this brutally honest but spot-on admission...Not surprisingly, just one Lefty commenter echoed this reality. Guess what? IMHO, just like your blog in its freewheeling days, only a small minority of your regulars here at The Nation have at least one foot in the world as it is, not what they wish it to be through excessive blogging! Some still fantasizes about more indictments following this "hollow victory"....Amazing! Perhaps more prayers are needed among your ideological fans to grow more brain cells, or at least have one of any size!

My guess is that IF an appeal is denied, Libby will be pardoned shortly thereafter! Bush has his faults but giving a shit about the polls is not one of them!

Posted by Happy at 03/06/2007 @ 11:34pm
Given that the Repubs have cooked their goose as far as having a Repub pres elected in 2008:

What will the Dems do? The campaign has already begun.

Posted by jkrogman at 03/06/2007 @ 11:34pm
"The trial was for lying to a grand jury, the inquiry into the information and who leaked it hasn't started yet, this little teaser trial is the opener for the big investigations get ready there coming."

From who? Fitz says he is done...From Congress? Are they going to spend the next 18 months on Bush/Cheney hate fest and do nothing else? If they do this they will be out of power for another 12 years and deservedly so.

Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2007 @ 11:35pm
Happy--

But if baby Bush pardons Libby soon (did someone say Liddy?), won't this further dampen prospects for a Repub pres in 2008? Other Repubs would have reactions to this, who will try to save Bush's butt?

Posted by jkrogman at 03/06/2007 @ 11:37pm
Bush will be exposed for the slimy, two-faced liar he is if he pardons Libby after stating publicly that he wanted to see justice done if anyone in his administration was guilty of exposing Plame.

The Republican Party will spend the next two decades living that down. What a shame for the no good, rubberstamp Republicans! I almost feel sorry for them . . . but not quite. I certainly don't wish them anything ill. I just think everyone should support the troops, including the ones in the CIA. It's shocking that the Republicans don't support our troops.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/06/2007 @ 11:39pm
Poor Scooter.... just a fall guy for the more vicious people around him. NO WAY! Libby is PNAC. He is part of the cabal that controls the foreign policy of the US...that planned and orchestrated the wars we are in, and who, like Al Capone, has been nailed on a relatively minor charge, because nothing else can be proved. For those who don't know, please take a look at the Rogues Gallery of NeoCON Artists....

CLICK HERE [tvnewslies.org]

Posted by Reg at 03/06/2007 @ 11:39pm
How are legitimate oversight hearings a "hatefest"? Of course, that's how some Repubs will try to spin... But is such an attack credible to many of those voters who are troubled by this administration's character and ethic? After all, 29% of voters approve of Bush at this time.

Posted by jkrogman at 03/06/2007 @ 11:40pm
FROMREDBIRDSHITFORBRAINS,

"When Dole's campaign gets to Lincoln, Nebraska, Maasch will be the only one at the rally. He'll have a sign that says, "Kooks of America, unite!"

Great line!!! I liked it...but I never voted for Dole and as far as the kooks unite...you already are...just look around for your buddies, there aren't many of them, they are on the far side of the Democratic party..far left,..you can tell them by 3 factors...

1. They have the hots for everything Cindy Sheehan

2. They think Bush/Cheney are minutes away from impeachment

3. They all wear a hat with a propeller on top, spinning...a red one

PSSSST, HEY....FROMNOWHEREANDGOINGTHEREFAST, look in the mirror...haven't you wondered what that whirrling sound is?... Ever?

Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2007 @ 11:43pm
My guess is that IF an appeal is denied, Libby will be pardoned shortly thereafter! Bush has his faults but giving a shit about the polls is not one of them!

Posted by HAPPY 03/06/2007 @ 11:34pm

Giving a shit about America is obviously not one of them either and I'm guessing you, also, count yourself among the America-betraying, stab-the-troops-in-the-back gang. You already did a good job getting your asses kicked out of Congress so keep digging, stupid.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/06/2007 @ 11:44pm
"Or will Bush stage a confrontation with Iran to distract us?

Posted by JKROGMAN 03/06/2007 @ 11:32pm

You have distracted for years.

Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2007 @ 11:44pm
Maasch, that whirring sound that you hear is your hot air escaping!

Get a grip!

Posted by jkrogman at 03/06/2007 @ 11:44pm
"When was the last time a senior White House administration official was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice "in referance to having committed an actual crime"

Can't include Clinton there was no actual crime committed.

Libby, Cheney and the rest of these "leaders" are another story.

Posted by dycel8r at 03/06/2007 @ 11:46pm
Maasch-- "You have distracted for years."

Huh? Four years? Or six, like Bush?

Posted by jkrogman at 03/06/2007 @ 11:47pm
Thanks, again, Happy, for being stupid. America can't thank you enough for that one redeeming characteristic of yours.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/06/2007 @ 11:47pm
I believe you have been distracted from life eversince Bush was elected...no life...just look at the posts of guys like Zero and Fromredshit,..these guys are obssesed with all thing Bush/Cheny...they have been distracted from everyda life...they are stuck...when Bush habds over the reigns of power to his successor, these kooks lives may collapse...

Posted by john maasch at 03/06/2007 @ 11:50pm
Maasch, that whirring sound that you hear is your hot air escaping!

Get a grip!

Posted by JKROGMAN 03/06/2007 @ 11:44pm

Oh, God - the ill wind from Lincoln, Nebraska. No one light any matches. The explosion could wipe out the internets.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/06/2007 @ 11:53pm
FRB: Hysterical! Fox "News" claims "Libby Found Not Guilty of Lying to FBI!"

God, they're bad!

Posted by ZERO 03/06/2007 @ 11:40pm

It can actually turn a normal human being into a jaw-gaping, mouthbreather. It's astounding. WTF is wrong with regular watchers of Fox News? I think we're talking new species here.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/06/2007 @ 11:56pm
Pardoning Scooter Libby is not going to be an issue for such a president.

Posted by ZERO 03/06/2007 @ 11:49pm

The Republican Party might as well order a couple of truckloads of lubricant right now - Bush is going to stick it up their keister so far they won't be walking straight for at least two or three decades. All I can do is laugh.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/07/2007 @ 12:00am
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! See, Maasch, all I can do is laugh. I know you're out there.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/07/2007 @ 12:02am
Since they can't walk or talk straight anyway now, why would we expect the Repubs to do better in the next several decades?

It is very interesting. And funny.

Posted by jkrogman at 03/07/2007 @ 12:37am
Faux newz distraction for not talking about guilty conviction-- WE'RE GOING AFTER UBL!!!

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 01:18am
O.K. Libby fell on his sword to save Cheney's fat ass. He's no hero, more like a zero. Libby lied to keep the investigation from getting to Darth Cheney and from there to Bush.

I remember when the story first broke Bush saying that anyone involved would get canned. But the thing that really caught my ear was when Bush went on about how leaks were so hard to find and how he doubted that anyone would be found that leaked the information and that it would never be resolved. It was like he was saying "Nothing to see here, just move along, nothing to see."

It sounded to me then and it has been proven to me today that he knew Cheney had leaked Plame's name and either it was done with his consent, or Cheney just did it and told Bush after.

I thought he was lying then and I know he was now.

Bush and Cheney are traitors.

"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." George H.W. Bush, April 26, 1999

Posted by COProgressive at 03/07/2007 @ 02:00am
Sorry all, 19 month old at the keyboard, couldn't resist...... Posted by DAVEBARLETT 03/06/2007 @ 9:30pm

That explains a lot about your posts over the last year and a half.

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/07/2007 @ 02:10am
Just posted this on another blog:

More polls have already shown that 'we the people' are ready to oust hsuB/heney. How much more ready will we be when the evidence starts to flow onto the media frenzy about how hsuB/heney cooked up lies that tricked us into believing that the war was necessary. All our dead and maimed soldiers, lives 'wasted', families destroyed, constitution trampled... all so hsuB/heney filthy rich base could turn a profit. They lost the whole world, as well as their own souls... Sad day that these men (?) disgrace the office they swore to not only constitutionally uphold but to improve upon-- lies and more lies. It is a great day when 'we the people' decide to 'fix' what is broken. It may appear to those broke it, that the fix and mending is excruciatingly painful-- it is very necessary and right. I say let justice march onward, step by step, inch by inch, slowly but suely.

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Jan. 24-25, 2007. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"In general, do you think George W. Bush will have enough support over the next two years to make a difference in getting things done in Washington, or not?"

Date_________Will____Will Not___Unsure

1/24-25/07____21_______71_______8

"Do you think President Bush's decisions about policy in Iraq and other major areas are influenced more by the facts or more by his personal beliefs, regardless of the facts?"

Date___________Facts____Personal Beliefs____Unsure

1/24-25/07_______22__________67___________11

"At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?"

Date________Wish It Was Over___Don't Feel This Way___Unsure

1/24-25/07_________58________________37____________5

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 02:29am
And the below poll was before the conviction of senior hsuB/heney chief of staff Libby and all the hundreds of news articles about how hsuB/heney lied about the war intel and lied about not knowing about the leak--- when it was themselves doing the leaking for shear political cover for their lying their asses over the public good and our troops' safety. hsuB/heney lie and lie and lie and 'we the people' demand congress do their job and investigate all the hsuB/heney crimes, do oversight and impeach the lying criminal hsuB/heney scum before they kill, maim, steal, lie-- again.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 22-25, 2007. N=1,082 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

"Overall, do you feel that you can or cannot trust the Bush Administration to honestly and accurately report intelligence about possible threats from other countries?"

Date___________Can____Cannot___Unsure

2/22-25/07______35_______63_______2

http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/07/2007 @ 01:39am

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 02:29am
I believe they serve at the presidents discretion...and they can be fired and hired at will...what doesn't change a the cases they are working on....I think Bill Clinton fired EVERY single one when he took office, as was his right to do....so whats the beef?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/06/2007 @ 11:06pm | ignore this person

Newly elected Presidents appoint new US Attorneys typically for four years. In Clinton's case he kept six from the prior administration.

Its been a longstanding practice that US Attorneys serve for the entire term. It is extrordinary that they were asked to leave with two years left.

They were informed they were not being terminated for cause. Then Abu Gonzalez, in response to questions from the Judiciary committee, reported to Senators that there were performance problems in these cases.

Iglesias was presurred by Sen Domenici before the election to indict a democratic candidate to help Heaterh Wilson win her seat. He resistent the coersion. He was later terminated.

What's the beef? It is essential that US Attorneys are independent and can prosecute cases without undue political influence or fear of termination so long as they perform compentently.

Contrary to normal practice, the termination of these seven (or is it 8?) US attorneys is evidence that their independence is being comprimised by political considerations. Add to that the shifting sands of explanations offered by the Attorney General for the terminations. Abu Gonzalez is lying about the reasons driving the decision. What is he hiding? Whatever it is, he's hiding it from the public becuase it looks bad.

That these US Attorneys can be replaced without Senate advice and consent due to a clause slipped into the renewed Patriot Act that Sen Specter claims his aide inserted without his approval is another problem. Where is the process that gives credibility and substance to the construct,independent US attorney?

You're not stupid John Maasch. You're just lazy.

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/07/2007 @ 02:35am
Oh yeah-- repubs are taking big shitsintheirpants-- this is before Walter Reed and the Libby conviction withhundreds more articles about the hsuB/heney incompetence and lies and criminal intent really start to sink in. Any bets on how low their polls will go? How about 2-3 points down every month until IMPEACHMENT hits!

PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent national polls

Survey_____________Date_______Approve___Disapprove__Unsure_____Dif

USA Today/Gallup__3/2-4/07_______33_________63_________4______-30

Newsweek ______2/28 - 3/1/07_____31_________61_________8______-30

FOX/Opin Dyna____2/27-28/07_____34_________57_________8______-23

CBS/NY Times_____2/23-27/07_____29_________61________10______-32

Time RV__________2/23-26/07_____34_________60_________6______-26

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 02:55am
Happy's stupidity is not a feature it's a bug. His writing style is taken from the pages of How To Make Friends And Influence People. The device he employs is as follows. Address the post to Corn, open with a back-handed compliment, then insult everyone else who comments here as if you're having a private conversation with Corn.

Like a bad penny or an noxious fart on a elevator, Happy showed up on DavidCorn.Com day after day and posted that crap. At least today, we didn't have to hear about how magnanimous his is in his public service endevors or successful in business concerns. Thank Yawah for small favors.

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/07/2007 @ 03:01am
I hold you responsible for "Libby's" conviction, Mister Corn. Nice 1! Keep up the relentless work you are doing for all the hundreds-of-thousands of dead people who would be alive, were it not for such automatons as him, his Masters, and their servants.

Posted by waterfire1 at 03/07/2007 @ 05:52am
He was convicted of perjury. But there was no crime. These are nt my words, they are the words of the lawyers for the New York Times. When they went to the judge to try to prevent Fitzgerald from forcing Judith Miller to divulge her sources, they made their last argument that there was no need to divulge the sources as no crime was committed. You can look it up.

But, he was convicted of perjury. So, if you really believe that purjers must go to prison, then put Scooter number 2 in line.

Posted by wredner at 03/07/2007 @ 06:27am
Darn, I missed most of the fun!.

But, HAHAHA!!! Buwaahahaha!

GUILTY!

GUILTY!

Guilty!

GUILTY!

The neo-con America-haters can sit and spin all they want. Vice President Cheneys Chief of Staff was CONVICTED of lying, perjury and obstruction of JUSTICE!. I know you guys have no use for justice, though. When will the clowns wake up and smell the coffee? The whole group is corrupt, inept and incompetent.

God! I am again as giddy as en Evangelical minister at a Boy Scout convention. Good job Fitz. Good job David Corn. I guess MAAASCH is going to have to buy your book now and face reality. "What is Corn going to do with all of those books?" SELL THEM! AAAHAHAHA.

GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY.

Next up... Vice President Howler Monkey.

So much for the "There was no crime" crowd. There were many crimes, and Libby was CONVICTED of 4. Just because others have skated, so far, does not mean there were no other crimes. MAASCH wants to talk about beanies, he should take his in for a tune up, and get his own head checked. John, you are so afraid of "the left" that you were willing to follow LIES! Now I have more LIES to add to the list. Just take a look at the list of convicted Bush admin officials, it is a long and growing one.

Sad neo-cons. Sad.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 07:24am
Wheres PONTIFICUS, I have some crow for him, but I will share it with all the other Kool-aid drinkers here.

Sheep! bahhh, bahhhh. "tell us what to think chimpy" "Tell us who to fear O'Reilly and Hannity".

time for a fleecin'!

Gidyy, happy day.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 07:27am
Libby walks, into PRISON!!! Perp walk, be bop baloo bop. Shamm llama ding dong, the ass is going to jial where he belongs, to emerge in a few years as the next Ollie North, convicted hero felon of the nut-job hard right.

Sad, sad cons. No shame, no honor, just jingoistic slogans and lies.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 07:30am
The Scooter Libby Verdict While I still believe God is sadistic, at least today it makes me feel better that He turned his anger towards one of the bad guys.

Posted by Lucem ferre at 03/07/2007 @ 08:33am
You're not stupid John Maasch. You're just lazy.

Posted by NEILSAGAN 03/07/2007 @ 02:35am

As I suspected..nothing was done that was wrong, just out of customary practices...a non event. A yawner, once again panic on the left and yawns everywhere else.

The fact that you think I am not stupid is..well, I don't care what you think I am....even if it it lazy..I am too busy to chase all these non events around..so if I am to busy I guess that makes me not lazy?

Doesn't matter.

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 08:46am
Lucifer,

The Scooter Libby Verdict While I still believe God is sadistic, at least today it makes me feel better that He turned his anger towards one of the bad guys.

Posted by LUCEM FERRE 03/07/2007 @ 08:33am

I don't think God gives a shit about what we or you do policticaly. If you think God is one of "you" and not of someone else..well, you have deeper problems..

I see GOD sitting up there looking down and thinking..."Jeez, I hope the jury goes after Bush next, ....I celebrate the conviction of Libby..."

You loons are too much...so much for politics and religion , I guess...God has been located sitting in the far left of the Dem Party..and has the hopes and wishes about the Republicans as does the Nation readers...but doesn't that put GOD in the kook section, complete with hat and propeller on top(a red one)..?

Another dilema to ponder.

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 08:53am
....I think Bill Clinton fired EVERY single one when he took office, as was his right to do....so whats the beef?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/06/2007 @ 11:06pm

True, and Bush dismissed all of the Attorneys General when he took office in 2001 too.

I think the issue here is the circumstances of the dismissals. This is not a case of cleaning house when a new administration takes over.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 09:00am
I should have said Bush dismissed "nearly" all. I do not think he dismissed all of them.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 09:00am
Posted by JKROGMAN 03/06/2007 @ 10:37pm

At this point, "embaressment" is the only, but justifible thing that might come out of investigations. And would help to lock up the election for the Democratic nominee....big enough stink around the Bush Administration and Hillary can walk in the door easily.

Impeachment?...no. It would muddy the waters, let Bush play the martyr, and leave a Democratic Congress with NO accomplishments for domestic and foreign policy going into 2008.

But again, there's nothing Congress can offer Libby to testify. If they subpoena him, he simply recounts his defense affidavits and claims "I forgot" and they can "re-try the trial" with John Conyers pretending to be Fitzgerald....but it wouldn't come to anything much more than it has.

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 09:25am
Couldn't resist posting this.

Juror Denis Collins on Wednesday summed up the dilemma that he and his associates faced behind closed doors.

(AP) Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, center, talks to reporters outside federal court in... Full Image "There was a frustration that we were trying someone for telling a lie apparently about an event that never became important enough to file charges anywhere else," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"I would hope that the message sent by this jury shouldn't be that big a message," he said.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 09:30am
And Plame was 'covert'? Ha. Apparently not 'covert' enough to charge anyone with revealing her identity.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 09:34am
"I believe they serve at the presidents discretion...and they can be fired and hired at will...what doesn't change a the cases they are working on....I think Bill Clinton fired EVERY single one when he took office, as was his right to do....so whats the beef?" Posted by JOHN MAASCH

That's why civil servants--even indolent, incompetent, unprofessional civil servants--have protections against being arbitrarily dismissed.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 09:37am
Impeachment?...no. It would muddy the waters, let Bush play the martyr

osted by MASK 03/07/2007 @ 09:25am

Oh sure with his poll numbers in the teens after all the shit hsuB/heney's done comes out as fact-- no way he's not getting articles of impeachment. It's like rewriting the Nixon articles of impeachment history. His poll numbers pretty much stayed low for a long time. Very few 'oh poor poor Nixon'.

Barring hsuB's resignation, impeachment is going to happen Mask (tm), better start getting used to it now so it won't be sooo traumatic for you. Or are you going to pull a Faux Newz and claim acquited even as the articles are voted forward? Denial is a hard thing to overcome especially if you're denying all you got is denial.

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 09:39am
Reprinted from the older thread for the benefit of my new best friend ...

PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 09:05am

Given that it's a matter of historical record that the Bush administration grossly misinterpreted intelligence about Iraq and frequently stated as facts things that the CIA had found to be fabrications, it's astonishing that you consider someone actually saying so to be guilty of "leaks designed to damage this Administration." What country do you live in, anyway?

How do you not see what's going on here? The primary guilty party is one Richard Cheney. He continues to this day to say things that are known to be untrue. His former chief of staff has been convicted of trying to protect him.

And on the subject of reducing terrorism, you are completely full of shit, there's no other way to put it. The former nation of Iraq has been turned into a laboratory for terrorists. Good God, after all that crap about the danger of failed states, we go and create one. Words fail me. I cannot adequately express my outrage at this situation, and the idiots who defend it.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/07/2007 @ 09:42am
Pon't,

You never answerred my question as to whether you're a hsuB/heney repub satanist or a different kind of satanist?

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 09:42am
Mask (tm),

If Corn comes out and changes his mind about hsuB/heney's impeachment being an expedient thing to do per the circumstances progressing to frame the outcome in mostly positive progressive terms-- will you do 'follow the leader' still or flip-flop?

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 09:55am
This verdict proves that this administration is the most corrupt administration since ... well... the last administration.

Posted by abell12ct at 03/07/2007 @ 10:07am
Look at the sheep, still trying to spin their way out of this. What a bunch of ideologues run amok.

Here it is in plain English:

ChimpCO made multiple false claims about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, one of them being his Niger line in the SOTU speech, the one that featured another convicted felon, Achmed Chalibi. Chimpy hired several former felons to work in his admin, many convicted of lying to congress. When a republican appointee had the courage and patriotism to call out these lies in public, the machine went into high gear. Instead of coming clean, cheney went after Wilson, through his wife, like any other playground thug to afraid to take on the kids his own size. ?They caused significant damage to an intel network DURING A WAR!!! they then lied about it in public, in private and Libby lied to a grand jury, and 10 of 11 jurors say he lied to the FBI.

there was no political witch hunt, these tyrants set up their own disaster. NO ONE else is responsible for this, only Cheney, Rove, Armitage and probably the President himself.

NEO_CONS, pay attention!! How many more times are you going to follow these people that have been wrong time and time again? chimpy has lost more court cases than I can count, he has been found guilty of violating US laws by the GAO, the Supreme Court and if congress had any balls they would find that too.

libby had every break a person could want, the best attorneys money can buy, the ability to hold evidence due to national security and whole news channels devoted to his defense. And he was found GUILTY by his peers in a court of law. He LIED! Period!!

face it, ChimpCO are a bunch of lying, cheating, fear mongering failures.

Listen to Diann Rehm, I expect to have a question for Mr Byron York of National Review.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 10:15am
Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/07/2007 @ 09:42am

Given that it's a matter of historical record that the Bush administration grossly misinterpreted intelligence about Iraq and frequently stated as facts things that the CIA had found to be fabrications, it's astonishing that you consider someone actually saying so to be guilty of "leaks designed to damage this Administration." What country do you live in, anyway?

Given by WHOM? Sheesh, MP, you've been in the echo chamber waaaayyyyy too long. If Bush is guilty of misinterpreting intelligence, it's a fault shared by many Democrats, and I find you evidently selective outrage to be unconvincing.

How do you not see what's going on here? The primary guilty party is one Richard Cheney. He continues to this day to say things that are known to be untrue. His former chief of staff has been convicted of trying to protect him.

What has he been saying that is untrue, exactly? And what, exactly, was Libby trying to protect Cheney from?

And on the subject of reducing terrorism, you are completely full of shit, there's no other way to put it. The former nation of Iraq has been turned into a laboratory for terrorists. Good God, after all that crap about the danger of failed states, we go and create one. Words fail me. I cannot adequately express my outrage at this situation, and the idiots who defend it.

You remind me of one of those fanatics who literally whip themselves in order to generate some sort of religious frenzy. I don't buy it.

I still think we are better off for having taken out Saddam, but that's a whole 'nother issue you're dragging in. This is supposed to be about the Libby trial.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 10:21am
Oh, and MP, I'd be interested if you could provide me with a list of attacks the US has undergone from the 'terrorist laboratory' of Iraq during Bush's term. I can provide you with a long list from the Clinton years, if you need ideas to get started with.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 10:28am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 10:21am

kool Aid?

Face it Ponti, my Michigan brethren, MYP, is spot on. Iraq IS a doctorate laboratory for terrorism. Open your eyes. They are blowing up US soldiers everyday with new and improved IEDs. They are shooting down helicopters. Libby LIED!!! Chimp caused damage to out intel program DURING A WAR!!!

You called me an ideologue last week, I think you meant YOU. I know admitting your wrong can be hard, it means introspection. Try looking at the facts, not what you WANT to be true.

Is terrorism dropping? No. Is Afghanistan falling back into failed state status? Yes. Is Iraq now a failed state, home to terrorist groups? Yes. Were there ANY WMD's in Iraq? No. (I don't care that some dems bought into the line, they were wrong too, )

Sad neo-cons. Not even good conservatives.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 10:31am
PONTI, how do you like your crow? Raw or braised in kool-aid?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 10:32am
Here's a post for Pontificus, Prince of Denial (since he ran away on the other thread).

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.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 08:58am

Address the argument, not me.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 09:12am

Take your own advice. Fitzgerald, not some reporter, Fitzgerald "found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years..."

Address that!

Just because there was not enough proof is not evidence of innocence.

Address that!

Covert, clandestine, or otherwise, the leaking of a CIA agent's name for political purposes is cowardly, unethical, un-American, and reprehensible for an adminstration that was supposed to bring character back to the White House.

Address that!

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:29am

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 10:34am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 10:28am

3100 dead? 25,000 wounded? tens of thousands of brain injuries? US assets are attacked EVERY day now.

Where is UBL? "Frankly, I don't think about him"- Bush.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 10:34am
This is supposed to be about the Libby trial.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 10:21am

Yes it is!!!!

Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!!

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 10:38am
If Libby were a "real" conservative he would take "personal responsibility" for his actions, tell the truth about the smear campaign and serve his time. He wouldn't waste any more of the taxpayers money in appeals. But he is a neo-con, a group that believes the ends justify any means. Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 10:41am
You'll never get them, David: you'll never get Rove & Cheney. I can hear it in your voice on MPR right now: As a Bob Woodward wannabe they are your double Nixon, but they're too crafty for you. Libby isn't enough: You want them allllll!

Bwahhhahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/07/2007 @ 10:46am
Posted by CRABWALK 03/07/2007 @ 10:31am

Face it Ponti, my Michigan brethren, MYP, is spot on. Iraq IS a doctorate laboratory for terrorism. Open your eyes. They are blowing up US soldiers everyday with new and improved IEDs. They are shooting down helicopters. Libby LIED!!! Chimp caused damage to out intel program DURING A WAR!!!

But terrorism by definition is a war conducted on defenseless people. We are involved in a war in Iraq, not terrorism. Any civilians there are caught in a war zone. The war against terrorism is being fought in Iraq. Would you rather it be fought in Manhattan?

You called me an ideologue last week, I think you meant YOU. I know admitting your wrong can be hard, it means introspection. Try looking at the facts, not what you WANT to be true.

I do look at the facts. The difference between the right and the left in this country is that the right is driven by a need to build on what works, i.e., the principles that built this country. The left is driven by a devotion to an ideology, i.e., socialism, that has never worked. See the difference?

Is terrorism dropping?No. Is Afghanistan falling back into failed state status? Yes. Is Iraq now a failed state, home to terrorist groups? Yes.

But terrorism IS dropping. How many Americans are being killed outside the Iraq/Afghanistan war zones? Any? Don't you see that's the point? And who said fighting the war on terror would be easy? Bush didn't. He said it would take years. I believed him. Did you even bother to listen?

Were there ANY WMD's in Iraq? No. (I don't care that some dems bought into the line, they were wrong too, )

If there weren't then, there had been before, and there may well have been by now absent our doing something. Just like Iran now has nuclear weapons - get it?

Sad neo-cons. Not even good conservatives.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 10:48am
From WaPo today:

The Libby Verdict The serious consequences of a pointless Washington scandal Wednesday, March 7, 2007; Page A16

Go read this Editorial! One reason this rag is a couple of cuts above the NYT....In no small part by pointing the finger to the lier that started it all, Joe Wilson.

Sure, WaPo had its own concerns that this case has definitively cracked the shield of impunity that journalists had hid behind. Since overwhlmingly, `journalists' are lefties, we on the Right can look forward to reaping the rewards of Fitz' overzealousness for decades to come.

Posted by Happy at 03/07/2007 @ 10:48am
If bush/cheney had been intelligent they would have ignored Wilsons op-ed piece.If conservatives were intelligent they would simply respond to this by saying justice was served and move on.Instead,they're drawing even more attention to it by making a multitude of lame excuses.Lame excuses always make people who normally wouldn't pay much attention to much of this sit up and take notice.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 10:51am
It's good to know you're so thrilled, Happy. Why don't you go out and burn some books to celebrate

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 10:51am
"overzealousness"? What was that hack's name that spent all those millions investigated Clinton, only to uncover a head job?

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 10:53am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 10:48am

Separating Iraq/Afghanistan from the GWOT when it suits your needs ?

Is lying under oath "what works" to run a country? What makes you think I am a socialist? Because it fits your tiny mindset of the world, that anybody that is against Bush MUST be a socialist?

your wacked. you are blinded by the right.

hehehe. Guilty! 4 times. More convicted felons worked for Bush or are still working, than any other admin. Ever!

Yeah, Ponti, I "get it". I get that your a sheep. How do you like your crow?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 10:57am
He hasn't so far...neither has Speaker Nancy on "off the table", huh? If HE does...still doesn't mean it's going to happen. If SHE does....then maybe you can start celebrating.

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/07/2007 @ 09:55am

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/08/impeachment_at_our_peril.php

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 10:58am
This is just recently, not the ones that were convicted before being hired:

ndicted / Convicted/ Pled Guilty

* Scooter Libby - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff - resigned after being indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Making False Statements in connection with the investigation stemming from the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

* Lester Crawford - Commissioner, FDA - resigned after only two months on the job. Pled guilty to conflict of interest and making false statements.

* Brian Doyle - Deputy Press Secretary, DHS - Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Pled no contest to 32 criminal counts.

* Claude Allen - Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.

* David Safavian - former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget - convicted of lying to ethics officials and Senate investigators about his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

* Larry Franklin - intelligence officer, Defense - resigned, pled guilty to passing secrets to Israel.

* Roger Stillwell - desk officer, Interior Department - pled guilty to failing to report Redskins tickets and free dinners from Jack Abramoff.

* Frank Figueroa - senior DHS official, former head of anti-sex-crime Operation Predator - pled no contest to exposing himself to 16-year-old girl in Florida mall. Girl says he fondled himself for ten minutes. Figueroa forfeited his badge, gun, and access to databases; employment status pending internal DHS review.

* Darleen Druyun - senior contracting official, U.S. Air Force - pled guilty and sentenced to nine months in prison for her role in the Boeing tanker lease scandal.

* John Korsmo - chairman, Federal Housing Finance Board - pled guilty last year to lying to the Senate and an inspector general. He swore he had no idea how a list of presidents for FHFB-regulated banks were invited to a fundraiser for his friend's congressional campaign. On the invites, Korsmo was listed as the "Special Guest." Got 18 months of probation.

* P. Trey Sunderland III - chief, Geriatric Psychiatry, Nat'l Institute of Mental Health - admitted to a criminal conflict of interest charge for failing to report $300,000 received from Pfizer, Inc. *As of 12/11/06, still employed by NIMH.ndicted / Convicted/ Pled Guilty

* Scooter Libby - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff - resigned after being indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Making False Statements in connection with the investigation stemming from the leak of a CIA operative's identity. CONVICTED OF PERJURY, LYING UNDER OATH AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!

* Lester Crawford - Commissioner, FDA - resigned after only two months on the job. Pled guilty to conflict of interest and making false statements.

* Brian Doyle - Deputy Press Secretary, DHS - Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Pled no contest to 32 criminal counts.

* Claude Allen - Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.

* David Safavian - former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget - convicted of lying to ethics officials and Senate investigators about his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

* Larry Franklin - intelligence officer, Defense - resigned, pled guilty to passing secrets to Israel.

* Roger Stillwell - desk officer, Interior Department - pled guilty to failing to report Redskins tickets and free dinners from Jack Abramoff.

* Frank Figueroa - senior DHS official, former head of anti-sex-crime Operation Predator - pled no contest to exposing himself to 16-year-old girl in Florida mall. Girl says he fondled himself for ten minutes. Figueroa forfeited his badge, gun, and access to databases; employment status pending internal DHS review.

* Darleen Druyun - senior contracting official, U.S. Air Force - pled guilty and sentenced to nine months in prison for her role in the Boeing tanker lease scandal.

* John Korsmo - chairman, Federal Housing Finance Board - pled guilty last year to lying to the Senate and an inspector general. He swore he had no idea how a list of presidents for FHFB-regulated banks were invited to a fundraiser for his friend's congressional campaign. On the invites, Korsmo was listed as the "Special Guest." Got 18 months of probation.

* P. Trey Sunderland III - chief, Geriatric Psychiatry, Nat'l Institute of Mental Health - admitted to a criminal conflict of interest charge for failing to report $300,000 received from Pfizer, Inc. *As of 12/11/06, still employed by NIMH.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:00am
sorry about the double up.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:01am
How many "socialists" are in jail?

PONTI, do you buy Chinese goods? Vietnamese goods? do you support MFN status for China?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:03am
"...burn some books..."

On the contrary! FYI: I am quite possibly the only Righty who blogs here, and did at Corn.com, who actually bought & read Mr. Corn's new book Hubris. If you had read this well-documented book, you would know that Bush did not "lie" the country into the Iraq War.

Selective use of intelligence? Why, Yes! What sensible and intelligent person does NOT do so in every major decision. I use it every single f****** day on the stock market and in all aspects of major life decisions. Those that don't, are well represented here.

BTW: I see that my limited presence here is starting to get under the skin of the most worthy opponents! LOL!!!!!

Posted by Happy at 03/07/2007 @ 11:10am
Posted by CRABWALK 03/07/2007 @ 10:57am

What makes you think I am a socialist? Because it fits your tiny mindset of the world, that anybody that is against Bush MUST be a socialist?

Are you saying that socialism is not the guiding ideology of the left????

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 11:11am
The Morning After:

Libby is found guilty, but "the cover-up is still on" - Firedoglake:

"Yesterday a jury of 11 of his peers convicted Scooter Libby of four felonies: giving false statements (lying) to the FBI, two counts of perjury (lying) before a federal Grand Jury and obstructing justice in the investigation into who disclosed the identity of a CIA agent. But the unanimous guilty verdicts by the jurors who actually heard the evidence did not matter to the Administration apologists who simply don't care about the evidence. Unlike Iraq, where the Administration apparently has no 'Plan B,' their supporters were ready with their response to the verdicts:

control the media narrative, bury the obvious accountability moment, obscure the "cloud over Cheney," and more important, discredit the legal process and manipulate the eventual outcome. The coverup is still on."

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 11:11am
PONTI You and LvLiberty need to take a basic political science course so you can discover that "lefties" are not all socialists and have a wide variety of beliefs.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 11:14am
Selective use of intelligence? Actually, intelligent people use a holistic approach--they take any and all factors into consideration before reaching a decision. Only unobjective fools focus on info that affirms their beliefs while disregarding that which contradicts their assumptions. Making sound decisions demands an objective, rational approach.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 11:17am
Posted by CRABWALK 03/07/2007 @ 10:57am

your wacked. you are blinded by the right.

hehehe. Guilty! 4 times. More convicted felons worked for Bush or are still working, than any other admin. Ever!

Yeah, Ponti, I "get it". I get that your a sheep. How do you like your crow?

Geez, now you're just raving. Now I remember why I called you an ideologue and stopped responding to you.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 11:17am
From WaPo today:

The Libby Verdict The serious consequences of a pointless Washington scandal Wednesday, March 7, 2007; Page A16

Go read this Editorial! One reason this rag is a couple of cuts above the NYT....In no small part by pointing the finger to the lier that started it all, Joe Wilson.

Posted by HAPPY 03/07/2007 @ 10:48am

Oh, yeah! Joe Wilson is a liar. Tell us another joke. Oh, hell - they convicted the wrong guy? Poor Scooter.

The pitiful squealing from the Republicans over one of their kind finally getting the justice they deserve serves only to compound America's growing disgust with them.

Here's what I find in the Washington Post:

The jurors who huddled around two pushed-together conference tables for 10 days, meticulously filling 34 pages of facts from the trial on a large flip chart, believed that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff had been "pilloried" for a CIA leak that other top White House aides had committed along with him, according to one member of the panel.

Collins's detailed description of the jury's deliberations, in public comments and interviews yesterday, suggests that Libby's attorneys made headway with one of the themes they emphasized throughout the case: that the defendant, as lead defense attorney Theodore V. Wells Jr. described it, was made a scapegoat by the White House to protect other presidential aides who were complicit in disclosing Plame's identity to reporters.

Moreover, Collins said, jurors believed that Libby had been carrying out a directive by his immediate boss, Cheney, to "go out and talk to reporters" to tarnish Wilson's reputation.

http://tinyurl.com/2spmsf

Posted by fromredbird at 03/07/2007 @ 11:18am
Are you saying that socialism is not the guiding ideology of the left????

Posted by PONTIFICUS

You have liberals, which are capitalists; socialists, communists, anarchists--all three with as many subsets as the protestant faiths. Maybe you should try reading something other than the Reader's Digest.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 11:21am
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2007/03/cheney-question.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 11:22am
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/07/2007 @ 11:14am

PONTI You and LvLiberty need to take a basic political science course so you can discover that "lefties" are not all socialists and have a wide variety of beliefs.

I've had plenty of political science education, and I still say that socialism is the guiding ideology of the left. Big government, big taxes, ever increasing control of the government over peoples' lives - isn't that what the left is in favor of?

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 11:22am
Here's a post for Pontificus, Prince of Denial (since he ran away on the other thread).

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.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 08:58am

Address the argument, not me.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 09:12am

Take your own advice. Fitzgerald, not some reporter, Fitzgerald "found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years..."

Address that!

Just because there was not enough proof is not evidence of innocence.

Address that!

Covert, clandestine, or otherwise, the leaking of a CIA agent's name for political purposes is cowardly, unethical, un-American, and reprehensible for an adminstration that was supposed to bring character back to the White House.

Address that!

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:29am

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:34am
I'm still waiting, and Pontificus is still running.

It's the Lemming bob-n-weave - respond to the minutiae, ignore the the big picture, pick at the the little scabs, ignore the gaping chest cavity - in essence, doing what the lemming-in-chief does: cherry-picking the information that supports his worldview, ignoring anything contradictory, hammering his version of reality whether or not it fits with the reality that is accepted by most of the world.

I know the real world is a scary place, but hiding and ignoring the truth is not the answer.

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 11:25am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/07/2007 @ 11:21am

You have liberals, which are capitalists; socialists, communists, anarchists--all three with as many subsets as the protestant faiths. Maybe you should try reading something other than the Reader's Digest.

To me, that sounds like you have socialist lite, socialist, and communist. Anarchists are mostly libertarian, I would think. Hardly refutes my point.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 11:25am
HAPPY, you are a gnat, but you are a funny gnat.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/07/2007 @ 11:25am
HAPPY 03/07/2007 @ 10:48am

That Washington Post editorial is junk.

From the middle of the piece:

A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.

Bipartisan my ass. All the Democrats on the panel disputed the so-called conclusions.

"Recommended" is the wrong word. Participants in the meeting where Wilson was selected to go to Niger have stated that she did not participate in the discussion, so her influence was introductory at best. Wilson was qualified by prior experience in African diplomacy and uranium-related issues. Nevertheless, this ass-covering editorial calls it a "fact".

I'll tell you what a fact is: Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA under non-official cover, which means that she's on her own if she gets caught. How the paper can call this a "sensational charge" is beyond me. To say, the day after the conviction of a high ranking official for blatantly and repeatedly lying about it, that there was no campaign to discredit Wilson is utter nonsense.

Why did Rove confirm? Why did Novak publish? To discredit Wilson. Period.

That's why this crapola is buried on the fantasy page. The front page tells it straight, you can read it yourself at washingtonpost.com.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/07/2007 @ 11:27am
...ever increasing control of the government over peoples' lives...

Like telling a woman that she cannot have an abortion? Denying same sex couple the right to marry? Telling all of us what we can and cannot watch on television? Telling state governments that they cannot legalize marijuana?

Butting into the lives of citizens is not the exclusive domaine of the so called "left."

Maybe you should take a few courses at a real university.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 11:28am
Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/07/2007 @ 11:27am

So, MP, your point is, who are we to believe, you or those ignorant liars at the Washington Post?

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 11:30am
Why do Republicans think it's OK to expose the identity of an American CIA agent, endangering all her sources, who was tasked with nuclear weapons counterproliferation for purely personal political gain? If Bush pardons someone who was involved in betraying this CIA agent there will no longer be the slightest question that the Republican Party is a party of treason.

Go ahead, Bush. We're counting on you.

How does it feel, Republicans, to find that the stupidity of this person and his self-serving coterie, which delighted you when it was causing mass bloodshed and misery for others, is now going to sink the Republican Party for decades. You're getting what you deserve.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/07/2007 @ 11:33am
To me, that sounds like you have socialist lite, socialist, and communist. Anarchists are mostly libertarian, I would think. Hardly refutes my point.

Posted by PONTIFICUS

For those in political science, yes, it does refute what you refer to as a "point". I'm sorry to read you're not man enough to simply admit you are mistaken.

Anarchists are not libertarians. Geez, read a book.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 11:34am
PONTI Your statements prove you have no knowledge of political science.Just take a course.Or go online and learn something.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 11:34am
And another thing, Happy ... learn to read. If you think Hubris concludes that the Bush administration, overall, was not deliberately substituting its own set of beliefs about Iraq for the known facts and reliable intelligence, you can't read.

And by the way, the word for substituting other statements for the truth is ... lying.

lying

lying

lying

Got it?

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/07/2007 @ 11:35am
PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 11:30am

believe the reporting on the front page, or me, whatever

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/07/2007 @ 11:38am
Big government, big taxes, ever increasing control of the government over peoples' lives - isn't that what the left is in favor of?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 11:22am

Ahh, Ponti, that is the work of George W. Bush.

--------- "hehehe. Guilty! 4 times. More convicted felons worked for Bush or are still working, than any other admin. Ever!

Yeah, Ponti, I "get it". I get that your a sheep. How do you like your crow?"-CRAB

"Geez, now you're just raving. Now I remember why I called you an ideologue and stopped responding to you."

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 11:17am

Ranting? those are all facts. Maybe you are not a sheep, but you sure write like one. I am not lying to you. Bush has lost far more court cases than i can keep track of. The GAO has found he has broken many laws. The court just found the VIce Presidents Chief of Staff guilty of obstructing justice. Can you read the list of convicted Bush admin officials? Is that your idea of good government?

Yeah, i may rant a little, but you are truly blinded by ideology, not me. You voted for and are following crooks, liars and incompetent "leaders". I am not. You have no idea what my beliefs are, you just know I think ChimpCo is a bad joke, so you attack me, attempt to link me to socialism. what a crock!

you have come here for months, if not years, defending Libby. He was given every right under our laws to defend himself in a court of law. and he, like ChimpCO, failed. You have stated that you don't think people picked up on anonymous evidence in third countries deserve that same treatment, because you are afraid.

ideologue |??d???lôg; -?läg; ?id??-| noun an adherent of an ideology, esp. one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

your shoe fits, pontificus.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:41am
Even if Pon't had a brain cell, he's also a satanist; thus would lie about it.

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 11:42am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/07/2007 @ 11:28am

Specious commentary - I'll address each:

Like telling a woman that she cannot have an abortion?

Many people believe that abortion is murder. This was the traditional view until the late 20th century. Restricting the right to murder is the most fundamental rule of government.

Denying same sex couple the right to marry?

There is not 'right' to marry. Marriage a privilege granted to those who can, at least theoretically, have children. Gays have no more 'right' to marry than a man does to have three wives or you have the right to marry your sheep.

Telling all of us what we can and cannot watch on television?

Not an ideological issue. I believe that both liberals and conservatives agree that there are a lot of things that shouldn't be shown on television.

Telling state governments that they cannot legalize marijuana?

Again, not an ideological issue. There are conservatives and leftists on both sides of this issue.

Butting into the lives of citizens is not the exclusive domaine of the so called "left."

Ah yes, but it is one of the PRIMARY motivations of the left. Government control over individuals property, for example, is possibly the most fundamental principle of the left. Don't you agree?

Maybe you should take a few courses at a real university.,/i>

Oh, I have, trust me, and more.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 11:43am
A Conservative How-To Response Sheet:

1) Libby hasn't been convicted of anything serious 2) 30 years in prison is the equivalent of 6 months probation 3) Clinton was also convicted of lying, therefore Libby is an OK guy 4) The jury was clearly liberal 5) The entire trial had nothing to do with the Iraq war; it was an isolated incident 6) Cheney is completely innocent 7) Bush is completely innocent 8) Bush should pardon Libby (even though he initially said he wouldn't) 9) Libby's defense team was just doing this as a favor, so probably did a bad job

and.....

10) The surge is working, so liberals will have little to celebrate in 6 months

Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2007 @ 11:44am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/07/2007 @ 11:42am

Even if Pon't had a brain cell, he's also a satanist; thus would lie about it.

Are you cixelsyd?

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 11:45am
At least the right has accepted gay porn stars into the fold. Now if only they would stop changing the laws to exclude them from the laws of the land.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:48am
Oh, I have, trust me,...

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 11:43am

Hah. The last words of a neo con-man repub-satanist.

Yet to answer the question as to whether he's, Pon't, a hsuB/heney repub-satanist or just another lesser type of satanist?

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 11:51am
" Government control over individuals property, for example, is possibly the most fundamental principle of the left. Don't you agree?"

No, I do not agree with that statement. you are an ideologue.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:51am
Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2007 @ 11:44am

Cal Thomas - (4/16/03): "All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent. Otherwise, they will return to us in another situation where their expertise will be acknowledged, or taken for granted, but their credibility will be lacking."

What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points?" (MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:54am
Ah yes, but it is one of the PRIMARY motivations of the left. Government control over individuals property, for example, is possibly the most fundamental principle of the left. Don't you agree?

No, I do not. The rights of the individual are the primary concern of the left--to me (I can't speak for all others).

Nice rationalizations for denying other Americans their rights to control their lives; it reminds me of some of the Muslim religious zealots.

You should take a few more classes: You're abject ignorance is obvious to all but you.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 11:56am
S-A-T-A-N-ist

S-A-N-T-A-ist

Coincidence? I think not.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:56am
Going now.

Buwahahahahaha.

Guilty

Guilty

Guilty

Guilty

'nuff said.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:58am
...and waiting, and waiting...

What's the matter, Rush not on the air long enough today to give you your talking points for the day?

Here's a post for Pontificus, Prince of Denial (since he ran away on the other thread).

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.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 08:58am

Address the argument, not me.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 09:12am

Take your own advice. Fitzgerald, not some reporter, Fitzgerald "found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years..."

Address that!

Just because there was not enough proof is not evidence of innocence.

Address that!

Covert, clandestine, or otherwise, the leaking of a CIA agent's name for political purposes is cowardly, unethical, un-American, and reprehensible for an adminstration that was supposed to bring character back to the White House.

Address that!

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:29am

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:34am

I'm still waiting, and Pontificus is still running.

It's the Lemming bob-n-weave - respond to the minutiae, ignore the the big picture, pick at the the little scabs, ignore the gaping chest cavity - in essence, doing what the lemming-in-chief does: cherry-picking the information that supports his worldview, ignoring anything contradictory, hammering his version of reality whether or not it fits with the reality that is accepted by most of the world.

I know the real world is a scary place, but hiding and ignoring the truth is not the answer.

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 11:25am

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 11:58am
darladoon Good satire.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 11:58am
just to give everyone here an idea of how accurate our mainstream media has been, foxnews notwithstanding, here is chris matthews (the so-called 'straight shooter') on president bush after the 'mission accomplished' banner idiocy:

MATTHEWS: What's the importance of the president's amazing display of leadership tonight?

[...]

MATTHEWS: What do you make of the actual visual that people will see on TV and probably, as you know, as well as I, will remember a lot longer than words spoken tonight? And that's the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously. What does that image mean to the American people, a guy who can actually get into a supersonic plane and actually fly in an unpressurized cabin like an actual jet pilot?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Do you think this role, and I want to talk politically [...], the president deserves everything he's doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. Do you think he is defining the office of the presidency, at least for this time, as basically that of commander in chief? That [...] if you're going to run against him, you'd better be ready to take [that] away from him.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Bob Dornan, you were a congressman all those years. Here's a president who's really nonverbal. He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West. I remember him standing at that fence with Colin Powell. Was [that] the best picture in the 2000 campaign?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Ann Coulter, you're the first to speak tonight on the buzz. The president's performance tonight, redolent of the best of Reagan -- what do you think?

COULTER: It's stunning. It's amazing. I think it's huge. I mean, he's landing on a boat at 150 miles per hour. It's tremendous. It's hard to imagine any Democrat being able to do that. And it doesn't matter if Democrats try to ridicule it. It's stunning, and it speaks for itself.

MATTHEWS: Pat Caddell, the president's performance tonight on television, his arrival on ship?

CADDELL: Well, first of all, Chris, the -- I think that -- you know, I was -- when I first heard about it, I was kind of annoyed. It sounded like the kind of PR stunt that Bill Clinton would pull. But and then I saw it. And you know, there's a real -- there's a real affection between him and the troops.

[...]

MATTHEWS: The president there -- look at this guy! We're watching him. He looks like he flew the plane. He only flew it as a passenger, but he's flown --

CADDELL: He looks like a fighter pilot.

MATTHEWS: He looks for real. What is it about the commander in chief role, the hat that he does wear, that makes him -- I mean, he seems like -- he didn't fight in a war, but he looks like he does.

CADDELL: Yes. It's a -- I don't know. You know, it's an internal thing. I don't know if you can put it into words. [...] You can see it with him and the troops, the ease with which he talks to them. I was amazed by that, frankly, because as I said, I was originally appalled, particularly when I heard he was going in an F-18. But -- on there -- but the -- but you know, that was --

MATTHEWS: Look at this guy!

CADDELL: -- was hard not to be moved by their reaction to him and his reaction to them and --

MATTHEWS: You know, Ann --

CADDELL: -- you know, they -- it's a quality. It's an innate quality. It's a real quality.

MATTHEWS: I know. I think you're right.

Later that day, on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Matthews said:

MATTHEWS: We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like [former President Bill] Clinton or even like [former Democratic presidential candidates Michael] Dukakis or [Walter] Mondale, all those guys, [George] McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. We don't want an indoor prime minister type, or the Danes or the Dutch or the Italians, or a [Russian Federation President Vladimir] Putin. Can you imagine Putin getting elected here? We want a guy as president.

this really is undeniable proof of not only how inaccurate 'straight shooters' have been about almost everything since 9.11 (and even before), but how wildly ridiculous and even absurd their forecasts were about virtually every matter of national significance (iraq, tax cuts, health care, gay rights, global warming).

Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2007 @ 12:02pm
Maybe you should take a few courses at a real university.,/i>

Oh, I have, trust me, and more.

Posted by PONTIFICUS

If that's true, you should demand the "university" return your tuition money. You obviously learned nothing.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 12:06pm
PONTI 1)The Amish are about the only ones who can claim to really be anti abortion.Most on the right have no problem with killing the born or unborn by bullets or bombs.2)Marriage has never had anything to do with making babies.Even those who couldn't have children were and are encouraged to get married.Marriage is all about expressing sexual urges in a socially acceptable manner.3) Government control over property is not a "leftist" thing.There are both right and left wing versions of socialism.You should have known that if you really studied political science.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 12:07pm
Are you cixelsyd?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 11:45am

Are you a satanist?

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 12:13pm
DOCTORFIXIT 03/07/2007 @ 12:08pm

Is there some kind of spam generator that these posts are coming from? Same shit, day after day, over and over. Invasion of the fact snatchers.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/07/2007 @ 12:14pm
doctor fixit's statements are so extraordinarily inaccurate as to constitute one fact:

he (or she) has been (in bush's parlance) propaganidized.

Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2007 @ 12:15pm
DOCTORFIXIT I do believe it was Bushco and their minions that said Saddam,9/11,Osama,AQ.,and Iraq in the same sentence 50 times a day everyday.80% of the country thought saddam did 9/11 because of it.It was a deliberate attempt to mislead or lie us into a war against what they knew was a powerless third world dictator.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 12:16pm
Posted by DOCTORFIXIT 03/07/2007 @ 12:08pm

Another lemming heard from. Do you have anything factual to add, or must this site put up with yet another Faux News parrot?

The level of your hatred is astounding - obviously you are in the 30% club, a true believer who hasn't met a fact that contradicts your ideology without spouting lemming boilerplate or attacking the Clintons, relevance notwithstanding.

Crawl back in your safe little hideout, crank up the Limbaugh, put Faux News on the TV, ignore reality, and feel safe in your little coccoon of self-righteous ignorance. You won't be missed.

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 12:17pm
little has been done to hold bush accountable for ANYTHING since he took office. when the day came that his administration finally did become accountable for something (libby's conviction), the conservatives go totally berzerk.

Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2007 @ 12:18pm
Posted by DOCTORFIXIT 03/07/2007 @ 12:08pm

Thanks for the voice of sanity. I'm sure the lunatics will go hog-wild.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 12:19pm
Are you cixelsyd?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 11:45am

Are you SUC IF T NO P ?

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 12:20pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/07/2007 @ 12:14pm

Is there some kind of spam generator that these posts are coming from? Same shit, day after day, over and over. Invasion of the fact snatchers.

It's that calm, persistent voice of sanity that is trying to pull you back from 'over there'. Go towards the light!

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 12:21pm
DARLADOON 03/07/2007 @ 12:02pm

I'd almost forgotten about the carrier landing. I remember seeing a conservative woman on some cable show, saying how all her friends thought he looked pretty hot in the flight suit, and I thought, this guy has to start a war to get the same kind of attention Bill Clinton used to get just by walking into the room.

And how sad to read the contemporaneous commentary you posted. Not only was the little celebration all for show, it turns out the whole damned war was too. Just to show we could kick some dictator ass.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/07/2007 @ 12:22pm
PONTI The lights are off and nobody is home at doctorfixits house.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 12:26pm
Pontificus, I think your name should be ROM, because you are only capable of repeating the same nonsense over and over, and apparently your memory is impermeable to facts and reality.

Your claims of being a genius notwithstanding, your lemming status is apparent for all to see. Now run along to spout your recording on another thread until someone else proves you wrong (it's inevitable).

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 12:26pm
I can't imagine how any American could have been afraid of saddam.They must be like that character Monk on T.V. who is afraid of everything.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 12:29pm
I've had plenty of political science education, and I still say that socialism is the guiding ideology of the left. Big government, big taxes, ever increasing control of the government over peoples' lives - isn't that what the left is in favor of?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 11:22am | ignore this person

Pontificus,

Turk33 has provided information from the court detailing the status of Valerie Plame, I have done so in previous postings, as have others, and yet you still seem to enjoy manning the oars for this ship of Viking-minded sociopaths. This is a very sad affair for you to cling to and if you were able to make an objective observation you'd see how absurd it is for conservatives to behave as groveling apologists for partisan criminals willing to place intelligence operatives on the table as "fair game" (Karl Rove quote) in order to crush legitmate dissent against a war long desired by these chickenhawk warriors. Ambassador Wilson was qualified for the mission so it really was a threadbare and pathetic angle for Cheney and gang to pursue in their blind rage. Please stop peddling conspiratorial fantasies of Fitzgerald and a legal system run amok chasing the good guys of the Bush adminstration out of personal malice or whatever motives you feel the need to conjure so to preserve your untenable political worldview.

As to the reference to big government and controlling peoples' lives I can't imagine how you can say this with a straight face in light of all the Republican big government, corporate welfare state policies initiated and developed by Reagan/Bush/Bush.

Posted by Oustbush at 03/07/2007 @ 12:32pm
DOCTORFIXIT and PONTIFICUS

Why don't you two go and rout one another in a game of butt darts? PONTI, I'm still waiting for an apology since I caught you using my posts and pawning them off as your own.

Posted by chimichenga at 03/07/2007 @ 12:33pm
Pontificus, I think your name should be ROM, because you are only capable of repeating the same nonsense over and over, and apparently your memory is impermeable to facts and reality.

Your claims of being a genius notwithstanding, your lemming status is apparent for all to see. Now run along to spout your recording on another thread until someone else proves you wrong (it's inevitable).

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 12:26pm | ignore this person

it really appears more as a result of some mental disorder, like Alzheimer's to be specific.

Posted by Oustbush at 03/07/2007 @ 12:34pm
I still say that socialism is the guiding ideology of the left. Big government, big taxes, ever increasing control of the government over peoples' lives - isn't that what the left is in favor of?

big government? you mean the one which is illegally wiretapping? the one which is building 700 mile long walls along the mexican border? the one which has dispelled with habeas corpus?

higher taxes? man, oh man. the promise of lower taxes is precisely how republicans get knuckle-draggers to vote for them. lower taxes do NOTHING but starve the government of much-needed funds for all kinds of things that all people use (except stupendously wealthy individuals). if this weren't true, then why does every single other western government have higher taxes? why is america the only country in the western world who deliberately and repeatedly runs roughshod over the most vulnerable people in its own country, while simulatenously favoring, and even buttressing, the interests of the wealthiest people on earth?

what is so bad about higher taxes? how much does one person need? look, if you've got enough to eat, a place to live, and clothes on your back----while millions have none of the aforementioned three---then you have no right to call yourself a christian.

Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2007 @ 12:42pm
Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2007 @ 11:44am

DD, where you been? Been missing you!

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 12:44pm
a great quote to reflect on for two minutes:

"complaining that i had no shoes until i met a man who had no feet"

you can always find someone who is less well off than you. and we have a right, a PATRIOTIC DUTY, to help those in need. that is real national security---feeding, housing and clothing those who are suffering. just look at average iraqis: no electricity, no health care, no education---leads to anger and resentment against the cause of this (the united states), and what do they want to do? they want to hurt us. well, i say, go ahead. hurt us. we deserve it.

Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2007 @ 12:45pm
Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2007 @ 12:42pm

Thanks for proving my point, Darla.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 12:45pm
hey mask!

i been away, in the desert, on a peyote trip-ritual. learned a lot....

Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2007 @ 12:49pm
Bwahhahahahah Darla, you are so cute. "low taxes do nothing but deprive the government of much needed funds"

It's true - truth is stranger than fiction. God you are funny!

LOL

lower taxes do NOTHING but starve the government of much-needed funds for all kinds of things that all people use (except stupendously wealthy individuals). if this weren't true, then why does every single other western government have higher taxes? why is america the only country in the western world who deliberately and repeatedly runs roughshod over the most vulnerable people in its own country, while simulatenously favoring, and even buttressing, the interests of the wealthiest people on earth?

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 12:49pm
Rarely does someone come along boasting such lack of originality and such awe-inspiring efforts at swallowing conscience-soothing lies, yet here we have DOCTORFIXIT, hero of the dull, Thane of inanity. As if this blog wasn't already bulging with spastic epigones anxious to refurbish the echoes of their favorite pundits, apparatchiks, fantacists and mind-benders, cue the latest lackey to enter with all the requisite bunkum, fearmongering, cries of wolf and vivas to the imperial slaughter, equipped with a plastic moniker that only contradicts every second-hand idea he's copped and copied here for the peanut gallery. And let us not overlook the bombast and flummery he brings to the table, as pathetic and petty as can be. It's funny how people like this, who no doubt grow up in a world where the world is defined and explained at the dinner table by mommy and daddy can go on in life with the same narrow-minded view of the world - one which is defined before being seen, instead of seen and then defined.

I'm here to declare war against you, DOCTORFIXIT, and promise you I'll be clouting you over the head with your monkey wrench every chance I get. Keep the drivel coming...

Posted by chimichenga at 03/07/2007 @ 12:50pm
Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2007 @ 12:49pm

Hey Darla, take another hit for me babe.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 12:50pm
PONTI Darla couldn't have proven your point.You don't have a point.You're just being argumentative and are avoiding those posts that have disproven your claims.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 12:53pm
PONTI You don't take hits of peyote.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 12:54pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/07/2007 @ 12:54pm

What, you didn't hear Darla? Any money that you earn that the government allows you to keep is just depriving them of much needed funds! I think Darla embodies the spirit of the left quite well.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 12:58pm
Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2007 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person

Are you serious? I sampled some myself down in Real de Catorce, México (where they filmed The Mexican) and had a wild time.

Posted by chimichenga at 03/07/2007 @ 12:58pm
PONTIFICUS MINIMUS,

Why do you avoid my accusations? Could it be because you have no defense?

Posted by chimichenga at 03/07/2007 @ 12:59pm
PONTI Your posts have proven you don't know what a left winger is.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 1:00pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/07/2007 @ 12:59pm

Nah, you're just boring. This place has knee-jerk ideologues aplenty to respond to. Post something original.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 1:01pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/07/2007 @ 1:00pm

I would say that Darla is one. Wouldn't you? Yearning to live off other people's money? Now that's what I call a leftist on the most basic level.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 1:02pm
My favorite Mencken quote. Applies to about 80 percent of leftists:

H. L. Mencken

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 1:05pm
PONTI You're being childish and simply want to argue.If you do know what a left winger is then you're pretending you don't so you can argue.My guess is that you have no idea what a left winger is because you don't care about that and just enjoy arguing.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 1:09pm
the same quote could easily be applied to the right.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 1:10pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/07/2007 @ 1:10pm

the same quote could easily be applied to the right.

I don't think you're going to find many conservatives who say that any of your money that the government allows you to keep is just depriving them of much needed funds. I pretty much think you have to come here to the Nation to hear that sort of thing.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 1:12pm
As noted on the last Libby thread....the mainstream media were complicit with the WH in not questioning and even championing the evidence in the run up to the war (this is relevant, because Wilson's Op-Ed was, at the time, arguably, the loudest dissenting voice of opinion, which is why the WH saw fit to do what they did to Wilson/Plame).

It is clear that at some level the corporate owned media saw the financial reward in higher TV news ratings and more newspaper sales in the event of the US going to war and the corporate media did their part to make sure it happened.

Unless as a society we recognize this fact and take action against the corporate media for their role in getting us into Iraq, we will see the same scenario repeatedly played out in the future.

Some demagogue US "leader" will elevate a comparative weakling into a virtual antichrist. The corporate media will enlarge and amplify the threat and we'll go to war. Over and over and over again.

Posted by freedomplease at 03/07/2007 @ 1:13pm
PONTI Your response to MTSPENCE had nothing to do with the quote you provided.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 1:16pm
then you have no right to call yourself a christian.

Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2007 @ 12:42pm

He's not. He's a satanist, an undeclared new con-man repub-satanista or a hsuB/heney-satanist. One's a little closer to the bottom than the other. Just expect lies on top of lies like der leader.

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 1:20pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/07/2007 @ 1:16pm

PONTI Your response to MTSPENCE had nothing to do with the quote you provided.

Oh I think it did. Darla thinks she's saving the world by taking other peoples' money. That's what I call saving the world by ruling it. And it's peculiar to the left, don't you think?

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 1:24pm
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

That's the quote.

Funny, contemporary economic policy is socialize the costs, privatize the profit.

But tell me, in a society where 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth, why is anyone other than that 10% paying taxes? Those that get the most from a society should have to give back the most. The police, military, schools that educate their employees, infrastructure--it all makes their profits possible.

I appreciate you think you know it all; that's why you need to go back to school. A good education helps you to learn that you know nothing and never will (and that forces you to open your mind so that you can begin to learn).

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 1:25pm
PONTI Hopefully,you're just kidding around.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 1:25pm
Apparently Pontificus is so threatened by the truth I have presented, he has ignored me (literally or figuratively). In either case, could someone please cut and past my post so that Pontificus, the Lord of Egypt, Prince of Denial, cannot claim that he couldn't respond (other than he has no answer to logic, reason and facts outside his limited worldview).

Thanks!

Here's a post for Pontificus, Prince of Denial (since he ran away on the other thread).

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.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 08:58am

Address the argument, not me.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 09:12am

Take your own advice. Fitzgerald, not some reporter, Fitzgerald "found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years..."

Address that!

Just because there was not enough proof is not evidence of innocence.

Address that!

Covert, clandestine, or otherwise, the leaking of a CIA agent's name for political purposes is cowardly, unethical, un-American, and reprehensible for an adminstration that was supposed to bring character back to the White House.

Address that!

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:29am

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:34am

I'm still waiting, and Pontificus is still running.

It's the Lemming bob-n-weave - respond to the minutiae, ignore the the big picture, pick at the the little scabs, ignore the gaping chest cavity - in essence, doing what the lemming-in-chief does: cherry-picking the information that supports his worldview, ignoring anything contradictory, hammering his version of reality whether or not it fits with the reality that is accepted by most of the world.

I know the real world is a scary place, but hiding and ignoring the truth is not the answer.

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 11:25am

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 1:26pm
I've got a quote for you, Puss: Mark 10:25 25: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Take that to your bible thumping grotesquely rich President, Vice President, Senate and House Republicans.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 1:28pm
I was struck by a black-and-white photograph dating back to 2003. It showed Dick Cheney conferring with Don Rumsfeld while Scooter Libby looks on attentively.

One has been sacked, one will probably go to jail - unless the president pardons him - and one has been sidelined.

They are, after all, the most high-profile casualties of their own war.

There is only one way the Libby saga can scoot to the next more damaging chapter. And that is if Scooter reveals the grimy entrails of the Bush White House.

That is assuming he possesses genuine, incriminating information and the public is prepared to believe a man who has been convicted of lying under oath.

In Hollywood they have a word for scripts that are bought by a studio but never made into a movie. They are "optioned".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6425311.stm

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 1:29pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/07/2007 @ 1:25pm

Funny, contemporary economic policy is socialize the costs, privatize the profit.

Horse puckey. Leftist babble used to indoctrinate the masses.

But tell me, in a society where 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth, why is anyone other than that 10% paying taxes?

The richest 10 percent of America pays almost all of the taxes. And most of the taxes benefit the other 90 percent.

Those that get the most from a society should have to give back the most.

They already do.

The police, military, schools that educate their employees, infrastructure--it all makes their profits possible.

Funny how the leftists always mention the least expensive parts of government first. Social security and medicare are the biggest parts of the budget, and growing. They will probably bankrupt us.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 1:31pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 1:05pm

That urge couldn't possible be from a spirit of altruism could it? Apparently the thought is so foreign to you wingnuts that you must presume the worst.

You are nearly as pitiful as your clueless leader...thanks goodness his imperious reign is nearing its end

Posted by leftofcenter at 03/07/2007 @ 1:31pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 03/07/2007 @ 1:31pm

That urge couldn't possible be from a spirit of altruism could it? Apparently the thought is so foreign to you wingnuts that you must presume the worst.

How is it 'altruism' for Darla to think she can save the world by taking and redistributing other peoples' money while she doses on peyote? That's a mighty cheap version of altruism if you ask me.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 1:36pm
Funny how the leftists always mention the least expensive parts of government first. Social security and medicare are the biggest parts of the budget, and growing. They will probably bankrupt us.

Social Security? That's paid through a tax separate from the income tax; and there is a ceiling on the amount that is taxable.

Funny, I'm not anywhere near wealthy but I pay income taxes, along with sales tax on everything.

Worried about medicare, medicaid? Take a look at what the rest of the industrialized world does with medical care.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 1:38pm
PONTI Is there a subject you know something about that we can discuss?

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 1:38pm
Hey, Ponti..., yesterday you told me you believe that Libby lied because he thought he had commiteed a crime. What crime could he have thought he committed?

Posted by nathanhale at 03/07/2007 @ 1:40pm
Funny, contemporary economic policy is socialize the costs, privatize the profit.

Horse puckey. Leftist babble used to indoctrinate the masses.

How many pro teams have paid for the new arenas and all the executive boxes in them (the boxes businesses get to right off)?

Corporations play one state against the other. You want us to build in your state, city? Great, but we've gotta have tax rebates and everything else we want.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 1:42pm
I predict that the 'Made a Mistake' number will go up by maybe 10% in a week or two, and then by more as we see more damning info about the hsuB/heney lies that were fed to us being published and talked about in hundreds of articles and the MSM.

USA Today/Gallup Poll. March 2-4, 2007. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

Date________Made a Mistake__Did Not Make a Mistake__Unsure

3/2-4/07___________59_______________39____________2

3/24-25/03_________23_______________75____________2

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 1:46pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/07/2007 @ 1:38pm

PONTI Is there a subject you know something about that we can discuss?

I don't know - is there a subject in which you have not been brainwashed?

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 1:46pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/07/2007 @ 1:42pm

How many pro teams have paid for the new arenas and all the executive boxes in them (the boxes businesses get to right off)?

Hey, you're preaching to the choir on that one. I'm not in favor of that shit. But guess what, I live in 100 percent liberal DC and it's those idiots that just gave away hundreds of millions to MLB. Talk to them about it, not me.

Corporations play one state against the other. You want us to build in your state, city? Great, but we've gotta have tax rebates and everything else we want.

You've got this one ass-backwards. Corporations provide jobs and pay taxes to support the government, not the other way around. Basic economics, but I'm sure you didn't learn that type of reality in YOUR ECON class.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 1:50pm
Posted by NATHANHALE 03/07/2007 @ 1:40pm

Hey, Ponti..., yesterday you told me you believe that Libby lied because he thought he had commiteed a crime. What crime could he have thought he committed?

You tell me. Maybe you can ask Fitz? If Libby thought he had broken the law, obviously he was wrong, because he has not been charged with anything other than lying itself.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 1:52pm
Darladoon, You ask why every other nation has higher taxes and we don't. My contention is that the LAST thing we want to do is act economically like all the other Western Gov's. The western Gov's also have socialized medicine, though I'm not certain thats a good thing either.

Consider this: The Western nations do all of these things economically, and because of this they can do almost nothing else but take care of themselves. What would the world be like if the United States could only take care of itself? No New Deal, No Great Society, as Mask mentioned once, but also no widespread supply of corn and wheat to war ravaged Europe after WWI, No Marshall Plan after WWII, no contributions to Tsunami victims in 2005. Our system is different from the rest of the West, yes, and because it is we have created the greatest wealth and surplus wealth the world has ever seen. When people quote those "10% owning 90%" figure, they make it sound like everyones' in poverty except the Bill Gates' of the world. A trip through any middle class neighborhood anywhere will tell you thats a very misleading image.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/07/2007 @ 1:54pm
Ponti I'm not even a leftist which really shows how little you know.It is in fact you who has been brainwashed to believe saddam was a threat,that left wingers are all socialists who want handouts,that only left wingers are socialists,that scientists are plotting with the global warming thing,etc etc.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 1:56pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 1:36pm

You make my case without realizing it. If Darla believes a redistribution of income will be in the greater benefit of humanity, then is this not born of altruism? She posits no nefarious aspects of "control" as you infer, just a betterment of many. I am not saying her viewpoint is correct or incorrect, but it is not Machiavellian by any stretch.

And if she feels like chewing up some cactus, puke and have some colorful visions...so be it. Its no skin offa my behind. Goodness knows there were times in my own life that I can attribute to "youthful indiscretion." The fact that I no longer feel a need for such mind-altering events is neither here nor there. However, it seems you claim morale superiority based on the fact...

Posted by leftofcenter at 03/07/2007 @ 1:57pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/07/2007 @ 1:56pm

Oh, I see you've moved the goal posts again. We were talking about Darla's rant, now we're talking about something else. Okay.....

Ponti I'm not even a leftist which really shows how little you know.

Well, you certainly agree with many, many leftist positions. Perhaps you can tell me what you really are, then.

It is in fact you who has been brainwashed to believe saddam was a threat,

I have not been brainwashed. I believed that before GWB even ran for Pres and I still believe it. You can call it brainwashing if you like, but when Iran is about to get nukes and North Korea already has them, I would say worrying about Saddam getting them was perfectly reasonable.

that left wingers are all socialists who want handouts,

I think that's true...

that only left wingers are socialists,

Wha......?

that scientists are plotting with the global warming thing,etc etc.

????? Where did that come from?

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 2:01pm
MSNBC confirms: Outed CIA agent was working on Iran

RAW STORY Published: Monday May 1, 2006

On Chris Matthews' Hardball Monday evening, just moments ago, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster confirmed what RAW STORY first reported in February: that outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was working on Iran at the time she was outed (Watch the video of Shuster's report here).

RAW STORY's Larisa Alexandrovna broke the story earlier this year, which went unnoticed by the mainstream media (Read our full story).

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

Reports Shuster in this rush transcript: "INTELLIGENCE SOURCES SAY VALERIE WILSON WAS PART OF AN OPERATION THREE YEARS AGO TRACKING THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS MATERIAL INTO IRAN. AND THE SOURCES ALLEGE THAT WHEN MRS. WILSON'S COVER WAS BLOWN, THE ADMINISTRATION'S ABILITY TO TRACK IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS WAS DAMAGED AS WELL."

MSNBC transcript follows (we apologize for the caps; they were in the original).

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_confirms_ Raw_Story_report_Outed_0501.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 2:03pm
You tell me... Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 1:52pm

That's your answer? You postulate that Libby lied because he thought he had comitted a crime, and I'm supposed to tell you what crime you think Libby believed he had committed?

That answer is unacceptable to me and the American people, Ponti. What crime do you believe Libby thought he might have committed?

Posted by nathanhale at 03/07/2007 @ 2:05pm
Ponti I'll get back to you when you give some clue that you know what leftist is.You were afraid of saddam even before bush was?That's sad.I couldn't imagine living in such fear.I guess I have more faith in my God.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 2:07pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 03/07/2007 @ 1:57pm

You make my case without realizing it. If Darla believes a redistribution of income will be in the greater benefit of humanity, then is this not born of altruism?

No, it is not. Saving the world by taking other peoples' money is not altruism. What is it, exactly? I'm not sure. But it ain't anything to be particularly proud of.

She posits no nefarious aspects of "control" as you infer, just a betterment of many. I am not saying her viewpoint is correct or incorrect, but it is not Machiavellian by any stretch.

Darla ain't smart enough to be Machiavellian. She's just a deluded pothead and mushroom eater who swallows all the left-wing cant that is indoctrinated in schools and broadcast in the media. What she needs is to get out in the world and find out how things really work. Actually, I'd say that about most people here.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 2:08pm
Posted by NATHANHALE 03/07/2007 @ 2:05pm

That answer is unacceptable to me and the American people, Ponti.

Oh excuuuuuuse me...I didn't think you spoke for the American people! Mr. President! lol

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 2:10pm
Are you serious? I sampled some myself down in Real de Catorce, México (where they filmed The Mexican) and had a wild time.

Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/07/2007 @ 12:58pm

Tried it 37 years ago(I was 17) down in Matamorus, Mexico and then onto the beaches on South Padre Island...it made me throw up, it was so bitter...but it did generate a wild ride. Wouldn't do now tho, ...

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 2:13pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/07/2007 @ 2:07pm

You were afraid of saddam even before bush was?That's sad.I couldn't imagine living in such fear.I guess I have more faith in my God.

Yeah, I guess I was deluded by the fact that Saddam started two major wars, gassed tens of thousands of men, women, and children, buried people in mass graves, made rape an instrument of polcy, tortured thousands of people to death, etc. Silly me for thinking he was a terrorist threat. Why, I guess I must be paranoid...

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 2:15pm
MT,

" Those that get the most from a society should have to give back the most."

They do...

"The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%"--IRS

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 2:17pm
Take that to your bible thumping grotesquely rich President, Vice President, Senate and House Republicans.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/07/2007 @ 1:28pm

Don't forget the Dems in there...moral giants like Kennedy, Clinton(both),ALGORE, Kerry, Edwards.....

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 2:20pm
Oh excuuuuuuse me...Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 2:10pm

Good dodge, Ponti! So, what crime do you believe Libby thought he might have committed?

Posted by nathanhale at 03/07/2007 @ 2:26pm
On corporate welfare:

Thyssen (a German steel maker) is going to build a steel mill in a Southern US State. The front runner as of this moment is Alabama as they are prepared to offer the German company $1B. Thyssen havn't decided yet because Mississippi might sweeten their offer.

If no State offered an incentive the mill would still be built in the Southern US (because the auto industry is in the process of relocating there). The USA would still get the investment and the jobs. Unfortunately, USA taxapyers located in Alabama will be providing $1B to corporate Germany.

Meantime, a few years ago and mark my words, in a few more years, the US Steel industry will once again squeal loudly about government subsidies to steel companies in China, Korea etc., but they will not be so quick to point out the subsidies they are more than willing to take.

Posted by freedomplease at 03/07/2007 @ 2:26pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 2:08pm

You confuse the ideal of altruism (the betterment of many) with the act of getting there (in Darla's case a redistribution of money) - the ideal is indeed "born of altruism" - whether you consider the action altruistic involves a value judgment. However the well from which it sprang cannot be so assessed. (Unless you are arguing it is more altruistic for CEOs to earn 400x of a workers wage, while people live in boxes under bridges, and the minimum wage is laughably below the poverty line.)

My secondary point, the fact you (and many of your ilk) cannot discern the difference in these details, or to defend the status quo of the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, again makes my point - you cannot talk about altruism as the idea is too foreign to your mindset to be comprehensible.

Posted by leftofcenter at 03/07/2007 @ 2:31pm
Pontificus the Super-Puss - only comments on subjects until he's been proven wrong. Then - POOF! - he runs and hides, only to reappear on other threads or responding to posters that he thinks he can out-BS, and then when he gets proven wrong again - POOF! - he's gone.

Kind of like the Lemming-in-chief's military service - POOF!

Here's my post - again. And there goes Pontificus, Lord of Egypt, Prince of Denial, avoiding the inevitable: arguing points that have been proven wrong, or admitting that he's wrong.

Here's a post for Pontificus, Prince of Denial (since he ran away on the other thread).

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.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 08:58am

Address the argument, not me.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 09:12am

Take your own advice. Fitzgerald, not some reporter, Fitzgerald "found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years..."

Address that!

Just because there was not enough proof is not evidence of innocence.

Address that!

Covert, clandestine, or otherwise, the leaking of a CIA agent's name for political purposes is cowardly, unethical, un-American, and reprehensible for an adminstration that was supposed to bring character back to the White House.

Address that!

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:29am

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:34am

I'm still waiting, and Pontificus is still running.

It's the Lemming bob-n-weave - respond to the minutiae, ignore the the big picture, pick at the the little scabs, ignore the gaping chest cavity - in essence, doing what the lemming-in-chief does: cherry-picking the information that supports his worldview, ignoring anything contradictory, hammering his version of reality whether or not it fits with the reality that is accepted by most of the world.

I know the real world is a scary place, but hiding and ignoring the truth is not the answer.

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 11:25am

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 2:33pm
"Yeah, I guess I was deluded by the fact that Saddam started two major wars, gassed tens of thousands of men, women, and children, buried people in mass graves, made rape an instrument of polcy, tortured thousands of people to death, etc. Silly me for thinking he was a terrorist threat. Why, I guess I must be paranoid...

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 2:15pm

Here is the crux of the matter that splits the US into left/right.....

I viewed Saddam as another threat in a long line of threats that were not taken seriously by any of the presidents in the past....starting with Carter and the hostages...Reagan and Beruit Barracks, Bush 1 with Mogadishu and Iraq 1,Clinton and WT first time, embassys, Cole, Bush 2 with 9/11...this stuff has been going on for years....which is why many of us are more afraid of the left in this country, for they see NO danger except Bush...the rest didn't exist or matter...Saddam was flipping of the very UN you worhip and it did nothing, because it can't...This is why the NO WMDs didn't matter to us...we new he ALREADY had them and used them...you are a threat on the left because you will open the door to the killers and APOLOGISE to them for us not letting them in earlier...

AS far as Bin Laden arguement...should we have invaded Pakistan if we knew he is there? Or could we just substitute the word PAKISTAN for IRAQ and have the same rants from the left as we have now?

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 2:37pm
PONTI I was unaware that saddam started two major wars.Can you tell me when he did that.It sucks that dictators exist,but we can't run around attacking them all not only because we don't have the resources,but quite often trying to save the downtrodden can backfire on you.I,also,find it hard to believe that so many on the right cared about the Muslims in Iraq.That seems to contradict the many anti Muslim things so many on the right say.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 2:45pm
"The USA would still get the investment and the jobs. Unfortunately, USA taxapyers located in Alabama will be providing $1B to corporate Germany."

Actually, this logic you use is comparable to have your teeth examined by a protologist...wrong end of the problem..

The $1 Billion is NOT GIVEN TO A COMPANY as a check out of the pockets of the tax payers of Alabama...it is simply $ 1 billion less that they would be taking FROM THE COFFERS OF THE STEEL company under normal situations...... right now the state has nothing to take or give...if the company opens in Alabama, then the taxes will pour into the state coffers where today there are none, and we are not even including the taxes that will poor into the tax treasury from all the new income earners and all the new purchases made by high wage earners in the form of sales taxes...the benefits out weigh a decrease offer in what the state will take IF they locate there.

This is so elementry and I am always stunned at this backward arguement...the flip side is to agree with the complainers and say..."you are right, and we will locate somewhere else..bye".

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 2:46pm
Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2007 @ 12:49pm

Well that's cool....just be careful you don't do it in a sensory deprivation tank...otherwise you might come out an ape-man or William Hurt!

(cultural references explained upon request)

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 2:46pm
..."will once again squeal loudly about government subsidies to steel companies in China, Korea etc., but they will not be so quick to point out the subsidies they are more than willing to take.

Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/07/2007 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person

Especially the steel companies that did not locate in Alabama and went to China or Korea instead...

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 2:48pm
AS far as Bin Laden arguement...should we have invaded Pakistan if we knew he is there? Or could we just substitute the word PAKISTAN for IRAQ and have the same rants from the left as we have now?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/07/2007 @ 2:37pm

How about we should have stayed in Afghanistan where he was hiding! How about staying in Afghanistan with the near unanimous support of Dems and Repubs, and most of the international community! Instead of the non-sequitor to Iraq on the road to solving the Lemming-in-Chief's puerile need to be better than his father and Darth Cheney's sociopathic need to grease the palms of his corporate cronies. OBL was in Afghanistan, and President "We'll get him dead or alive" Bush made the incredibly moronic decision to let OBL off the hook to go after a tin-pot tyrant who was mostly toothless. If Saddam scared you more than OBL, then you are sadly mis-informed. Unless you thought that there were terrorists in Iraq before the American invasion, even though there was absolutely no evidence of such (except in the North where Saddam had less control, and he wanted them there as little as anybody).

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 2:50pm
I believe subsidies is the wrong word as it implies the govt sending a check TO a company ,...it would be correctly termed offering a "reduction" in the amount we will TAKE FROM the company.

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 2:50pm
Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 2:50pm

He didn't stay in Afganistan...he moved into Pakistan...should we invade Pakistan?

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 2:51pm
And no one said or implied Saddam scared me, or anyone else, more or less than OBL...both were part of a problem for the West in general and needed to be dealt with accordingly...we haven't even begun to have a final deal with the ME...

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 2:54pm
BTW, on the resurrected for the 1,000,000th time discussion of socialism and socialists....

I mind a WHOLE LOT LESS someone who is OPENLY and admittedly a socialist...

than some "progressive" or "liberal" who espouses socialism, pretty blatently, and when asked (even politely) if they are a "socialist"...get indignent, start yelling "McCarthyism!!", and then rejoin with "And hey, what's wrong with socialism anyway???"

These are the "crypto-socialists" who are too cowardly to defend what they believe under the appropriate term for it...because the term is associated with the "S" in USSR or any of a half dozen socialist dictatorships over the past 85 years.

And for your "progressives, not socialists"...I'll simply ask

WHERE do you define the "border"? In other words, where would you fight against a policy to your Left, as you would one that was "right-wing" or "conservative"? And if there IS no "border"...then what are you....really?

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 2:58pm
Mash,

You don't have a clue.

Posted by freedomplease at 03/07/2007 @ 2:59pm
Jm Bin Laden was able to move there thanks to bush.If we know where these training sites are in Pakistan then we should bomb them,but Bush has no credibility so we pretty much have to wait for the next president before we act.Few would believe him if he said the camps or bin laden were there.America is in a horrid position right now because only the most gullible believe anything bush says.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 3:00pm
He didn't stay in Afganistan...he moved into Pakistan...should we invade Pakistan?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/07/2007 @ 2:51pm

Did he escape to Pakistan before or after we moved our military en masse to Iraq? I know (as do you) that it was after our military presence was weakened by the detour through Iraq.

And Pakistan, at least nominally, is supporting the US. The Afghani government, the Taliban (resurging, by the way), overtly supported and sheltered OBL. It's a faulty connection, and I think you're smart enough to know that.

Are you being obtuse for a reason, or are you really that ignorant?

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 3:01pm
Hey, you're preaching to the choir on that one. I'm not in favor of that shit. But guess what, I live in 100 percent liberal DC and it's those idiots that just gave away hundreds of millions to MLB. Talk to them about it, not me.

Corporations play one state against the other. You want us to build in your state, city? Great, but we've gotta have tax rebates and everything else we want.

You've got this one ass-backwards. Corporations provide jobs and pay taxes to support the government, not the other way around. Basic economics, but I'm sure you didn't learn that type of reality in YOUR ECON class.

Posted by PONTIFICUS

That's it, blame it on the liberals.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Why do you think so many corporations have moved to TX? There are no corporate taxes down here, moron. And corporation are concerned with the bottom line, not creating jobs. Further more, corporations routinely play states and cities against one another. Give us tax breaks, rebates; and the entities do it with the argument that they are "creating" jobs. The workers get to pay a share of their own salaries.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 3:11pm
And no one said or implied Saddam scared me, or anyone else, more or less than OBL

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/07/2007 @ 2:54pm

But you did imply that by your support for an ill-advised excursion into a country that had not nor never had directly attacked the US, and explicit support for the removal of troops that were containing a man and his operations who had actually attacked the US. You can't have it both ways. If Saddam wasn't worse than OBL, then why didn't we finish the "dead or alive" job in Afghanistan? Or if Saddam was worse than OBL, and that is why you supported the pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation, and thus the igoring of OBL, then why didn't we attack Iraq before taking care of the pseky OBL?

Or if they are equal threats, why have we spent so much time, money, and American blood in Iraq?

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 3:13pm
"Did he escape to Pakistan before or after we moved our military en masse to Iraq? I know (as do you) that it was after our military presence was weakened by the detour through Iraq. "

It doesn't matter, but lets say the first day after we invaded Afganistan he started to move around in the area and retreated to a place in Pakistan...should we go get him, provided we REALLY knew where he was?

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:15pm
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%"--IRS

Posted by JOHN MAASCH

How much wealth does that top 1% control? It's more than 30% of the population.

Don't forget the Dems in there...moral giants like Kennedy, Clinton(both),ALGORE, Kerry, Edwards.....

Posted by JOHN MAASCH

The Dems do not claim to represent god.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 3:15pm
You think we should just bomb and independent country who never attacked us and did not hit us on 9/11?

Really?

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:16pm
" know (as do you) that it was after our military presence was weakened by the detour through Ir"

No, you do not know that, you believe that...and there is a huge gap between knowlege and belief..

I believe we did not weaken our military in Afganistan by going to Iraq...

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:18pm
believe we did not weaken our military in Afganistan by going to Iraq...

Posted by JOHN MAASCH

All the resources we sent into Iraq could have been applied to Afghanistan.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 3:20pm
The Dems do not claim to represent god.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/07/2007 @ 3:15pm

You might want to check in with Edwards and Obama today on this one..

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:20pm
The amount of resource put into Iraq I don't beleive weren't ever going into Afganistan.

You guys are being a little obtuse...yeah, we chase bin Laden around in the maze of Afganistan and he ends up in Pakistan and you thinks it ok to bomb them...our "ally"....which would most likely topple Mushareef and put another general in charge who thinks he is the next imam and goes full force against the US..only he will have support of all ofTaliban, Pakistan,including their nuclear military.... and the ISI..and by then, Bin Laden...and by then , your buddy, Saddam, who would still be ther, could hand out $ 25,000 per family killed by US in Paki or who ever kills a US ....I believe this would be a very likely senario

Congrats, you have bogged us down in a mountainous land war with Afgans, Pakis, and BIN Laden...perfefct.

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:26pm
Either way, it does exculpate all those rich Republicans masquerading as Christians. Dem, Repub--it doesn't matter, but if you're a true Christian maybe you should think about what your good book says about wealth.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 3:27pm
JM The military says we have been weakened by going into Iraq.If Pakistan is protecting those that attacked us then they aren't independent.The taliban didn't attack us on 9/11.They protected those that attacked us and the vast majority of Americans figured protecting is close enough to being involved to attack their country.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 3:29pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/07/2007 @ 2:37pm | ignore this person

Well, what do we have here? Yet another instance of al-amriki believing all the hype about a few thugs and vandals yet still fearing for his life at every turn in the road. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! To think al-Qaeda is anything more than a tatterdemalion tribe of ignorant Muslims who manage to successfully prey upon their other angry brethren and turn them into bombs is an idiot. Secret cells? Nah. Fighting them in Boston (or any other US city)? Nah. Are they bent on world empire? (If you answer yes to this, can you do so without laughing?) Bush and the Tories turned Iraq into a battlefield, as planned, and are now trying to pull as many of Iraq's neighbors into the conflagration in order to "sow democracy" (hard not to laugh at this one, too). Ah, but all those weapons half the budget goes into creating need wars in order to have a cause, hence the desperate witch hunts by the Straussians and saber-rattling with fingers on the triggers as the very existence of the eternally-assaulted home of Yankee Doodle on the verge of annihilation…

Funny how MAASCH makes no mention of a border which now is not only porous, but efforts are in the works to open it and that with Canada, which would allow a whole array of bandits and villains to enter the Homeland. No mention about corporate sponsors doing business with enemy states, nothing about New Orleans still reeling from Katrina, no mention about the failure of No Child Left Behind, nothing about the continued exportation of jobs overseas, nothing about the increasing debt with China or the fact that the American Dream depends more each day on a Chinese sandman, nothing about deteriorating American values, growing divorce rates, the spread of voter apathy, the sad future promised by today's Generation Rx, ect..

But as is the case with every americano frightened by his very shadow, everyone is a possible enemy, including the guy up the street, especially if he isn't of the same mind as you, even more so if he doesn't look like you do. To accuse the Democrats of being dangerous is as hostile a declaration as you can make in a country apparently at war with an shapeless, stateless, envious, freedom-hating, dastardly enemy who may strike you down in any number of nefarious ways so long as his will is good. The more I read the twaddle smeared across this blog the more I realize the term "United States" is officially defunct, for once half the citizenry is accused of aiding and abetting the enemy, sympathizing with terrorists or being considered a "threat" as the savant MAASCH so sincerely states above, there is nothing that unites the land but fear, anger, hatred, and the desire to bring more people into the abattoir. An American without a war is like an astronomer without a sky.

Posted by chimichenga at 03/07/2007 @ 3:31pm
Saddam did not deal with religious groups or anybody else he could not control. He was a Stalinist, control was everything to him. More forces in Afghanistan and along the Paki border would have allowed the military to eradicate the Taliban and Al Queda elements. Now, however, we are mired in an endless struggle in Iraq--which as strengthened Iran, weakened the US, and fueled the anti-American sentiment that is Al Queda.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 3:31pm
Hey, Ponti, if it helps you to explain why Libby might have lied, check out the following grab from the Libby indictment.

f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson ("Valerie Wilson"). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

You can read the full indictment at www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

[also, please share with LVLIBERTY1 that Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was classified]

Posted by nathanhale at 03/07/2007 @ 3:32pm
You think we should just bomb and independent country who never attacked us and did not hit us on 9/11?

Really?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH

Isn't that what your administration did to Iraq?

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 3:35pm
How much wealth does that top 1% control?

It's more than 30% of the population.

Maybe or maybe not. It is not really related, since you are talking taxes which do not connect linearly to control of wealth or property..

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:39pm
Nobody, I agree about the Taliban and Pakistan, but we would be in a bigger fight with sickening causulties coming out of the Pkai/Afgan aread than Iraq could ever produce...

Also, I have heard various generals on TV say we are not hurt in Afgan by Iraq troops levels...for sure civilians such as you and I are the last to know if that is true or not...if ever we would know.

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:43pm
There is no point in babbling with Mash.

He's virtually retarded and just makes the same 10-12 unsubtatiated points over and over again (even after debunking) just because he thinks it pisses you off.

Same goes for PONTI (but he only has about 6-8 points).

Still if you're babbling with him for your own amusement like a cat plays with a mouse for amusement then all I can say is, have fun.

Posted by freedomplease at 03/07/2007 @ 3:43pm
Now, Now, Chimi..

...adults are having a conversation here..remember your manners go back and play in Columbia and when we are finished here we will call you and you can come and talk to us about savants..theres a good boy...

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:45pm
How much wealth does that top 1% control? It's more than 30% of the population.

I meant to write: It's more than 30% of the wealth, i.e., their share of taxes is not comparable to what they take in.

Oh, but, of course, we should cut taxes on this fortunate few because they will make jobs--in India, China, Indonesia!

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 3:45pm
Oh, but, of course, we should cut taxes on this fortunate few because they will make jobs--in India, China, Indonesia!

Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/07/2007 @ 3:45pm

I do think so,but I think we should switch to a different form of taxation other than income...it is inefficient.

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:46pm
Freedom...Chimi is looking for you..go find him and play...adults are have a conversation here.

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:47pm
Isn't that what your administration did to Iraq?

Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/07/2007 @ 3:35pm

Isn't that what you think?

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:49pm
Just a reminder to all:

This blog is the extent of your power, or rather, the illusion of power you believe to possess in your great land of free choice and democracy. That you all take the show so seriously is hilarious, for it's the equivalent of parents brawling in the stands at a T-ball game. So long as none of you mouse potatos actually try to organize people or take some of the ideas broached here to a wider audience, the managers of society will continue to laugh at your impotency and straight-faced charades while they go on with their business of carving up the world, setting it afire and shoving it piece by piece into their pockets. I hope I'm not the only one who gets a kick out of the idiocy of this blog and the fuel it provides for a merry prankster.

Posted by chimichenga at 03/07/2007 @ 3:49pm
Please, Mr. Maasch, be so kind as to cite facts on the share of income that the different groups pay in taxes in relation to the incomes they earn. (What I mean is what effect does taking $10 from someone with $100 have in comparison to taking $2 million from someone that has $200 million).

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 3:50pm
I do think so,but I think we should switch to a different form of taxation other than income...it is inefficient.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH

It's application is ineffecient.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 3:51pm
MT,

Sorry, should read...I don't think so...

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:51pm
MAASCH,

What's scary is, you're probably middle-aged and actually able to walk and chew gum at the same time, yet you still come here to give third and fourth winds to reverberations of yesterday's headlines and catchphrases. Nothing you say is original and every post is imbued with your brand of smuggness and superiority. You could care less about anyone but yourself and it shows. So call me a child, but at least I have a mind of my own instead of a central nervous system plugged into Fox News.

Posted by chimichenga at 03/07/2007 @ 3:54pm
Yes carbon based taxation would be better than income based taxation.

Posted by freedomplease at 03/07/2007 @ 3:54pm
we've been made the fool again. fitzgerald announces his job is over, and we have snared the janitor, this has got to be a bad joke. so many lies, and so much corruption could have come out of this at the highest levels, but the dumb public assumes justice has been served.. yeah, right

Posted by SAMBO at 03/07/2007 @ 3:55pm
Please, Mr. Maasch, be so kind as to cite facts on the share of income that the different groups pay in taxes in relation to the incomes they earn. (What I mean is what effect does taking $10 from someone with $100 have in comparison to taking $2 million from someone that has $200 million).

Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/07/2007 @ 3:50pm

My numbers came from the IRS web site on taxes..

My point is Some people have millions, say, Bill Clinton made $ 40 million from speeches this year and place $ 5million in an account for dipersment to charitys, for which he gets a $ 5 m iilon tax deduction...if Bill works it right, he would pay tax on a lessor amount, even tho he never dipersed the charity check..

He is in the 1% earner bracket, but it doesn't reflect his welth..same for the guy who has $ 100 million in property but never sells it cause he has to pay capital gains on it...since he generated no income, he then has no tax...is he in your upper 30%?

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:57pm
Common sense does help, not everything is a fact for references purposes...many things are what they seem...

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:57pm
MAASCH,

What's scary is, you're probably middle-aged and actually able to walk and chew gum at the same time, yet you still come here to give third and fourth winds to reverberations of yesterday's headlines and catchphrases. Nothing you say is original and every post is imbued with your brand of smuggness and superiority. You could care less about anyone but yourself and it shows. So call me a child, but at least I have a mind of my own instead of a central nervous system plugged into Fox News.

Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/07/2007 @ 3:54pm

Good for you...you must be proud...have a cookie.

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:59pm
Give one to Freedom before he claims you stole his.

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 3:59pm
The best thing Bush has going for his adminstration is the pure momentum of accumulated horrors that by their own numbers, bounce the latest scandal from the limelight; attention of Iraq (now-Civil) War quagmire disaster- precedes global condemnation for the failure to tackle the impending consequences of reckless energy consumption (Global Warming)- is replaced by systemic neglect of returning war veterans and privatization of government services (Walter Reed and beyond)-now cast from news cycle by conviction of Libby and the scandal of political revenge against CIA operative- soon to be bumped from prime time by unprecedented firings of Federal Attorneys in more corporate cronyism...and so on...

Posted by Oustbush at 03/07/2007 @ 4:03pm
CHIMICHENGA 03/07/2007 @ 3:49pm

That was rude. Some of us use this forum to refine our ideas and test arguments. And then take what we have learned and apply it to the political system, such as it is. Ironically, the prankster views that you express are often the most useful, as they expose the genuinely silly.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/07/2007 @ 4:04pm
JM The other day it was reported that a general in Afghanistan was asked what he needed for the upcoming fight with the taliban and he said,"At least another Brigade".You don't have to be in the military to figure out that if these people are regrouping,setting up training camps etc. that things aren't being done correctly.If you're going to fight wars, then fight them.War isn't a game you play on the cheap for political reasons.We shouldn't have attacked saddam in the first place,but if you're going to attack then attack like you mean it.You don't play games like "How few soldiers can I put in there and how little equipment can I give them and still maybe win someday".We are the most powerful country the world has ever known and we can't secure some small chunk of desert that is Iraq.They don't even have jungles and mountains to hide in.As to Afghanistan and Pakistan.If somebody attacks you then kick their butts no matter where they hide.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 4:04pm
Look, I am trying to add something no one has talked about here....Pakistan...and some of you are saying we could do to Pakistan what we shouldn't to Iraq, but I am wondering what others would do if we actually went into Pakistan and told MUshareff to screw himself...or would the same yellpers just switch from Iraq to Pakistan and hold the same arguements...would we have had to put up with a Cindy Sheehan and her circus.

Many of you bellar like a cow at feeding time about getting bin Laden..ok, lets go get him in the manner you want...supposedly he has been seen wondering around southern Pakistan and Afganistan...what are the consquences if we go get him?

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 4:05pm
I somewhat appreciate the complexities of wealth and it's management--somewhat. My point is that a society in which a mere 10% of the population control roughly 90% of the wealth, the vast portion of the population they doesn't make enough to invest (even in a house) should not be paying taxes (hell, that money would go straight into the economy anyway because they'd spend it on goods and services).

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 4:07pm
this is the tempest in a teapot, a stretch at best in a never ending attempt to stop "W". Good try, but a pardon will silence them all.

Posted by woco74 at 03/07/2007 @ 4:08pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/07/2007 @ 4:04pm

I couldn't agree more...I , personally, would have entered Iraq and Afganistan without 500,000 men, and if I need them I would have gotten more recruiyts.

I have always felt that if American feels it is necessary to go to war, then we either go in like MFers and kick ass in such a manner that those who have watch from the side line never want a piece...if we are not prepared to do that, they we do not go at all.

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 4:10pm
this is the tempest in a teapot, a stretch at best in a never ending attempt to stop "W". Good try, but a pardon will silence them all.

Posted by woco74 at 03/07/2007 @ 4:10pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/07/2007 @ 4:04pm | ignore this person

Fair enough, I savvy. I just believe people take the whole parody way too far. Either way, I'll think a lot more of blogging when it unglues people from their PCs and gets them out in their communities to debate these issues on a greater scale to a wider audience where people must confront one another face to face. There's something very impersonal about blogging, as there is with most technologies these days. There is too much cover here.

Posted by chimichenga at 03/07/2007 @ 4:11pm
"They go after the bos for stealing money from the company and end finding the janitor guilty of parking violations...and the left thinks this is a victory...ridculious waste of time...compare this to Burger or Jefferson in Louisana...amazing 2 tier clown show..." -Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/06/2007 @ 8:18pm

This talking point is one of the lamest I've seen in some time. Libby is very much a part of this criminal organization that believes itself immune from all dissent; and let me be clear here, everyone who committed crimes in this administration is a criminal. They are not above the law, whether due to a signing statement or anything else they dream up. Libby may be a lackey, but he is far from innocent, he deserves his sentence because he is actually a criminal. Though it's a little bit too much, I really want to compare this situation with any and all of the Bush lackeys to those people in the Nazi party who were "just doing what they were told to do". As if that somehow exonerates anyone fully, for their actions. Jefferson should be prosecuted as well, from everything I've heard, there is strong evidence with which to convict.

Posted by matts30 at 03/07/2007 @ 4:12pm
Matt,

and let me be clear here, everyone who committed crimes in this administration is a criminal. sure.

Let me be clear here..I am not in favor of trials like the one you posted above...Fitz is done. He said there is no where to go ..Ergo, no evidence has been found to support your belief, no charges filed, no one arrested or on trial. Nothing...now we can investigate, as we can investigate you, for the next 2 years and I am sure we could find something about you to charge you....is that what you want to do?

There is nothing there for you to demand a public hanging except your open hatred for all things Bush and republican...that is not justice or even right...it is obsessive sickness..and it is rampant here...this site , if you actually read some of these guys....is infested with the disease.

Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2007 @ 4:26pm
I have always felt that if American feels it is necessary to go to war, then we either go in like MFers and kick ass in such a manner that those who have watch from the side line never want a piece...if we are not prepared to do that, they we do not go at all.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH

I thought that was one of the lessons of Vietnam.

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 4:27pm
John Maasch,

Fair enough point about Pakistan and Bin Laden, but I believe the guy is irrelevant. Bin Laden and his cronies make their case about America, and then people examine how America behaves and juxtapose the al-Qaeda statement with the real-world actions. Simple. You might not believe in violence although you acknowledge some truth to the Bin laden arguments; after all, he was legitimate enough to be used in the proxy war terrorizing Russians in Afghanistan a couple of decades ago. If the US didn't respond as if they were attached to puppet strings manipulated by Bin Laden himself then the vast majority of those sought after by al-Qaeda recruiters would just say "Piss off!" But if Bin Laden is portraying America as a Super-greedy-imperial-hegemon stomping through the Middle East starting wars because they claim they can target anyone jeopardizing "their" interests,ie., strict control over ME oil, well, then Bush is the best thing to ever happen to his like-minded nemesis; who is also the spoiled son of oil barons.

Posted by Oustbush at 03/07/2007 @ 4:31pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/07/2007 @ 2:45pm

PONTI I was unaware that saddam started two major wars.Can you tell me when he did that.

He invaded Iran in 1980 and fought for eight years; millions were killed, and poison gas was used extensively for the first time since WWI. This charming little war was also noted for the use of swarms of dissidents and unarmed children ('martyrs') by the Iranian mullahs to clear minefields. Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, and was repelled by GW I and an international coalition. Ironically, the invasion of Iran is not considered one of top five major crimes against humanity.

For many in America, George Bush is considered to be more of a criminal than Saddam, an idea which pretty well demonstrates the utter moral degeneracy of the American left.

It sucks that dictators exist,but we can't run around attacking them all not only because we don't have the resources,but quite often trying to save the downtrodden can backfire on you.I,also,find it hard to believe that so many on the right cared about the Muslims in Iraq.That seems to contradict the many anti Muslim things so many on the right say.

Really? BJ Clinton attacked the Serbs (which I supported), and we had utterly no national interest in that fight other than humanitarian reasons. Same with Somalia. I didn't see too many 'principled' leftists going to the mat over those wars. But then, I guess George Bush wasn't involved either.

And in Iraq, we definitely had a national interest. Saddam was ready, willing, and able to procure WMD, including nuclear devices, in much the same manner that Iran and North Korea has been able to. The fact that he broke his treaty (even if the gutless and toothless UN was unable to enforce its own agreements) and was a bloody murderous dictator only made it all the sweeter when we took him out.

Top 5 Crimes of Saddam Hussein From Jennifer Rosenberg, Your Guide to 20th Century History. FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq from 1979 until 2003, has gained international notoriety for torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. Hussein believes he ruled with an iron fist to keep his country, divided by ethnicity and religion, intact. However, his actions bespeak a tyrannical despot who stopped at nothing to punish those who opposed him.

Having been captured, Saddam Hussein will now be tried for his past crimes. Though prosecutors have hundreds of crimes to choose from, these five are some of Hussein's most heinous.

1. Reprisal Against Dujail

On July 8, 1982, Saddam Hussein was visiting the town of Dujail (50 miles north of Baghdad) when a group of Dawa militants shot at his motorcade. In reprisal for this assassination attempt, the entire town was punished. More than 140 fighting-age men were apprehended and never heard from again. Approximately 1,500 other townspeople, including children, were rounded up and taken to prison, where many were tortured. After a year or more in prison, many were exiled to a southern desert camp. The town itself was destroyed; houses were bulldozed and orchards were demolished.

Though Saddam's reprisal against Dujail is considered one of his lesser-known crimes, it has been chosen as the first for which he will be tried.

2. Anfal Campaign

Officially from February 23 to September 6, 1988 (but often thought to extend from March 1987 to May 1989), Saddam Hussein's regime carried out the Anfal (Arabic for "spoils") campaign against the large Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The purpose of the campaign was ostensibly to reassert Iraqi control over the area; however, the real goal was to permanently eliminate the Kurdish problem.

The campaign consisted of eight stages of assault, where up to 200,000 Iraqi troops attacked the area, rounded up civilians, and razed villages. Once rounded up, the civilians were divided into two groups: men from ages of about 13 to 70 and women, children, and elderly men. The men were then shot and buried in mass graves. The women, children, and elderly were taken to relocation camps where conditions were deplorable. In a few areas, especially areas that put up even a little resistance, everyone was killed.

Hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled the area, yet it is estimated that up to 182,000 were killed during the Anfal campaign. Many people consider the Anfal campaign an attempt at genocide.

3. Chemical Weapons Against Kurds

As early as April 1987, the Iraqis used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq during the Anfal campaign. It is estimated that chemical weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages, with the largest of these attacks occurring on March 16, 1988 against the Kurdish town of Halabja.

Beginning in the morning on March 16, 1988 and continuing all night, the Iraqis rained down volley after volley of bombs filled with a deadly mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents on Halabja. Immediate effects of the chemicals included blindness, vomiting, blisters, convulsions, and asphyxiation. Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within days of the attacks. Long-term effects included permanent blindness, cancer, and birth defects. An estimated 10,000 lived, but live daily with the disfigurement and sicknesses from the chemical weapons.

Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid was directly in charge of the chemical attacks against the Kurds, earning him the epithet, "Chemical Ali."

4. Invasion of Kuwait

On August 2, 1990, Iraqi troops invaded the country of Kuwait. The invasion was induced by oil and a large war debt that Iraq owed Kuwait. The six-week, Persian Gulf War pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in 1991. As the Iraqi troops retreated, they were ordered to light oil wells on fire. Over 700 oil wells were lit, burning over one billion barrels of oil and releasing dangerous pollutants into the air. Oil pipelines were also opened, releasing 10 million barrels of oil into the Gulf and tainting many water sources. The fires and the oil spill created a huge environmental disaster.

5. Shiite Uprising & the Marsh Arabs

At the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, southern Shiites and northern Kurds rebelled against Hussein's regime. In retaliation, Iraq brutally suppressed the uprising, killing thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq.

As supposed punishment for supporting the Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam Hussein's regime killed thousands of Marsh Arabs, bulldozed their villages, and systematically ruined their way of life. The Marsh Arabs had lived for thousands of years in the marshlands located in southern Iraq until Iraq built a network of canals, dykes, and dams to divert water away from the marshes. The Marsh Arabs were forced to flee the area, their way of life decimated.

By 2002, satellite images showed only 7 to 10 percent of the marshlands left. Saddam Hussein is blamed for creating an environmental disaster.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 4:33pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 4:33pm | ignore this person

I didn't see the information on your list detailing the Reagan adminstration's assistance with satellite technology enabling Hussein to target the Iranian and Kurds with poison. Or the Senate passed resolution sanctioning Iraq for crimes of genocide following Halabja and the other crimes, with Reagan administration officials, along with House leadership, killing the legislation.

Posted by Oustbush at 03/07/2007 @ 4:43pm
PONTI The war with Iran and the Kuwait thing are tiny blips on the radar of history.Neither is a major war.Iraq fought Iran.Neither is our friend and I've seen bigger bar room brawls than the Kuwait war.Saddam was evil.Dictators are,but I'm not buying any big right wing concern for gassed Muslims.9/11 put saddam on the back burner so there is no justification for the war in Iraq.I believe violence should be used for defense only so you'll never convince me.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 4:44pm
5. Shiite Uprising & the Marsh Arabs

At the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, southern Shiites and northern Kurds rebelled against Hussein's regime. In retaliation, Iraq brutally suppressed the uprising, killing thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq.

As supposed punishment for supporting the Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam Hussein's regime killed thousands of Marsh Arabs, bulldozed their villages, and systematically ruined their way of life. The Marsh Arabs had lived for thousands of years in the marshlands located in southern Iraq until Iraq built a network of canals, dykes, and dams to divert water away from the marshes. The Marsh Arabs were forced to flee the area, their way of life decimated.

By 2002, satellite images showed only 7 to 10 percent of the marshlands left. Saddam Hussein is blamed for creating an environmental disaster.

Posted by PONTIFICUS

Did not the US instigate this uprising? And then fail to follow through with support?

Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 4:47pm
Congrats, you have bogged us down in a mountainous land war with Afgans, Pakis, and BIN Laden...perfefct.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/07/2007 @ 3:26pm

That's as may be, but it would have been justified since we would be prosecuting a war with someone who was actually a proven threat to American soil.

Instead, using "unassailable" logic of lemmings, we went to war in a country more amenable to our military capabilities, despite a lack of provocation (Got WMD's?).

And you keep harping "So should we invade Pakistan?," when it is that same lemming logic that probably allowed OBL to escape to Pakistan in the first place!

Apparently you are that ignorant. Your circular logic is unassailable, because you refuse to let facts dilute your arguments.

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 4:53pm
Oh Pontificus (aka Super Puss; aka Lord of Egypt, Prince of Denial):

Will you just admit that you are wrong, or will you continue to hide like a scared little rodent, shaking in your nest?

Pontificus the Super-Puss - only comments on subjects until he's been proven wrong. Then - POOF! - he runs and hides, only to reappear on other threads or responding to posters that he thinks he can out-BS, and then when he gets proven wrong again - POOF! - he's gone.

Kind of like the Lemming-in-chief's military service - POOF!

Here's my post - again. And there goes Pontificus, Lord of Egypt, Prince of Denial, avoiding the inevitable: arguing points that have been proven wrong, or admitting that he's wrong.

Here's a post for Pontificus, Prince of Denial (since he ran away on the other thread).

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.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 08:58am

Address the argument, not me.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 09:12am

Take your own advice. Fitzgerald, not some reporter, Fitzgerald "found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years..."

Address that!

Just because there was not enough proof is not evidence of innocence.

Address that!

Covert, clandestine, or otherwise, the leaking of a CIA agent's name for political purposes is cowardly, unethical, un-American, and reprehensible for an adminstration that was supposed to bring character back to the White House.

Address that!

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:29am

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:34am

I'm still waiting, and Pontificus is still running.

It's the Lemming bob-n-weave - respond to the minutiae, ignore the the big picture, pick at the the little scabs, ignore the gaping chest cavity - in essence, doing what the lemming-in-chief does: cherry-picking the information that supports his worldview, ignoring anything contradictory, hammering his version of reality whether or not it fits with the reality that is accepted by most of the world.

I know the real world is a scary place, but hiding and ignoring the truth is not the answer.

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 11:25am

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 2:33pm

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 4:55pm
On topic?

Jean Baudrillard died yesterday.

A sample from his Wikipedia entry:

Much of Baudrillard's notoriety as an academic and political commentator comes from his deliberately provocative claim in 1991 that the first Gulf War 'did not take place.' His argument -- which sparked heavy criticism from the likes of Chris Norris (see below) who perceived, in Baudrillard, a denial of empirical events -- described the war as the inverse of the Clausewitzian formula: not 'the continuation of politics by other means', but 'the continuation of the absence of politics by other means.' According to Baudrillard, Saddam Hussein was not fighting the Allied Forces, but using the lives of his troops as a form of sacrifice to preserve his power (p. 72 in the 2004 edition); and neither were the Allied Forces fighting Saddam, they were merely dropping 10,000 tonnes of bombs a day as if to prove to themselves there was an enemy to fight (p. 61). So too were the Western media complicit, presenting the war in 'real time' and recycling images of war to propagate the notion that the two enemies were in actual conflict. But, Baudrillard followed, this was not the case: Saddam did not use what military capacity he had (his air force); nor was his power eventually weakened (as he managed to put down the insurgency against him after the war ended). And so, Baudrillard concluded, little politically changed in Iraq: the enemy was not defeated, the victors were not victorious. Ergo, there was no war: the Gulf War did not take place.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/07/2007 @ 4:58pm
Give PONTI 10-15 years and he'll be waxing eloquent about all the abuses of the Janjiweek in Darfur and why we need to root out all evil in Sudan. PONTI, where were your tears for the victims in Iraq 20 years ago? Where were your cries of "evildoer", "tyrant" and "terrorist"? Where was your righteous anger over the treatment towards the poor Iranians and Kuwaitis?

You're just like the other Tories who only harp on crimes and abuses committed by enemies who can turn a profit, which is why you seek anything to criticize Chávez for while completely ignoring the terror being waged against the people of Colombia thanks to Plan Colombia and those billions of dollars so generously lavished upon Uribe, who sleeps with the paramilitaries. Funny how your kind have no problem with the tyrants in Saudi Arabia and the injustice suffered by the people of that nation... not to mention their funding of insurgents in Iraq.

Posted by chimichenga at 03/07/2007 @ 4:59pm
He invaded Iran in 1980 and fought for eight years; millions were killed, and poison gas was used extensively for the first time since WWI. This charming little war was also noted for the use of swarms of dissidents and unarmed children ('martyrs') by the Iranian mullahs to clear minefields.

Pontificus, you do know what side of that one we were on, right?

see U.S. Support for Iraq During the Iran/Iraq War [tinyurl.com]

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 5:00pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2007 @ 5:00pm

Yes, I do know. But in that conflict, it was as if Hitler had decided to invade Imperial Japan - it was hard not to root for both sides.

The left thinks it is some kind of big deal that Reagan sold arms to Iraq. I don't. Unless your agenda is based on a kind of loathing of America, that is. Most of that support took place at a time when we were virtually at war with Iran, and they had broken all international laws by taking our embassy. Saddam seemed the better of two bad choices. So sue us.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 5:17pm
Pontificus, you do know what side of that one we were on, right?

see U.S. Support for Iraq During the Iran/Iraq War [tinyurl.com]

Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2007 @ 5:00pm

And yet again, Pontificus - Super Puss, Prince of Denial - has been proven to be clueless, and - POOF! - he's nowhere to be found.

Cowardly, clueless, ignorant bag of regurgitated lemming excrement that he is, he'll probably show up on another thread, sharing inane, ignorant and no doubt completely false rantings - until someone else proves him wrong. Then - POOF!

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 5:17pm
Pontifcus - stop hiding!

Pontificus the Super-Puss - only comments on subjects until he's been proven wrong. Then - POOF! - he runs and hides, only to reappear on other threads or responding to posters that he thinks he can out-BS, and then when he gets proven wrong again - POOF! - he's gone.

Kind of like the Lemming-in-chief's military service - POOF!

Here's my post - again. And there goes Pontificus, Lord of Egypt, Prince of Denial, avoiding the inevitable: arguing points that have been proven wrong, or admitting that he's wrong.

Here's a post for Pontificus, Prince of Denial (since he ran away on the other thread).

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.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 08:58am

Address the argument, not me.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 09:12am

Take your own advice. Fitzgerald, not some reporter, Fitzgerald "found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years..."

Address that!

Just because there was not enough proof is not evidence of innocence.

Address that!

Covert, clandestine, or otherwise, the leaking of a CIA agent's name for political purposes is cowardly, unethical, un-American, and reprehensible for an adminstration that was supposed to bring character back to the White House.

Address that!

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:29am

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:34am

I'm still waiting, and Pontificus is still running.

It's the Lemming bob-n-weave - respond to the minutiae, ignore the the big picture, pick at the the little scabs, ignore the gaping chest cavity - in essence, doing what the lemming-in-chief does: cherry-picking the information that supports his worldview, ignoring anything contradictory, hammering his version of reality whether or not it fits with the reality that is accepted by most of the world.

I know the real world is a scary place, but hiding and ignoring the truth is not the answer.

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 11:25am

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 2:33pm

Posted by Turk33 at 03/07/2007 @ 5:19pm
And in Iraq, we definitely had a national interest. Saddam was ready, willing, and able to procure WMD, including nuclear devices, in much the same manner that Iran and North Korea has been able to.

Sorry Ponti, but he certainly wasn't able to procure WMD. Blix's investigations after the US military build-up in 2002 turned up no ability to build them and only leftover components from the 80s and early 90s. Ritter himself, in 2002, stated that 90-95% of Iraq's WMD capability had been destroyed and the rest couldn't be accounted for because Iraq had destroyed it and claimed that it never existed.

Further, he had no operational relationship with al-Qaida.

I'm Nobody The Iran-Iraq war was the longest conventional war of the 20th century and it had about 875,000 total casualties. Sounds pretty big to me.

Posted by brunowe at 03/07/2007 @ 5:19pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/07/2007 @ 4:47pm

Did not the US instigate this uprising? And then fail to follow through with support?

I would say so, yes. But then, that was under the 'kinder, gentler' George Bush who fastidiously refused to do the right thing and take out this monster, primarily because the UN mandate did not extend to regime change in Iraq.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 5:21pm
875,000 ... but it's gospel that "millions" died. To the Bat-library, Robin!

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/07/2007 @ 5:21pm
PONTI You have an amazing number of pathetic excuses for everything.Do you get them from some right wing book of pathetic excuses?

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 5:24pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 5:17pm

So . . .

Iraq was a big "threat" even before Bush . . . yet it was "no big deal" that we supplied this "threat" with the technology and arms that enabled Iraq to "gas millions."

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 5:28pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 03/07/2007 @ 5:19pm

Sorry Ponti, but he certainly wasn't able to procure WMD. Blix's investigations after the US military build-up in 2002 turned up no ability to build them and only leftover components from the 80s and early 90s. Ritter himself, in 2002, stated that 90-95% of Iraq's WMD capability had been destroyed and the rest couldn't be accounted for because Iraq had destroyed it and claimed that it never existed.

Brunowe, if you're going to argue that the fact that he did not have them at the time we invaded is proof that he was not a threat to ever get them, then I'm going to decline any further discussion of this. I think it's only common sense that he was such a threat, and if you choose to disagree, fine, I don't think I can move you off that so I won't try. This is an issue of judgement, not ideology.

Further, he had no operational relationship with al-Qaida.

That we know of, at the time of the invasion. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and it could have occurred later.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 5:28pm
Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 5:17pm

Plame was not covert.

[weeks later]

Plame was not covert.

[months later]

Plame was not covert.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 5:30pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/07/2007 @ 5:21pm

875,000 ... but it's gospel that "millions" died. To the Bat-library, Robin!

Ok, if you want to quibble, I'll change the figure to 875,000. Does that make a whit of difference to you? Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 5:32pm
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 5:28pm

So then why do you claim that there was no underlying crime committed in the CIA leak case?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 5:33pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2007 @ 5:28pm

Iraq was a big "threat" even before Bush . . . yet it was "no big deal" that we supplied this "threat" with the technology and arms that enabled Iraq to "gas millions."

As I recall, the Germans, Russians, and French were providing him with arms up to the moment we invaded. Funny how your moral judgement doesn't seem to extend to them. In any case, he wasn't fighting us, then, and he showed no inclination to do so until well after the Iran/Iraq war was over. Perhaps you want to make this into some moral parable over supporting dictators; go ahead. The fact is, after the Iran-Iraq war he became a mortal threat to the west.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 5:36pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 5:36pm

You are the one bringing up the Iran/Iraq War as some sort of justification. If Iraq was only a threat AFTER that war, why do you list it as a basis?

As for the Germans, Russians and French, I do not remember those coutries invading Iraq and trying to use the Iran/Iraq War as a pretext.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 5:39pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2007 @ 5:33pm

So then why do you claim that there was no underlying crime committed in the CIA leak case?

Because no one ever even purported that there was one? At least Bush (and many, many Democrats) had solid reasons to believe there was WMD. Further, it is easily surmised via our experience with Iran that if he didn't have them then, he was a solid bet to try and possibly succeed in getting them in the future.

Fitz new from the git-go that it was Armitage who outed Plame (the purported purpose of the Special Investigation) and never even charged HIM. I see a difference there, do you?

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 5:40pm
PONTI You don't attack somebody because you think that someday they may get a weapon.Of course,you already knew that.It's simply a fact that the conservative bush responded to 9/11 by attacking a third world dictator that had no power and had nothing to do with 9/11.He even decided to put most of our resources into that war.Now the ones that attacked us are regaining in strength.All your pathetic "saddam somedays" have no relevance to reality.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 5:40pm
Oh . . . now they were a MORTAL threat.

You win.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 5:41pm
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 5:28pm

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 5:42pm
And if the evidence is wrong, Pontificus says "sue us."

Problem is the suit will not be in a court of law.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 5:43pm
this is the tempest in a teapot, a stretch at best in a never ending attempt to stop "W". Good try, but a pardon will silence them all.

Posted by WOCO74 03/07/2007 @ 4:08pm

Yeah, until they vote. I can't wait to hear the endless Republican whining so I can laugh, laugh, laugh. The Republicans are out for decades.

Posted by fromredbird at 03/07/2007 @ 5:44pm
Your ideology is dangerous and morally bankrupt.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 5:44pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/07/2007 @ 5:40pm

PONTI You don't attack somebody because you think that someday they may get a weapon.Of course,you already knew that. It's simply a fact that the conservative bush responded to 9/11 by attacking a third world dictator that had no power and had nothing to do with 9/11.He even decided to put most of our resources into that war.Now the ones that attacked us are regaining in strength.All your pathetic "saddam somedays" have no relevance to reality.

Geez, you guys really don't listen to a word Bush says, do you? You're dead wrong. In an age where we have enemies that eagerly commit suicide to kill civilians, we absolutely must prevent known enemies, by any and all means possible and practical, from obtaining weapons of mass destruction that would make 9/11 look like a weekend barbecue. Jesus Fucking Christ don't you people listen AT ALL? George Bush gave speeches about this YEARS ago!!!! Where were you? Drinking kool-aid? Wake up for God's sake!

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 5:52pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2007 @ 5:44pm

Your ideology is dangerous and morally bankrupt.

I have no ideology. I believe in what works, and only that. That's why they call us conservative-we believe in principles that work and in making them work better.

In contrast, your ideology, the ideology of the left, is based on socialism, which has never worked and arguably never can work because its basic principles are in contravention of basic human nature. In fact, it is actually the left that is dangerous and morally bankrupt.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 5:56pm
As JR would say - pffft.

What a self-serving set of definitions.

We believe in principles that work.

How is that Iraq invasion working out for you?

Got OBL?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 6:01pm
PONTI You have no idea what a conservative or leftist is.You simply are scared of everything like many modern conservatives so you assume you're a conservative.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2007 @ 6:02pm
And now were are funding groups connected to Al Qaeda for work against the Shiites.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh

I'd say the only principle you support is to go around in circles.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 6:05pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2007 @ 6:01pm

HMAN, you're one of those 'glass half-empty' guys, aren't you? All the time you're dreaming about how instantly full it would be if only the world took your sage advice and revolutionarily converted to socialism. Hey, good luck with that.

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 6:12pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2007 @ 6:01pm

How is that Iraq invasion working out for you?

Why do I get the feeling you'd be happy if we fail in Iraq?

Posted by pontificus at 03/07/2007 @ 8:43pm
Brunowe, if you're going to argue that the fact that he did not have them at the time we invaded is proof that he was not a threat to ever get them, then I'm going to decline any further discussion of this. I think it's only common sense that he was such a threat, and if you choose to disagree, fine, I don't think I can move you off that so I won't try. This is an issue of judgement, not ideology.

I'm sorry, you don't get to invade countries just because there is a remote possibility, at some point in the future that he might try to get nuclear weapons. By that logic we should've gone to war with North Korea and Iran before we went to war with Iraq. Re your point to HMAN, there is nothing about 9/11 that justifies a preventative war. By that logic, we should invade Pakistan because it's theoretically possible that an Islamist government could take over there or ISI elements could put dirty weapons out to bad guys (like they helped N. Korea and Iran). The point is that you only use the degree of military force used in the invasion of Iraq where there is a credible threat--and Hussein's WMD fantasies didn't constitute any.

Posted by brunowe at 03/07/2007 @ 9:01pm
Why do I get the feeling you'd be happy if we fail in Iraq?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 8:43pm

Nice strawman. I was one of the ones who thought this was a fool's errand, but I am far from "happy" about Iraq. Or the harm Bush has done to our country by invading it. It is a tragedy.

The fact that you cannot turn a critical eye towards that terrible decision is your failing. But, I am sure you will find our a way to blame it on the liberals, like you do everything else.

Yawn.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 9:27pm
Yes carbon based taxation would be better than income based taxation.

Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/07/2007 @ 3:54pm

Curious....under a Carbon Tax Plan...

wouldn't a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT pay nothing?

Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 9:28pm
That's it, Pontificus, it's problem of lack of optimism. If everyone would just delude themsleves from reality, things would be going so much better.

I tell it like it is. When the glass is empty, it's fucking empty.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/07/2007 @ 9:32pm
scoota... is gonna take it in the poopa

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 9:45pm
scoooooootificus..... is gonna take it in the poopshooticus

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 9:46pm
Scooter Bravo is gonna take it in the pooper

Bravo

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 9:47pm
love scooter....

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 9:48pm
they did the maasch.. they did the scooter maasch

they did the massch... they packed fudge in ass

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 9:50pm
hey frank

Long time no see bro. What happened to you?

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:15pm
two words you will never hear from scooter "the Pooper" libby

no rush

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:16pm
instead you will hear

RUSH!! !! PLEASE RUSH!! !!!

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:17pm
dick got me to where I am today

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:19pm
the guys who got bush, didn't get dick

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:20pm
scooter didn't get off

but the guy behind him in line did

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:23pm
and so on

and so on

and so on

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:23pm
for those of you who tuned in late

scoota..... is gonna take it in the poopa

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:24pm
but what will the pricks do to scoota

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:29pm
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Ha Ha ha HaH

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:29pm
Corn overflow from the Corn.com blog via TomPaine.com

The Libby Lobby

After spending nearly two months in the federal courthouse for the Libby trial, I have to decompress. Here's my latest "Loyal Opposition" column for www.TomPaine.com:

Placing Libby Above The Law David Corn March 07, 2007 www.tompaine.com

Over three years ago, on the morning of July 14, 2003, I picked up The Washington Post and did something I don't always do: I read Robert Novak's column....

Lengthy commentary by David justifying his yelling "fire" when his ?Brown or Dartmouth? nose got a whiff of smoke.....Go to his blog or TomPaine if interested.

Depending on ones' objectivity, ideology, braininess (or lack of), everybody can find something to either vehemently agree with or disagree with!

Now, David, since you admit to an unsatisfactory ending, here is an idea for you: join the jurors (2 so far) and call/consent to a Libby pardon! By all means, take credit for having led to somebody being held `accountable' for messing around with THE LAW! If the Left still has that fire-in-the-belly feeling and stamina, aim higher; just make sure it's BINDING! Good use of (your) Congress!

Posted by Happy at 03/07/2007 @ 10:41pm
happy scooter... is gonna take it in the pooper?

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:54pm
There was a crowd inthe scooter libby cell. As the inmates bumped and nuged one another as they moved to a fro the guards heard this unmistakabkle phrase softly repeated over and over again

pardon me, pardon me, pardon me, pardon me....

Posted by Will C. at 03/07/2007 @ 10:58pm
I have no ideology. I believe in what works, and only that.-PONTI

Hows that war going? How about veterans care?

the trial of Scooter worked pretty well, you don't seem to like that. that is what this thread is about, the conviction of the Vice Presidents Chief of Staff for lying under oath, obstruction of justice and perjury. Is Scooter "working" for the American people? 16% think cheney is "working" for them. That is not very good, is it?

how about the trade deficit? Is that working well for the US?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:22pm
Posted by WILL C. 03/07/2007 @ 10:58pm

Isn't it just grand, again?

Haggerty, Foley, Abramoff, Savafian, Delay, and the hamsters just keep pumpin' on the wheel like nothing is wrong.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:24pm
Libby's trial is over, there will be no further charges filed, and Corns book is just more hubris. So get over it already!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/07/2007 @ 9:35pm

Nope, not gonna get over the fact that another of your heroes is going to jail for LYING. Corn was right, you are wrong, again.

Whats the record now?

Scooter- wrong= Maasch, RIO, Luvvy, Ponti, CPt, Chimpy

Right= the "lefties.

WMD's in Iraq, wrong= Maasch, Rio, Luvvy, CPT. chimpy.

right= the "lefties"

aluminum tubes for rockets or centrifuge? Wrong= Maasch, Rio, Luvvy, CPT, chimpy

right= the "lefties"

Saddam was working with Bin Laden, wrong= Maasch, RIO, Luvvy, CPt, Chimpy

right= the "lefties"

WOW, the lefties are right. oohh, the irony of it all. Like the head of the child exploitation committee being a perv.

there is a war on RIO, why are you not fighting over there so we don't have to live with you here?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:32pm
Well, the prison he will go to is much better than most country clubs., before he gets pardoned. A plain spin-off from an inteligent twist from false pre-war investigations.He simply followed orders givin to him to somehow redeem himself of pre-war collaborations,Who has the guilty concious? No-one.

Posted by joeys444 at 03/07/2007 @ 11:34pm
David Corn on Leak case:

1st to point to possible violation of the IIPA,

1st (or close to it) to point to Rove as Novak's Leak source,

1st to disclose (just prior to Hubris's launch) Armitage as Novak's actual leak source,

Now, as a fitting ending to the Libby saga (drum rolllllllll), I propose Corn to become the:

1st Left-winger of substance to call for (or express consent for) a pardon of Libby.

End of (a better bedtime) story. Good Night!

Posted by Happy at 03/07/2007 @ 11:34pm
Guilty!!!

Guilty!!!

Guilty!!!

Guilty!!!

Wheeeeee. the System can work.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:37pm
Now, as a fitting ending to the Libby saga (drum rolllllllll), I propose Corn to become the:

1st Left-winger of substance to call for (or express consent for) a pardon of Libby.

End of (a better bedtime) story. Good Night!

Posted by HAPPY 03/07/2007 @ 11:34pm

why?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/07/2007 @ 11:48pm
I don't think God gives a shit about what we or you do policticaly. If you think God is one of "you" and not of someone else..well, you have deeper problems.. I see GOD sitting up there looking down and thinking..."Jeez, I hope the jury goes after Bush next, ....I celebrate the conviction of Libby..."

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/07/2007 @ 08:53am

After God got off the phone with George Bush and told him to invade Iraq, he called me and said JOHN MAASCH is not just lazy, he's stupid. From god's lips to my ears. In case you're curious, I'm an evagelical. And by the way, evangelicals have lots of sex. Jesus is the answer. Open your blackened shriveling heart to salvation!

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/08/2007 @ 04:36am
And on the subject of reducing terrorism, you are completely full of shit, there's no other way to put it. The former nation of Iraq has been turned into a laboratory for terrorists. Good God, after all that crap about the danger of failed states, we go and create one. Words fail me. I cannot adequately express my outrage at this situation, and the idiots who defend it.

Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/07/2007 @ 09:42am |

I dunno, I think you're doing a fine job expressing yourself about this sitution. The problem is that the people you want to listen won't/can't, their heads are full of Limbaugh O'Reilly and Coulter, can't hear, won't listen.

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/08/2007 @ 04:45am
Go read this Editorial! One reason this rag is a couple of cuts above the NYT....In no small part by pointing the finger to the lier that started it all, Joe Wilson.

Sure, WaPo had its own concerns that this case has definitively cracked the shield of impunity that journalists had hid behind. Since overwhlmingly, `journalists' are lefties, we on the Right can look forward to reaping the rewards of Fitz' overzealousness for decades to come.

Posted by HAPPY 03/07/2007 @ 10:48am |

Thanks for not addressing your post to Corn and then proceeding to insult everyone else that posts here, well not everyone, but the 'lefties' and by that I assume you mean liberals who you come to visit daily.

When there is one government official leaking classified information to one reporter in private,and there are no other witnesses, then the only recourse a prosecutor has is to subpeona the reporter for their testimony. Fitzgerald had to demostrate to the judge, before his subpeona was approved, that he had no other way to obtain this information. Furthermore, this is a national security case. Despite protestations from ill-informed 'righties' Plame's status was classified information and she was a covert CIA agent with non-official cover. There is no reward,in fact, White House officials will think twice about hiding behind a reporter's priviledge when committing criminal acts of disclosing classified information.

What is a 'lier' and what did he lie about and how does that justify Cheney, Libby, Rove and Armitage leaking classified information about a CIA agent to the press?

So if the Niger uranium story was bogus, and the mobile weapons lab story a fiction of an alcholic bullshit artist, and the aluminum tubes actually not suitable for uranium enrichment,and no Iraq connection with 9/11, and no mushroom cloud in the form of a smoking gun, what evidence of WMD was presented that was credible? Or, is is more likely that Special Plans stovepiped bad intelligence to justify a war Cheney and Bush wanted but couldn;t justify honestly? Yep. If you don't see it yet robot bushites, you're missing the bigger picture.

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/08/2007 @ 05:10am
I use it every single f****** day on the stock market and in all aspects of major life decisions. Those that don't, are well represented here.

BTW: I see that my limited presence here is starting to get under the skin of the most worthy opponents! LOL!!!!!

Posted by HAPPY 03/07/2007 @ 11:10am |

I spoke too soon. You couldnt post again without bragging about your business ventures but at least you didn't talk about your magnanimous public service efforts and how you look down up the feeble efforts of others... Regarding your presence here, don't assume your opponents care one way or the other.

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/08/2007 @ 05:23am
Are you saying that socialism is not the guiding ideology of the left????

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 11:11am |

We all pay taxes on a graduated scale to support an army and rebuild after Katrina. Is that socialism? If it is, then you can ask the same question about the right.

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/08/2007 @ 05:26am
I've had plenty of political science education, and I still ...

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 11:22am |

Liar.

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/08/2007 @ 05:37am
Restricting the right to murder is the most fundamental rule of government.

Marriage a privilege granted to those who can, at least theoretically, have children.

Maybe you should take a few courses at a real university. Oh, I have, trust me, and more.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 11:43am |

Perfect right? It speaks for itself.

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/08/2007 @ 05:50am
One of the conclusions to be reached in this case is the extent of David Corn's lying and the damage done to an honest man by Corn's lies. Everything David Corn writes about the Wilson/Plame affair is dishonest - even his headlines. There was no "CIA Leak Case", and there was no guilty verdict for any CIA leak. The Administration never manipulated intelligence in this case - as Wilson and Plame did. No one leaked any classified information, no one outed Valerie Plame, Plame wasn't a covert agent, so she couldn't be "outed". What got "outed" were all the lies that Wilson and Plame told in order to discredit the Administration's honest efforts to combat terrorism. The idea that the Administration would "whip up public support" for a war is deeply dishonest and treasonous - what has become expected behavior for radical leftist propagandists like David Corn. The faulty intelligence upon which John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and yes, George W Bush and Dick Cheney relied upon was served up by the CIA under a Clinton man - Tenet. We get nothing but lies upon lies from David Corn - the shill for liars Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Libby should be pardoned.

Posted by DOCTORFIXIT 03/07/2007 @ 12:08pm |

You condemn Corn for his alleged lies but you'd pardon Libby for his, which have proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. OAK KEE DOKEY THERE BIG FELLA!

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/08/2007 @ 05:57am
just what did the Libby conviction prove, and what will change?

Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/08/2007 @ 12:15am

Thay's easy Rio, it proved Scotter Libby was a perjuror and obstructed justice to cover up for himself, his boss and others in the administration who chose politics over national security.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2007 @ 09:05am
I guess this one also goes in my column as another authoritative voice indicating this prosecution was a sham political trial. That includes me, a couple of the jurors in the case, the WaPo, former deputy AG Toensing, former Clintonista David Boies, the WSJ, et al. Those indicating it was a worthwhile prosecution include one out-of-control prosecutor, and a whole slew of moonbats on this board. Am I leaving anyone out?

On Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" Tuesday night, super-lawyer David Boies said Fitzgerald never should have prosecuted Libby because there was no underlying criminal violation. Boies scoffed at Fitzgerald's contention that Libby had obstructed him from exposing criminal activity. Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 election dispute, is hardly a Bush sympathizer. But neither is he a Democratic partisan trying to milk this obscure scandal.

Posted by pontificus at 03/08/2007 @ 09:49am
Posted by HMAN23 03/08/2007 @ 09:05am

Gee HMAN, there sure seems to be alot of auhtoritative people that don't agree with your assessment of this case. I think you must either be just another moonbat who happens to have a law degree, or one of the most brilliant legal minds in America. Which one do you think it is?

Posted by pontificus at 03/08/2007 @ 09:51am
By the way CRABWALK, just what did the Libby conviction prove, and what will change?

Posted by RIO BRAVO 03/08/2007 @ 12:15am

covered by NEIL, thank you.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/08/2007 @ 09:51am

Well, if it was on Hannity it must be ....utter BS.

the judge, the grand jury, the jury, the federal prosecutor who has not political agenda and most people that are not blind sheep disagree with you Ponti. Give it up. He was given every opportunity to come clean, he was given a fair trial. You are dead wrong, your theory has zero basis in law, Libby is GUILTY of lying, perjury and obstruction. Following your bizarre logic, NOBODY should EVER tell the truth to investigators. Is that what you think should be the paradigm of America? You never did answer my questions about the Palestinians that were found NOT guilty of terrorism but will spend time in jail for obstruction. You lost at least 3 arguments with me, HWMAN and BRUNOWE about your bizarre logic and Clinton. You want it one way for Blow-Job and another for Libby.

Admitting one is wrong can be very difficult, especially if one is an ...ideologue.

It is time for you to go away, learn something about people that hold different opinions than you and why they hold those opinions, not assign why YOU think they hold those views. Again, following your bizaro world logic, Pat Buchanon is a ragin lefty.

Learn to think critically, then come back and we will treat you like an adult. Till then this should be right up your alley, just plug in a tape of cheney and Goooooo.

http://www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=browse&product_id=16610

-------

boy! The spin on this is just tremendous!! Even though the American system of jurisprudence worked, the hamsters just will not admit reality.

sad.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 10:37am
Well, given that the case WAS brought, and in spite of the defendant's good character and excellent defense team, it resulted in convictions on all but the weakest count, I'd have to say those "authorities" aren't very authoritative at all. And funny how they all seem to be partisan shills.

(With the exception of one-time Al Gore lawyer David Boies. But then, the lawyer for the notoriously pardoned fugitive Marc Rich was ... let's see ... someone named Libby.)

If you actually want to make this argument, find a consensus legal opinion that supports it. I won't hold my breath.

Ponti, I will give you credit for attacking the case and not joining the chorus calling for a pardon. That would be the absolute dumbest thing Bush could do. Which means he'll probably do it, of course.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/08/2007 @ 10:38am
"There was no big hammer that came down," Denis Collins, a juror, said. "It was just the arithmetic of it became obvious."- Denis Collins, juror, ""There was no wiggle room about it, unless you think all these people who work for the administration were lying,"

Got that? Obvious.

"Where is Rove? Where are these other guys?" Mr. Collins said, referring to President Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove. "I wish we weren't judging Libby."

The deliberations progressed with almost no political undertones, Mr. Collins said.

where did you get this stuff about "a couple of the jurors in the case" thinking that this trial should not have happened? Why did they find him GUILTY then? 4 times. For lying.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 10:45am
PONTI, spend some time on the net, look up Ray McGovrn, Larry johnson. Read what they have to say. Open your mind to the possibility that this president and his staff are human beings. Ask yourself what makes this group of people so much more pure of spirit than any other president or politician. Why do you give them so much credit? What have they done to deserve your adulation? Have they run the war well? Have they balanced the budget? Did they hold law above preferential treatment when given the opportunity? Did they think of have open bidding practices and competition for contracts, the very foundation of a "free mkt"?

As i read what you write here, I am left with no doubt that you DO NOT come to your conclusions just by dint of pure logic. You,and many others, are twisted by your hatred of something you don't even know that much about, the "left." i am not a big fan of the masses (they did fall for the war lies) but after 6 years there has to be a reason that the Pres is at 29% and Cheney is at 16% approval. a reason that the majority of people think that the country is going the wrong way. "Bush hatred" did not spring fully formed from ether. Something, many things, brought it about. Chief among those things is they are untrustworthy. They LIE. It was just proven in court. If you need more proof, I have a list.

time machine:

"Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?" (Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03)

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?" (Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03)

Who was right, who was wrong? Who are you still listening to, and why?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 10:58am
Did they think of have open bidding practices and competition for contracts, the very foundation of a "free mkt"?

ooh, sorry again.

should be "Did they have open bidding practices and competition for contracts, the very foundation of a "free mkt"?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 11:03am
start here, put aside your hatred for a minute and read it with an open mind.

tinyurl.com/2px2ha

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 11:13am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/08/2007 @ 11:19am |

Frank, PONTI has been through that argument at least 3 times here. He simply refuses to see the connection. Don't waste your time. He does not understand basic law. It interferes with his ideology.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 11:38am
Crabwalk,

Your "gotcha" quotes from corporate news are enlightening, but don't for a moment think that the corporate media wasn't ALL in on pumping for the war (not just Fox).

We were taken into an utterly stupid war based on three things:

1. Residual fear / blood thirsty revenge mentality left over from 9/11. 2. Manipulated intelligence. 3. A corporate media realizing that war sells papers and pumps TV News ratings exxagerating the fear and the threat.

Without #3 I doubt we would have invaded Iraq. Due (in part) to #3 there we are. #3 is partially to blame for 3,000+ American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars of American taxpayers money a substantially diminshed international diplomatic standing of America, a constitutional crises, and an significantly more dangerous world.

The perpetrators of 9/11 have not been brought to justice (due to a lack of will and/or incompetence).

The manipulators of intelligence will pay only in terms of legacy history.

The media got their boost in profits, thanks to the war, and will go scott free.

I have no doubt that the media will AGAIN, in the future shill for war....it's in their best interests.

Posted by freedomplease at 03/08/2007 @ 11:38am
ChimpCO will not talk about Libby. Cowards. Hiding behind the appeals process. Trying to keep it off the front pages.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 11:41am
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/08/2007 @ 11:38am |

Do you mean things like this from the supposed "librool" media?

"Iraq Is All but Won; Now What?" (Los Angeles Times headline, 4/10/03)

"Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled power and how best to use it." (CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)

"Congress returns to Washington this week to a world very different from the one members left two weeks ago. The war in Iraq is essentially over and domestic issues are regaining attention." (NPR's Bob Edwards, 4/28/03)

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 11:46am
We HAD to trust the president. He knew things he couldn't tell us. Trust him.

that was the solid line from just about every corp media source. Why? Could it have had anything to do with the FCC regulations being debated at the time? Hell Yes it did!!!

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 11:49am
Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio). "There's a command failure here, sir, and usually it starts with the guy who's in charge," in regards to the Walter Reed scandal. But it applies to the whole admin.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 11:53am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/08/2007 @ 09:51am

Jeez, you are thick. When the jury comes back with guilty verdicts for charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, it means it was proven that the defendant was a perjuror and obstructed justice.

Given how many times I have humiliated you on this board, you must have a lot of balls to question my legal knowledge. Or amnesia.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2007 @ 1:24pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/08/2007 @ 1:24pm

To call Ponitificus retarded would be an insult to retarded people everywhere.

Posted by Turk33 at 03/08/2007 @ 2:48pm
Pontificus:

aka Super Puss

aka Prince of Denial

Posted by Turk33 at 03/08/2007 @ 2:48pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/08/2007 @ 11:19am

Secondly, a question for you. What is the difference between Bill Clinton lying under oath and Libby, (as now proven), lying under oath? Why should one be called to account and the other not? Sorry, that's two questions. Give it your best shot...blah blah..blah

Gee Frank, are you saying that BJ Clinton should be awaiting sentencing, too, because "why should one be called to account and the other not"? Cuz if so, I agree with you.

Posted by pontificus at 03/08/2007 @ 5:20pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/08/2007 @ 1:24pm

Jeez, you are thick. When the jury comes back with guilty verdicts for charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, it means it was proven that the defendant was a perjuror and obstructed justice.

Given how many times I have humiliated you on this board, you must have a lot of balls to question my legal knowledge. Or amnesia.

HMAN, you have been shown for the jackass you are many times by none other than myself. The fact that you think you have 'humiliated' anyone other than yourself speaks volumes IMHO.

I think your opinions are completely at odds with the majority of qualified public opinion about this case. As I said, the WaPo, WSJ, David Boies, and any number of qualified individuals thinks you are full of shit. And you have on your side, who? CRABWALK, FRANKGRITS, and other assorted raving moonbats?

Posted by pontificus at 03/08/2007 @ 5:26pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 03/08/2007 @ 5:43pm

Where's ya go Ponti, back into your rathole? Shrill, whiny republicans.

Frank, your opinions are so idiotic most of the time that they don't deserve a response. Above, for example, you are demanding equal treatment for Libby and Clinton. When I remind you that while both were guilty of perjury and obstruction, Libby is probably going to jail while Clinton skated with only the loss of his law license. How is THAT fair? It isn't. But you don't give a crap, it's all just a game to you. You're nothing but a shrill partisan.

Posted by pontificus at 03/08/2007 @ 5:58pm
"HMAN, you have been shown for the jackass you are many times by none other than myself. The fact that you think you have 'humiliated' anyone other than yourself speaks volumes IMHO"-PONTIFICUS

Wrong again, Ponti. I do hope you haven't run off to hide. Your beliefs in this matter are not attached to ANY legal theory. You have repeatedly failed to make your point, usually ending in attacking some one for not thinking Clinton was a serial rapist.

Face it, you are wrong. Period. Take it from a guy that has been wrong a lot, it's not that bad if you can admit it and find your error. But if you don't, then you are just a follower. A sheep. Is that what you want to be?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 6:03pm
Frank, your opinions are so idiotic most of the time that they don't deserve a response. "-PONTIFICUS

See what I mean?

do you think the five Palestinians convicted of obstruction should be set free because there was no "underlying crime"? This is the 6th time I have asked you this question. Do you think it is OK to lie to a grand jury, a special prosecutor or even just a beat cop? Is that what you are saying?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 6:08pm
Posted by CRABWALK 03/08/2007 @ 6:03pm

Wrong again, Ponti. I do hope you haven't run off to hide. Your beliefs in this matter are not attached to ANY legal theory. You have repeatedly failed to make your point, usually ending in attacking some one for not thinking Clinton was a serial rapist.

Do you read anything I post, CRABBIE? Apparently not.

HMAN, your resident legal genius, has been telling me my opinions are off-base for months. That's hard to swallow when my opinions are echoed by some of the most prominent newspaper editorial boards and lawyers in the country.

Like I said, I think my opinions have far more authority than HMAN. I think he's the one who's been shown to be a jackass, not me.

You folks are so full of crap.

Posted by pontificus at 03/08/2007 @ 6:09pm
What makes George W. Bush so much different and better than any other politician?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 6:10pm
And look at the defense team. Are they taking their medicine, doing the right thing? No. They are using every single technicality they can find. Every little lawyer trick that the "law and order" conservatives bash constantly.

If Libby had just told the truth none of this would have ever happened. Dems da facts.

Dinner. mmmmm Sabu chicken . Tastes better than crow.

Peace.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/08/2007 @ 6:14pm
your opinions are completely at odds with the majority of qualified public opinion about this case . . . And you have on your side, who?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/08/2007 @ 5:26pm

LOL. What opinion do you mean? That Libby is a liar and he obstructed justice?

How about Patrick Fitzgerald and the 12 jurors who convicted him? Is that satisfying enough for you?

Or is it my other opinions:

1. That there are multiple elements to crimes.

2. Plame's status is not proven one way or the other by the failure of Fitzgerald to indict anyone for the crime of outing her.

3. Nonetheless, Fitgerald described her status as covert in his affidavit filed with the court.

4. Bill Clinton never faced criminal charges of sexual harassment.

5. Bill Clinton committed perjury, in my opinion.

Although I am sure I can find "any number of qualified individuals" to agree with me on those facts, I do not need them, because I can think for myself and I know you have failed to prove me incorrect on anything I have posted to you. Unlike you, I do not need to check Victoria Toensing's lastest column to find out what my opinion is. And I do not have to disappear and Google other friendly columnists to repsond to your retorts.

You are like a sock puppet. All I have to do is link to NRO to find out what you are going to say. And then it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2007 @ 6:14pm
.....Fitzgerald had to demostrate to the judge, before his subpeona was approved, that he had no other way to obtain this information...... Despite protestations from ill-informed 'righties' Plame's status was classified information and she was a covert CIA agent with non-official cover....

....you're missing the bigger picture.

Posted by NEILSAGAN 03/08/2007 @ 05:10am | ignore this person

?????no other way to obtain this information????? Where have you been??? Lame! FBI did the work & Fitz just had to read it on his 1st day on the job as SP! For Plame's status as relates to IIPA (i.e. `covert' or not), I'd say by day #2, his job was done! No Crime committed, speedy return to his "day job"!

Personally, I think Fitz wanted his moments in the sun to last as long as possible, that, plus this case was a golden opp for him to gain the upper hand for his on-going battle w/Ms. Miller on confidential press sources! Let's face it, comparatively speaking, his "day job" in the windy city just doesn't have the sex appeal of the national limelight!

Why the continuing spread of disinformation by stating "she was a covert CIA agent"? Of course, I suppose you could respond: "but I meant she WAS, admittedly it was past the 5-yr limitation of IIPA."

My missing the `bigger picture'? You need to do more research on me at Corn.com! Be careful, not all comments by "HAPPY" were actually me....spoofing me was how those Cornuts got their jollies! Outside of my family, I mostly concern myself with just the `bigger picture'!!! I don't spend the time to read most of the tired, repetitive babble here (or at Corn.com) which I'd bet, each of us had read somewhere else before coming to this site to laid down our own cyber bytes. There isn't much original commentaries by blog groupies...though I do admit some comments are really funny (high 5 to PONTI)!

Posted by Happy at 03/08/2007 @ 10:37pm
(high 5 to PONTI)!

Posted by HAPPY 03/08/2007 @ 10:37pm

Birds of a feather indeed.

So your original thought is that a prosecutor of Patrick Fitzgerald's ability and reputation simply wandered around aimlessly without a clue from Day #3 on. Yet, you had the case closed the day before. Wow, I am surprised then that he wasn't one of the AGs canned during the past few weeks. I am certain such obvious failings would have shown up on his evaluations.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2007 @ 11:01pm
Let's face it, comparatively speaking, his "day job" in the windy city just doesn't have the sex appeal of the national limelight!

Happy, have you even bothered to take a look at the cases Fitzgerald has been involved in? Not dime bag busts . . . Gotti, 1993 WTC bombing, OBL, Gov. Ryan, Mayor Daley's office and many other high profile cases of public corruption?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/08/2007 @ 11:09pm
Fortunately for us, Bush is a real man and a leader and doesn't take the path of idiocy and self-destruction like mindless miscreants such as yourself propose.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/08/2007 @ 9:54pm

nope, he hires incompetent, lying sycophants.

Isn't lying a sin? don't you tire of defending sinners here month after month? Sex fiends, pedophiles, drug users, people convicted of bribery, perjury, graft. these are the ones you defend, not matter what they have done, if they work for Chimpy or the repub party you will come here and claim the 70% of America that disagrees with you are a bunch of communist drones.

then you go buy chinese crap. Luv ya babe. Just luv ya,

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 01:47am
Isn't great to hear Cheney apologists whining about an out of control prosecutor who should have known on day whatever that his investigation should have been terminated and that he decided to continue his investigation and prosecution for some indefensible purpose such as personal gain, as if these claims have any basis in fact.

These Cheney apologists are the same folks who cheered for Ken Starr who turned his investigation of Bill Clinton into a national symposium on sex. Irony cruel irony. Deal with it you whiny titty babies.

Valarie Plame was a CIA agent with non-official cover. Her status was classified. Deal with it you whiny titty babies. Her neighbors did not know she worked for the CIA. Novak blew Plame's cover and the cover of all the other agents that "worked" for Brewster-Jennings.

At the time her identity was divulged, she worked as a supervisor in the undercover division, the directorate, on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Whoops. We now know that in Dick Cheney's feud with Wilson, punishing Wilson was a higher priority than protecting the identity of a public servant working on one of the most important national security issues we face. To bring the point home, we allegedly invaded Iraq to secure their WMD because we allegedly had reason to believe Saddam would give or sell his nukes to Bin Laden.

Chneny apologists will blame just about everyone else including Mr. Wilson himself and Dick Armitage right before they claim that nobody could have blown her cover because she was not covert. Well which is it brain child? Fact is, Libby leaked Plame's ID to Miller and Cooper, Rove leaked Plame's ID to Chris Matthews, Armitage leaked it to Novak and Rove confirmed it. Cheney wrote all the talking points and directed the effort.

Novak's article was leaked to Rove over the weekend before it was printed on a Monday. Once he saw it, Rove proclaimed to Chris Matthews over the phone "Plame is fair game." They new exactly what they were doing. Fitz knows they knew what they were doing but he can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because Libby is lying and obstructing justice. Deal with it whiny titty baby Cheney apologists.

The same people who argue that the massive failure of pre-war intelligence was just another fubar, as opposed to a deliberate effort to mislead Congress and the American people, are the ones who believe Libby should not have been prosecuted for lying and obstructing justice.

They believe the lies they are told daily by our leaders and the right-wing wuritzer who they trust so implicitly. You've been played tools. Deal with it.

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/09/2007 @ 02:54am
?????no other way to obtain this information????? Where have you been??? Lame! FBI did the work & Fitz just had to read it on his 1st day on the job as SP! For Plame's status as relates to IIPA (i.e. `covert' or not), I'd say by day #2, his job was done! No Crime committed, speedy return to his "day job"!

Posted by SHIT FOR BRAINS 03/08/2007 @ 10:37pm |

Libby answered the questions of FBI investigators before Fitz was drafted, true. Libby also testified to the grand jury twice. Fitz conducted the interviews under oath in front of the grand jury.

Libby asserted a set of facts regarding his 2-hour meeting with Judy Miller at the St. Regis that sounded like a load of crap to the FBI, to Fitz and to the grand jury. The only way for Fitz to corroborate or impeach Libby's story regarding his meeting with Judy Miller was to subpoena the reporter Judy Miller. Fitz had no other way to get the information. (Shit for brains. All those question marks mean you're confused, right?... not so much that you're surprised by my "nonsensical" assertion.)

When any prosecutor investigates whether a crime was committed, he or she collects information about the players' actions, motives, and frames of mind. They investigate to determine whether ANY law has been broken, not whether a specific law was broken.

You may remember a letter Fitz received from Comey, which authorized Fitz with the same wide-ranging investigative authority as the Attorney General. IIPA is but one statute that could have been broken. There are other statutes that could have broken such disclosing classified information, lying to FBI investigators and obstructing justice.

Just because Fitz did not charge IIPA or other similar charge, does not mean these crimes were not committed. Libby was charged and found guilty of obstruction of justice. Libby's lies have been effective keeping Fitz from knowning the facts. Truth is the engine of the justice system.

There is a cloud over the Vice President. Read Corn's Nation cover story about Dick Cheney's involvement in the CIA leak.. There is a lot of interesting evidence that came out at trial. Corn covers it.

If a dead body showed up under the couch while Fitz was interviewing Cheney, you can bet Fitz or a colleague would investigate and determine what laws were broken if any. If they determined laws have been broken, and that necessary and sufficient evidence existed to win a prosecution, then they would indict.

Posted by NeilSagan at 03/09/2007 @ 03:33am
LvLiberty bush is a real man?He used his rich parents to avoid fighting in a war he supported.Modern conservatives value cowardice.Just look at the excuses you folks make for young non veteran republicans.

Posted by i'm nobody at 03/09/2007 @ 09:06am
It sounds like the typical anti-American hatred that a Marxist/Socialist and Communist like Upton Sinclair was so found of spouting.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/08/2007 @ 9:52pm

If you can eat a hamburger, thank a farmer; if you can eat a hamburger free of maggots, rat turds, and sawdust, thank Upton Sinclair.

Hate wrapped in the flag and the bible - sounds like he knew you, LL!

Posted by Turk33 at 03/09/2007 @ 09:21am
I wake up some days uncertain about some of the trends in this great country - and then I read LvLiberty and Pontificus (Super Puss) and John Maasch and the rest of the lemmings, and I know that as long as I believe the exact opposite of 99% of their ignorant and hate-filled rhetoric, I'm on the right path.

Lemmings, yin to reason and logic's yang. Let us stop hating them, and instead let us thank them for providing a backdrop of falseness, ignorance, hate and fear upon which our truth and logic shines even brighter!

Posted by Turk33 at 03/09/2007 @ 09:29am
Nicely put, Neil.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 09:36am
TURK, a healthy food supply is another of those evils the evil left has forced upon society. were it not for the evil left, corporations would always do the right thing. It is only burdensome regulation, like laws requiring one to tell the FBI the truth, that make corporations do bad thing.

You neo cons are really twisted up inside, ya know?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 09:42am
Why are people involved with this fiasco still allowed to keep their security clearance? These rats have damaged national security, in sooo many ways really.

Iran loves us in Iraqw, Al Qaida loves us in Iraq. See how much the neos have in common with our enemies? No harm to the Us is good enough for them.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 09:49am
PONTI, Tony Blankley, Rev Moons lapdog conservative commentator, just said he thinks the trial was legitimate. He also is dancing his words to excuse the whole bunch of ChimpCO traitors of any wrong doing. Kool-aid all around.

Funny to see you using "The media" to support your claims. hehehe.

How do you like your crow?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 10:15am
Happy, have you even bothered to take a look at the cases Fitzgerald has been involved in? Not dime bag busts . . . Gotti, 1993 WTC bombing, OBL, Gov. Ryan, Mayor Daley's office and many other high profile cases of public corruption?

Posted by HMAN23 03/08/2007 @ 11:09pm | ignore this person

Oh, I'm aware of Fitz's `qualifications' and trophies! I am also well aware of his being (more recent) frustrated w/Miller's tipping off suspect Islamic organizations! Does anyone remotely objective believe that bagging Libby ranks high on Fitz's own assessment of his achievements? In fact, to many, I think Fitz has diminished his past achievements and for what? More mud in the `eyes' of an admin. with less time left (than my average holding period for a stock) that probably, don't give much of a shit what the Left thinks!

However, I think Fitz--who won't admit it anytime soon but perhaps through a memoir someday--will call his piercing the press' veil of confidentiality, capped by 85 days of Miller Time, as his `trophy' from this case. On this, his `private' achievement, I applaud him.

Posted by Happy at 03/09/2007 @ 11:45am
?????no other way to obtain this information????? Where have you been??? Lame! FBI did the work & Fitz just had to read it on his 1st day on the job as SP! For Plame's status as relates to IIPA (i.e. `covert' or not), I'd say by day #2, his job was done! No Crime committed, speedy return to his "day job"!

Posted by SHIT FOR BRAINS 03/08/2007 @ 10:37pm |

blah, blah, blah..... Posted by NEILSAGAN 03/09/2007 @ 03:33am | ignore this person

Such a shallow and unworthy opponent! Two rounds and you fold & resort to liberal civility! You confirm exactly my first impression of you. Congrats, you just made my ignore list which makes visiting here more efficient!

Posted by Happy at 03/09/2007 @ 11:48am
Nicely put, Neil.

Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 09:36am | ignore this person

Do I take it you are "Birds of a feather" with that ambassador of liberal civility?

Posted by Happy at 03/09/2007 @ 11:56am
FRANKGRITS apparently believes the Washington Post is a 'right wing editorial board'. That speaks volumes about where he sits on the political spectrum. I can't imagine it'll do much good to make rational arguments with him.

Below is yet another assessment of Fitz's Folly. Oh, but he's not an approved source for the moonbats, so he'll be ignored.

Time to End Fitzgerald's Folly By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing that you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory, and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.

Scooter Libby has just been convicted for four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for ... what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.

Think about that. Can you remember when was the first time you heard the name Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? OK, so it is not a preoccupation of yours. But it was a preoccupation of many Washington journalists and government officials called to testify at the Libby trial, and their memories were all over the lot. Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had.

Obviously, one is not telling the truth. But there is no reason to believe that either one is deliberately lying. Pincus and Fleischer are as fallible as any of us. They spend their days receiving and giving information. They can't possibly be expected to remember not only every piece, but precisely when they received every piece.

Should Scooter Libby? He was famously multitasking a large number of national security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby's misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information -- Mrs. Wilson's identity -- the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut.

Why? Because on his essential charge as special prosecutor -- find and punish who had leaked Valerie Plame's name -- he had nothing. No conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law. Fitzgerald knew the leaker from the very beginning. It was not Libby, but Richard Armitage. He also knew that the "leak'' by the State Department's No. 2 official -- a fierce bureaucratic opponent of the White House and especially the vice president's office -- was an innocent offhand disclosure made to explain how the CIA had improbably chosen Wilson for a WMD mission. (He was recommended by his CIA wife.)

Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald's perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC's Tim Russert. Libby said that he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert said he had never discussed it. The jury members who have spoken said they believed Russert.

And why should they not? Russert is a perfectly honest man who would not lie. He was undoubtedly giving his best recollection.

But he is not the pope. Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert's memory could have been faulty?

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 11:59am
Maybe one of these days Pontificus will actually respond to a direct question...naw, probably not!

But here goes (for like the 5th time!)

Pontificus the Super-Puss - only comments on subjects until he's been proven wrong. Then - POOF! - he runs and hides, only to reappear on other threads or responding to posters that he thinks he can out-BS, and then when he gets proven wrong again - POOF! - he's gone.

Kind of like the Lemming-in-chief's military service - POOF!

Here's my post - again. And there goes Pontificus, Lord of Egypt, Prince of Denial, avoiding the inevitable: arguing points that have been proven wrong, or admitting that he's wrong.

Here's a post for Pontificus, Prince of Denial (since he ran away on the other thread).

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.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 08:58am

Address the argument, not me.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/07/2007 @ 09:12am

Take your own advice. Fitzgerald, not some reporter, Fitzgerald "found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years..."

Address that!

Just because there was not enough proof is not evidence of innocence.

Address that!

Covert, clandestine, or otherwise, the leaking of a CIA agent's name for political purposes is cowardly, unethical, un-American, and reprehensible for an adminstration that was supposed to bring character back to the White House.

Address that!

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:29am

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 10:34am

I'm still waiting, and Pontificus is still running.

It's the Lemming bob-n-weave - respond to the minutiae, ignore the the big picture, pick at the the little scabs, ignore the gaping chest cavity - in essence, doing what the lemming-in-chief does: cherry-picking the information that supports his worldview, ignoring anything contradictory, hammering his version of reality whether or not it fits with the reality that is accepted by most of the world.

I know the real world is a scary place, but hiding and ignoring the truth is not the answer.

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 11:25am

Posted by TURK33 03/07/2007 @ 2:33pm

Posted by Turk33 at 03/09/2007 @ 12:05pm
I'm going to repeat this for HMAN, who though he is little better in his thought processes than FRANKGRITS with a law degree, at least is able to couch his arguments in pseudo-rational legalese. I simply post this to reiterate what a jackass HMAN is, since he has been calling me delusional for posting EXACTLY THIS OPINION for the last 6 months.

Why? Because on his essential charge as special prosecutor -- find and punish who had leaked Valerie Plame's name -- he had nothing. No conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law. Fitzgerald knew the leaker from the very beginning. It was not Libby, but Richard Armitage. He also knew that the "leak'' by the State Department's No. 2 official -- a fierce bureaucratic opponent of the White House and especially the vice president's office -- was an innocent offhand disclosure made to explain how the CIA had improbably chosen Wilson for a WMD mission. (He was recommended by his CIA wife.)

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 12:07pm
Bravely bold Sir Ponti rode forth from Lemming-lot.

He was not afraid to lie, O brave Sir Ponti!

He was not at all afraid to be proven wrong in many ways,

Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Ponti!

He was not in the least bit scared to be proven wrong,

Or to have his lies gouged out, and his train of thought broken;

To have his inconsistencies split, and his pride burned away;

And his "facts" all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Ponti!

His head proved empty and his heart broken

And his spine removed and his bowels emptied

And his reason raped and his ideology burned off

And his pen--

"That's enough," said brave Sir Ponti.

Brave Sir Ponti ran away.

Bravely ran away, away!

When logic reared its ugly head,

He bravely turned his tail and fled.

Yes, brave Sir Ponti turned about

And gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet

He beat a very brave retreat,

Bravest of the brave, Sir Ponti!

He is spinning away and twisting it up

And sneaking away and buggering up

And chickening out and pissing off home,

Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge..

Brave, brave Sir Ponti!

(courtesy of Monty Python ©1975)

Posted by Turk33 at 03/09/2007 @ 12:18pm
Posted by TURK33 03/09/2007 @ 12:18pm

Take your own advice. Fitzgerald, not some reporter, Fitzgerald "found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years..."

Address that!

That has been addressed many times. If Plame was covert, why did Fitz charge no-one with her 'outing', most notably Armitage? Wasn't that his purported job? Again, these are not points that not only I am making, these are points that are being asked by prominent lawyers of both parties, the former AG who helped to write the law in question, newpaper editorial boards, journalists, and even at least one of the jurors in this case. So, no need for poems, just think about it without trying to shoot the messenger.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 12:33pm
since he has been calling me delusional for posting EXACTLY THIS OPINION for the last 6 months.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 12:07pm

ROTFLMAO. As if you came up with your OPINION on your own and not from reading something Krauthammer or Vicky T. wrote six months ago.

Ponti, I do not need other writers' op-ed pieces to make my arguments for me. Simply because you side with a few and then post them here does not lend any more credence to your empty points.

And if Charles Krauthammer himself posted the same points you try to make on this board, I would shred him just as easily I have have done with you.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 12:38pm
If Plame was covert, why did Fitz charge no-one with her 'outing', most notably Armitage?

I think this answer has been given to you at least a dozen times.

A hint - look at the ELEMENTS of the crime.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 12:39pm
Do I take it you are "Birds of a feather" with that ambassador of liberal civility?

Posted by HAPPY 03/09/2007 @ 11:56am

All things considered, I'd take flocking with Neilsagen over your comrade Ponti any day.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 12:42pm
Turk,

It just so happens that I was thinking Monty Python in terms of Pontificus as well!

Although I was more thinking Flying Circus and the sketch where the man pays for a "good argument" but all he gets is childish contradicion. Such is the case with PONTIFICUS as all of us have pointed to the very narrowly written "outing" law and thus the fact that it would be difficult in the best of circumstances to get a CONVICTION on the law (which doesn't mean it was never broken). PONTI, however, refuses to absorb this fact and goes straight back to the beginning!

Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2007 @ 12:47pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS (all dates) (all times)

The next time I need a man to take six months to say nothing, I'll call you. In the meantime I'd apply for White House press secretary.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/09/2007 @ 12:50pm
"This isn't an argument. It's just contradiction!"

"No, it isn't."

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/09/2007 @ 12:52pm
"Yes it is"

Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2007 @ 12:57pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 12:39pm

A hint - look at the ELEMENTS of the crime.

Like I said before, HMAN - if you consider that answer to be definitive, and it actually is, you must be one of the most brilliant legal minds in America. You should be providing counsel not only to the Washington Post and the WSJ to answer the questions I have been posing here, but also to David Boies.

Either that, or you're just full of crap. Can you guess which way I'm leaning?

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 1:03pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 12:38pm

ROTFLMAO. As if you came up with your OPINION on your own and not from reading something Krauthammer or Vicky T. wrote six months ago.

What a patently absurd statement. I was making this argument months before Toensing, Krauthammer, the WaPo or WSJ editorial boards, David Boies, or the Plame juror started making it. And you said it was ridiculous ... but I'm saying that you are the one looking ridiculous.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 1:06pm
Ponti,

Prosecuters are ALWAYS playing the odds and at every level. If I'm caught for speeding but go and "chat" with the prosecuter 9 times out of 10 I'll be able to work some sort of deal. One of the reasons is that he knows my lawyer can provide reams of paperwork on radar gun inaccuracies, find an inconsequential writing error in the ticket or whatever. Regardless, it doesn't mean I wasn't speeding!

The system is always stacked against the prosecution. If you read the "outing" law and then think like a prosecuter (will I be able to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that all the elements of this law apply....you'll understand WHY it was dropped).

However if Libby had NOT perjured and obstructed justice and the original crime was all Fitzy had ....he probably would have indicted him on that crime (but it would be insane to cloud a slam dunk perjury / obstruction case with a low percentage outing indictment).

Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2007 @ 1:15pm
the Plame juror

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 1:06pm

Earlier in the weak they were "selected from the same pool of DC Democrats who re-elected the crack-smoking Mayor Marion Barry 16 times."

Now you cite them as support.

Classic.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 1:15pm
Don't feel bad, HMAN, you're not the only nutter here. Yesterday, CRABBIE was inveighing about what a bunch of ignorant liars the Washington Post editorial board was, and how they must not read their own newspaper correctly. The gist of it all was, of course, that CRABBIE's analysis was far superior to anything that well-known right-wing cabal at the WaPo could dream up. And of course, CRABBIE presents us with the same choice as to who to believe....

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 1:16pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 1:15pm

Earlier in the weak they were "selected from the same pool of DC Democrats who re-elected the crack-smoking Mayor Marion Barry 16 times."

Now you cite them as support.

Classic.

Well, there are about 10 percent Republicans in DC, which corresponds to about 1 in 11 jurors. Maybe he's the only one who wasn't smoking crack out back after the jury was adjourned. Somebody, after all, does have to pay the taxes that support the rest of the City.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 1:23pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 1:16pm

????????

"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington." (Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 1:24pm
Ponti, do you believe it is not only ok, but encouraged, for people to lie to the FBI, a grand jury and a federal prosecutor?

Yes or no.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 1:26pm
I was making this argument months before Toensing, Krauthammer, the WaPo or WSJ editorial boards, David Boies, or the Plame juror started making it.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 1:06pm

That's bullshit. Toensing and Krauthammer have been making your arguments for years. Do I really have to dig up an old op-ed piece to prove it to you? Here is at least one:

The Plame Game: Was This a Crime? By Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Toensing even submitted an amicus curiae brief during the investigation.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 1:27pm
Pontificus, thank you for posting here. For these past few years, I've been confused by the obviously bad decisions being made by our govenment on our behalf. I was unable to grasp how seemingly intelligent and educated people could so routinely reach the wrong conclusions.

But reading you, I'm starting to get it. You just need to know the answer before you ask the question, that's all.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/09/2007 @ 1:28pm
7th time, do you think the Palestinians charged with terrorism should be let go because the underlying crime was not proven, even though they were convicted of perjury and obstruction.?

Yes or no.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 1:29pm
PONTI,

FYI, the NYT and the WaPo are major contributing reasons we're in Iraq (thanks Judy Miller).

Both are profit entities that saw guaranteed increased revenue in the event we went to war with Iraq....and happily shilled for the cause.

Do you think they and the rest of the corporate media should be held responsible for their part in the 3000+ American lives and the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money?

Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2007 @ 1:32pm
Like I said before, HMAN - if you consider that answer to be definitive, and it actually is, you must be one of the most brilliant legal minds in America.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 1:03pm

Why thanks, Pontificus. But it is really not all that complicated. I posted this for you before and you ignored it (as is typical for you). So here is the lesson again:

Here's a good place to start – the statute itself:

Whoever,

having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent,

intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information,

knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent

and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States,

shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

As I am sure you know, since you know the law, to charge someone for a crime, a prosecutor has to be satisfied that all of the ELEMENTS of the crime are met. You are correct that "a covert agent" is ONE element, but you seem to ignore the others. If Fitzgerald concludes that ANY of those elements are missing, he does not bring the charge. If you look at the first part I have highlighted, this is the part that clears folks like Novak – the press never had authorized access to the information in question. It is why trying to draw analogies to the NYT story on "secret prisons" is bogus.

Reading on, you see that elements (beyond the fact that the agent has to be covert), include an "intentional" disclosure; to someone "not authorized" to have the information; with "knowledge" that the information discloses the covert agent AND that the U.S. is taking affirmative steps to conceal the agent.

If ANY one of those are lacking – no charge.

This is getting so tiresome, Pontificus, because if you know the law like you say you do, you have to acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE for there to be cases where a truly covert agent is outed, yet because the outing was not done intentionally or with knowledge that the person was covert, for example, there will be no criminal liability. Thus, the fact that Fitzgerald did not charge anyone for the crime cannot be a basis for concluding that Plame was not covert. Without anything more, you cannot prove that this was the missing element.

Posted by HMAN23 03/07/2007 @ 2:14pm

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 1:34pm
TURK, Well done take off of Brave Sir Ponti. He has had his balls removed by our legal system and inherent legal logic but just can't accept it.

Here it is in plain English, it is illegal t lie to the FBI, grand juries and federal prosecutors when under oath. Period. End. Libby knows this, every one else knew it and came clean, even Rove who I believe was set to be indicted till he changed his story.

HMAN, will we ever be privy to the John Doe indictment or is that sealed forever?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 1:37pm
Posted by CRABWALK 03/09/2007 @ 1:26pm

Ponti, do you believe it is not only ok, but encouraged, for people to lie to the FBI, a grand jury and a federal prosecutor?

Yes or no.

Absolutely not. And although the jury has concluded that Libby did indeed lie, we are still left to wonder why, when there was never any underlying crime charged. And despite HMAN's protestations to the contrary, that's a question that is being asked far and wide across the political spectrum today.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 1:39pm
Ponti...no it isn't....yes it is!

Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2007 @ 1:43pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/09/2007 @ 1:32pm

FYI, the NYT and the WaPo are major contributing reasons we're in Iraq (thanks Judy Miller).

Both are profit entities that saw guaranteed increased revenue in the event we went to war with Iraq....and happily shilled for the cause.

Do you think they and the rest of the corporate media should be held responsible for their part in the 3000+ American lives and the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money?

Hmmm...yes, as I suspected. Tell me, which is it, are they part of a 'vast right wing conspiracy,' or do you think they should all just be prosecuted for having political opinions which you deem to be irrespoonsible?

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 1:43pm
Absolutely not.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 1:39pm

You write "absolutely" then follow it with dancing, or in more scholastic terms, a qualifier.

Absolute: 1 not qualified or diminished in any way; total

2: viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative

noun Philosophy a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 1:45pm
And yes, I do agree that if Plame was indeed not covert, several of the elements cannot be met.

However, you must agree that (even hypothetically) if Plame was covert, it is possible that the elements could still be lacking - i.e. if someone did not have authorized access (this lets off Novak); if someone did not disclose the information intentionally; if someone did so intentionally, but did not do so with the knowledge the person was covert; or that the government was taking steps to conceal the person's identity.

This is all very basic stuff.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 1:46pm
Posted by CRABWALK 03/09/2007 @ 1:29pm

7th time, do you think the Palestinians charged with terrorism should be let go because the underlying crime was not proven, even though they were convicted of perjury and obstruction.?

Yes or no.

Gosh, I don't know...have members of the Administration been wearing explosive belts into Congress and blowing up Democrats? If so, definitely yes.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 1:48pm
HMAN, will we ever be privy to the John Doe indictment or is that sealed forever?

Posted by CRABWALK 03/09/2007 @ 1:37pm

Off hand, I do not know.

I am not even sure a John Doe indictment really exists related to this case. I have seen the allegations, but also some pretty good counters.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 1:48pm
I mean no...sometimes the hypotheticals just overwhelm me.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 1:49pm
I want to touch on another of the Simon Says Sit and Spin arguments winding through the faihtful, that of the "political conspiracy". As i see it all of the characters are republican or republican appointees.

Wilson, Bush 41 appointee, gave 2000 to Chimpy in 2000

the judge was appointed by a repub, I think.

Fitz was appointed by a repub, he has no known political affiliation, he worked to charge dems in Illinois.

the head of the CIa that asked for the investigation was appointed by Chimpy.

the head of the FBI was appointed by chimpy.

where is the political witch hunt?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 1:51pm
osted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 1:49pm

Ok, fine. But you just answered The Question. It is WRONG to lie to the authorities when they have badges. All the rest is political bickering.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 1:53pm
"One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," Sen Specter

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 1:56pm
This is all very basic stuff.- HMAN

AMEN choir.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 1:57pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 1:46pm

However, you must agree that (even hypothetically) if Plame was covert, it is possible that the elements could still be lacking - i.e. if someone did not have authorized access (this lets off Novak); if someone did not disclose the information intentionally; if someone did so intentionally, but did not do so with the knowledge the person was covert; or that the government was taking steps to conceal the person's identity.

Now you're getting more into the meat of the matter. But that's where the problem lies for those who would use the law and investigation as some sort of random cudgel against the Administration (a common sentiment on this board, I might add).

Plame was clearly not covert under the spirit of the law as it was intended. Toensing, who was instrumental in drafting the law, has been consistent on this point since the beginning, has always been clear on this point.

Even if you nitpick and prostitute the law for your own partisan purposes, however, it is clear that it was Armitage who was the only person truly guilty. And if he was not charged, then no-one should have been, and the special investigation should have been stillborn.

These are the points made over and over again by many people, and not just me. Fitz's defenders have made the points you have made as well in trying to justify the investigaiton, but I think that even you, if you want to be honest, should admit at this point that the questions about Fitz's conduct are outweighing the answers.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 1:57pm
Ponti,

The corporate media is primarily reponsible to their shareholders NOT their viewers or their readership....you figure it out, genius!

Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2007 @ 2:01pm
PONTI, I know you won't allow prejudice of the website to sway your opinion of the comments, so please read this:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030707R.shtml

Minister, the guy that read daily briefs to Bush Senior, former military. All normally heros for the "right".

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 2:01pm
Posted by CRABWALK 03/09/2007 @ 1:26pm

Ponti, do you believe it is not only ok, but encouraged, for people to lie to the FBI, a grand jury and a federal prosecutor?

Yes or no.

Absolutely not.-PONTIFICUS

'nuff said.

I tire of arguing the same garbage over and over. If the judge, grand jury and fed prosecutor found no reason to throw out the case then the legal standards were met. Then the jury of his peers found Libby guilty four times, unanimously.

'nuff said.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/09/2007 @ 2:06pm
Plame was clearly not covert under the spirit of the law as it was intended.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 1:57pm

Hmmmm . . . "under the spirit" now? So, she was covert in some other way then?

not sure what Ms. Toensing knows about the facts surrounding Plame's job, but here is what I rely on for starters:

Fitzgerald's affidavit:

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.

Judge Tatel:

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.

Elisabeth Bumiller:

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in non-conventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover", and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a NOC, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that NOCs have especially dangerous jobs.

Timothy J. Burger:

Plame worked as a spy internationally in more than one role. Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s -- say, as a U.S. embassy attache -- before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a "nice European city." Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. "[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, 'Yeah, he works for us,'" says Rustmann. "The degree of backstopping to a NOC's cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is." . . . . Though Plame's cover is now blown, it probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an "exceptional officer" but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat.

Larry C. Johnson:

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.

In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed.

David Corn:

Valerie Plame was recruited into the CIA in 1985, straight out of Pennsylvania State University. After two years of training to be a covert case officer, she served a stint on the Greece desk, according to Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who supervised her then. Next she was posted to Athens and posed as a State Department employee. Her job was to spot and recruit agents for the agency. In the early 1990s, she became what's known as a nonofficial cover officer. . . . She told people she was with an energy firm. Her main mission remained the same: to gather agents for the CIA. . . . In 1997 she returned to CIA headquarters and joined the Counterproliferation Division. (About this time, she moved in with Joseph Wilson; they later married.) She was eventually given a choice: North Korea or Iraq. She selected the latter. . . .

Her unit was expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of 9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placed in charge of its operations group. . . . [Valerie] Wilson, too, occasionally flew overseas to monitor operations. She also went to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence officials who had intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes heading to Iraq that CIA analysts were claiming -- wrongly -- were for a nuclear weapons program. . . . When the Novak column ran, Valerie Wilson was in the process of changing her clandestine status from NOC to official cover, as she prepared for a new job in personnel management. Her aim, she told colleagues, was to put in time as an administrator -- to rise up a notch or two -- and then return to secret operations.

Now you may choose to disregard a few of the writers claiming they are somehow biased politically (and I could obviously do the SAME for Toensing). However, the facts cited are sourced within each article, so if you have issue with the facts presented as opposed to the author, please give some counter facts. I have not been able to find many persuasive facts in Toensing's writings on the subject. Given that she writes about the "spirit" of the law, she probably does not have too many. In my business, once a lawyer starts talking about "spirits," it usually means the facts on their face ain't so hot.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 2:07pm
hman,

Your patience in tha face of idiocy is comendable.

Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2007 @ 2:11pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 2:07pm

Now you may choose to disregard a few of the writers claiming they are somehow biased politically (and I could obviously do the SAME for Toensing).

But Toensing is a magnitude greater in importance than any of the poeple you mention because she was instrumental in writing the law. If you recall, the law was written in the wake of a scandal where a CIA officer revealed covert agent's identities for cash and prizes and said agents were murdered by our enemies. Even a child can understand the intent of that law, you can't discount Toensing's opinions as simply partisanship, because I don't think that anyone has even bothered to argue that Plame's personal safety was ever in danger.

In my view all of the sources you cite are dedicated to primarily proving that Plame fit the technical definition (with some half-hearted and unconvincing stabs at the spirit) of the law. And even if you choose to honor such attempts (as clearly the judge was obliged to do), they come up short, not just on my judgement, but in the judgement of many qualified people across the land, from both parties.

So clearly, you have a problem with both the spirit and letter of the law in this prosecution. Prosecutorial ethics would, in mine and many peoples' estimation, therefore have argued against Fitz's continued investigation.

Thus your frequent and repeated assertions that my objections are invalid are strongly rebutted, if not refuted.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 2:21pm
Brave, brave Sir Ponti (Prince of Denial):

Because Plame wasn't covert in the "spirit" of the law, it is ok for her outing, even though that outing diminished our country's ability to get intelligence on a little thing called WMD, even though her outing put in danger all the contacts and other agents working with her, and even though her outing was only for political revenge?

You're ok with that? Good to know.

Posted by Turk33 at 03/09/2007 @ 2:29pm
Posted by TURK33 03/09/2007 @ 2:29pm

Because Plame wasn't covert in the "spirit" of the law, it is ok for her outing, even though that outing diminished our country's ability to get intelligence on a little thing called WMD, even though her outing put in danger all the contacts and other agents working with her, and even though her outing was only for political revenge?

She was not covert under the spirit of the law, and she was, de facto, not covert under the letter of it either because, as it has been repeated thousands of times, no-one has ever been accused of such a crime. If you can believe it, as a practical matter, covert agents who fear for their lives if exposed do not commute to CIA HQ in Jaguar convertibles. Valuable agents who fear for the safety of their contacts, or whose classified status would be compromised by publicity, also do not volunteer their husbands for secret overseas missions and then publicize the results on the NYT editorial page.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 2:36pm
Turk,

Now, now, you must understand that PONTI is more concerned with technical differences between the word "clandestine" and "covert" than he is about the viability of the CIA to do their job!

Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2007 @ 2:38pm
Brave Sir PONTI for President!

I'm setting up a exploatory commitee for him right now.

He's a man that cares not for obstruction, perjury or Brewster Jennings CIA fronts....he's the type to lead us through this Brave New World!!!

Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2007 @ 2:41pm
and she was, de facto, not covert under the letter of it either because, as it has been repeated thousands of times, no-one has ever been accused of such a crime.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 2:36pm

sigh . . . I am all out of patience Freedomplease.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 2:55pm
Regarding Ms. Toensing, she of "higher magnitude" ... I'm depending on Wikipedia here, which is having a bad week, but here goes. If this is accurate, she doesn't know shit about Plame.

Being one of the key people to help draft the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, Toensing has been retained by a number of media organizations to give commentary on the Plame Affair. In March 2005 Toensing authored an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, two journalists who were subpoenaed in the Valerie Plame investigation for refusing to reveal information obtained from confidential sources. In the brief, she argued that "there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Protection Act in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper."[citation needed] She also contended that Ms. Plame didn't have a cover to blow, citing a July 23, 2004 article in the Washington Times which argued that Valerie Plame's status as an undercover CIA agent may have been known to Russian and Cuban intelligence operations prior to the article (by Robert Novak) that revealed her status as a CIA employee.[citation needed]

Her quoted statement is clearly equivocal and opinionated, and is worded in such a way that it could actually mean no more than she heard Rush Limbaugh spouting off about it.

Citing one newspaper article about what foreign intelligence agencies may or may not know amounts to very little, and in no way excuses Mr. Novak.

If this is representative of what Ms. Toensing has to say about the issue, and she is the most substantive of the critics, the argument of Pontificus is even more pathetic and baseless than I had thought.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/09/2007 @ 2:56pm
covert agents who fear for their lives if exposed do not commute to CIA HQ in Jaguar convertibles.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 2:36pm

Another thing he is an expert on. What do they drive then?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 2:56pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 2:55pm

sigh . . . I am all out of patience Freedomplease.

Out of ammunition, more like it.

On the positive side for you, you did make one valid point. She could actually have been covert, but if someone 'outed' her without knowing it, they would have been not guilty. It didn't happen that way, of course, but it could have.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 2:58pm
many qualified people across the land, from both parties.

Such as?????? Victoria Toensing? Charles Krauthammer?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 2:58pm
covert agents who fear for their lives if exposed do not commute to CIA HQ in Jaguar convertibles

That's hilarious. Cue James Bond theme, spy-boy is in da house!

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/09/2007 @ 2:59pm
blast you HMan, stealing my post, I'll get you next time

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/09/2007 @ 3:00pm
It didn't happen that way, of course, but it could have.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 2:58pm

And you know this because Vicky T. told you she read it in the Washington Times, who heard it from some Cubans or Russians . . . right.

Don't listen to her fucking boss of 24 years or the prosecutor who inevstigated her status.

Listen to Vicky T. Or I guess you, right Ponti? After all, you were giving this opinion MONTHS before anyone was writing about it - hahahahahahahahaha

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 3:01pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 2:58pm

Such as?????? Victoria Toensing? Charles Krauthammer?,/i>

David Boies? WaPo editorial board? WSJ editorial board? Plame Juror?

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 3:04pm
Valuable agents who fear for the safety of their contacts, or whose classified status would be compromised by publicity, also do not volunteer their husbands for secret overseas missions and then publicize the results on the NYT editorial page.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 2:36pm

And why not? After all, there are laws that prevent the disclosure of their status, right? So if someone being criticized were to disclose that status, the law would protect them, right?

But, if the person being criticized is Dick Cheney or George Bush, a new set of rules is in play. I think this was kind of the point - keep your trap shut - no?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 3:05pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/09/2007 @ 2:56pm

Her quoted statement is clearly equivocal and opinionated, and is worded in such a way that it could actually mean no more than she heard Rush Limbaugh spouting off about it.

I guess that's what passes for slam dunk refutation in these precincts.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 3:07pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 3:05pm

And why not? After all, there are laws that prevent the disclosure of their status, right? So if someone being criticized were to disclose that status, the law would protect them, right?

HMAN, I can argue rationally with you; however, my computer does not have the power to restore your common sense.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 3:10pm
You guys are killing me, I'm laughing so hard I'm afraid I'm going to have a heart attack.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 3:12pm
Ponti -

I think I found your "source"

http://tinyurl.com/39pzej

Funny, it looks like countless other talking points I found on Google.

A sock puppet.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 3:14pm
Prosecutorial ethics would, in mine and many peoples' estimation, therefore have argued against Fitz's continued investigation.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 2:21pm

OK then. I guess we should expect some civil suits involving malicious prosecution, abuse of process. Or perhaps Fitzgerald will be reprimanded by his bosses - because, on Day #2, he should have known there was no case, right? If they can fire U.S. attorneys out in New Mexico for dragging their feet, surely Fitzgerald is due for at least a demotion for being such a lousy prosecutor.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 3:18pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 3:18pm

OK then. I guess we should expect some civil suits involving malicious prosecution, abuse of process. Or perhaps Fitzgerald will be reprimanded by his bosses - because, on Day #2, he should have known there was no case, right? If they can fire U.S. attorneys out in New Mexico for dragging their feet, surely Fitzgerald is due for at least a demotion for being such a lousy prosecutor.

In a perfect world, all of those things would happen. In the real world, some may. But as we all know, prosecutors are given wide leeway in bringing cases. As for now, he's content to beat it out of town.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 3:23pm
Sure, leeway. But continuing the case for THREE years after it was clear on Day #2 there was no crime? That is pretty brazen prosecutorial misconduct.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 3:30pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 3:30pm

Sure, leeway. But continuing the case for THREE years after it was clear on Day #2 there was no crime? That is pretty brazen prosecutorial misconduct.

I agree 100 percent.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 3:33pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 3:05pm

But, if the person being criticized is Dick Cheney or George Bush, a new set of rules is in play. I think this was kind of the point - keep your trap shut - no?

I might sympathize with that point of view if Joe Wilson had not misrepresented his findings. But his superiors, while they found little of value in his report, did deem that what he did find did, in fact, support the idea that Saddam had made some effort to trade with Niger, whose virually sole export is uranium ore.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 3:44pm
Pontificus -

Do you enjoy playing defense?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 3:59pm
PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 3:44pm

OMFG is that really the basis of the rightwing canard that Wilson is a liar? That he found some evidence of attempts to trade for something or other, and since Niger exports yellowcake, ergo Saddam was out to stock up for his nuke program? Brilliant, simply brilliant!

By the way, who are Wilson's "superiors"? I was under the impression he was just some random guy sent by his wife.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/09/2007 @ 4:10pm
I can make no sense of the claim that Libby was a "fall guy". No one, certainly not Mr. Corn, has given us a clue what he was covering up. If Rove told reporters about Mrs. Wilson then they should have come forward with that. If Rove told Libby about her, it is a great mystery why Rove had such information and Libby not since Libby is involved in policy and Rove is just a political hack whose job is to help Bush get good publicity. Apart from the innuendo that Rove was being protected, nobody has suggested what he was being protected from. Why would Cheney "surrender" Libby for Rove? What is Rove to him? Libby is a signer and architect of the PNAC papers that shaped U.S. foreign policy. When Bush was running for office, cynics might have said he was more important than Libby but that is not arguable any longer. What exactly is it that Rove is alleged to have done? What connection did he have with this whole sordid mess? Nobody has bothered with fine-grained analysis. What ludicrous wild-eyed speculation we have been bombarded with about a connection without speculation about the nature of the connection. As for Cheney, what did he do? Did he say, "Scooter, you gotta go up the river for awhile but you'll be pardoned. You have to tell reporters about the CIA agent. Don't worry, a pardon is in the works and you'll be out in no time." Is Cheney's anger at Joe Wilson so great that he would undermine a CIA agent for revenge? Did she have important work or not? Is Cheney so dull-witted that he could not find an alternative form of revenge that wouldn't cut off his own nose?

More ink has been slopped hysterically on this topic than it is worth. I believe in a cover-up, too. The press is covering up for its desire to have a sensational story with lame-brained madness about Lewis Libby and a cover-up.

Posted by SidneyGen at 03/09/2007 @ 4:23pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 3:59pm

Do you enjoy playing defense?

I guess I do. But more importantly, listening only to people who agree with you is boring and bad for the mind. I think that's the problem with most people here, they don't listen to the other side enough. When I've had it here I go argue with the conservatives over things like immigration. In any case, debating makes you think more clearly about the issues.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 4:28pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/09/2007 @ 4:26pm

I would think that last section would bolster, not undermine Wilson's credibility concerning his Niger account.

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 4:31pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/09/2007 @ 4:10pm

OMFG is that really the basis of the rightwing canard that Wilson is a liar? That he found some evidence of attempts to trade for something or other, and since Niger exports yellowcake, ergo Saddam was out to stock up for his nuke program? Brilliant, simply brilliant!

By the way, who are Wilson's "superiors"? I was under the impression he was just some random guy sent by his wife.

Actually, Niger exports ONLY yellowcake. Unless you think Saddam was in desperate need of a few tons of African beef. And yes, confirmation of the attempted trade contacts between Saddam's reps and Niger were considered proof that 'Saddam made attempts to procure yellowcake'. At least, that's the conclusion that the CIA, i.e., those who paid for Wilson's trip, came to. Oh, yes, and British intelligence, independently, came to the same conclusions.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 4:33pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 4:28pm

Well, then examining evidence before it is filtered through Ms. Toensing should not bore you in the slightest:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/jan23/DX71.pdf

It's the INR Report on Wilson. It undercuts many of your muse's assertions regarding Joe Wilson. In particular look at Tab 1 (demonstrating that Wilson was NOT pressing to go on the trip; it was no boondoggle set up by he and his wife - "CIA moles" I think you called them before?) and Tab 4 (explaining Wilson's findings; you show me his lies).

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 4:37pm
PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 4:33pm

So that whole "my fault, my fault, never should have been in the speech" that we got from George Tenet, that obviously means that his own outfit, the CIA, thought it was a true statement. Another brilliant deduction, I just don't know how you do it.

Actually, everyone professed embarrassment for about a year, until the Butler whitewash came out. Then the light bulbs came on and it was, "yeeeahhhh, we were right all along, weren't we!"

It's really hilarious to think you guys used to lecture us on clear thinking.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/09/2007 @ 4:47pm
Pontificus -

Trivia question:

Victoria Toensing is good friends with what well-known columnist?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 4:51pm
That link doesn't work.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 4:52pm
i figured i would come in here and find the scumbag republicans defending the traitors in the white house. god that libby verdict was sweet, and there's more coming! get all the damn republican traitors and criminals, and put them under the jail.

Posted by pretzel at 03/09/2007 @ 4:54pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 03/09/2007 @ 4:47pm

Actually, everyone professed embarrassment for about a year, until the Butler whitewash came out. Then the light bulbs came on and it was, "yeeeahhhh, we were right all along, weren't we!"

It's really hilarious to think you guys used to lecture us on clear thinking.

Well, your read of the situation might be plausible to you. But the basic facts of the situation seem to bear out Bush's initial statement, because no-one disputes them: a) Niger doesn't export much of anything except uranium ore b) Saddam tried to establish trade talks with Niger c) in the SOTU Bush said Saddam had tried to get yellowcake.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 4:55pm
Ponti,

You are aware that we've found about 500 tons of yellowcake in Iraq...mostly left over from Iraq's 1980's nuclear program.

You're aware that yellowcake will sting a bit if I throw a lump directly in your face....but that's about as big and bad as unprocessed yellowcake gets right?

Posted by freedomplease at 03/09/2007 @ 5:05pm
Gentlemen, I think we have once again proven that, as my grandparents used to say, it takes all kinds. Have a pleasant weekend, y'all.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/09/2007 @ 5:05pm
That link doesn't work.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 4:52pm

hmmm . . . works for me. Try this

INR Report [wid.ap.org]

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 5:08pm
You forgot

d) Bush omitted that the intelligence consensus was that there was zero chance Iraq had actually acquired any yellowcake or that there was any chance Niger would engage in discussions with Iraq to export yellowcake.

Wilson wrote that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

I suggest you read what Wilson wrote in July 2003. I bet you haven't even read the whole thing, have you?

Posted by Hman23 at 03/09/2007 @ 5:14pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 5:14pm

d) Bush omitted that the intelligence consensus was that there was zero chance Iraq had actually acquired any yellowcake or that there was any chance Niger would engage in discussions with Iraq to export yellowcake.

Bush was trying to make the case to invade Iraq - that's what leaders do - advocate their positions. As part of that case, he said they had tried to get yellowcake from Niger. He never said they got it; just that they had tried to get it. That was true; what's the problem? The implication is that if they tried to get it from Niger, they were trying to get it, period. How were they to know they wouldn't get it from Niger? And how are we to know that they would not get it anywhere else? Bush stated exactly what was known and what was true, no more.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 5:28pm
Posted by HMAN23 03/09/2007 @ 5:14pm

Wilson wrote that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

I suggest you read what Wilson wrote in July 2003. I bet you haven't even read the whole thing, have you?

I read it a long time ago, but I haven't read it recently. I'll read it again, I'm out of time today though.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 5:31pm
I should add that if Clinton had spent less of his time trying to get his pole washed by his employees and more time worrying about national security by telling his idiot minions to get OBL, 9/11 might never have happened. That's a good example of what leader's DON'T do.

Posted by pontificus at 03/09/2007 @ 5:36pm
David Brooks is telling Big Lies on "Newshour" again. Mark Shields had to check him twice today, once on the "everybody does it" lie about firing U.S. attorneys (WRONG, Shields pointed out), and, again on a whoper about Joe Wilson. Brooks described Wilson's 2003 allegations as "sensational" and that -- get this -- "we now know them to have been false". Amazing. Shields explained, too politely, that Wilson didn't lie, but Libby did. We've got to stop letting the MSM keep putting the actual liars back on camera. If they keep recycling the lies after the debunk squad has hit them, they should have their talking head privileges suspended. Somebody please get the Columbia and Berekely J-Schools to work on establishng a voluntary policy on this, okay? One way for the MSM to stop losing market share to the Web is to stop giving a free pass to the serial liars, especially when, as the Libby trial establishes beyond a reasonable doubt, the dissemination of lies through the media is the m.o. of an administration hell bent on pursuing failed policies. Brooks should have been gone ages ago.

Posted by RLawrence at 03/09/2007 @ 7:48pm
Oh, I see HMAN23 is doing the detailed version of what Mark Shields has only a few seconds to do.

An interesting thing Toensig said on the day of the verdict was that attacking and smearing enemies shouldn't be a crime, or WTTE. That's the air they breathe in Washington -- they believe this sick, lying, six-year gangster scam is just normal! Poor Scooter! Going to jail for covering up a character assassination on a truth-teller! Everybody does it! It's so sad!

Posted by RLawrence at 03/09/2007 @ 8:12pm
Parsing through the clutter of this long comment section, good to see some reasonable debates!

Not a lawyer but took the time today to read a couple of post-verdict analysis--by highly qulified folks--of the actual trial proceedings . Without going into the technical details, there seem to be enough grounds to throw the convictions into question. I'd say even odds!

No one has made the accusation (yet) but my take is the Judge made a couple of critical rulings that were puzzling & show hints of partisanship! Now Fitz, who I don't believe is a partisan, maybe so smart as to have helped to set the stage for an overturning of the verdicts. Don't get me wrong, Fitz needed the Guilty verdicts to justify the time he spent to nail the press which, I'm now more convinced than before, was his real motive beginning on Day #3.

If the verdicts are overturned, I don't believe Fitz will seek a retrial and the Libby case will end without the need for a Bush pardon....the perfect ending that pleases just about everyone, especially the empathy-ridden Jurors. The exception: the illogical Hard Left that even Rep. Obey couldn't stand:-) LMAO!!!!

At the end of the day, the Big Loser is the press which is just about everybody's whipping boy! Fitz's biggest precedent-setting accomplishment will, ironically, come as the result of a case that ended up being overturned!

Good week in so many respects! Next week, weather will be great at Lake Tahoe for some spring break skiing! Eat your heart out!

Posted by Happy at 03/09/2007 @ 8:23pm
Ah, I should've said especially Scooter Libby & His family, followed by the Jurors!

Posted by Happy at 03/09/2007 @ 8:30pm
For that matter, are all of you independently wealthy? How do you get away with wasting hours and hours of your time on this type of crap? Don't you people have jobs, or families?

Posted by MADLIB 03/09/2007 @ 8:27pm | ignore this person

Thanks for a good laugh before dinner!

Posted by Happy at 03/09/2007 @ 8:33pm
Anything coming from David Corn is likely be highly suspect in terms of truthfulness and completeness, since lying by omission is a daily tactic of the modern-day left. Here's the other side of the story, and one that is likely to be far more accurate than the one given by the ideologically blinded and objectivity-challenged, David Corn.

Beg Your Pardon With no further delay.

By Charles Krauthammer

There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing that you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory, and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.

Scooter Libby has just been convicted for four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for ... what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.

Think about that. Can you remember when was the first time you heard the name Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? O.K., so it is not a preoccupation of yours. But it was a preoccupation of many Washington journalists and government officials called to testify at the Libby trial, and their memories were all over the lot. Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had.

Obviously, one is not telling the truth. But there is no reason to believe that either one is deliberately lying. Pincus and Fleischer are as fallible as any of us. They spend their days receiving and giving information. They can't possibly be expected to remember not only every piece, but precisely when they received every piece.

Should Scooter Libby? He was famously multitasking a large number of national-security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby's misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information -- Mrs. Wilson's identity -- the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut.

Why? Because on his essential charge as special prosecutor -- find and punish who had leaked Valerie Plame's name -- he had nothing. No conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law. Fitzgerald knew the leaker from the very beginning. It was not Libby, but Richard Armitage. He also knew that the "leak" by the State Department's No. 2 official -- a fierce bureaucratic opponent of the White House and especially the vice president's office -- was an innocent offhand disclosure made to explain how the CIA had improbably chosen Wilson for a WMD mission. (He was recommended by his CIA wife.)

Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald's perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC's Tim Russert. Libby said that he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert said he had never discussed it. The jury members who have spoken said they believed Russert.

And why should they not? Russert is a perfectly honest man who would not lie. He was undoubtedly giving his best recollection.

But he is not the pope. Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert's memory could have been faulty?

I have no idea. But we do know that Russert once denied calling up a Buffalo News reporter to complain about a story. Russert later apologized for the error when he was shown the evidence of a call he had genuinely and completely forgotten.

There is a second instance of Russert innocently misremembering. He stated under oath that he did not know that one may not be accompanied by a lawyer to a grand jury hearing. This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the case, except that, as former prosecutor Victoria Toensing points out, the defense had tapes showing Russert saying on television three times that lawyers are barred from grand jury proceedings.

This demonstration of Russert's fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand -- his perfect Fifth Amendment right -- after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.

Toensing thinks this might be the basis for overturning the verdict upon appeal. I hope so. This is a case that never should have been brought, originating in the scandal that never was, in search of a crime -- violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- that even the prosecutor never alleged. That's the basis for a presidential pardon. It should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial. It should be granted now without any further delay.

(c) 2007, The Washington Post Writers Group

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDgyOThhYWE3MDYyZmRjMWQ3MWQ3YTA3NmY 1ZGQxMTA=

Posted by skeetjr at 03/10/2007 @ 12:49am
since lying by omission is a daily tactic of the modern-day left-SKEETER

have you been following along? Who was just convicted of lying and perjury? A leftist? NOOOO.. a NEO_CONSERVATIVE. Not the first either. Not even close.

who left out vital information in the lead up to war? Leftists? No.

who left out that the Energy Dept and NASA knew the dangerous aluminum tubes that "could only be used for centrifuges" actually could only be used in rockets?

Who left out that curveball was a drunk and known liar?

Who left out that Hussein Kamal had told UNSCOM and the CIA that ALL wmd's had been destroyed?

Who left out of his SOTU speech that the man sitting next to his wife was a convicted felon, guilty of defrauding people out of millions of dollars and was an Iranian agent?

Who said "we found the wmd's"?

You people are a joke. Fearful sheep. No matter how many Bush admin officials are CONVICTED of lying, graft and espionage you all still hold your ground that nothing is wrong.

David Corn has been vindicated by the system you guys love to defend as the most perfect ever created, now you pull the Simon Says Sit and Spin out of the closet and spin, spin spin. Like a hamster wheel.

GUILTY of lying to the FBI.

Guilty of perjury

Guilty of lying to a grand jury.

The system can not work if people that put their hand on a BIBLE swearing to tell the WHOLE truth then lie to the authorities. How can a prosecutor even determine if a crime has been committed if the witnesses and suspects (all supposedly honest, forthright moral republicans) lie from the first interview? Is that what your precious military is defending over there, so we don't have to tell the truth over here?

sheep, ready for a fleecin'. And you been fleeced but good.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2007 @ 01:17am
How about the Good Reverend, man of the cloth, follower of the Prince of Peace?

Nuke em, lie to em, burn down the cities, villages, kill their women and children. Defend liars, drunks and money changers.

good stuff. Next thing you know CPAC will give an award to a gay porn star.

Oops, too late.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2007 @ 01:22am
What the heck, I am in full throat...

Things ChimpCO will not talk about:

Mary Cheney, lesbian unwed mother

Scooter Libby being convicted of perjury

Why the person responsible for Abu Graib, Walter Reed, VA underfunding and staffing, rooting out the Plame affair, illegal wiretapping, illegal rendition and torture of innocent people, hiring convicted felons to run the NSA, why the Royal Twins are not in the NG and so many more screw ups is still in charge.

Chimpy- 30% think he is doing a good job

VP Howler Monkey- 16% think he is doing a good job.

Hell of a way to run a country.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2007 @ 01:28am
But the basic facts of the situation seem to bear out Bush's initial statement, because no-one disputes them: a) Niger doesn't export much of anything except uranium ore b) Saddam tried to establish trade talks with Niger c) in the SOTU Bush said Saddam had tried to get yellowcake.

Two major problems with that argument. First, Niger's uranium mining is under the strict control of an French consortium that exports it to France, Spain and Japan. There's no way that the government of Niger could just have sold it to Iraq. Second, although Niger may not export much else they could certainly buy Iraqi oil, thus undermining the sanctions regime and giving Iraq a source of petrodollars. Further, he also visited Burkina Faso, Benin and Congo-Brazzaville on the same trip. None of these countries export, or even have, uranium. Alternately, it could've been aimed at breaking the bar on high-level visits to Iraq, again to undermine the sanctions regime. Your entire argument rests on faulty premises.

Posted by brunowe at 03/11/2007 @ 01:53am
A third lie that David Brooks told on "Newshour" Friday was that the surge was going swimmingly. The hundreds of murdered pilgrims? Unmentioned. But the editorial in the NY Times mentions them today, and all the death and violence that have escalated out of control in Iraq.

But as for his like about Wilson: he should be banned from "Newshour" for it. And it should have been the anchor (I think it was Suarez), not Shields, who corrected the lie.

Posted by RLawrence at 03/11/2007 @ 08:14am
But as for David Brooks's lie about Wilson: he should be banned from "Newshour" for it. And it should have been the anchor (I think it was Suarez), not Shields, who corrected the lie.

(Correcting a typo -- there's no "k" in "lies," which is what Brooks was telling.)

Posted by RLawrence at 03/11/2007 @ 08:23am
He is in the 1% earner bracket, but it doesn't reflect his welth..same for the guy who has $ 100 million in property but never sells it cause he has to pay capital gains on it...since he generated no income, he then has no tax...is he in your upper 30%?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/07/2007 @ 3:57pm

Maasch, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about do you?

English Composition 101 For Dummies: try it!

Posted by doumer at 03/11/2007 @ 6:57pm
But more importantly, listening only to people who agree with you is boring and bad for the mind. I think that's the problem with most people here, they don't listen to the other side enough. When I've had it here I go argue with the conservatives over things like immigration. In any case, debating makes you think more clearly about the issues.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 4:28pm

Hey, you finally posted something intelligent. WTG!

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 03/11/2007 @ 7:43pm
Libby's supporters, however, believe the villain in the case is Richard Armitage, the former US Secretary of State, who admitted that he was the official who first revealed the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative, to a journalist. Mr Armitage, an Iraq war critic, said he had not known about Miss Plame's covert status.

geez, even armitage admits she was covert. his story is that he inadvertently outed her, knowing she worked at cia but not realizing her covert status. so, even though it damaged the national security, he claims his action was negligent, not treasonous. im not sure we are any better off if these fruit loops in the white house are going around betraying our cia agents through negligence. but, how did armitage learn of it, really? somebody had to know she was covert, and i think armitage is covering up.

Posted by pretzel at 03/11/2007 @ 8:08pm
I should add that if Clinton had spent less of his time trying to get his pole washed by his employees and more time worrying about national security by telling his idiot minions to get OBL, 9/11 might never have happened. That's a good example of what leader's DON'T do.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 5:36pm

and of course the chimp and his uncle dick jumped right on top of that issue the second they came into office.

Bwah haHaHahahaahahAa

but then the chimp administration has been an excellent example of what leaders don't do.

Posted by Will C. at 03/12/2007 @ 07:58am
and have I mentioned lately that scoota...

Posted by Will C. at 03/12/2007 @ 07:58am
is gonna take it in the poopa

Posted by Will C. at 03/12/2007 @ 07:59am
I missed this one:

Posted by CRABWALK 03/09/2007 @ 1:29pm

7th time, do you think the Palestinians charged with terrorism should be let go because the underlying crime was not proven, even though they were convicted of perjury and obstruction.?

Yes or no.---

Gosh, I don't know...have members of the Administration been wearing explosive belts into Congress and blowing up Democrats? If so, definitely yes.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/09/2007 @ 1:48pm

And you call me an ideologue?

what a maroon. Hope you come back, maroon.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2007 @ 08:01am
8th time, PONTIFICUS, so you believe that Palestinians charged with terrorism but found guilty only of lying and obstruction should be let go because THERE WERE NO UNDERLYING CRIMES?

I have to believe that you won't answer this question because you know your whole argument will fall flat if you answer.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/12/2007 @ 08:06am
I hear from the blogosphere that I missed David Corn on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos". But I caught Jim Webb, and he handled George's Libby questions perfectly.

Q: What about a pardon? A: Haven't followed the trial that closely, but I know the trial tells us a lot about these years of Karl Rove's politics of character assassination.

[Advantage Webb: It's about the White House Attack-the-Truth Machine.]

Q: But what can the senate do about that now? A: There is a place for the senate -- in investigating how intelligence was twisted to get us into war, including the work Senator Levin is doing with the Pentagon Audit.

[Game Webb: We've got Feith.]

This, combined with David Corn,, must have made "This Week" a nice oasis of sanity Sunday.

Posted by RLawrence at 03/12/2007 @ 11:41am
Why would anyone other than a hamster hold ken star in reverence. He only discovered perjury in an administration that was guilty of releasing semen.

Yet I can see how to you hamsters releasing seamen is far worse crime than releasing the name of a brave and valiant undercover CIA agent.

Posted by Will C. at 03/12/2007 @ 10:19pm
and scooooooooootificus... is gonna take it in the poopshooticus

Posted by Will C. at 03/12/2007 @ 10:20pm
BTW, HSUB....

A quarter with enough interest multiplies to $100 given some time and the right circumstances...Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/12/2007 @ 10:59am

Would that happen in, say, 7 months?...hehe

Posted by MASK (TM) 03/12/2007 @ 2:10pm

Well, it looks like 52% already think Cheney was part of the cover up. Not long before there's old TV clips of hsuB playing dumber about 'who leaked' side by side with the testimony saying it was hsuB that told Cheney to leak the classified info about Plame...

Er, 25%, 52%, 78%, 87%,... sure looks like a progression to me. 7 months, no problem.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 9-11, 2007. N=1,027 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"As you may know, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Dick Cheney's former top aide, was recently found guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury in connection with the CIA leak investigation. Do you think George W. Bush should or should not give a presidential pardon to Libby?"

Date___________Should___Should Not__Unsure

3/9-11/07________18________69________13

"Do you think Dick Cheney was part of a cover-up to try to prevent the special prosecutor from getting to the truth about who leaked CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the news media, or was not part of any cover-up?"

Date____Part of Cover-up__Not Part of Cover-up__Unsure

3/9-11/07________52_____________29___________20

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/12/2007 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person

Line'm up. Next:

Democrats Seek Rove in Attorney Firings

LARA JAKES JORDAN | AP | March 12, 2007 04:52 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats on Monday singled out presidential adviser Karl Rove for questioning about the firings of eight federal prosecutors and whether the dismissals were politically motivated.

Rove emerged as the Democrats' newest target after weekend news reports said the New Mexico Republican Party's chairman urged Rove to fire David Iglesias, then the state's U.S. attorney.

In a statement Monday, Conyers said stories about Rove's alleged link to Iglesias' dismissal "raise even more alarm bells for us." "As a result, we would want to ensure that Karl Rove was one of the White House staff that we interview in connection with our investigation," said Conyers.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading his chamber's probe into the firings, said he also wants to question Rove.

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/12/2007 @ 6:12pm | ignore this person

Posted by Bushfools at 03/12/2007 @ 11:49pm

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: CIA Leak Case Ends with Guilty Verdict

posted by David Corn on 03/06/2007 @ 6:29pm

David Corn

Archives

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Beat

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

Libby Trial: CIA Leak Case Ends with Guilty Verdict

posted by David Corn on 03/06/2007 @ 6:29pm

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Beat

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!