Libby Sentenced: 30 Months in Jail Because "Truth Matters"

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby stood before federal district court Judge Reggie Walton. It was finally the moment for Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff to speak. The sentencing hearing was coming to an end; Walton was about to pronounce the punishment Libby would face for having obstructed justice in the CIA leak case. Libby, who did not testify during the trial, thanked the court for showing him and his defense team consideration during the proceedings. He told the judge, "It is...my hope the court will consider...my whole life."

That was it. No apology. No expression of remorse.

Then Walton sentenced Libby to 30 months in jail and a $250,000 fine. Libby didn't flinch. His wife, Harriet Grant, cried. Notable conservatives in the front row of the crowded courtroom--Mary Matalin, Barbara Comstock, and Victoria Toensing--appeared shocked.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had asked Walton to incarcerate Libby for 30 to 37 months. At the hearing, prior to Walton's ruling, Libby's defense attorneys--Ted Wells and William Jeffress Jr.--contended that Libby should get off with probation. They threw several arguments at the judge. First, they claimed that the toughest sentencing guides should not be applied to Libby, echoing an argument put forward by Libby's champions in rightwing circles: Nobody was ever charged with leaking the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, so the whole case was not such a big deal. Walton did not bite. Citing appeals court decisions, he noted that in an obstruction of justice case it's the investigation that counts, not the ultimate outcome of the investigation. "Your position," Walton told Jeffress, "would seem to promote someone aggressively engaging in obstruction behavior."

Next, Jeffress asserted that no one really knew if Valerie Wilson had been a covert CIA officer covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and suggested this ought to be a mitigating factor. (In a recent court filing, Fitzgerald declared, "It was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act] as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.") Walton, with his voice rising, outlined the case: "The CIA believes one of its agents was improperly outed....They had a legitimate concern. So they contact the Justice Department and they say this needs to be investigated....And the Justice Department...goes to investigate and they make inquiries....And that person lies." Walton went on: "When law enforcement officials...initiate an investigation...it is the obligation of the American citizenry to be honest and forthright." And Fitzgerald, wearing a gray rumpled suit, added that Libby's lie to those investigating the Plame leak created "a house of mirrors" and made it more difficult for the investigators to "sort out the truth."

Walton indicated that as a matter of law he was sticking with the tougher sentencing guidelines. Next, the issue was whether he ought to use judicial discretion and cut Libby any slack. Fitzgerald argued that Walton's sentence should "make a clear statement that truth matters." He noted that Libby had lied persistently during the leak investigation and had subsequently displayed no contrition. The sentence, the prosecutor continued, should also send the message "that one's status in life does not matter" when it comes to justice. Realizing what Wells and Jeffress were about to argue, Fitzgerald declared that a public servant ought not to receive special treatment. Libby, he said, deserved no more consideration than a social worker, a teacher, a cop. Fitzgerald recognized that Libby had worked long and hard in a variety of government jobs, but he said, "We need the truth from government officials."

Wells had one last shot. The dynamic and dramatic African-American defense attorney said he had "no quarrel with Mr. Fitzgerald's statement that truth matters." But, he added, "it is entirely appropriate for a sentencing judge to take into consideration the good works and the good deeds a person has done." He contended that Libby for decades had engaged in "exceptional public service." He reminded the judge that more than 150 people had submitted to the court letters hailing Libby. This band includes prominent conservative and neoconservative hawks, including Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Henry Kissinger, John Bolton, Doug Feith.

But Wells did not read the letters from these notables. He chose six others. In this group were retired Admiral Joseph Lopez, who praised Libby as a "linchpin" during the first Persian Gulf War; Seth Carus, a biowarfare expert who asserted "Libby has done more to enable the United States to address the challenge of bioterrorism than any other single person"; Robert Blackwill, a former Bush National Security Council official, who said that at the White House no one was "more driven by...sound policy reasoning than Libby"; and Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy defense secretary, who extolled Libby's "decisive contribution" to forging the post-Cold War world. (Wells' use of Wolfowitz, the scandal-struck and outgoing World Bank president, as a character reference prompted smirks among reporters in the courtroom.)

None of the testimonials Wells read referred to the Iraq war. And Wells told the court that though the Libby case was not about the war, it did "seem that Libby was the poster child for all that has gone wrong with this terrible war." Wells essentially argued that was punishment enough. He noted that Libby has "been exposed...to overwhelming negative press coverage" and has "endured public scorn and ridicule." He pointed out that Libby has received hate mail. And that whether Libby goes to jail or not, he will no longer be able to serve his two great loves: working in the government and practicing law. "He has fallen from public grace," Wells exclaimed. "It's a tragic fall....There's no need to incarcerate Mr. Libby."

Walton accepted none of this. He acknowledged Libby had been a public servant for years, foregoing income he could have obtained in private practice. But, the judge noted, "we expect a lot" of senior government officials. Libby's high position, Walton remarked, came with high obligations. Walton derided the attacks launched by Libby partisans and commentators against the CIA leak investigation, the trial, and the verdict. "The evidence overwhelmingly indicates Mr. Libby's culpability," he declared. He blasted Libby for discussing Valerie Wilson with reporters without considering that she might have been an undercover officer. "Government officials must realize," he said, "if they're going to step over the line...there are consequences."

In the end, Walton explained, Libby's government service and his violation of the obligations of his office balanced each other out. There would be no mitigation in the sentencing. He announced his decision: two-and-a-half years in jail and a quarter of a million dollars.

Libby was not hauled off to jail. His lawyers asked Walton to permit Libby to remain free on bond while they appeal the conviction. Walton indicated he was not sympathetic to this position. But he noted that it would take the Bureau of Prisons 45 to 60 days to find a spot for Libby. Consequently, he said, the defense could file a motion on this point by Thursday, and he scheduled a hearing on this question for next week. Presuming Walton does not change his mind at that hearing, Libby will have to surrender himself and begin his jail term sometime in the next two months.

After the sentencing hearing was concluded, Libby exchanged hugs with his wife and friends. His lawyers said they would make no statements. They quickly left the courthouse. Fitzgerald and his team exited the courtroom without answering questions. A few minutes later, I spotted Fitzgerald alone in a courthouse hallway. He was checking messages on his cellphone. Anything to say? I and another reporter asked. He shrugged sheepishly and stuttered, "I...I..." He closed his cell phone. "Just can't." He had an apologetic look on his face. Then he left the building.

Minutes later, as television camera crews in front of the courthouse were breaking down their equipment, a motorcade sped past. In a dark limousine was Cheney, on his way to a meeting on Capitol Hill. His former aide--who had helped Cheney guide the country into the Iraq war--was heading to jail, having been convicted of obstructing an investigation that had targeted Cheney among others. Cheney was still in power. His office had, as of that moment, issued no comment on Libby's sentence.

Fitzgerald got from Walton the message he wanted: Libby lied; this lying was consequential; it demanded serious punishment. One of the Bush officials responsible for a war that many Americans believe was sold with lies will be imprisoned for lying. Still, Libby's conviction and sentencing will have little impact on popular opinion, for most of the public has already reached a verdict on Bush, Cheney and their administration. The Libby case is merely an affirmation of the (widely-held) view that the Bush crowd is not an honest one.

Now the Libby saga enters the real endgame: pardon or no pardon. Bush has a week until the question is truly forced upon him. If next Thursday's hearing changes nothing, Libby will be awaiting a vacancy in a federal penitentiary. This will drive the Libby Lobby to pump up the volume on its call for a pardon. Conservative pundits will go wild. Republican presidential candidates will demand freedom for Libby. (Former Senator Fred Thompson is a member of the Libby Legal Defense Trust and has hosted a fundraiser for Libby.) What will Cheney say? What will Bush do? It appears Bush will not be able to opt for on-the-sly, last-minute sort of pardon that his father awarded Iran-contra figures shortly before leaving office and that President Bill Clinton handed to fugitive financier Marc Rich as the Clinton presidency was ending. If Bush wants to pardon Libby, he will have to do it in full public glare. He will have to explain why a convicted liar--who shares blame for the mess in Iraq--ought to go free.

When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he vowed to bring accountability and ethics back to the White House. A pardon of Libby would be a telling moment in his long departure from that promise.

*****

JUST OUT IN PAPERBACK: HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. The paperback edition of this New York Times bestseller contains a new afterword on George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq and the Scooter Libby trial. The Washington Post said of Hubris: "Indispensable....This [book] pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." The New York Times called it, "The most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations...fascinating reading." Tom Brokaw praised it as "a bold and provocative book." 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 (324)

1. So the soonest he'll have to go to prison is July or August. He serves time until his Inauguration Day pardon, so he'll probably do no more than 6 months.

   Posted by JoeDaJuggler at 06/05/2007 @ 3:17pm

2. "What will Bush do? It appears Bush will not be able to opt for on-the-sly, last-minute sort of pardon that his father awarded Iran-contra figures shortly before leaving office and that President Bill Clinton handed to fugitive financier Marc Rich as the Clinton presidency was ending. If Bush wants to pardon Libby, he will have to do it in full public glare. He will have to explain why a convicted liar--who shares blame for the mess in Iraq--ought to go free."

   Better question...."Why not?". (as noted on other thread), what does it COST Bush? Drop in polls?...can't go lower. Congressional and Media outrage?...let 'em rage, he'd say.

   Plus it "eliminates the issue" WELL before the Primary Season starts and by Christmas, we'll be onto other things (maybe even David Corn will...depends on how "Hubris" does in paperback...heheh)

   Posted by Mask at 06/05/2007 @ 3:39pm

3. Mask,

   By that logic....Bush might as well declare himself dictator for life (if public opinion is entirely irrelevant), yet you've consistently argued that this is NOT in the cards.

   Bush / Chenney do not want any more light shone on this outing / coverup / war lies incident than is already being being applied.....the pardon doesn't come until January 2009.

   Posted by freedomplease at 06/05/2007 @ 3:46pm

4. "the pardon doesn't come until January 2009."

   Yes, but he might not even get locked up before that. I hope he does his 30 months, but I'm extremely doubtful.

   Posted by JoeDaJuggler at 06/05/2007 @ 3:58pm

5. Yeah, Mask. Bush should just invade Canada. Or start running dog fights in the Rose Garden. His numbers cannot get any lower.

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/05/2007 @ 4:10pm

6. has anyone considered Libby NOT getting a pardon?

   Posted by johannesrolf at 06/05/2007 @ 4:26pm

7. I mean, what is the down side for Bush not pardoning? loyalty? I don't think so.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 06/05/2007 @ 4:32pm

8. If the prosecutorial zeal of Mr Fitzgerald and the strict judicial application of the law were applied equally to all public servants as they were to Mr Libby, then this would be a great day for the vitality of the Rule of Law and the Equal Protection of the Law in our Republic. Unfortunately, this selective persecution of the Vice President's aide is contrasted with the Office of Public Integrity's protection from bona fide prosecution of Sandy Berger, a public servant who obstructed forever a truthful telling of Bill Clinton's role in avoiding the apprehension of Bin Laden when he was president. Berger's destruction of unique, uncopied National Security documents bearing Clinton's handwritten directives will enable Clinton to rewrite his role in protecting the US, and faux indignation in future Chris Wallace- like interviews.

   Even worse is the Justice Department's ongoing protection of Hillary Clinton's six year obstruction of three federal investigations into her illegal fundraising activities in Hollywood in 2000 which caused the unnecessary indictment and trial of her finance director enabled by the six year suppression of video taped evidence [hillcap.org] just released by the US Attorney in NY, capturing Hillary in felony violations of the federal election law which would have vindicated her finance director and resulted in her indictment instead. She has lied about the role she played, as caught on tape, to the voters, the FEC, the DOJ and every related investigation since 2001.

   Posted by intermeddler at 06/05/2007 @ 4:38pm

9. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/05/2007 @ 3:46pm

   Posted by HMAN23 06/05/2007 @ 4:10pm

   Sorry, fellers. All those "scenarios" require some input from the Congress...'cept the dog fighting, which MIGHT lose him even BARRY (heheh).

   A Libby pardon would be endless hashing over the Blogosphere....another book chapter or two for David Corn....but a two-day story in the MS Media. Leahy might hold a Senate hearing on it, but since Libby will be pardoned under a Constitutional power granted...and they can't hold a hearing just to subpeone him and TRY to make him say "I cut a deal to take the fall"....

   that'll be the end of it. Again, who does Bush LOSE? The 30%ers think Libby did nothing wrong. The public cares more about Iraq than some guy lying about some other guys saying some woman was a spy or something.

   Again, Libby pardoned...and aside from maybe Mr Corn, even "The Nation" will be onto "Why did Hillary not defend ****..." or "Edwards called **** like he sees it..." or "Sweet Victory! Creation Science struck down in South Dakota"....in a week.

   Posted by Mask at 06/05/2007 @ 4:44pm

10. Posted by INTERMEDDLER 06/05/2007 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person

    lies, all. Berger was prosecuted, plead guilty and was punished.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/05/2007 @ 4:46pm

11. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/05/2007 @ 4:32pm

    You forget, JR....the old "Fitzmas" talk was "Libby gets inicted, he'll sing...name Cheney and Rove, then they'll get indicted...then Cheney impeached and Rove frog-marched from 1600 Pennsylvania".

    Well, Libby didn't "sing"...maybe there's a GOOD reason he didn't? And a good reason he WOULD, if double-crossed by The Boss?

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2007 @ 4:46pm

12. If the judge allows him to be free on appeal, he will never do prison time because Bush will pardon just prior to leaving office in '08.

    If the judge doesn't grant bail, Bush will be put in an awkward position of being forced to pardon him with a year and a half left in his presidency. Such action should sink his poll numbers to new record lows.

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2007 @ 4:50pm

13. Posted by INTERMEDDLER 06/05/2007 @ 4:38pm

    Hey, IM, you could have saved yourself a lot of time if you had posted just "I'm a wingnut"

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/05/2007 @ 5:00pm

14. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/05/2007 @ 4:32pm

    A possible downside: the 30%'ers become the 20%'ers.

    Posted by nathanhale at 06/05/2007 @ 5:01pm

15. INTERMEDDLER,

    I sincerely hope you guys are sucessful in "Swift Boating" Hillary. There is no more corporate affiliated hack on the Dem side of the equation than she is (which is why I never understand the rightwing scream machine tirades when her name is mentioned).

    Go get 'er tiger!

    Posted by freedomplease at 06/05/2007 @ 5:07pm

16. What I don't understand is the severity of the penalty. It seems like the justice system is upside down. Petty crimes that effect a handful of people end up with larger sentences than this weinerhead Libby will get. Libby was obstructing a federal investigation into how our country was brought into war and he gets 3 years?! The country will never know how far we have been deceived thanks to Libby. The worst punishment the system can dole out to him does not fit the crime perpetrated upon the people of the United States, not to mention the people of Iraq.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2007 @ 5:56pm

17. Do any of the apologists have anything to say about their party, other than to start mumbling about Bill Clinton?-Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 1:15pm

    Posted by INTERMEDDLER 06/05/2007 @ 4:38pm

    NEXT...!

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 5:57pm

18. Posted by WOLFGANG1 06/05/2007 @ 5:56pm

    I assume Libby will lose his license to practice law. However there is not much that can be done to prevent him from netting the $800K/year job at some rightwing think tank or private "defense" corp.

    but, his name is mudd to any right thinking person.

    Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff was sentenced to prison for lying about national security matters!! Anybody that was for the war AND for Libby's innocence is really, relly wacked int he noggin'.

    cheney still tries to link Iraq and 9/11. He still talk about wmd's. Why would anyone trust these people?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 6:03pm

19. INTERMEDDLER, when (if) Hillary goes to trial, I will join you in the gallery. If it keeps her out of the running, I am all for it. JR is correct, Berger was found guilty and punished. This is common knowledge available on the net. He owned up to what he did, therefore did not have to be charged with perjury, unlike Libby.

    funny, there are maybe 2-3 strong Hillary supporters around this blog, yet the whole "left" is somehow Hillary country. Could this be more of the neo-con fantasyland? Probably.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 6:09pm

20. Have Jim Lehrer on radio now. Byron York of the National Review -- putting out the "It was Armitage!" line.

    Response from Washington Editor of The Nation: The obstruction obstructs the underlying investigation. There was a serious investigation of a possible crime -- and he lied. So that's why it matters the investigation was obstructed.

    Lehrer: So it doesn't bother you David Corn that there was no underlying conviction?

    Corn: Fitzgerald investigated the Identities Protection Act and found a certain threshhold wan't met. But he found that Libby lied.

    Posted by RLawrence at 06/05/2007 @ 6:15pm

21. Byron York on Lehre: Says pre-war statements were right! (eek)

    Corn: Special Prosecutor that says whatever side you're on you have to tell the truth. Most Americans are convinced that many pre-war statements wre lies. Now we have a conviction that this Admin official lied. So it (confirms what many Americans think of the Administration, that the Admin can't be trusted.)

    Lehrer to York: Agree? York: Uh, not really....

    Corn: York is trying to make it seem there were conflicting journalist stories. But actual testimony showed a half-dozed people Libby talkd to about Plame. So clear that Libby was lying when he said he didn't know anything about Plame.

    Posted by RLawrence at 06/05/2007 @ 6:19pm

22. "A few minutes later, I spotted Fitzgerald alone in a courthouse hallway. He was checking messages on his cellphone. Anything to say? I and another reporter asked. He shrugged sheepishly and stuttered, "I...I..." He closed his cell phone. "Just can't." He had an apologetic look on his face. Then he left the building."

    How helpful that this fellow isnt' a grandstander. Not that grandstanders don't have their place, too.

    Posted by RLawrence at 06/05/2007 @ 6:21pm

23. Lehrer wraps up: York thinks there'll be an end-of-term pardon; Corn says a pardon not likely because law says there has to be remorse, which is missing here.

    Lots of typos in my posts... and I know I didn't get the identity protection law comment exactly right. But anyway nice to see the story get a big top spot on the Newshour.

    Posted by RLawrence at 06/05/2007 @ 6:26pm

24. MASK's `pardon' is more likely than not! Give you Lefties something to screech about during those hot Aug./Sept. months!

    Lehrer: Corn says a pardon not likely because law says there has to be remorse, which is missing here.

    I think David over-concluded here on "there has to be remorse"! Many, many folks are pardoned after they were found to be wrongly convicted or, social norms have `progressed' beyond when any old `crimes' led to convictions. On Libby, he also has appeal pending.

    Posted by Happy at 06/05/2007 @ 7:15pm

25. Maybe Sandy Berger can offer a pordon.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/05/2007 @ 8:19pm

26. Happy, you find it fine that Lbby lied?

    you guys are nuts. Is that what you teach your kids? "Go ahead, lie to the police, it's what's going to keep you out of jail."

    Yep, republicans have a lock on morality, don't they? All the rest of us just "don't get it".

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 8:21pm

27. Posted by METTEYYA 06/05/2007 @ 4:50pm

    Very doubtful Libby remains free while he appeals.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/05/2007 @ 8:25pm

28. Do any of the apologists have anything to say about their party, other than to start mumbling about Bill Clinton?-Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 1:15pm

    Posted by USAPRIDE 06/05/2007 @ 8:19pm

    NEXT!...

    Lying makes us a proud nation, eh?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 8:27pm

29. The whole concept of Republicans having a lock on morality is a notion made up by liberals to give them a paltform to pass judgement on anyone they don't agree with.

    It's a smokescreen.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/05/2007 @ 8:28pm

30. Posted by USAPRIDE 06/05/2007 @ 8:28pm

    so, the Moral Majority was a leftist dream? As was Buchanons rant at the 1992 dem convention? All the talk about gay agendas is dreaming? Chimpies claim to bring honor and integrity BACK to the WH was made up by the "left"? All of those repubs that called all of us lefites "traitors" was a big dream?

    You live in a fantasy world, PRIDE.

    You never answered the question, does the VP's chief of staff lying make you proud? Do you teach kids to lie to the police?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 8:31pm

31. Do the Apologists agree or disagree with this statement made in court:

    "a principle fundamental to preserving our judicial system's independence from politics: that any witness, whatever his political affiliation, whatever his views on any policy or national issue, whether he works in the White House or drives a truck to earn a living, must tell the truth when he raises his hand and takes an oath in a judicial proceeding, or gives a statement to federal law enforcement officers."

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 8:33pm

32. Yes, hsuB's poll approval numbers 'can' get lower-- and they 'are' getting lower. hsuB pardons Libby and he's just a few days/weeks closer to getting impeached. hsuB has everything neccessary for being impeached and low poll numbers aren't helping him in any way not to be. I say he doesn't. But not because he isn't thinking about doing it-- what if hsuB gets impeached before he can pardon Libby? Did Nixon pardon a lot of people just before he resigned per the articles of impeachment vote? Or was he simply a beneficiary?

    BTW, what did cHeney say about the Ford pardon of Nixon? And isn't strange that rOve started out with another Dick? er, NOW That didn't sound right...

    PollingReport.com

    PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent national polls

    Survey_______Dates__________Approve______Disapprove____Unsure____Dif

    Pew____5/30 - 6/3/07________29__________61_______10_____-32

    Pew_______4/18-22/07 ___________35____________57_________8______-22

    USA T/Gallup_6/1-3/07________32__________62________6____-30

    USA T/Gallup__5/4-6/07 ___________34____________63_________3_____-29

    CBS/NY Times_5/18-23/07______30__________63________7____-33

    CBS/NY Times__4/20-24/07_________32____________61_________7_____-29

    D/Hotline RV__5/16-20/07______32__________64________4____-32

    D/Hotline RV___4/26-30/07 _________35____________62_________3_____-27

    Gallup____5/10-13/07_________33__________62________5____-29

    Gallup_______3/11-14/07 __________35____________61_________4_____-26

    Newsweek___5/2-3/07_________28__________64________8____-36

    Newsweek_____3/28-29/07_________33____________60 _________7 ____-27

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/05/2007 @ 8:33pm

33. Add Libby to the list of rightwing heros: Liddy, North, Poindexter, Meese, Nixon, Negroponte.

    LIARS ALL. Convicted by juries of their peers.

    Its too bad the cons don't rant about this "activist judge".

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 8:45pm

34. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/05/2007 @ 8:33pm

    HSUB, as our main "poll man"....got any data on "How important the 'Plame-gate' affair is?" to the general public?

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2007 @ 8:47pm

35. Meese, Nixon, Negroponte.

    LIARS ALL. Convicted by juries of their peers.

    Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 8:45pm

    CRAB, I know sometimes you just say stuff without much thought as to complete factual accuracy...so maybe you'll back off from part of this, unless you can explain when Negroponte, Meese, even Nixon were "Convicted by juries of their peers"???

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2007 @ 8:50pm

36. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZlooks like 15 months or so at hard tennis, followed by 30K per speech on the lecture circuit..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Posted by davebarlett at 06/05/2007 @ 8:51pm

37. Your fooling yourself Crabwalk.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/05/2007 @ 8:51pm

38. This POTUS reminds me of our 16th.

    History will be kind to W.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/05/2007 @ 8:52pm

39. The whole concept of Republicans having a lock on morality is a notion made up by conservatives to give them a platform to pass judgement on anyone they don't agree with.

    It's a smokescreen.

    Posted by USAPRIDE 06/05/2007 @ 8:28pm

    Much better. Now I can stop laughing.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/05/2007 @ 8:57pm

40. I never mentioned BJ regarding Berger.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/05/2007 @ 8:59pm

41. This POTUS reminds me of our 16th.

    History will be kind to W.

    Posted by USAPRIDE 06/05/2007 @ 8:52pm

    You forgot to add, "Thank you very much folks! I'll be here all week, and next weekend you can catch me at The Funny Bone!"

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/05/2007 @ 9:00pm

42. HMAN23 must be liberal - misquotes are reality to the left.

    Rewrite all the history to meet your agenda.

    Land of the free never meant so little.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/05/2007 @ 9:05pm

43. I wasn't rewriting anything, Pridey.

    I was correcting your obvious error.

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/05/2007 @ 9:10pm

44. Its too bad the cons don't rant about this "activist judge".

    Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 8:45pm

    Why? He doesn't fit the describtion of an activist judge.

    The judge stayed with the law and guide lines..

    Posted by john maasch at 06/05/2007 @ 9:11pm

45. It would have been good if Abe was able to see the end of the play.

    All he did was save a nation.

    What a minute, does that mean he was nation building?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 06/05/2007 @ 9:11pm

46. I have pity that you think George W. Bush is "saving the nation."

    Posted by Hman23 at 06/05/2007 @ 9:40pm

47. Happy, you find it fine that Lbby lied?

    ....All the rest of us just "don't get it".

    Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 8:21pm

    Lordy, I'll meet you half-way on the first part & totally agree w/your ending part!

    ALMOST ALL politicians & political operatives lie MOST of the time....Without exception, ALL pols. lie just before Elections! In Libby's case, I find `forgiveness' fairly easy (refresher: no underlying crime) since he was a `nuts & bolts' guy who got entangled in more details than he could figure a way out! His low-grade lies (if sustained on appeal) don't come anywhere near "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!", "I did NOT have sex with THAT woman!", or "Vote me into Congress and we will stop this War!".

    Like the Blacks who vote 85%+ for the Dems, you Libs "don't get it"! Neither you nor I can fight our great democracy & all of its supporting infrastructures and idioms.

    Expect little (of others) and you won't be disappointed! If you expect a lot, do it yourself! Works great in HAPPY households!

    Posted by Happy at 06/05/2007 @ 9:45pm

48. scoooooootificus....

    30 months of taking it in the pooooooooopshooticus

    Posted by Will C. at 06/05/2007 @ 9:53pm

49. ooooooooooo..... that's gotta hurt

    Posted by Will C. at 06/05/2007 @ 9:53pm

50. HMAN23, if you have pity on these morons then you are a better man than I. We have long since passed the point when any rational human being can purport to support this cabal of criminals with a straight face. The 30 percenters, down with the shippers, myopic misanthropes or whatever you wish to call dub's dwindling fan base are either A) Irreconcilably stupid (i.e. the earth is 6000 years old, cavemen played with dinosaurs and a bearded man created the world in 6 days) B) Acting avariciously to advance their economic interests ( war profiteers, top 5% income people, nonrewable resources) or C) hopelessly deluded and manipulated by a complicit media aparatus (FOX News, worthy and unworthy victims, corporate collusion, etc.) There is certainly a degree of overlap, but these seem to be 3 fairly distinct divisions of the 30 percenters.

    As for scooter, I hope he serves every day of his sentence, but have little faith in our criminal "justice" system's ability to dispense symetric punishment. As far as i am concerned, every last one of these "Masters of War" deserve to be tried at the Hague for war crimes/ crimes against humanity, or failing that, they desrve the same fate they have sentenced 500,000+ innocent Iraqis to.

    Posted by entropy at 06/05/2007 @ 10:02pm

51. will, I am sure you are just trying to be funny, but belittling the barbaric conditions of our penal system simply plays into the hands of these "law and order" protofascists. I am quite certain that scooter is destined for a different type of prison than the ones packed with our poor and minority offenders anyway.

    Happy- are you being delberately obtuse or are you really just that fucking dull? Of course politicians are serial liers- most of them just don't do it under oath and get caught. And please, do us all a favor and absain from incorporating the word HAPPY into every goddamn nonsensical post you make. Its not clever. Its not funny. It is basically shit.

    Posted by entropy at 06/05/2007 @ 10:09pm

52. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/05/2007 @ 4:46pm

    lies, all.

    JR, you just provided the best testimonial as to the veracity of that post that I can think of.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 10:09pm

53. It's official - our justice system is a total joke. Berger steals and destroys original national security documents, covering up Clinton's criminal negligence in the war on terror - he gets a slap on the wrist. Teddy Kennedy drives a girl into the water, probably while drunk, runs away, sobers up, leaves the scene of the accident, does nothing to help the woman, and gets off scot-free. Libby gets convicted of making misstatements into the investigation of a non-crime, which the prosecutor knew from the git-go was a non-crime, and gets 30 months.

    Total joke.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 10:12pm

54. Posted by ENTROPY 06/05/2007 @ 10:02pm

    Can you possibly be as big of a jackass as you sound?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 10:14pm

55. give the source of the perjorative, i take that comment as high praise.

    Posted by entropy at 06/05/2007 @ 10:15pm

56. given

    Posted by entropy at 06/05/2007 @ 10:15pm

57. Sure, Ponti "It's the systems fault".

    Listen to yourself.

    why do you hate America?

    BTW- Plame was covert.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 10:23pm

58. Do any of the apologists have anything to say about their party, other than to start mumbling about Bill Clinton?-Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 1:15pm

    It's official - our justice system is a total joke. Berger steals and destroys original national security documents, covering up Clinton's criminal negligence in the war on terror - he gets a slap on the wrist-Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/05/2007 @ 10:12pm

    NEXT!...

    weak shit.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 10:25pm

59. Posted by MASK 06/05/2007 @ 8:50pm

    CRAB, I know sometimes you just say stuff without much thought as to complete factual accuracy...so maybe you'll back off from part of this, unless you can explain when Negroponte, Meese, even Nixon were "Convicted by juries of their peers"???

    I have commented on a number of occasions on how various people with which CRABBIE disagrees politically often stand convicted of crimes, convictions that no-one seems to know about but CRABBIE. CRABBIE appears to suffer from the delusion that trials conducted in his own mind bear weight in the real world; either that, or nobody ever told him what 'due process' means. He still seems to think that someone (I'm not sure if even he knows who) is guilty of the crime of 'outing a secret, covert agent' that commuted openly in a Jag convertible to CIA HQ, even though no-one has ever been charged with that crime. Come to think of it, lack of concern with the niceties of due process seems to be a common problem here.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 10:26pm

60. So, not a single one of the cons think lying under oath is a big deal.

    Glad we got that all straightened out.

    Flip

    Flop

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 10:27pm

61. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/05/2007 @ 10:26pm

    Are you saying that Plame was not covert, and that she was not outed? And that Libby isn't guilty of lying?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 10:28pm

62. Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 10:27pm

    Who said lying under oath wasn't a big deal? Resorting to straw men again, to buttress your lack of substance? My point was that the flagrant disproportionality of the sentences made the justice system look absurd; kind of like the OJ acquittal.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 10:31pm

63. You've got some great heros there Ponti.

    Grimes, Savafian, Ney, Cunningham, ollie north, G. Liddy.

    Stand up guys.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 10:32pm

64. Who said lying under oath wasn't a big deal? Resorting to straw men again,-PONTI

    Straw man?! Thats what the article s about. Libby going to jail for lying under oath.

    straw man. pffft.

    Find any wmd's in Ira this week?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 10:35pm

65. Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 10:35pm

    Find any wmd's in Ira this week?

    Hmm, let's see. Straw man in one post, red herring in the next. That's two for two. How about a little ad hominem in the next post, just for variety?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 10:36pm

66. Iraq. not ira.

    Plame was covert.

    can you refute that? She says she was, the CIA says she was, the office of the AG says she was.

    do you have special knowledge about this? You know that the head of the CIA is wrong?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 10:37pm

67. Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 10:32pm

    I'll take'em over your guys any day. Bill and Hillary? Jimmy Carter? Walter Mondale? Dukakis? Sandy Berger? Teddy Kennedy? John Murtha? John Edwards?

    LOL - boy you sure got the short end of the stick.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 10:39pm

68. No, ponti, just pointing out that you have a pretty bad history of believing fairy tails spun by your supposed "sources".

    Plame was covert.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 10:39pm

69. Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 10:37pm

    can you refute that? She says she was, the CIA says she was, the office of the AG says she was.

    do you have special knowledge about this? You know that the head of the CIA is wrong?

    If she was covert, and she was 'outed', as you say, how come nobody was ever even charged with the crime? And why do you keep not only accusing someone (I'm not sure who) of committing this crime, but being found guilty? Of a crime that was never even charged?

    Except in your own fevered imaginaion, of course. I'm talking about the real world here.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 10:41pm

70. I rarely defend any on that list.

    I'm not an apologist for any dem.

    Never voted for any of those on your list.

    My heros look more like MLK, Ghandi, the Dalai llama, Karch Kiraly, Ray McGovern.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 10:43pm

71. CRABBIE, you're too easy. In fact, you're a walking catalog of rhetorical fallacies. Obviously, this is symptomatic of the complete breakdown of logic and a tendency towards delusion in your thinking.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 10:43pm

72. CRABBIE, just as bad grammar is symptomatic of sloppy thinking, the tendency towards displaying rhetorical fallacies presents disordered logical processes. When you use straw man arguments, you're arguing more with yourself than anyone else. Kind of like shadow boxing, except in your case you're fighting your own demons. Weird.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 10:47pm

73. The CIA says she was covert.

    Are they wrong? Did Hayden lie to congress about that? Did Fitzgerald file false claims into a court?

    the reasons for no charges have been explained to you too many times to count ponti. Why would another time make you see it?

    Knowledge and intent. If Libby lied about what he knew, or what others knew (which is what the court found him guilty of), then how can the prosecutor determine his knowledge and intent.

    Thick as a brick. Careful finding your way to work, ponti.

    Plame was covert.

    Libby lied.

    Teach your kids to lie if you want. Maybe one will grow up to be president.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 10:49pm

74. Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 10:49pm

    The CIA says she was covert.

    Are they wrong? Did Hayden lie to congress about that? Did Fitzgerald file false claims into a court?

    the reasons for no charges have been explained to you too many times to count ponti. Why would another time make you see it?

    Knowledge and intent. If Libby lied about what he knew, or what others knew (which is what the court found him guilty of), then how can the prosecutor determine his knowledge and intent.

    Thick as a brick. Careful finding your way to work, ponti.

    Plame was covert.

    Libby lied.

    Teach your kids to lie if you want. Maybe one will grow up to be president.

    CRABBIE, you need to get on the phone immediately, well, first thing tomorrow morning, and call Fitz and tell him he's not doing his job. Since Plame was covert, and she was 'outed' by somebody, Fitz needs to do his job and charge someone. Maybe you should just take over the whole investigation on your own authority and make sure this gets followed up on. Then, perhaps, the real world might take on some semblance of what you believe to be true.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 10:52pm

75. It's the fault of the system Ponti.

    It's all "The Mans fault".

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 10:53pm

76. Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/05/2007 @ 10:50pm

    Now we can get on with trying, convicting, and sentencing Demoncrats like William Jefferson on his SIXTEEN counts of bribery, moneylaundering, influence peddling etc.! Thanks Demoncrats for bringing your brand of ethics and morality to the congress, and he has been doing it for 16 years obviously with Demoncrat approval!!!!

    Yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing justice done for that guy, just as Hillary was investigated for that apparent $100k bribe that Tyson funneled to her through their lawyer about 20 years ago. Oh wait, there was no investigation. Never mind.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 10:56pm

77. In the real world Libby is guilty of lying.

    In the real world the CIA decides who is covert.

    In the real world this is part of the official record:

    "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 10:59pm

78. Do any of the apologists have anything to say about their party, other than to start mumbling about Bill Clinton?-Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 1:15pm

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/05/2007 @ 10:50pm

    NEXT!!...

    so predictable.

    baaa baaa

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 11:01pm

79. Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 10:59pm |

    In the real world Libby is guilty of lying.

    In the real world the CIA decides who is covert.

    In the real world this is part of the official record:

    "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

    And in the real world, the upshot of all of that is - nada. Nothing. Because Fitz knows none of it would stand up in court, and the proof of the pudding is no-one is charged for the crime of revealing the identity of a covert agent. And Fitz has gone home. So you can say anything you want, but as they say, the dogs bark but the caravan moves on.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 11:03pm

80. Hey CRABBIE, I'm just curious. Are you one of those guys who says that Chavez was justified in closing down RCTV because he claims the station were involved in a coup attempt several years ago? I'm just curious if you have ever been exposed to the idea of due process.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 11:05pm

81. Ponti, you forgot to mention the partisan element of the trial. you know, where the republican AG asks a prosecutor famous for bringing down Daley (d), to investigate the outing of a CIA agent during a war. A CIA headed by a republican appointee. then Libby lied to the FBI, headed by a republican appointee. Then it went before a judge appointed by GWB.

    It was all a democrat plot.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 11:07pm

82. And Fitz has gone home.

    Do you get anything right? Fitz is still working.

    Chavez? Were you not just writing about straw-men?

    no I do not support censorship? Why would you think that? Because Chavez is a lefty, and I'm a lefty? That is stupid.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 11:10pm

83. Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 11:07pm

    Ponti, you forgot to mention the partisan element of the trial. you know, where the republican AG asks a prosecutor famous for bringing down Daley (d), to investigate the outing of a CIA agent during a war. A CIA headed by a republican appointee. then Libby lied to the FBI, headed by a republican appointee. Then it went before a judge appointed by GWB.

    It was all a democrat plot.

    Just like in the OJ trial, the ultimate decision was made by a jury. In the OJ trial, a predominantly black jury let a black man, who any rational examination of the evidence would indicate to be guilty, go free because he was black. In the Libby trial, a predominantly liberal DC jury convicted Libby, who may have made misstatements, of perjury because he was a Republican. That's what I think happened, because Libby simply had no reason to lie. In both cases, an egregious miscarriage of justice occurred because agendas were brought into the courtroom. It's really as simple as that.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 11:11pm

84. Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 11:10pm

    Do you get anything right? Fitz is still working.

    He is? Then why did he declare the investigation closed? Perhaps you should tell him?

    Chavez? Were you not just writing about straw-men?

    no I do not support censorship? Why would you think that? Because Chavez is a lefty, and I'm a lefty? That is stupid.

    I told you the point I was pursuing, and I didn't characterize your argument, I simply asked you a question, so I can't be accused of strawmen.

    And there are lots of lefties here who make apologies and rationalizations for Chavez's shutdown of RCTV, how am I to know that you're not one of them, other than asking, which I did?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 11:15pm

85. In the real world the upshot is that the CIA spent a lot of money and time training Plame and setting up fronts for her to operate under. In the real world she was a counter proliferation specialist, trying to keep your sorry butt safe from what you feared most, wmd's in Iraq. in the real world all of that has been wasted, for political gain.

    Sorry you don't get it.

    It's all the systems fault.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 11:15pm

86. If Fitz went home, who is going to show up next week in Waltons court room?

    the liberal jury? Buwhahaha.

    It's the fault of the Jury system now? You better rise up and throw off those shackles! Rich white men with a defense "team" just can't catch a break anymore.

    Going to bed. you're a nutter.

    "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

    30 months. Cheneys Chief of Staff. For lying.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 11:21pm

87. Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 11:15pm

    In the real world the upshot is that the CIA spent a lot of money and time training Plame and setting up fronts for her to operate under. In the real world she was a counter proliferation specialist, trying to keep your sorry butt safe from what you feared most, wmd's in Iraq. in the real world all of that has been wasted, for political gain.

    Nonsense. Plame hadn't been a covert agent for years. In fact, she publicaly commuted to CIA HQ. If you knew, or chose to know, anything about the covert agent law, you would know that she clearly was not covered under the spirit of the law. Fitz may have claimed that she technically fit the definition of covert, but he knoew that it would never hold up in court so he never even bothered to bring any charges. The technicalities you cite were never anything but an excuse to launch a partisan witchhunt, and you are nothing but a dead-ender in that regard.

    Sorry you don't get it.

    Oh, I get it all right. All too well my friend.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 11:28pm

88. Posted by CRABWALK 06/05/2007 @ 11:21pm

    "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

    Uh huh. Here we go again. You say she was covert, but no-one was ever charged with outing her. Just keep your head in the sand.

    30 months. Cheneys Chief of Staff. For lying.

    I notice you didn't say for 'outing a covert agent.' Did you?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/05/2007 @ 11:30pm

89. Court record say:

    "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

    Pontificus omniscientus say:

    Nonsense. Plame hadn't been a covert agent for years

    Head of CIA say:

    Plame covert.

    Pontificus omniscientus say:

    Nonsense. Plame hadn't been a covert agent for years

    Constitution say :

    Jury trial

    Ponti say:

    jury trial no good. Bad juju letting citizens on jury.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 11:34pm

90. CRABBIE, just as bad grammar is symptomatic of sloppy thinking,

    The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants. --Chimpy, Interview with the New York Times,, Jan. 14, 2001

    "And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it." (May 2, 2007)

    The Iraqis are fully staffed, and -- and they've got their team in there, but we don't. And so, what Gen. Petraeus is saying -- some early signs, still dangerous, but give me -- give my chance a plan to work. -- Truer accidental words are seldom heard, Interview with PBS' Charlie Rose, Apr. 24, 2007

    The only thing I can tell you is that when I speak, I'm very conscience about the audiences that are listening to my words.White House, Feb. 14, 2007

    And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it. -- (NPR), Jan. 29, 2007

    And the temptation is gonna find scapegoats. Well, if the people want a scapegoat, they got one right here in me 'cause it's my decisions.Jan. 12, 2007

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2007 @ 11:47pm

91. 2.5 years. $250000. 400 hours of community service. He'll serve 85% of the sentence unless he's pardoned. He'll report in 45-60 days to start his incarceration.

    Libby got twice the federal sentencing guideline recomendation, which is 15-20 months.

    We know Rove and Bartlett were involved in this disclosure of classified information and by deduction, we know Bush is too. I think we can count on a pardon in Januray 2009. Libby will serve 16 months and pay $0. When he gets out of jail, his partners in crime will give him a lucrative job but not as corporate counsel becuase the bar will revoke his license to practice.

    Where are all those whinny titty babies who cried day after day that Plame was not covert and blaa blaa blaa. They are not here posting their blaa blaa blaa. I bought them a binky to share among themsleves.

    Posted by NeilSagan at 06/05/2007 @ 11:50pm

92. Plame tell congress, under oath:

    "In the run-up to the war with Iraq , I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policy makers on Iraq 's presumed weapons of mass destruction program. While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington , I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence. "

    REP. JOHN YARMUTH (D-KY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today, Mrs. Wilson. Our country owes you a great debt of gratitude for your service, and I think you're continuing that service today by appearing.

    I'd like to start by asking you about July 14, 2003, the day that Robert Novak wrote the column in the Chicago Sun Times identifying you as an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Quote -- but before I get to that, I want to ask you about the day before, July 13th, my understanding is that on that date, you were covert. Is that correct?

    MS. PLAME WILSON: I was a covert officer, correct.

    MS. PLAME WILSON: But I was covert. I did travel overseas on secret missions within the last five years.

    REP. DAVIS: Did anyone at the CIA tell you your career path was damaged by the disclosure?

    MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes.REP. DAVIS: Did anyone at the CIA tell you your career path was damaged by the disclosure?

    MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes.

    MS. PLAME WILSON: Congressman, thank you for the opportunity. I know I'm here under oath and I'm here to say that I was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency.

    REP. CUMMINGS: Is it possible that Ms. Toensing had more information than you do about your work or had access to secret documents that you don't?

    MS. PLAME WILSON: I would find that highly unlikely, Congressman, because much of that information about my career is still classified.

    REP. CUMMINGS: On Wednesday night, I know that Mr. Waxman, our chair, and Congressman Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, spoke personally with General Hayden, the head of the CIA. And Chairman Waxman told me that General Hayden said clearly and directly, quote, "Ms. Wilson was covert," end of quote. There was no doubt about it. And by the way, the CIA has authorized us to be able to say that.

    In addition, I understand that Chairman Waxman sent his opening statement over to the CIA to be cleared and to make sure that it was accurate. In it he said, quote, "Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA," end of quote. Quote, "Ms. Wilson was undercover," end of quote. The CIA cleared these statements. I emphasize all of this because I know that thereare people who are still trying to suggest that -- that what seems absolutely clear isn't really true, and that you weren't covert. And I think one of the things we need to do in this hearing is make sure thereisn't any ambiguity on this point.

    Just three more questions. Do you hold this covert status at the time of the leak -- did you -- the covert status at the time of the leak?

    MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes, I did, Congressman. Yes.

    REP. CUMMINGS: Number two, the Identities Protection Act refers to travel outside the United States within the last five years. Let me ask you this question -- again, we don't want classified information, dates, locations or any other details -- during the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?

    MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes, I did, Congressman.

    REP. CUMMINGS: Finally, so as to be clear for the record, you were a covert CIA employee and within the past five years from today you went on secret missions outside the United States , is that correct?

    MS. PLAME WILSON: That is correct, Congressman.

    Pontificus say:

    Nonsense. Plame hadn't been a covert agent for years

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:01am

93. Where are all those whinny titty babies who cried day after day that Plame was not covert and blaa blaa blaa. They are not here posting their blaa blaa blaa. I bought them a binky to share among themsleves.

    Posted by NEILSAGAN 06/05/2007 @ 11:50pm

    You must have Ponti on ignore.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:03am

94. Court record say:

    "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

    Pontificus omniscientus say:

    Nonsense. Plame hadn't been a covert agent for years

    Head of CIA say:

    Plame covert.

    Pontificus omniscientus say:

    Nonsense. Plame hadn't been a covert agent for years

    Constitution say :

    Jury trial

    Ponti say:

    jury trial no good. Bad juju letting citizens on jury.

    Like I said, CRABBIE, you can keep on repeating that 'Plame was covert' but it doesn't mean anything in the real world. Plame was not covert, and Fitz knows it, this is why he hasn't charged anyone with outing her. If that wasn't true, he wouldn't be doing his job; are you saying he's not doing his job? I've never heard you claim that.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 12:03am

95. Posted by CRABWALK 06/06/2007 @ 12:03am

    Hey CRABBIE, if Plame wasn't covert, why hasn't Fitz charged anyone with outing her? Isn't he doing his job? Is he part of the conspiracy?

    Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 12:05am

96. HSUB, as our main "poll man"....got any data on "How important the 'Plame-gate' affair is?" to the general public?

    Posted by MASK 06/05/2007 @ 8:47pm

    Washington Post-ABC News Poll: Probe Into CIA Leak Wednesday, October 1, 2003

    Do you think this is a very serious matter, somewhat serious, not too serious or not serious at all?

    --------------Serious-------------------------Not serious-------

    ____________NET __Very _Smwt. __NET __Not too __At all __No opinion

    9/30/03______81 ____48 ___34 ____16 _____7 ______9 _____3

    Just your best guess, how likely or unlikely do you think it is that someone in the White House leaked this classified information - very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or very unlikely?

    ---------------------Likely----------------------Unlikely-------

    ____________NET __Very _Smwt. ___NET _Smwt. _Very _No opinion

    9/30/03 _____72 ____34 ____38 _____24 __ 13 ____10 ____ 5

    Just your best guess, how likely or unlikely do you think it is that George W. Bush knew in advance that someone in the White House was going to leak this classified information - is it very likely that Bush knew about it, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely or very unlikely?

    --------------------------Likely--------------------Unlikely-------

    ____________NET ___Very _Smwt. ___ NET _Smwt. _Very _No opinion

    9/30/03 ______34 ____10 ___24 ______62 ___26 ____36 _____4

    Do you think this investigation should be handled by (the U.S. Justice Department, which is part of the Bush administration), or should it be handled by (an outside investigator known as a special counsel, that is not part of the Bush administration)?

    ____ Justice Department _Special Counsel _No opinion

    9/30/03 _____29 ____________69 __________3

    If the investigation finds that someone in the White House leaked classified information, do you think that person should or should not lose their job?

    ________Yes __No _No opinion

    9/30/03 __91 __5 _____4

    If the investigation finds that someone in the White House leaked classified information, do you think that person should or should not face criminal charges?

    ________Yes __No _No opinion

    9/30/03 __82 __10 ____8

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/06/2007 @ 12:10am

97. Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 06/05/2007 @ 11:30pm | ignore this person

    Yes, Plame was covert.

    No, Berger didn't destroy documents. Even your source, Ronald A. Cass said in his article, "the Justice Department declared with confidence that no documents had been taken".

    Yes, it was vp Cheney that destroyed protected public documents. It was he that had the Secret Service logs destroyed.

    Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. Libby was convicted of obstructing a criminal investigation. It doesn't matter one bit whether anyone was charged with a crime that was the subject of the investigation. Lying to the FBI and Grand Jury and obstruction of justice are crimes on their own. Libby did both and now, hopefully, he will get to spend 30 months in prison, loose his law license, loose his right to vote as a felon and spend the rest of his life being called an ex-con, no wait, he will still be a neo con.

    You just keep bringing up all the old crap that has been debunked long ago. You think that if you keep telling the same tired old lies over and over and over again that they will one day be accepted as true. That's not going to happen while I'm reading The Nation. I'll call you on each and every time I see it.

    "Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary." - George Orwell

    itmfa

    Posted by COProgressive at 06/06/2007 @ 12:20am

98. I think if the MSM can present a clear case with congressional oversight documentation that the hsuB/cHeney admin outed a covert CIA agent that was meant to investigate WMD/nuclear weapon proliferation around the ME/Iran that made us blind in that area... I think we the people would want their heads on a pole like yesterday. Most people think they're scum as it is.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/06/2007 @ 12:20am

99. Ponti say:

    Plame was not covert, and Fitz knows it,

    but Fitzgerald filed a piece of paper in a US court that said:

    "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:20am

100. Knowledge and intent, Ponti.

     Fitz could not prove anybody knew she was covert and their intent was to blow her cover. The statute is very strict, and your crew danced out of it on a technicality.

     Plame was covert, republicans blew her cover. Libby lied about his knowledge and intent.

     "The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house. " Chimpy, Jan 15, 2000.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:26am

101. Like a man running down a runway with a bomb, Libby is a stain.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:28am

102. why hasn't Fitz charged anyone with outing her?

     Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 12:05am | ignore this person

     Silly little man, Libby obstructed a criminal investigation and lied.

     Boy, some people are thick!

     "Above all, I would teach him to tell the truth ... Truth-telling, I have found, is the key to responsible citizenship. The thousands of criminals I have seen in 40 years of law enforcement have had one thing in common: Every single one was a liar." - J. Edger Hoover

     Posted by COProgressive at 06/06/2007 @ 12:39am

103. MAsk, I admit, publicly, that I mis-wrote. Negroponte was never tried. He lied to the UN, and congress. Nixon sure was convicted, in the public arena. He was guilty as guilty can be. Meese was never tried either. I was wrong.

     See how easy that is Ponti.

     they are all still scum, and heroes to the right.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:48am

104. Are any of the top repubs that are running for pres not ok with crooks or is it only ok if repubs are the crooks? Yep, repub politicians are such lowly scum that it's considered ok by repub politicians to commit crimes, but only if you're a repub politician and for heaven's sake not ever get punished-- god forebid that a repub new con supporter, servicer of dic'tator philosophy ever be punish for their crime...

     Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Hunter both said they would pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former aide Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby, sentenced to 30 months in prison earlier in the day for lying and obstructing a CIA leak investigation.

     Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a former prosecutor, said the sentence was excessive, which "argues in favor of a pardon."

     OH GOD. WHAT LOATHSOME VILE SCUM REPUBS ARE.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/06/2007 @ 02:38am

105. Congratulations, David. You were the first to point out the possible criminality involved in the Plame leak.

     Posted by bob h at 06/06/2007 @ 05:38am

106. " He reminded the judge that more than 150 people had submitted to the court letters hailing Libby. This band includes prominent conservative and neoconservative hawks, including Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Henry Kissinger, John Bolton, Doug Feith."

     The "Usual Suspects" are listed above. Of course, when one member of a criminal gang gets in trouble, some of his fellow hoodlums will want to help the chap. Libby's next stop should be the International Court of Law in the Hague, along with his fellow conspirators, being tried for their massive numer of war crimes.

     Posted by Greg Bacon at 06/06/2007 @ 06:27am

107. Posted by CRABWALK 06/06/2007 @ 12:48am

     MAsk, I admit, publicly, that I mis-wrote. Negroponte was never tried. He lied to the UN, and congress. Nixon sure was convicted, in the public arena. He was guilty as guilty can be. Meese was never tried either. I was wrong.

     See how easy that is Ponti.

     they are all still scum, and heroes to the right.

     CRABBIE, you're delusional. 'He was convicted - in the public arena.' What nonsense. You insist that people were guilty of blowing the cover of a covert agent - yet in the next breath you admit that knowledge and intent could never be proven. You continue to insist that Plame was 'covert' - yet if one bothers to familiarize one's self with the purpose and intent of the statute, and the context in which it was written, it become plainly obvious that Plame was anything but teh type of agent it was meant to protect.

     Yes, I know you will continue to argue otherwise, because it suits your agenda - feeding your hatred of all things Bush. But to me, you're plainly crackers. Enjoy your hatred, it's pretty much all you've got.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 07:56am

108. Ponti,

     What a great day for America yesterday was!

     Now we American citizens can rest assured that future WH Admin's will not release any more names of covert CIA agents. And with a more effective CIA we're all safer so thank God for that huh Ponti?

     Furthermore, we American citizens can rest assured that Chiefs of Staff will think twice before loyally falling on their swords to protect the criminal / unethical behavior of their bosses (think Gonzalez's C of S), which again makes America a much better place.

     God bless America for yesterday's decision, huh Ponti?

     Posted by freedomplease at 06/06/2007 @ 08:07am

109. Ponti,

     Similarly, thanks to Ken Starr's dogged pursuit of "justice" future President's will think twice about having extramarital BJ's and then trying to lie about them. (As you know it is an imperative quality of leadership that everyone knows exactly whose mouth your pecker has been inside).

     Posted by freedomplease at 06/06/2007 @ 08:15am

110. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/06/2007 @ 08:07am

     Yeah, I'm sure our national security has been grievously damaged now that Valerie Plame is not commuting to CIA HQ in her Jag convertible. I'm really not sure how we're ever going to recover.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 09:00am

111. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/05/2007 @ 10:09pm | ignore this person

     weak as water, weak as water

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 09:05am

112. Ponti,

     Similarly, thanks to Ken Starr's dogged pursuit of "justice" future President's will think twice about having extramarital BJ's and then trying to lie about them. (As you know it is an imperative quality of leadership that everyone knows exactly whose mouth your pecker has been inside).

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/06/2007 @ 08:15am

     Do you know the fastest way to lose a security clearance is? Lying. What topic is most often lied about? Sex. This is because it is generally the most personal issue to use in a blackmail attempt. (Former Marines are still in jail for revealing secrets to their "girlfriends" while on embassy duty in Moscow; girlfriends who later turned out to be spies.) How many maraiges have been ruined because one partner strayed, even once?

     The President of the United States has the country's highest security clearance. He (and probably soon, she) can see and hear anything in the government's posession. THAT is why lying about a blow job while on the stand is a big deal while you're President. As a private citizen, you're just a cheating husband. As a US President, you have a skeleton that can be exploited.

     Posted by homerjelwood at 06/06/2007 @ 09:16am

113. Ponti,

     Valerie worked on WMD proliferation and it seems most of her field contacts were involved in Iran's nuclear program. This might not be important to you (assuming you are an Iranian Mullah) but it's important to the CIA (which is why they called for an investigation).

     Honestly, if you know more about how to run the CIA than the CIA does, why not nominate yourself to run the agency?

     Posted by freedomplease at 06/06/2007 @ 09:19am

114. Honestly, I don't know for sure whether or not he lied. It sounds to me like he had a bad memory of conversations that happened years prior, but I have no way of proving one way or the other, and at any rate he's been convicted. However, regardless of what I or anyone else in this thread thinks, he was convicted. Many are celebrating the verdict, and rejoicing that the American legal system worked. However, if he successfully appeals, will those same voices now celebrating the virtues of the legal system also stand by that same system when a man they hate goes free? Or does the legal system only work when it works against your political enemies?

     Posted by homerjelwood at 06/06/2007 @ 09:23am

115. Homer,

     Thanks for talking down to us little people.

     Clinton was impeached and lost his Arkansas Bar for five years for one of his lies. The current President has not be reprimanded in any way for ANY of his countless lies....yet, the last time I checked he still had very high security clearance.

     Try again.

     Posted by freedomplease at 06/06/2007 @ 09:24am

116. Posted by CRABWALK 06/06/2007 @ 12:48am

     Takes a big man to admit mistakes, CRAB. I grant you are among the few here who do.

     Actually makes your case better to include "only" the guys convicted (Liddy, North, etc.) than to throw in guys "suspected".

     Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 09:27am

117. Your fooling yourself Crabwalk.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 06/05/2007 @ 8:51pm | ignore this person

     No, Mr Pride, you are fooling yourself. As this country heads into the sell your soul for a buck era, Americans will lose more and more jobs. American businesses are moving overseas in droves and moving whatever technological advantages we have over seas as well. Look at China as a good example. The biggest advantage we have over them are natural resources and technology. We are now shipping both of them to China, India and other countries and then purchasing the finished goods back here. What happens when Chinese workers decide to start making more of a profit and we can't make anything over here anymore? Do you really think these corporate chieftons have any loyalty to national boundaries? If you do, you are really fooling yourself. These guys will make profits at any expense to others as long as their bottom line totals to their advantage. Another thing I would like to point out is while guys like you wave the flag around and thump your bibles, keep in mind that the soldiers fighting the war are fighting this war at tax payer expense (yes, that evil government that taxes people actually employs the pentagon and all of the DOD personnel). If there are less tax payers due to job losses, who exactly is supposed to fund this war. Thanks to W and his buddies, most large corporations hide most of their profits overseas and don't pay the large taxes that they complain about. Also, what the hell is happening with the oil that is being pumped out of Iraq now? Who is getting it and shipping it where? The US gets most of it's oil from Canada, so where is the Iraq oil going?

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/06/2007 @ 09:28am

118. PONTI, honest quiz time...

     if a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Administration official had outed THE most low-level, but still considered "covert" by the CIA, operative....

     same "no big deal" response from you?

     Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 09:29am

119. BTW, trying to compile a list....so far I have ACOOK and USAPRIDE as.....

     the last remaining Bush supporters who still blog here. Some right-wingers true, and supporters of continueing the occupation in Iraq, etc.

     But no real "Bush is a good/great President" types except those two....anybody else?

     Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 09:30am

120. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/06/2007 @ 09:19am

     Valerie worked on WMD proliferation

     So what? She was a desk jockey at Langley. Anyone who bothers to research the law against revealing covert agents, its history, knows that it plainly was not meant to apply to her (according to those who WROTE the law, like Toensing). She may or may not have incidentally fit some of the three criteria for violating the law, but the covert charge would never have stood up in court, which is why no-one was ever charged. Fitz continued to play coy all along with the 'covert' charge and only used it to justify a continuing fishing expedition, knowing all along not only that it was Armitage who was the first in the Admin to leak her name, but that it probably wasn't criminal. He and others used the 'covert' charade to justify a continuing political investigation.

     You can play word games all day, like CRABBIE does (see his remarkably flexible use of the word 'conviction' above to get the flavor of that), but those are the essential facts of the matter. The release of Plame's identity had little, if any, effect on national security. And since this couple of con artists (Plame and Wilson) basically outed themselves, claiming that Libby harmed national security in any way is just a joke. This was all just a politically motivated witch hunt.

     If there's any object lesson to be learned from this it's how Clinton's minions gutted the CIA and permeated it with political operatives, negating it's effectiveness and allowing intelligence failures like 9/11 to occur. The CIA as an intelligence gathering agency has been worthless since the Clintons, and as a bureaucracy now spends most of its time in politically-motivated leaks designed to damage the Bush Administration.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 09:31am

121. Posted by MASK 06/06/2007 @ 09:30am

     But no real "Bush is a good/great President" types except those two....anybody else?

     You can count me in with those two. I think Bush has done a very good job, given some very tough circumstances. Bear in mind that I am a conservative, and Bush is not really conservative at all.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 09:33am

122. Freedom, Sorry if that's how I came off. Not trying to talk down to anyone. It's just that I've heard, over and over, from my friends on the left AND the right, how who you screw in the Oval Office shouldn't matter. And they're right, it shouldn't. But politically it does, which is why it makes for good blackmail fodder. That's the point I was trying to make, not to talk down to anyone. As for Bush not being punished for lies, well, the fact is that he has not been formerly charged with lying about anything. he's been accused of it, all over and from many different voices, but to this date no one has hard evidence that Bush actually LIED about anything. Yes he said Saddam had WMD. So did Britain. So did Russia. So did France. So did most of Congress. So did the CIA. So did MI-6. I'm not sure, but I think Carl Weathers may have said so, too. You lie when you say something that you KNOW to be untrue. Not that you believe to be true but later turns out to be untrue. Clinton was formally charged with lying on the stand, and the stained dress, among other things, proved those charges to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. In Bush's case, there is no stained dress, figurative or otherwise.

     Posted by homerjelwood at 06/06/2007 @ 09:37am

123. Posted by MASK 06/06/2007 @ 09:29am

     if a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Administration official had outed THE most low-level, but still considered "covert" by the CIA, operative....

     same "no big deal" response from you?

     It's not a situation well-suited to your attempt at symmetry. If you study carefully what Plame and Wilson were doing, it becomes clear that what these two Gore supporters intended to do all along was play a political gambit which would bring them fame and fortune. Plame put her husband up for the trip, and he lied about the results in the press. You're pretty naive if you think Plame and Wilson were some sort of heroes, they had their own agenda all along to damage the Bush Administration, just like other political CIA moles like Mary McCarthy. I'll provide more details on all this some time when I have the time, but rest assured there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. This is pretty common knowledge among those who know in DC.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 09:38am

124. Posted by HOMERJELWOOD 06/06/2007 @ 09:37am

     Homer, that's well put. I should point out, however, that this has been explained to people like FREE here many, many, uncountable times. They always come back with the rebuttal that goes something like 'yeah, but Bush is a LIAR!'. And Bush lied, people died! yada yada yada. Reasoning with most of these people is pretty fruitless, they are out of the reach of rational discussion. This IS the fringe left you're talking to, after all. Critical, balanced thinking is not on the menu.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 09:43am

125. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 09:43am

     Thanks, Ponti. I know. I still like to debate and excercise the mind, though.

     Posted by homerjelwood at 06/06/2007 @ 09:48am

126. Posted by HOMERJELWOOD 06/06/2007 @ 09:48am

     Same here. Insanity is, after all, interesting.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 09:54am

127. Homer,

     It isn't a crime to lie....unless under oath. Clinton lied many times (once under oath). Bush has lied many times. Nobody is going to "charge" him with lying as he hasn't broken any lying laws (don't forget the reason that he refused to testify to the 9/11 commission under oath is because he didn't want to get caught in a lie and the reason that Attorneygate still rages on is because he is refusing to answer any questions under oath).

     Bush, in this respect is smarter than Clinton (although Clinton didn't have a choice whether or not to answer a question about a BJ under oath since a Special prosecutor had been assigned to investigate Whitewater and therefter received a call from Linda Tripp about a piece of information THAT WAS IN NO WAY RELATED TO HIS WHITEWATER INVESTIGATION!!!!!!!)

     But YOUR point is that lying IN GENERAL should be grounds for losing security clearance. Fair enough, but then there would be no halfway decent politician that would have security clearance!

     Posted by freedomplease at 06/06/2007 @ 09:54am

128. Pontz is a broken record. nothing that he regurgitates has any meaning in the real world. in the real world the liar is punished, and going to the slammer. and there ain't a thing Pontz can do about it, hence the impotent wailing. now can we move on?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 09:56am

129. jrolf,

     No, no....I'm loving the revert back to "It's all Clinton's fault".

     This one is an absolute classic! In Ponti's world the admin did both the CIA and Valerie Plame a FAVOR by revealing her identity. Plame recieved the gift of fame and fortune and the CIA received the gift of the removal of a Clinton political plant!!!!

     Now that Libby / Armitage have removed Plame the CIA is BETTER off!!!!

     Jrolf, surely you can't get entertainment like that for this price of admission anywhere else can you?

     Posted by freedomplease at 06/06/2007 @ 10:03am

130. MASK, please note that I don't include you as being on the fringe left. Clearly, you and I are on opposite sides of the aisle, but I do believe you have integrity to your thinking and your arguments, even if I disagree with most of them. Can't say I can think of anyone else here in that category, except maybe B_KOOL.

     Most of the folks here are like JR. You know those inflatable circus clowns with the weight in the bottom? No matter how hard you punch them they bounce back with that idiotic grin on their face? That's JR and SHUB in a nutshell.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 10:05am

131. But YOUR point is that lying IN GENERAL should be grounds for losing security clearance. Fair enough, but then there would be no halfway decent politician that would have security clearance!

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/06/2007 @ 09:54am

     Yes, that's right. All politicians lie. I was just trying to point out why lying about sex could be definite grounds for serious consequences.

     And as a side note, lying about anything like sex, drug use (ever) etc., in the past IS grounds for losing security clearance, no questions asked. Note that I said in the past. If you are up front about past indiscretions, just lay your cards on the table, and do not resume them, you are generally in the clear.

     Politicians, of course, get their clearances not through background checks but through votes. However, when a lie is revealed, it is nonetheless a big deal.

     Posted by homerjelwood at 06/06/2007 @ 10:07am

132. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/06/2007 @ 09:54am

     Bush has lied many times.

     Yeah, and when Bush lied, people died! Clinton only lied about a blow job!

     Like casting pearls before swine...

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 10:20am

133. Lets Create A Soldier Bond As The Authentic Support For Troops, Vets and Military Families

     I have already begun urging Democrats from the high levels to the grassroots to initiate a Soldier Bond that would raise $500 billion dollars, over 20 years, to meet the needs of our troops, vets and military families.

     The Soldier Bond would be structured similar to the U.S. Savings Bond, modelled after the War Bond of the 1940's, and the money would be used for the human, health, educational, financial, vocational and psychological needs of all troops, vets and their families.

     The original legislation I propose is this: that Congress can pass by the 4th of July a plan to require two things:

     First that the President consult with Wall Street leaders and present to Congress by September 1 specific options for an actionable Soldier Bond.

     Second, that the executive and legislative branches immediately begin consultations with the full range of veteran's advocates and support groups to fully delineate the program needs, and honestly account for the costs of addressing them..

     Every major group should have public input and veterans who served in World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Bosnia, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars should all be part of the policy process and should all benefit from the Soldier's Bond.

     I have discussed this concept with many veterans over the last month and I will promise that any program similiar to this would receive overwhelming, enthusiastic and deserved support from many tens of millions of Americans.

     I will promise that if a Soldier's Bond is offered Americans everywhere would line up to buy it.

     And I guaratee that if something such as this is not done, our young people will either be forced to assume this burden through a massive tax increase, or continue the neglect of our leadership generation today.

     The Soldier Bond is about rising above politics and is structured to appeal to the universe of Americans in Washington and around the Nation, but I will make two political points.

     First, I have concluded that the Democratic Congress is incapable of a coherent and principled, and effective position on the Iraq war so long as the President can claim, falsely, that Democrats do not support the troops, and Democrats, sadly, succomb to this false argument.

     Second, Democrats and Republicans need to have heartfelt and honest conversations with themselves about why nearly 70% of America disapproves of all of them.

     On the war policy itself, and the treatment of troops and vets, both parties share major responsibility. The issue is not who can claim bragging rights to the status quo, but who will set the standard for the future.

     What Democrats and Republicans do not get, is that for voters who feel passionately pro or con the Iraq war, and for voters who feel passionately that we must do far more for our troops and vets, these are the most educated and informed voters in the history of America.

     These voters cannot be fooled and should not be insulted by talking point flim flam, written by party consultants, repeated by elected officials.

     Patriotic and concerned voters, who care passionately about these matters see through this instantly. When Americans disapprove of policies, parties or institutions and receive this self-congratulatory propaganda and even worse, solicitatons for money based on this propaganda, they become even more angry, alienated and disillusoned.

     That is why 50% disapproval became 60%, and now in some polls 70% or more. And this skyrocketing disapproval has reached the Democratic Congress as well as the Republican President. Yet propaganda continues to flow while public discontent rises to levels dangerousto a democracy, and destructive to any party or candidate who talks down to our people.

     Here is an alternative: show leadership, tell the truth, and the public will join us. Aspire to the Gold Standard for supporting troops, vets and military families and a hundred milllion Americans and more, will applaud it, and support it.

     It is derelict and sick that the Marine Corps urgently seeks assistance that they regard as life saving in 2005 and even this is insulted and ignored by those who claim to support the troops.

     It is derelict and sick that troops continue to die preventable deaths because of lack of support from Washington. It is derelict and sick that hundreds of thousands of our vets are homeless, that wounded troops continue to suffer indignity and pain because of lack of attention and support when they return home.

     It is derelict and sick that disabled heroes suffer further indignities tolerated by those who claim to support them; that veteran centers are overloaded and underfunded; that mental health treatment is so far behind the long term need; and that this happens while our political markets dish out talking points that nobody believes, while our Dow Jones market reaches record highs, and our politicians enact tax cuts while these derelictions continue.

     These are not matters of philosophical or partisan disagreements. These are matters of fundamental national honor that we send our young to war, subject them to this lack of support, dump talking points on American families, and wonder wonder why 70% of them disapprove of virtually every institution, including both parties, in Washington.

     The Soldier Bond will be a major part of the moral, military, patriotic and political solution because it represents an honorable, powerful, gold standard, red, white and blue support for our troops, vets and military families.

     The $500 billion dollar, 20 year package is based on conservative projections of long term needs that have come from diverse sources. These needs are currently unmet, unplanned and unbudgeted. Whether one supports or opposes the war policy they rise every hour the policy continues, and every day these problems are not addressed.

     One great benefit of bringing, empowering and publicizing the involvement of all groups representing veterans, troops and military families is that we will refine the exact program needs and cost while we create a national consensus to act.

     The Soldier Bond would finance those needs that are human, health, financial and other matters that could receive near universal support from the political community and the broad base of the American people.

     This would be voluntary; no person is forced to buy the bond. Mark my words, if this is not done, many will be forced to ultimately pay far higher taxes if we shamelessly dump these obligations on our children.

     It is time politicians recognize that America is a great and noble country, with a great and noble people, who yearn to be asked what they can do for our country, and would line up in droves, to do it.

     Long term, we have at least a $500 to $750 billion problem and the gold standard for true integrity and patriotism is a $500 to 750 billion solution.

     The Soldier Bond will not need talking points; just tell the truth, call the Nation to action, and the Nation will respond.

     We Americans live in a blessed land we love. The Soldier Bond will give every American the opportunity to share the patriotic bond with those who give us the land of the free and the home of the brave.

     Lets honor the American people by giving everyone a chance to serve. To prove our pride in those who wear the uniform. To prove our patriotism by doing our duty, To prove our Americanism by reminding each other that we are a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people and that on this matter, we the people are in this together.

     More HERE [fighting-dems.com]

     *****end of clip*****

     Is this the best idea in a long time or what?

     I would gladly support the troops via soldier bonds. I don't see a downside.

     capt

     Posted by CaptainKirk at 06/06/2007 @ 10:25am

134. Jrolf, surely you can't get entertainment like that for this price of admission anywhere else can you?

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/06/2007 @ 10:03am | ignore this person

     it has begun to pall.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 10:32am

135. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/06/2007 @ 10:32am

     wheeee! wheeee!!! Oink oink oink! Snort snort!

     it has begun to pall.

     Hey JR, I believe you mean 'pale.'

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 10:37am

136. I would gladly support the troops via soldier bonds. I don't see a downside.

     capt

     Posted by CAPTAINKIRK 06/06/2007 @ 10:25am | ignore this person

     not with MY money. let them that broke our military fix it. I am opposed to any further militarization of our society. our military was of no use in 9/11. it is of no use to me in Iraq. let's invest extra money in diplomats and negotiators. there is no military on earth that is much of a threat to us, let's adjust to that reality.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 10:38am

137. Kirk,

     $500B over 20 years = 25B/ year. The Pentagon gets almost $500b/year AND THEY DON"T FUND IRAQ / AFGHANISTAN WITH THAT CASH! Iraq / Aghanistan requires "supplemental / emergency" funding. Can't they do the bare minimum for the troops with their incredibly oversized budget?

     Oh hell, Kirk, let's just shut down our educational system (would creat more raw recruits) and give the money from that to the military!

     Oh hell, Kirk, lets do it really right and increase my tax rate to 90% that way we can have really good weapon systems and still have the money to do the bear minimum for the grunts on the line!

     Posted by freedomplease at 06/06/2007 @ 10:47am

138. It seems to me that a good portion of the U.S. budget already goes to defense spending one way or the other. The only way to convince Americans to divert almost half our budget in that direction is to try to constantly have some kind of boogey man out to get us. Since WWII, it's been North Korea, Vietnam, USSR, Japan, China,North Korea, Iran and back to Russia etc. The only sovereign country to actually attack us has been Japan and we defend them presently. So, once again, a bunch of guys mostly from Saudi Arabia slam two airplanes into some buildings in the U.S. and we attack Iraq?! Sounds like some pretty damn fuzzy math to me!! Iraq wasn't the hotbed of terrorism until we turned it into the hotbed. Afghanistan was, but the key thing still is that most of these militant folks responsible for 9/11 were Saudi nationals. So, if the neighbor on my left blows up my car, I should go over to the neighbor on my right and beat him up because I buy gas from the neighbor on my left? That's some real brilliant logic our present administration has put forth.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/06/2007 @ 11:18am

139. Pontificus emerges!!! And, as usual, with a fury of baseless conslusions and twisted logic demonstrating he has absolutely no concept of the rule of law or what is necessary for a criminal case to proceed.

     Libby gets convicted of making misstatements into the investigation of a non-crime, which the prosecutor knew from the git-go was a non-crime, and gets 30 months.

     Total joke.

     Let's use the right words here. Libby was convicted of lying to federal officers and the grand jury and obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation.

     And you have offered NO version of how the jury should have returned with a not guilty verdict for the charges.

     a predominantly liberal DC jury convicted Libby ... because he was a Republican.

     Absolutely no foundation for this assertion whatsoever. Ignores the fact that many of the jurors expressed sympathy for Libby, yet agreed that he broke the law.

     Plame was not covert, and Fitz knows it

     Obviously ignoring the fact that Fitzgerald made the direct allegation that Plame was covert in his sentencing filing -- something Pontificus has been looking for from Fitzgerald for over a year!! Yet, no admission from Pontificus that he has been wrong on this point the whole time.

     Bear in mind that I am a conservative, and Bush is not really conservative at all.

     And a final stab at trying to explain away the dismal failures of the Bush presidency. This is an all too common tact for "conservatives" jumping off the Bush bandwagon. Pontificus, perhaps you should read the following, and take Dreher's advice to those trying to rationalize Bush's failure as "not being a conservative":

     "But it seems to me that we conservatives need to avoid falling into a historical revisionism that allows us to portray ourselves as passive victims of a feckless president.

     Not saying she does this, but I think as the last wheel comes off this presidency, and the GOP comes to grips with what this presidency has meant for the Republican Party and the conservative movement, there will be a strong temptation to resist owning up to our own complicity. Success has a thousand fathers, after all, and failure is an orphan. This failure is not President Bush's alone. The Republican Party owns it. The conservative movement, with some exceptions, owns it. . . .

     It doesn't take much courage to stand up for conservative principle to a president as weak as this one has become. It would have taken real courage to stand up for conservative principle in 2002, 2003, 2004, even early 2005. How many did?. . .

     It is tempting to blame Bush for everything. But it's not fair, and it's not honest. Bush is today who he always was. The difference is we conservatives pretty much loved the guy -- when he was a winner."

     beliefnet.com [tinyurl.com]

     Posted by Hman23 at 06/06/2007 @ 11:32am

140. 30 months of taking it in the pooooooooopshooticus

     Posted by WILL C. 06/05/2007 @ 9:53pm

     Yes. It would be fitting (although not so likely) if Libby, the effete Republican metrosexual neoCon assClown had to share a cell with real hoodlum whose only education was hardknocks. The perfect cellmate would be an illiterate thug with no conscience, the street version of a Libby with tatoos head to toes, taut arms thick like the steel cables that hold up a bridge. Can you envision the raging thug's hands clamped immovably onto Libby's waist as he explosively blew steaming load after steaming load after steaming load into Libby's dilating posterior orifice, hour after hour, day after day, year after year?

     Libby would prance out of prison having learned to like the attentions of being on someone else's moist and rigid stiffy, cruising for still more, making love not war ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 11:33am

141. Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/06/2007 @ 11:33am | ignore this person

     you're enjoying this pornography too much. cease and desist.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 11:35am

142. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/06/2007 @ 11:35am

     OK, JOHANNES, I will take up your suggestion for now.

     The other posters here are doing wonderful work in whacking and hammering the heinous figure of PONTI into his miserable place. For my part, I set out to introduce that additional edge of menace, that reminder that the gloves are off at least rhetorically, libs are going all the way and not "playing for a tie" with those who would ruin our nation and with their miserably ignorant fully complicit apologists ...

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 11:44am

143. Ponti say:

     Plame was not covert, and Fitz knows it,

     but Fitzgerald filed a piece of paper in a US court that said:

     "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

     Posted by CRABWALK 06/06/2007 @ 12:20am

     Pontificus, last word on this, because you are a delusional fucking moron. Fitzgeralds inability to bring charges has no relationship to Plames status.Her status does not hinge on his investigation. The CIA says she was covert, the court says she was covert, the AG's office says she was covert. Do you have access to her employment records that you can claim to know what she did?

     moron.

     I guess Fitz will be charged with perjury for filing this in a court of law:

     ""[I]t was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press."

     And another charge will be filed for this, as according to you it is false: here is her unclassified employment summary http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plam e_employement.pdf

     It is not Clintons fault. It is not the "liberal juries fault. Blaming anyone but the criminal is not an argument. It reads like a loony liberal screed against "The Man".

     All repubs should read this repub: http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20070601.html

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 11:57am

144. Posted by HMAN23 06/06/2007 @ 11:32am

     Isn't Ponti a hoot? No matter the facts, he is going to stick to his fantasyland version. He will just keep claiming "She was not covert because nobody was charged", as if that is the criteria to be met, and the only criteria. Repeat the lie until someone, anyone buys it. But, no one of any integrity will. This may be the downfall of Phred Thopmpson as well.

     absolutely no concept of the rule of law or what is necessary for a criminal case to proceed.

     that pretty much sums it up.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:02pm

145. John Dean:

     I suspect Patrick Fitzgerald will be watching with great interest any pardon action. After all, he was working in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York when that office ignored the refusal of the Bush Department of Justice, under Attorney General Ashcroft, to investigate former President Bill Clinton's pardon of financier Marc Rich.

     and who worked on the pardon of Marc Rich? Scooter Libby.

     Fitzgerald's appointment as Special Counsel ends when he ends it, and given his apparent view that Cheney is at the heart of the Plame scandal, I don't expect him to end it prematurely.

     that would seem to indicate that Fitz has not "Gone home"

     It should be of concern to Vice President Cheney that the Fitzgerald filing on Libby's sentence once again indicates that Special Prosecutor has concluded, based on the evidence, that Cheney was involved in Libby's misdeeds. Fitzgerald all but states that he still has not gotten to the bottom of this investigation because Libby refuses to tell the truth, and that, if he did reach that bottom, he would likely find Dick Cheney, who may well have violated a number of laws.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:10pm

146. CRAB,

     Must correct one thing:

     It reads like a loony neoClown screed against "The Man".

     This is becuase to be a conservaClown, in general, or a neoClown in particular IS the current gold standard in demonstrating one's self as having no apprehension of reality -- nor even the most fleeting interest in such.

     PONTI's next move will be to denounce the declassified documents as ... oh lets see ... the documents CRAB cited are plants by Chavez (!!!), enabled by Clinton (da da ta da) whose gun is still smoking from offing Vince Foster in the park, all the while taking orders from castro through his earpiece in order to dismantle the CIA that Libby was only trying to resurrect by outing it !!! ...

     Anyway, you get the idea. NeoClowns cannot even be counted on for humour anymore as their sick statements, their weird phanstasies about who to blame for their own grotesque failures, need to be confronted with a disspassionate and forceful sadism that is equal to the destruction that they visit onto America.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 12:10pm

147. Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was sentence to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them.

     Thats what you get for removing classified documents and destroying them? What a joke!

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 12:11pm

148. why hasn't Fitz charged anyone with outing her?

     Posted by BLATHERIFICUS

     Maybe because there was no crime there

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 12:12pm

149. And I guess Nixon was innocent after all. Yep, no need for Ford to issue that pardon, was there? It was a waste of paper.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:14pm

150. Hey, ABEL! another neo-con that cannot see the truth when placed before their eyes!!

     Bush is a liar. Would you like to see more of his lies?

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:16pm

151. Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/06/2007 @ 11:44am

     Yes. It would be fitting (although not so likely) if Libby, the effete Republican metrosexual neoCon assClown had to share a cell with real hoodlum whose only education was hardknocks. The perfect cellmate would be an illiterate thug with no conscience, the street version of a Libby with tatoos head to toes, taut arms thick like the steel cables that hold up a bridge. Can you envision the raging thug's hands clamped immovably onto Libby's waist as he explosively blew steaming load after steaming load after steaming load into Libby's dilating posterior orifice, hour after hour, day after day, year after year?

     For my part, I set out to introduce that additional edge of menace, that reminder that the gloves are off at least rhetorically, libs are going all the way and not "playing for a tie" with those who would ruin our nation and with their miserably ignorant fully complicit apologists ...

     Well Glenn, I must say that whatever else you think you may be accomplishing here, if one allows for the probablity that in your typical liberal self-loathing pathology you are projecting yourself into Libby's position, you certainly are giving everyone an insight into your sexual fantasies.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 12:19pm

152. Posted by ASMELL-IQ12 06/06/2007

     Just wondering, buit do you support the Cheerleader's implimentation of Americastan in what was formerly Iraq? And, if so, shoul we judge it to be a small victory for terrorism each time you vote or courageously "do jihad" at the keyboard?

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 12:21pm

153. ***Bush "We were never stay the course"

     Really?

     BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

     BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

     BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We're just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

     BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course. [4/13/04]

     BUSH: And that's why we're going to stay the course in Iraq. And that's why when we say something in Iraq, we're going to do it. [4/16/04]

     BUSH: And so we've got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

     ***In September 2002, Bush claimed an International Atomic Energy Agency report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon." (SOU)

     No such report exists. A 1998 report concluded that there "are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance."

     David Kay's interim report found no evidence of an active nuclear program and that it would have taken Iraq five to seven years to develop a nuclear weapon.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:21pm

154. Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 12:11pm

     Perhaps if Libby had pled guilty, like Berger, he would have received a similar sentence.

     Libby's bad call.

     Posted by Hman23 at 06/06/2007 @ 12:23pm

155. **Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. (Second Debate)

     If we failed to act in Iraq, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day." (2004 State of the Union)

     "[T]he Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."

     No WMDs have been after 4 years. David Kay reported that there is no evidence that Iraq had an active nuclear or biological weapons program and Iraq did not have an "ongoing centrally controlled chemical weapons program."

     "In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons." "

     ***On May 29, 2003, during a visit to Poland, President Bush declared that the U.S. had "found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. . . . They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two."

     On June 1, 2003, Bush proclaimed that "we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited."

     A review by US and UK experts has found this claim to be false. The mobile trailers at issue were facilities to fill weather balloons.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:26pm

156. This is a good one:

     Kristol turns on Bush: Weekly Standard editor says Bush's loyalty is a "one-way street" after Libby sentencing - Bill Kristol, the founder of the Weekly Standard, decried the injustice of Libby's prosecution and sentence, going as far as harshly chastising President Bush for not having pardoned Libby already: "So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?" Good lord. After everything that Bush has done over the years, after his complete trainwreck of a presidency, it's Bush's reluctance to immediately pardon a convicted felon that causes Kristol to lose his respect for the man?

     http://blogreport.salon.com/default.aspx

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/06/2007 @ 12:28pm

157. Posted by CRABWALK 06/06/2007 @ 11:57am

     Pontificus, last word on this, because you are a delusional fucking moron.

     I'll bet in your circles, if you have any, you convince a lot of people using this type of argument. Now I know why you fall back on rhetorical fallacies like this so much - it's really the best you've got.

     Fitzgeralds inability to bring charges has no relationship to Plames status.Her status does not hinge on his investigation. The CIA says she was covert, the court says she was covert, the AG's office says she was covert.

     And yet neither under the letter nor the spirit of the law, apparently, she was not, because by the only standard that matters, no-one was ever charged for revealing her identity. You say it's because nobody knew it. I say it's because she almost certainly was not 'covert' under the technical definitions, and most definitely not under the spirit of the statute. No-one knows, because it'll never be tested in a court of law. Your distinction is purely academic, mine is practical. And I have just as many experts, if not more, who take my positions as yours, and I doubt if they'll be persuaded by your 'argument' that they are 'delusional fucking morons.' But if it makes you happy to believe that, by all means do so.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 12:31pm

158. Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 12:12pm

     Maybe because there was no crime there

     Stating the obvious will only get you into trouble with the raving inmates around here, ABEL. Like trying to teach a pig to sing, it only wastes your time and annoys the pig. It's doctrine around here that Plame was a secret agent, until it isn't.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 12:33pm

159. Ponti say:

     "I say it's because she almost certainly was not 'covert' under the technical definitions, and most definitely not under the spirit of the statute.

     court documents say:

     "[I]t was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press."

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:35pm

160. you certainly are giving everyone an insight into your sexual fantasies.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 12:19pm

     Thanks for effectively re-posting my lovingly crafted wordsmithing about Libby onto a new page! And did you get the passage with the piston-like verbal repititions that suggest the thug's driving rhtym as he penetrates Libby?

     And yup, as a matter of fact, I do fantasize about seeing neoClowns humiliated -- sentenced, frog jumping, heads pushed down into the back seat of the squad car, encountering the street version of themselves in the cell. Naturally, as sex is a strong metaphor for character, the fantasies of neoClown humiliation that are everyday becoming more the stuff of news reports, can be easily telgraphed in this form. I am in fact quite open about all of this.

     But speaking of revealing statements: What does it say about PONTI that he (1) zealously regurgiates every musty rightwing talking point regardless of how discredited, (2) can never utter the words, "You're right, my mistake, I guess I have not thought about this enough", (3) has no answer for evidence and always goes back to (1) and his reflexive brainwashed response aginst the left.

     Any speculations on this?

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 12:36pm

161. Posted by CRABWALK 06/06/2007 @ 12:35pm

     "[I]t was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press."

     That's an allegation that has never been proved or disproved. My contention is that since Fitz never backed the assertion up with any action, it's meaningless. Almost as meaningless as when you say it.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 12:38pm

162. Hey, Ponti, which f-key do you have setup to type in "Plame was not covert"?

     Posted by nathanhale at 06/06/2007 @ 12:39pm

163. Ponti say:

     Plame was not covert, and Fitz knows it,

     but Fitzgerald filed a piece of paper in a US court that said:

     "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

     "[I]t was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press."

     So, ponti knows what Fitz knows, even though Fitz doesn't know that.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:40pm

164. Any speculations on this?

     Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/06/2007 @ 12:36pm | ignore this person

     perhaps he believes in the infallibility doctrine, and no one told him that it was for the pontiff not the pontificus. or more likely he is just an ass, who is infatuated with the sound of his own voice. or his parrot knows how to type: polly want a cracker, not covert, not covert.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 12:40pm

165. HSUBFOOLS 06/06/2007 @ 12:28pm

     Those conservobots sure do get testy when they actually have to prove that what they're doing is legal, and they can't.

     Let's not forget that the terrorism charges against Osama's driver were dropped on the same day that Scooter was sentenced.

     And after the Reublicans' debate, the anointed Fred Thompson proved conclusively that he doesn't know shit about the law, you can read all about it on davidcorn.com.

     That's a pretty bad day.

     Posted by MyParadigm at 06/06/2007 @ 12:41pm

166. So the soonest he'll have to go to prison is July or August. He serves time until his Inauguration Day pardon, so he'll probably do no more than 6 months.

     Posted by JOEDAJUGGLER 06/05/2007 @ 3:17pm |

     DO THE FREAKIN' MATH...

     January 2008 minus August 2007 = 16 months at the least. Sure, it's only about half the alloted sentence but still, it's not nothing. IF Libby serves any time at all. (Note the "big if.")

     However, at the rate Bush is going, I suspect Cheney will just command him to pardon Libby ASAP and so, of course, he will. So if Libby's slamtime isn't postponed on appeal, the pardon is likely to come through and he won't serve any time anyway NOR pay the $1/4 Million fine he was slapped with. (The pardon most likely will include letting him off the hook on that as well.)

     Bush really hasn't got anything to lose with this. HE'S not running for reelection and evidently doesn't give much of a shit about the fate of the Republican party. Anyway, by election time, the Libby pardon will be all but forgotten. So look for Bush to do the dastardly deed within the next few weeks.

     Posted by w_m_bear at 06/06/2007 @ 12:45pm

167. Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/06/2007 @ 12:36pm

     Well Glenn, I can only say that someone who is fascinated by, and perhaps intensely familiar with, the matter at hand could so lovingly and in such vivid detail describe such a scenario as that you seem to fantasize about. Enough said about that for me, thanks. Ewwwwwww.

     Glenn, liberalism is so legendary for it's mind-numbingly predictable nature that it's been enshrined in the language by the term 'knee-jerk' as it applies to the amount of thought that leftists put into their political positions. I admit that a littlbe bit of this kind of thing rubs off on me. But you have to realize, from my perspective, you folks are (mostly) simply insane and really, really hard to take seriously. You really have to exhibit some sort of intellectual integrity in order to qualify for the kind of good-faith discussion you seem to want. And I think everyone must agree that your posts don't exactly enlighten anyone.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 12:45pm

168. Can't help you anymore than I have Ponti. The CIA says she was covert. She worked for the CIA. If they don't know, then neither do you, or I. We have to go by what the CIA and court documents say. We cannot make it up because we are unhappy with the results.

     But I guess you are used to following fairy tales, making up things to make you "feel" better.

     Wmd's in Iraq. Connections between Saddam and OBL. Progress in Iraq. The road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad. Torture is the best way to get intel. Everyone in Gitmo is "the most dangerous". Libby was a pawn in the Wilsons Plan to write books.

     delusional fcking moron.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:45pm

169. Erratum: I meant, of course, January 2009 minus August 2007 = 16 months. (Why don't ***I*** learn to do the freakin' proofreading!)

     Posted by w_m_bear at 06/06/2007 @ 12:47pm

170. Posted by CRABWALK 06/06/2007 @ 12:45pm

     CRAB,

     Exquisite mastery in your posts. The only downside is that after awhile your hands must start to get slightly tired of smacking and slapping the helpless and masochistic neoClowns with such bone-splintering force.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 12:53pm

171. Let's not forget that the terrorism charges against Osama's driver were dropped on the same day that Scooter was sentenced.

     Charges were dropped because ChimpCo could not make THEIR OWN RULES apply.

     GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) -- Military judges dismissed charges Monday against a Guantanamo detainee who chauffeured Osama bin Laden and another who allegedly killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, marking a setback to Washington's attempts to try detainees in military court.

     In back-to-back arraignments for Canadian Omar Khadr and Salim Ahmed Hamdan, of Yemen, the U.S. military's cases against the alleged al Qaeda figures dissolved because, the two judges said, the government had failed to establish jurisdiction.

     Hamdan's military judge, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, said the detainee is "not subject to this commission" under legislation passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush last year. Hamdan is accused of chauffeuring bin Laden and being the al Qaeda chief's bodyguard.

     ...The judges agreed that there was one problem they could not resolve -- the new legislation says only "unlawful enemy combatants" can be tried by the military trials, known as commissions. But Khadr and Hamdan had previously been identified by military panels only as enemy combatants, lacking the critical "unlawful" designation.

     Sullivan said the dismissal has "huge" impact because none of the detainees held at this isolated military base in southeast Cuba has been found to be an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

     "It is not just a technicality; it's the latest demonstration that this newest system just does not work," Sullivan told journalists. "It is a system of justice that does not comport with American values.""

     CNN.com

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:53pm

172. Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/06/2007 @ 12:53pm

     Thanks, Glenn. I kind of thought I wandered a little. But it is hard to debate with people that won't admit up is up.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 12:56pm

173. But you have to realize, from my perspective, you folks are (mostly) simply insane and really, really hard to take seriously. You really have to exhibit some sort of intellectual integrity in order to qualify for the kind of good-faith discussion you seem to want. And I think everyone must agree that your posts don't exactly enlighten anyone.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 12:45pm |

     WHY I AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE...

     As evidenced by Pontificus's pontificating, conservatism is 90% dismissive invective and ad hominem slurs of this sort, with the other 10% being constituted of made-up facts (such as the assertion, widely distributed among cons) that Plame was not covert (and, in any case, Libby was not convicted for "outing" her but for perjuring himself and obstructing justice) and illogic.

     (BTW, it proves nothing simply to CALL liberals "insane" or simply CLAIM -- as Coulter does -- that liberalism is "treason." Real insanity, it seems to me, is evidenced precisely by people who, like most conservatives, have a tenuous grasp on reality as evidenced by their playing fast and loose with the facts. But this is all a waste of breath anyway, like trying to reasonw with a sociopath....)

     Posted by w_m_bear at 06/06/2007 @ 12:56pm

174. You really have to exhibit some sort of intellectual integrity... Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 12:45pm

     Oh, Ponti, your irony is just too damn funny. I laughed so hard my lunchtime coffe came out my nose!

     Posted by nathanhale at 06/06/2007 @ 12:57pm

175. Can you possibly be as big of a jackass as you sound?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/05/2007 @ 10:14pm

     No, you have the market CORNERED for jackass nonsensical statements, moron.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/06/2007 @ 1:00pm

176. ABEL, the other day you called me "spineless and a liar"

     I have proven that Chimpy lied. Therefore I am not a liar.

     I wish I were spineless today. The reason I am here, and not working, is that I have a disc out of whack, IN MY SPINE!!. And it hurts, a lot!!

     apologies? Can you be a man and admit you were incorrect? I did. I will again. Unlike Pontificus, I am not omniscient, or self proclaimed perfection.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:01pm

177. PONTITARD, you're too easy. In fact, you're a walking catalog of rhetorical fallacies. Obviously, this is symptomatic of the complete breakdown of logic and a tendency towards delusion in your thinking.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/05/2007 @ 10:43pm

     Weren't you going to LEAVE? Was that just another wingnut LIE, you coward?

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/06/2007 @ 1:02pm

178. Posted by HMAN23 06/06/2007 @ 11:32am

     Let's use the right words here. Libby was convicted of lying to federal officers and the grand jury and obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation.

     And you have offered NO version of how the jury should have returned with a not guilty verdict for the charges.

     The version that is most likely is the simplest that accounts for all the details. A man busier than either of us could probably every imagine was asked intensely detailed questions about actions that he undertook on specific days years before. And those answers were cross-referenced against others, like Russert, similarly busy, and with similarly challenged memories. Any differences were called criminal. Preposterous, but apparently not too far-fetched for a jury of DC Democrats. So be it, but so what. He simply forgot. And since there is apparently no motivation for him to lie, bad memory is the best explanation.

     a predominantly liberal DC jury convicted Libby ... because he was a Republican.

     Absolutely no foundation for this assertion whatsoever. Ignores the fact that many of the jurors expressed sympathy for Libby, yet agreed that he broke the law.

     No, HMAN, what they expressed sympathy and regret for was that they could not try Rove and anybody else in the Bush Administration. Pretty significant difference.

     Obviously ignoring the fact that Fitzgerald made the direct allegation that Plame was covert in his sentencing filing -- something Pontificus has been looking for from Fitzgerald for over a year!! Yet, no admission from Pontificus that he has been wrong on this point the whole time.

     Fitz HAD to make that assertion in order to lend credibility to his investigation. The fact that he never followed it up with a charge is proof of the pudding that it was trumped up.

     Bear in mind that I am a conservative, and Bush is not really conservative at all.

     And a final stab at trying to explain away the dismal failures of the Bush presidency. This is an all too common tact for "conservatives" jumping off the Bush bandwagon.

     I'm not jumping off the Bush bandwagon at all. He's better in spades than anything the Dems could have come up with; not even close. I'm just disappointed with his big spending, that's all. Everything else has been pretty good, considering the circumstances.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 1:05pm

179. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 09:33am

     Okay, PONTI, just tallying a list of the "28% Club" members. So I'll throw you in.

     BTW, when Bush pushs McCain-Kennedy's immigration bill....fer him or agin' him? What about if he DOESN'T pardon Libby? (I think he will, but what if) Still rock-ribbed support?

     Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 1:11pm

180. Ponti, IF, IF, you are correct, then soon perjury charges will be filed against Fitz for filing false information in a court of law. But, in your logic, if no charges are filed, then Fitz must be correct.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:13pm

181. Everything else has been pretty good

     Yep, 2 wars failing, OBL still loose, good, honest competent people hired for important positions, multiple admin officials going to jail, president at 28% approval, VP at 17% approval.

     Going great gangbusters.

     delusional.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:15pm

182. Posted by W_M_BEAR 06/06/2007 @ 12:56pm

     (BTW, it proves nothing simply to CALL liberals "insane"

     I'm not 'calling' you anything. I'm simply pointing out why I find it hard to take you seriously.

     or simply CLAIM -- as Coulter does -- that liberalism is "treason."

     Does she call it treason per se? It's my impression that liberalism is just one thing that people with treasonous views have in common. It's not causal, it's coincidental. Like CRABBIE's insistence on the blanket innocence of every terrorist in Gitmo. This is as opposed to the simple insanity of people like WILL C, who insists that OJ Simpson is innocent, and presumably on the hunt for the 'real' killers. It's Ms. Coulter's bad if she implied that liberalism itself was treasonous, IMHO.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 1:16pm

183. Bush is a conservative.

     The conservatives who try to claim otherwise suffer from "cult of personality" syndrome.

     Posted by Hman23 at 06/06/2007 @ 1:16pm

184. Posted by MASK 06/06/2007 @ 1:11pm

     BTW, when Bush pushs McCain-Kennedy's immigration bill....fer him or agin' him?

     I'm in favor of immigration, so I'd probably support the bill. I think if people want to come here and work hard and obey the rules, they should be allowed to. If we need to build 20 foot walls with guard towers and machine guns to keep them out, we're not letting enough in legally.

     What about if he DOESN'T pardon Libby? (I think he will, but what if) Still rock-ribbed support?

     I think he should, but if he doesn't, what can I do? You don't expect me to vote for a liberal, do ya? ha ha

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 1:19pm

185. Obviously ignoring the fact that Fitzgerald made the direct allegation that Plame was covert in his sentencing filing -- something Pontificus has been looking for from Fitzgerald for over a year!! Yet, no admission from Pontificus that he has been wrong on this point the whole time.

     Fitz HAD to make that assertion in order to lend credibility to his investigation. The fact that he never followed it up with a charge is proof of the pudding that it was trumped up.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person

     Ponti, my dearest fingers-in-ears-eyes-closed-humming-friend

     Would it be inconceivable for you to actually read the statute and then realize that just because a COVERT CIA operative is outed DOES NOT NECESSARILY lead to a conviction? You see, when you read the statute you'll discover that the prosecution would have to show considerably MORE than that Plame was covert and that her covert status was revealed by someone.

     Read the statute from a position where you (for a moment) hypothetically accept that Plame was covert....and then you'll realize that any non-politically motivated prosecutor would not ultimately have sought a conviction on those grounds....especially when faced with key witnesses that were willing to repeatedly lie to thwart that investigation.

     Posted by freedomplease at 06/06/2007 @ 1:21pm

186. Bush is a liar. Would you like to see more of his lies?

     Posted by CRABWALK 06/06/2007

     HUNH?

     I was talking about Sandy Berger and his "sentence". I also mentioned that there was no crime in the outing of Plame. Fitz knew it was Armitage why didn't he charge him?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:22pm

187. Posted by ASMELL-IQ12 06/06/2007

     Just wondering, buit do you support the Cheerleader's implimentation of Americastan in what was formerly Iraq? And, if so, shoul we judge it to be a small victory for terrorism each time you vote or courageously "do jihad" at the keyboard?

     Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/06/2007

     Do you really think it is necessary to call me ASMELL? You are a child and attack what you can't understand.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:24pm

188. Like CRABBIE's insistence on the blanket innocence of every terrorist in Gitmo.

     bullsht. Pure bllsht. I never said that. Ever.

     I guess it is traitorous to ask that people receive a fair trial? But, from someone that refuses to admit a trial for a rich white guy with a team of high priced lawyers is fair, what can I expect?

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:24pm

189. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE

     So you are saying no crime was committed?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:25pm

190. Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:22pm

     You asked me to provide instances where Bush lied. You said he NEVER lied.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:26pm

191. GW Bush is a child and attacks what he can't understand. Thousands die. I go along with it.

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:24pm

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 1:26pm

192. Hey Crabwalk Do you want the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to fail?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:27pm

193. Ahhh the post from the other day. The old song "Bush lied" is going nowhere. Get over it. The war in Iraq was the right thing to do unless you support middle east dictators.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:29pm

194. Posted by GLENN LEMON

     Well thanks for not calling me names

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:30pm

195. Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:27pm

     the usual canard.

     No. I want both to succeed.

     I expect them to fail, due to incompetence.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:30pm

196. The question now is where do we go from here? Do we surrender and retreat?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:31pm

197. I have more confidence in our military

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:31pm

198. Posted by CRABWALK 06/06/2007 @ 1:24pm

     Like CRABBIE's insistence on the blanket innocence of every terrorist in Gitmo.

     bullsht. Pure bllsht. I never said that. Ever.

     I guess it is traitorous to ask that people receive a fair trial? But, from someone that refuses to admit a trial for a rich white guy with a team of high priced lawyers is fair, what can I expect?

     Well, gee, CRABBIE, I guess I just got the impression from the fact that every time the question comes up, you seem to assume that Bush's handling of terrorists at Gitmo is illegal, that captured terrorists involved for some reason should have every right American citizens have, and that you always seem to presume the conclusion that Bush's handling of them is criminal as well. You can take the choice whether this knee-jerk reaction is treasonous or simply insane, I'll draw my own conclusions.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 1:32pm

199. So you are saying no crime was committed?

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person

     I read the news today oh boy....a thousand...

     Abell if I drive 100MPH in a 25mph section but nobody sees me and thus I'm not CONVICTED did I commit a crime?????

     Posted by freedomplease at 06/06/2007 @ 1:33pm

200. He means to say:

     The old song with new funky beats "Bush lied" is top of the charts. Get over it and dance to it. The war in Iraq was the right thing to do when you support middle east dictators named "Saud".

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:29pm

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 1:33pm

201. hhh the post from the other day. The old song "Bush lied" is going nowhere. Get over it. The war in Iraq was the right thing to do unless you support middle east dictators.

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:29pm

     bush lied.

     In September 2002, Bush claimed an International Atomic Energy Agency report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon."

     No such report exists.

     remember The MAINE!!!!

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:34pm

202. But Fitz KNEW it was Armitage that leaked the name. So Fitz saw you speeding.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:34pm

203. I say it's because she almost certainly was not 'covert' under the technical definitions,

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 12:31pm

     You are a delusional fucking moron. The Director of the CIA said she was covert. Fitz filed court papers attesting to her covert status. She testified she was covert.

     How godammed delusional can you be? Are you REALLY this fucking simple minded and obtuse, or are you just trying to impress us with the pigheaded stubborn nature of the wingnut breed?

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/06/2007 @ 1:34pm

204. Remeber the Bay of Pigs! An invasion of a country that did nothing to us!

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:35pm

205. I'll draw my own conclusions.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 1:32pm

     without factual basis for conclusions? go ahead.

     the Supreme court decided that the original "trials" were illegal, not me. The current judge threw out the cases yesterday, not me. Not one person has been convicted in Gitmo. 200 have been released.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:36pm

206. Just because Fitz says she is covert does not make it so.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:36pm

207. All the prisoners at Gitmo should be released.... at 20,000 feet

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:37pm

208. Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:36pm

     Her boss says she was too. Can you read?

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:38pm

209. Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:36pm

     In this case, Fitz is the US government.

     why do you hate America?

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:38pm

210. He or she did not get the chance to finish the sentence (notice no period in the original post):

     I have more confidence in our military to be massacred by IEDs in the Cheerleader's elective and failed invasion to create his personal vision of Americastan while neglecting AlQ, the competetive world economy, our own cities, when not actively undermining US interests.

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:31pm

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 1:40pm

211. fhhg ththi uuuskjmd

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:40pm

212. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/06/2007 @ 1:21pm

     Read the statute from a position where you (for a moment) hypothetically accept that Plame was covert....and then you'll realize that any non-politically motivated prosecutor would not ultimately have sought a conviction on those grounds....especially when faced with key witnesses that were willing to repeatedly lie to thwart that investigation.

     Oh, wait, we're actually reading statutes now? Does that include, perhaps, gaining an understanding of the purpose of the statute, and perhaps, maybe, understanding that it was plainly not the intent of the statute to cover people like Plame? And that people using bad faith interpretations of criminal statutes to harass and stymie their political enemies represents a huge offense against the rule of law in and of itself?

     Oh, sorry. You hit my 'common sense' bone. Feel free to rant on.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 1:40pm

213. It must be way cool to be omniscient.

     Is it ABEL and Ponti?

     Do you score with the babes knowing all of their deep needs and desires?

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:41pm

214. why do you hate America?

     Posted by CRABWALK

     Where did that come from?

     Iraq hasn't failed yet.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:42pm

215. Do you score with the babes knowing all of their deep needs and desires?

     Posted by CRABWALK

     Actually I do. Thank you.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:42pm

216. Posted by CRABWALK 06/06/2007 @ 1:36pm

     Not one person has been convicted in Gitmo.

     Define 'convicted'. And have they had any trials yet?

     200 have been released.

     Is that including the several dozen that have been killed or captured on the battlefield after their release? Or the ones that were released and have neither been killed nor recaptured, but have killed or wounded our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan?

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 1:43pm

217. So why wasn't Armitage charged with outing a covert cia agent?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:44pm

218. The US govt says all in Gitmo are guilty, no trial. Ponti and ABEL are cool with that.

     A trial shows that Libby lied, and Plame was covert. The US govt is the one that tried Libby, in a court of law, with a republican judge. Abel and Ponti don't agree.

     ????????????

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:44pm

219. I have more confidence in our military to be massacred by IEDs in the Cheerleader's elective and failed invasion to create his personal vision of Americastan while neglecting AlQ, the competetive world economy, our own cities, when not actively undermining US interests.

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:31pm

     Posted by GLENN LEMON

     Why do you hate America?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:45pm

220. Getting ASMELLier all the time:

     All the prisoners at Gitmo should be released.... at 20,000 feet ... without trials as that will show all observors how the law works, as it succesfully did under Pinochet and the Argentinian junta ... this includes the suspects already released from Gitmo since accusation is guilt and I willingly embrace a rightist system wherein the individual has no rights before the Maximum Cheerleader's state ...

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:37pm

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 1:45pm

221. A trial shows that Libby lied, and Plame was covert

     It didn't show she was covert.

     why wasn't Armitage charged with outing a covert cia agent?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:46pm

222. Do you really think it is necessary to call me ASMELL?.

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:24pm

     That which speaks like an ass probably smells as one too.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/06/2007 @ 1:46pm

223. Mumbling in his sleep:

     Why do I hate America and love the Cheerleader's Americastan?

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:45pm

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 1:47pm

224. Is that including the several dozen that have been killed or captured on the battlefield after their release? Or the ones that were released and have neither been killed nor recaptured, but have killed or wounded our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 1:43pm |

     7. Not several dozen. 7 have been known to have "returned" to the battlefield. That is what i have found. If you have different knowledge, I will read your sources. But, your sources have a bad history.

     Really, whats it like to be omniscient?

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:47pm

225. Posted by GLENN LEMON

     Well I didn't say that we should tell anyone that they were released at 20,000 feet. Just tell them they were released.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:47pm

226. Just because Fitz says she is covert does not make it so.

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007

     And the Director of Central Intelligence making the same assertion means nothing to you.

     Moron.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/06/2007 @ 1:48pm

227. ABEL, papers submitted into court record show she was covert. Those papers were submitted during the trial.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:48pm

228. That which speaks like an ass probably smells as one too.

     Posted by DR DECIBELS

     I'm rubber and you're Glue. God what a moron.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:48pm

229. Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:44pm

     So why wasn't Armitage charged with outing a covert cia agent?

     Ha! Good luck getting an answer to THAT one! One that makes sense, I mean.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 1:49pm

230. ABEL, papers submitted into court record show she was covert. Those papers were submitted during the trial.

     Posted by CRABWALK

     why wasn't Armitage charged with outing a covert cia agent?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:49pm

231. Papers submitted by the US government. By YOUR government, Chimpies government. A claim not disputed by the defense, BTW, as far as I can tell.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:50pm

232. Wait A minute I thought the CIA was incompetent. They were wrong about Iraq what makes you think they are right about Plame?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:50pm

233. So Crab you are not an American?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:50pm

234. Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:51pm

235. why wasn't Armitage charged with outing a covert cia agent?

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:49pm

     Because Fitz could not prove that Armitage "knowingly" outed a covert agent. He could not prove Armitage knew she was covert. He could not prove Libby knew she was covert, because Libby lied about knowing anything about the situation. 12-14 people took the stand and said he did know about it.

     how dense are you two? How many times do we have to say the same thing before you stop asking the same stupid question?

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:54pm

236. So because he lied Fitz couldn't prove anything?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:56pm

237. Impeaching Clinton at a vital moment for US security, rather than vigorously applauding his manly derring-do as alpha male secular sex god, was: ... people using bad faith interpretations of criminal statutes to harass and stymie their political enemies [and] represents a huge offense against the rule of law in and of itself

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 1:40pm

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 1:56pm

238. They were wrong about Iraq what makes you think they are right about Plame?

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:50pm

     Depends on who in the CIA you are talking about. Many in the CIA knew the truth, they were run over by FeithCo.

     Maybe the CIA knew Plames status because they looked at her records in black and white.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:56pm

239. FeithCo?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:57pm

240. Posted by GLENN LEMON

     We all know Clinton lied. He should have resigned instead of being impeached.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 1:59pm

241. Ponti say:

     " fitz never alleged Plame was covert"

     "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."-Fitz.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 1:59pm

242. Do you know who Douglas Feith is? Are you aware of the report issued on his work on Iraqi Wmd's?

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 2:01pm

243. Posted by CRABWALK 06/06/2007 @ 1:54pm

     how dense are you two? How many times do we have to say the same thing before you stop asking the same stupid question?

     CRABBIE, since you take it as gospel that Plame was covert, I will simply point out that the fact that Fitz declined to prosecute anyone for 'outing a covert agent' makes the issue moot. For every expert you have that says she was 'covert', there are just as many who say she was not. Clearly, this was something that Fitz would have had to prove in court, and the fact that he did not try, as I said, renders it moot. Since it is unproven, it is not proven, and your continued insistence that it has been proven is simply delusional. Period.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 2:01pm

244. We all know Clinton lied. He should have resigned instead of being impeached.

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:59pm

     Agreed.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 2:02pm

245. FeithCo?

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:5

     CRAB,

     It's sickening that the neoClown apologists do not even know who the gruesome players who have sold out America for Americastan and whom they defend like rapid dogs. It is of a piece with braying for blood in countries they cannot find on the map. Their ignorance is infinite, untroubled by even a random spasm toward seeking Truth.

     Splendid efforts today, CRAB, as always. I am checking out for now.

     Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/06/2007 @ 2:04pm

246. Posted by CRABWALK 06/06/2007 @ 2:02pm

     We all know Clinton lied. He should have resigned instead of being impeached.

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:59pm

     Agreed.

     You mean we all agree on something?

     By the way, in order to resign in shame, one must first have shame. The Clintons, both of them, are utterly shameless. Thus, no resignation.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/06/2007 @ 2:06pm

247. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 2:01pm

     right now my "experts" are her boss, and the Special Prosecutor of the United States, and her co-workers.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 2:06pm

248. am checking out for now.

     Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/06/2007 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person

     Agreed.

     Witless drones.

     baa baa.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2007 @ 2:07pm

249. WOW! Just because I didn't know who Feith was I am now a rabid dog who is geographically challenged. I seek not the truth but the ignorance for which we all as Americans aspire to.

     Your intolerance of others is only surpassed by your hatred of Bush.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 2:08pm

250. I also agree that Lemon has checked out.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/06/2007 @ 2:10pm

251. WOW! Just because I didn't know who Feith was I am now a rabid dog who is geographically challenged. Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 2:08pm

     No, just a mis-informed moron. Free Republic has a special place for you.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/06/2007 @ 2:22pm

252. If you were an intelligent, thinking being, you would not speak about that which you clearly know NOTHING.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/06/2007 @ 2:23pm

253. Neo-Klown Howling Monkeys are soooo adept at denying the truth.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/06/2007 @ 2:43pm

254. Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person

     So, BLATHER, we've had this conversation before.

     You're walking down the street and the police pull up tell you to assume the position, handcuff you, throw you in the patrol car and throw you in jail.

     Are you guilty?

     "Our very freedom is secure because we're a nation governed by laws, not by men. We cannot as citizens pick and choose the laws we will or will not obey." - Ronald Reagan

     Posted by COProgressive at 06/06/2007 @ 2:59pm

255. I don't know if this question has been asked of our neo-con friends who believe that Scooter should be out with Dick Chaney on the quail hunting blind instead of looking at 30 months of federal time, but in case it hasn't, I'll ask.

     If Valerie Plame wasn't a covert op in the CIA, why is she having to sue to publish her memoirs? I believe that what's holding them up is the contention of the CIA that by her talking about her service there, she's bringing up stuff that's classified.

     Seems to me that only someone with the kind of security clearance that covert ops folks get would have access to stuff that might be classified.

     Let's be honest here. Scooter lied about doing something that he shouldn't have done. Despite what folks on this blog have said, lying about exposing a covert CIA agent is more important than lying about whether or not some bimbo blew you.

     In fact, I'm still trying to figure out why in a country where the president can be impeached for lying about some bimbo blowing him, we can't seem to impeach a guy whose lies have led to the deaths of more than 3,000 American soldiers.

     As for whether or not Scooter will get a pardon, I predict that dude won't spend one day in jail. The paperwork for his "Get out of Jail Free" card is probably on its way to the Justice Department (or the Injustice Department if we were truly honest with ourselves) as we speak. The folks who's ass he's covering are far too afraid that a few days in the pokey will cause him to reveal some really juicy secrets.

     Posted by edwriter at 06/06/2007 @ 3:23pm

256. you seem to assume that Bush's handling of terrorists at Gitmo is illegal, that captured terrorists involved for some reason should have every right American citizens have, and that you always seem to presume the conclusion that Bush's handling of them is criminal as well. ----Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 1:32pm

     PONTI, aren't YOU assuming that they ARE "terrorists"? What evidence of that do you have?

     Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 3:29pm

257. Posted by EDWRITER 06/06/2007 @ 3:23pm | ignore this person

     there will be many secrets revealed...after Bush leaves.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/06/2007 @ 3:47pm

258. " like trying to reasonw with a sociopath....)

     Posted by W_M_BEAR 06/06/2007 @ 12:56pm | " What do you mean LIKE trying to reason with a sociopath."? I thought you were trying to reason with a sociopath.

     Posted by brantl at 06/06/2007 @ 3:48pm

259. Pontificus -

     You (and now Abell) keep asking the same questions you asked months ago. Others and I gave you answers, yet here you are asking the same stupid questions again.

     Either you have a memory problem or your are deliberately being obtuse.

     Unbelievable.

     Posted by Hman23 at 06/06/2007 @ 4:08pm

260. Posted by MASK 06/06/2007 @ 3:29pm

     Victoria Toensing told him.

     Posted by Hman23 at 06/06/2007 @ 4:08pm

261. Since the repub candidates are now running away from hsuB, What will they do when the dems move to impeach hsuB/cHeney admin. The first repub candidate that states 'yep, hsuB needs to be impeached', they then all turn.

     Another good point:

     President Harshly Criticized While Overseas - by GOP Presidential Candidates

     Posted by Jon Ponder | Jun. 6, 2007, 7:48 am

     Republicans have been quick to attack Democrats who criticize Pres. George Bush when he is overseas as being unpatriotic. Politics should end at the border, they say. But at the GOP presidential debate last night in New Hampshire, many of the candidates lambasted Bush who was in Europe on his way to the G8 conference:

     http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/06/06/president-harshly-criticized -while-overseas-by-gop-presidential-candidates/

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/06/2007 @ 4:26pm

262. Crab, You are wasting your time trying to speak logic to illogical people. They are basically sidestepping the issue that Libby was found guilty and that evidence was submitted to the court proving Plame was covert. This evidence was found to be factual evidence submitted to the court otherwise the defense would have had grounds to have that evidence removed or struck down. Using Ponti's logic, I could say that there are people who would disagree that there are 1000 milliseconds in one second. People who would tend to follow the Bush believer logic would say that God only measures time in days, so seconds are not an acceptable measurement of time and therefore the millisecond doesn't exist either because the bible says so. It's the Karl Rove strategy. Attack people on their strong point to take away the fact that you don't have an arguement. If an aruement hinges on a piece of evidence, do whatever you can to put that evidence into question even if it has been proven to be fact, you can find, well, about 28 or 29% of the people who will believe you because you told them so because that is what they wish to believe. Like I said Crab, you are wasting your time trying to to sense to people with the mental capability of losing a game of checkers (they can't play chess) to an unborn fetus with an undeveloped brain.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/06/2007 @ 4:32pm

263. Crab - I have just about given up on Pontificus too. It's like arguing with pull-toy.

     Posted by Hman23 at 06/06/2007 @ 5:07pm

264. Posted by WOLFGANG1

     Well said. I'd put the Pontifurbator & Ab12 on ignore, except that, now that my kids are grown, sometimes I get nostalgic to see how toddlers stick to their arguments. I can just imagine Ponti with his arms held stiff at his side, fingers splayed, chin raised, head shaking back-and-forth as he continues to rant, "Not Covert! Not Covert! Not Covert!"

     Posted by nathanhale at 06/06/2007 @ 5:25pm

265. Posted by NATHANHALE 06/06/2007 @ 5:25pm

     "But Daddy! Daaaaaaddy! Dickie Armitage wasn't charged!"

     Posted by Hman23 at 06/06/2007 @ 5:41pm

266. "But Mommy!!! I WASn't lying . . . I was only misstating!!

     Posted by Hman23 at 06/06/2007 @ 5:44pm

267. "Better him than me. Better HIM than ME!"

     -- Dick "Chickenhawk" Cheney

     Posted by dzman49 at 06/06/2007 @ 5:50pm

268. "But . . . but . . . but . . . Billy Clinton did it!!"

     Posted by Hman23 at 06/06/2007 @ 6:00pm

269. Posted by ABELL12CT 06/06/2007 @ 1:44pm

     So why wasn't Armitage charged with outing a covert cia agent?

     Ha! Good luck getting an answer to THAT one! One that makes sense, I mean.

     Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person

     What does that have to do with Libby commiting perjury and obstructing justice? Another attempt for the neo-nuts to say, "Nothing to see, move along,nothing to see."

     "Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws." - John Quincy Adams

     Posted by COProgressive at 06/06/2007 @ 6:23pm

270. Posted by HMAN23 06/06/2007 @ 4:08pm

     Well, close. Big Daddy George says they're terrorists, and that's why he imprisoned them. And then PONTI says, "Well, they wouldn't be in Gitmo if they weren't terrorists, would they?"

     But it matters little. If 50% of the Gitmo guys were found to be innocent, PONTI would say "Well, mistakes were made, but HALF of them WERE terrorists...We'll take the innocent guys back to their Islamic s**thole and slip 'em a couple of bucks for the 4-6 years they spent in Gitmo and that'll square it!"

     Posted by Mask at 06/06/2007 @ 8:28pm

271. Does it really matter? I am just hoping that "the decider" does not decide to cite Russia as an "immediate threat" and start THE war in the next few days.

     Posted by antigone at 06/06/2007 @ 10:43pm

272. fact Richard Armitage acknowledged that he was the one that outed Plame Fact Fitzgerald was told that befor ANY witness had been interviewed

     Posted by cupera2 at 06/06/2007 @ 11:04pm

273. Posted by HAPPY 06/05/2007 @ 9:45pm

     Happy has a problem differentiating between broken campaign promises versus lying to FBI investigators, under oath to a grand jury, and under oath to the jury in his own trial.

     Happy would put George H W Bush in jail for lying about tax hikes before putting Libby in jail for obstructing justice.

     Posted by NeilSagan at 06/07/2007 @ 01:56am

274. scoooootificus has informed me that john fitzgerald kennedy was not assassinated...

     because no one was ever charged.

     Posted by Will C. at 06/07/2007 @ 02:32am

275. it was really that killer headache...

     Posted by Will C. at 06/07/2007 @ 02:33am

276. luckily for scoootificus, his stabbing pain in the ass is rarely deadly

     Posted by Will C. at 06/07/2007 @ 02:36am

277. "If you have pity on these morons then you are a better man than I."

     Entropy, I could not have said it better. And as far as Bush pardoning Libby, I think anyone who believes he won't because it would look bad is giving him way too much credit. Libby's sentencing made it official...Cheyney is a thug among thugs. John Dean called this the dirtiest trick he'd ever seen in Washington; tantamount to a hit. Too bad it's a little too late for most voters to see that people like that don't belong in our White House. Where they do belong is in some made-up story about gangsters and their families on HBO. I don't believe they care what most people think of them any more than they do about honesty or admitting they were wrong. And if Libby isn't pardoned he might start chatting to someone about just who's idea it was to draft that little piece of bogus intelligence about the uranium from Africa. That would be the kind of trouble they don't like.

     Posted by mij at 06/07/2007 @ 08:05am

278. HMN, I was laid up yesterday, didn't have much else to do. Calling ponti a f'ing moron seemed to be a good use of time.

     Plame was covert

     Libby is guilty guilty guilty guilty of LYING. Libby and Rove outed a CIA agent, along with Armitage. Gross negligence followed by perjury.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2007 @ 09:37am

279. "but Mommy, all the other republican were lying too"

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2007 @ 09:38am

280. By Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 7, 2007; Page A04

     Italia Federici, the president of a Republican environmental group who came under Senate scrutiny last year because of her ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, has agreed to plead guilty to charges of tax evasion and obstructing a congressional investigation.

     Come on, lets hear about Jefferson and Billy clinton!!

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2007 @ 09:40am

281. Posted by MASK 06/06/2007 @ 3:29pm

     you seem to assume that Bush's handling of terrorists at Gitmo is illegal, that captured terrorists involved for some reason should have every right American citizens have, and that you always seem to presume the conclusion that Bush's handling of them is criminal as well. ----Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/06/2007 @ 1:32pm

     PONTI, aren't YOU assuming that they ARE "terrorists"? What evidence of that do you have?

     Ah, here's where knee-jerk Bush hatred rubber hits the road. Naturally, if you assume, as most posters here do and elsewhere in the fever swamps of the left, that everything Bush does is evil, then you can come under no other conclusion that all of those poor fellows in Gitmo are just misunderstood Islamists. Since I am not in the position of assuming that everything is Bush does is illegal and done in bad faith, I have the common sense presumption that they are all there for a reason, and that in general, that reason is that there is a pretty good indication that they are terrorists. Since I can't possibly argue against irrational hatred of Bush and the knee-jerk presumption of malfeasance, that statement will have to simply stand on its own.

     But if one is able to put such knee-jerk hatred aside, there is plenty of evidence that most of those people are terrorists. In fact, at least 7 of the 200 deemed most innocent by the military were later re-captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Since any reasonable person would conclude that there are many more that were either blown to bits, killed anonymously, or not recaptured yet at all would indicate that the true number of recidivists is much greater than 7 out of 200. And, of course, reports indicate that any number of Gitmo inmates have no trouble with telling you that they would slit your throat if they could.

     In summary, you have to be free of the irrationality of knee-jerk Bush hatred in order to assume some good faith on the Bush Administration's good faith in picking up these people. Also, you have to recognize that what evidence that we DO have indicates that these people are pretty much all terrorists. Simply by the laws of probablity, there certainly are some that probably are not terrorists, but I think it's a safe assumption that almost all of them are.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/07/2007 @ 09:57am

282. Posted by EDWRITER 06/06/2007 @ 3:23pm

     If Valerie Plame wasn't a covert op in the CIA, why is she having to sue to publish her memoirs? I believe that what's holding them up is the contention of the CIA that by her talking about her service there, she's bringing up stuff that's classified.

     From what I understand, the status of ALL CIA employees is classified information. Many CIA employees handle classified information, but most of these employees are not covert. ANY CIA employee who wishes to publish a book about their CIA experiences must have their book reviewed by the CIA to ensure that no classified material is being released. Does that answer your question?

     Posted by pontificus at 06/07/2007 @ 10:00am

283. Speaking to people on this site frequently reminds me of the scene in "Silence of the Lambs" where Clarice explains to Dr. Lecter how she caught him even though he was much smarter than her. "Because, sir, you labor under a great disadvantage." says Clarice. Dr. Lecter says, "And what is that?" Clarice: "You're insane, Dr. Lecter."

     The fact is, although many of you are certainly not nearly as intelligent as the fictional Dr. Lecter, and of course not within light years of how intelligent you THINK you are, nevertheless most of you subscribe to completely insane ideas. Pacifism, knee-jerk Bush hatred, socialism, it's all here in a sort of one-stop shopping experience. That's what makes you so entertaining! Keep it up!

     Posted by pontificus at 06/07/2007 @ 10:12am

284. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 10:12am

     That was good!

     Posted by Happy at 06/07/2007 @ 10:26am

285. We do not have a problem with Libby being pardoned, PROVIDED THAT IT IS AFTER THE PARDONS OF RAMOS AND COMPION

     Posted by tucanofulano at 06/07/2007 @ 10:33am

286. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 09:57am

     Well, PONTI, I don't hate Bush, ergo I assume innocence until proven guilty. I did that BEFORE Bush became President. Rather a tradition among open-minded and fair Americans for some time back.

     Apparently by your rationale, you must LOVE Bush and therefore accept guilt until proven innocent.

     "Simply by the laws of probablity, there certainly are some that probably are not terrorists, but I think it's a safe assumption that almost all of them are." ---Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 09:57am

     So as long as its a minority of people, okay to deny them fair trials and presumption of innocence?!?!?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 10:12am

     BTW, it wasn't Clarice Starling to Lector in "Silence of the Lambs"...it was former agent Will Graham to Lector in "Red Dragon".

     Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 10:36am

287. Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 10:36am

     Well, PONTI, I don't hate Bush, ergo I assume innocence until proven guilty. I did that BEFORE Bush became President. Rather a tradition among open-minded and fair Americans for some time back.

     Apparently by your rationale, you must LOVE Bush and therefore accept guilt until proven innocent.

     That's silly, MASK. The opposite of hate is not love. It's indifference. I am indifferent to Bush.

     "Simply by the laws of probablity, there certainly are some that probably are not terrorists, but I think it's a safe assumption that almost all of them are." ---Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 09:57am

     So as long as its a minority of people, okay to deny them fair trials and presumption of innocence?!?!?

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 10:12am

     If they were American citizens, they would be due the presumption of innocence. Since almost all of them are foreigners that were captured under arms against us in a war, they deserve no such rights or presumptions. Only a fool would buy such a proposition; we have never given such protections to combatants in ANY war. In fact, in previous wars, most of them would have been and could have been summarily shot, which I think most of them should have been.

     BTW, it wasn't Clarice Starling to Lector in "Silence of the Lambs"...it was former agent Will Graham to Lector in "Red Dragon".

     Ah yes, I believe you are right.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/07/2007 @ 10:58am

288. PROVIDED THAT IT IS AFTER THE PARDONS OF RAMOS AND COMPION

     Posted by TUCANOFULANO 06/07/2007 @ 10:33am | ignore this person

     for attempting to be judge, jury and executioner? this you support? I say let trigger happy cops rot in jail.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/07/2007 @ 11:14am

289. I guess that answers my question, Pontificus, so I thank you.

     However, since I didn't ask the question with any bitchiness, just with curiosity, why I got bitchiness back from you is a mystery.

     Also, didn't a former head of the CIA just publish his memoirs? Why didn't he have to sue? He would surely have more classified information at his fingertips than Ms. Plame would have.

     Posted by edwriter at 06/07/2007 @ 11:27am

290. Posted by EDWRITER 06/07/2007 @ 11:27am

     I guess that answers my question, Pontificus, so I thank you.

     However, since I didn't ask the question with any bitchiness, just with curiosity, why I got bitchiness back from you is a mystery.

     Also, didn't a former head of the CIA just publish his memoirs? Why didn't he have to sue? He would surely have more classified information at his fingertips than Ms. Plame would have.

     I sincerely apologize if my response sounded bitchy. I didn't mean it to sound that way, I have no history with you so I would have no inclination to be rude.

     It's true that I am pretty rough on some of the people here, but I can assure you that I am civil towards those who are civil, and even in general those who aren't. I didn't address the insanity remarks to you, these were directed towards people like CRABBIE, WILL C, and others who know who they are.

     With regard to the former CIA director's book, I'm sure that was properly cleared through the same channels through which Plame is trying to get her book.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/07/2007 @ 11:41am

291. It's true that I am pretty rough on some of the people here, but I can assure you that I am civil towards those who are civil, and even in general those who aren't.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 11:41am

     Fuck you. Coward.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/07/2007 @ 12:03pm

292. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 10:58am

     So "almost all of them were foreigners captures on the battlefield"....how many aren't and why are you so unconcerned about that?

     and "In fact, in previous wars, most of them would have been and could have been summarily shot, which I think most of them should have been."....Really?

     SO in most of our previous wars, we have "summarily shot" prisoners of war, and when we don't, you think they should have been?

     Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 12:06pm

293. Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 12:06pm

     So "almost all of them were foreigners captures on the battlefield"....how many aren't and why are you so unconcerned about that?

     I wouldn't say I'm unconcerned, but I would say that I'm not unduly concerned. Obviously, if we have some that appear to be innocent, they should be set free, and many have been. The standards they are using must be reasonably loose, because it appears many of those released went straight back to killing. So I think this innocence issue is being addressed.

     This isn't a law enforcement issue, where the standard is that it's better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to convict one innocent one. I think in this case, it's better to keep a few innocents in jail rather than let a few dozen bloodthirsty killers free. It's a judgment call, and it seems that it's being made fairly well.

     and "In fact, in previous wars, most of them would have been and could have been summarily shot, which I think most of them should have been."....Really?

     SO in most of our previous wars, we have "summarily shot" prisoners of war, and when we don't, you think they should have been?

     These aren't 'prisoners of war' MASK. POW's fight under the uniformed imprimatur of a state and in most cases POWs have fought under recognized rules of war. Terrorists BY DEFINITION AND BY STATED INTENT DO NOT FIGHT UNDER THE RULES OF WAR, AND IT IS THEIR SPECIFICALLY STATED POLICY THAT THEY WILL NOT FIGHT UNDER TRADITIONAL RULES OF WAR AS CODIFIED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS, BUT RATHER THAT IT IS THEIR SPECIFIC INTENTION THAT THEY WILL FLOUT ALL 'CIVILIZED' RULES OF WAR AND KILL AS MANY INNOCENT CIVILIANS AS POSSIBLE. THUS IT IS COMPLETELY WITHIN THE LAW TO SUMMARILY SHOOT THEM, AND IN MY OPINION THIS SHOULD BE DONE AS A RULE. ABSOLUTELY.

     In WWII soldiers fighting out of uniform were summarily shot by both sides as spies if it suited them. And all of this was completely legal and recognized.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/07/2007 @ 12:25pm

294. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 12:25pm

     So how many innocent people would Jesus jail out of fear pontitard?

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/07/2007 @ 12:59pm

295. Your moral relativism is disgusting, preacher boy.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/07/2007 @ 1:00pm

296. Um, with regard to Clinton - what was the underlying crime when he lied?

     Posted by CaptainKirk at 06/07/2007 @ 1:22pm

297. Pontifurbator, given that many held throughout the American Gulag are there because they were captured due to tips and "intelligence" when they were nowhere near a battlefield, your assertion that there is plenty of evidence that most of the detainees are terrorists is rendered quaint, naive, a null set.

     Likewise, you give evidence of your inability to grasp anything more than a child's sense of logic with your blathering about "knee-jerk hatred" of Bush.

     Better you should do like Bush and always stay on-message: repeatedly hit that f-key that types out "Not Covert! Not Covert! Not Covert!

     Posted by nathanhale at 06/07/2007 @ 1:23pm

298. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 12:25pm

     Well, first...can you describe the "official uniform" of the Taliban soldiery?

     Second, again you're "not unduly concerned" about INNOCENT people being held for YEARS at a military prison?!?!? My, how brave of you to not let their suffering interfere with your conscious like that...you must be a moral relativist and atheist to be so unconcerned with the oppression of innocents, and feel no risk to your "immortal soul".

     Also, you must be a rather trusting soul (oops, forgot, no "soul") who accepts all things told to them by the Government and accepts it as truth. Sounds like some of them left-wingers who can trust the Government to run their health care and teach their kids about sex.....my, my, my. Guess I had you figured wrong.

     Innocents can suffer....(wonder what a "pro-lifer" would say about that?)

     and Government is always trustworthy ....(wonder what a libertarian would say about that?)

     Gee, PONTI....I guess you're a leftist!

     Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 1:39pm

299. Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 1:39pm

     and Government is always trustworthy ....(wonder what a libertarian would say about that?)

     Resorting to strawmen, MASK? My statement was that it was insane to assume, as in knee-jerk, that every statement and action by the Bush Administration was evil, stupid, made in bad faith, or some combination of the above. I DID NOT assert the opposite, that everything is automatically true and a font of wisdom, which you seem to fantasize that I did. It's the absolutists on this site that engage in that sort of black/white dichotomy, I'm the one protesting it.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/07/2007 @ 2:48pm

300. Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 1:39pm

     Well, first...can you describe the "official uniform" of the Taliban soldiery?

     That's a good question. I can't. But you're asking me to provide rules for you in all situations where really you have to use your own common sense. Would it be 'legal' to shoot escaping allied prisoners in WWII? Were they out of uniform? Yes. Would it be legal to shoot them? No. Would it be legal to shoot Japanese prisoners on islands in WWII that our soldiers had a reasonable expectation to be suicide killers? Good question, as it was done all the time, and no-one ever complained about it.

     My argument is that I feel that captured Al Quaida terrorists should be summarily shot, especially those who admit they are terrorists and that they will kill for Allah if they get a chance. My understanding is that most of the Gitmo prisoners will admit this straight out. Do you think THESE people should be given full due process as American citizens, including bail? I definitely do not, and I think most Americans would think you're an idiot if you do.

     You've got to have some good faith and good judgment on your own, MASK, to understand the arguments here. If you can't bring that to the table, that's a problem.

     Posted by pontificus at 06/07/2007 @ 3:02pm

301. Well, first...can you describe the "official uniform" of the Taliban soldiery?

     That's a good question. I can't.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 3:02pm

     It's the color headband they wear. Try keeping up bubba. Or just shut up with your moral relativism.

     Who would Jesus torture?

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/07/2007 @ 3:03pm

302. is it just because they are "ragheads" that they don't count for you PONTI?

     Would it be different if they were white christian anit-choice terrorists?

     What would you say THEN, oh hypocrite for christ?

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/07/2007 @ 3:58pm

303. I left the "cocksucker" out of the middle because it seems to upset poor JR.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/07/2007 @ 4:31pm

304. You've got to have some good faith and good judgment on your own, MASK, to understand the arguments here. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 3:02pm

     Yeah, come on, Mask, where's your good faith in dealing with the guy with the "Not Covert" f-key?

     Posted by nathanhale at 06/07/2007 @ 5:02pm

305. Posted by DR DECIBELS 06/07/2007 @ 3:58pm

     Hey, DR, we gotta find a way to finger the Pontifurbator as a terrorist: then we can see if it makes a difference if the terrorist is HIM.

     Posted by nathanhale at 06/07/2007 @ 5:05pm

306. Posted by NATHANHALE 06/07/2007 @ 5:05pm

     Oh, we don't need to test that theory. We ALREADY know the answer.

     Although I would like to see the look on his face. Of course, if they "disappear" him.....

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/07/2007 @ 5:32pm

307. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 3:02pm

     So you know that it's okay (even preferable) to shoot "combatents out of uniform"...but wouldn't know if the combatent is IN uniform or not?

     Except for flowery rhetoric, isn't your motto "Shoot 'em all, let Allah sort them out"?

     BTW on this "My understanding is that most of the Gitmo prisoners will admit this straight out."

     Where does your "understanding" come from? Who told you this and why do you believe them?

     Posted by Mask at 06/07/2007 @ 8:47pm

308. In WWII soldiers fighting out of uniform were summarily shot by both sides as spies if it suited them. And all of this was completely legal and recognized.

     Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 06/07/2007 @ 12:25pm | ignore this person

     So, BLATHER, your standing out in your field in Afghanistan grazing your goats and a group of thugs from a rival warload grabs you and sells you to the American forces for $5000 telling the Americans you are a terrorist.

     1) Are you a terrorist?

     2) You not being in uniform, should you be summarily shot?

     And all of this was completely legal and recognized, so you don't have to worry about the legalities. Of cause, you would be dead.

     I try to keep the questions simple, all you need to do is answer with a "yes" or "no'. Blathering is not allowed.

     "Arrogance and rudeness are training wheels on the bicycle of life -- for weak people who cannot keep their balance without them. - Laura Teresa Marquez

     itmfa

     Posted by COProgressive at 06/08/2007 @ 01:05am

309. Where does your "understanding" come from? Who told you this and why do you believe them?

     Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 8:47pm

     Mask! How dare you question the great BLATHERIFICUS's pontificating? If BLATHERIFICUS says it, it shan't be questioned.

     He was like a cock who thought the sun had risen to hear him crow. - George Eliot

     itmfa

     Posted by COProgressive at 06/08/2007 @ 01:18am

310. I think Ponti is dillusional. I am just about half embarassed now to admit that I served the in the U.S. armed forces. However, there is this little thing called the UCMJ which is the uniformed code of military justice. It prohibits torturing your enemey. Why would this be? Maybe because it's a desperate plea to keep the enemy from torturing our soldiers if they are taken prisoner. One other point I would like to make for Ponti here is this and I'm sure it's been mentioned a thousand times before. One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I am sure the British soldiers viewed the American colonists fighting them as terrorist barbarians who would fire upon them from the hills instead firing in rank and file. The colonists didn't play the rule book either due to a lack of equipment and trained personnel and also tried to use the home field advantage as much as possible. Ponti, how would you respond if the tables were turned? Iraq invades the U.S. because they want Texas to be their new holyland, remove Bush, and try to change the U.S. government. Would you sit idly by or would you try to fight back? Uniform or not, some of these people didn't want the U.S. to attack their country. That doesn't necessarily make them a terrorist. Try to put yourself in the other persons situation upon occasion. It can look pretty damn ugly when you do.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/08/2007 @ 09:24am

311. Pontificus KNOWS they were caught on the battlefield, even though many came from Pakistan and indonesia. Ponti KNOWS they are terrorists, even though 200 have been released with no charges filed against them. Ponit KNOWS they are receiving fair trials, even though none have been tried .

     Ponti KNOWS Plame is not covert, even though the guvt says she is.

     Ponti KNOWS whatever bush and his echo chamber tell him, nothing more. Knowing the truth would require him to think, obviously that is too much to ask. Wild, strung out theories are better for him than straight answers.

     Ponti, you are the most obtuse individual. Dumb as a stump, too.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2007 @ 09:46am

312. and as arrogant as his handle suggests.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2007 @ 10:06am

313. JR, got a minute?

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2007 @ 10:11am

314. never mind, my iron is hot, must run. One of these days I want to "talk" to you about gallery owners and how to handle them. Useful parasites, if that gives you a peak into my mindset at the moment.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2007 @ 10:14am

315. GUILTY! For lying.

     30 months

     Truth matters.

     Unless one is a 30%er. Then all that matters is The Lie, repeat The LIE enough and it becomes the truth. Not.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2007 @ 10:16am

316. Where does your "understanding" come from? Who told you this and why do you believe them?

     Posted by MASK 06/07/2007 @ 8:47pm

     Mask, you should know by now that Ponti's "understanding" is based on nothing more than his own preconceived beliefs.

     Posted by Hman23 at 06/08/2007 @ 11:06am

317. strike while the iron is hot.

     I have little to report. my gallery shows have been group shows in alternative spaces, with the exception of the last one, which was curated. that was a small works show. nothing over 12 inches in any dimension. that is an annual show, with submissions from all over the world. next year I'll pass the info on to you.

     the curator of that show has a gallery of his own and I went to show him my latest work, photo collages, scissor work, not photoshop. he said I had a good eye.

     the museum of modern art has a once a month open call, you drop off your stuff, two days later you pick it up. if someone contacts you, great, otherwise it's good luck Charlie.

     I did get some useful info from the gallery guy. one that there are 500 galleries in that very hot neighborhood in Manhattan, Chelsea.

     the other was that you have to find a gallery which is interested in what you're interested in. the web, of course is a great help.

     I would be interested in some of your experiences. do you have a site with your work? I have a site for my professional work, and it has been great. I got a gig last week from there, a company in San Francisco needed a video done here in NY. I have a feeling, that if I worked harder to promote the site, a lot more of this would come my way. you can also pay Yahoo for more prominent listings. they have a plan where you pay them for each hit on your site.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2007 @ 11:15am

318. one thing to remember with galleristas, is that you are the commodity, without which they are nothing.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 06/08/2007 @ 11:33am

319. Some owners understand that, others do not.

     I pulled of of a local gallery in order to join a co-op. I should have known that the reason some of the other "artists" were not in "real" galleries was because they made crap. Some make nice "craft" items, but mot just stuck colored beads on things and called it art. I was unhappy with the way the real gallery owner treated me. At the end he was making more than me on my work. (ie, I would want $300 for a small table, he would sell it for $750) am debating whether or not to suck up my pride and go back into the real gallery, with strictly negotiated splits. They do a fine job marketing and the surrounding work is of high quality.

     2 other galleries that showed my work closed, one due to a crack-baby grandson, another due to the Michigan economy. I was bummed about the first. It was in Saugatuak MI, a fine arts mecca for the midwest.

     MOMA has open shows? that sounds way cool. I may have to contact a friend in Stroudsburg Pa and have him take a couple things in for me. If nothing else, I could fib a little and tell people I have work in the MOMA. Hee hee. .

     One of these days I will get around to an anonymous site for you to look at.

     Peace, bro. I hope you are having a wonderful and productive day!!It is a glorious day here, but I am buckling down to finish my own driveway gate. wheeee, punching 1-1/2" holes in 1" bar!!! fun fun fun!! fire, smoke, big hammers, ancient techniques!!!!!

     Bring on the dancing women in their leather aprons!

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/08/2007 @ 1:24pm

320. Posted by HMAN23 06/08/2007 @ 11:06am

     Apparently, PONTI has company with BARRY in the "I can make any claim I wish and provide no proof" 28% Club.

     Posted by Mask at 06/08/2007 @ 9:16pm

321. It really isn't hard to imagine that scootificus would be in denial that he, scootificus, could get rear ended into 30 months of taking it in the poopshooticus in of all places, the slammer.

     anger will soon follow, as will barginning, as will depression, as will acceptance.

     Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2007 @ 5:47pm

322. if only he had seen what was coming.

     he might have told the truth

     Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2007 @ 5:48pm

323. PONTI, are you still around?

     It seems some "guilty" terrorists have been released from our gulag. Do they get their lives back, though?

     TIRANA, Albania -- Ahktar Qassim Basit says he is not angry about the four years he spent as an American prisoner at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, before his captors mumbled a brief apology and flew him to this drab Balkan capital to begin a new life as a refugee.

     It is this new life in Albania, Mr. Basit and other former Guantánamo detainees say, that is driving them to desperation.

     The men, Muslims from western China's Uighur ethnic minority, were freed from their confinement in Cuba after they were found to pose no threat to the United States. They have now lived for more than a year in a squalid government refugee center on the grubby outskirts of Tirana, guarded by armed policemen.

     "We suffered very much at Guantánamo, but we continue to suffer here," Mr. Basit said. "The other prisoners had their countries, but we are like orphans: we have no place to go."

     Things could be worse, the former prisoners note. At least 15 of the 17 Uighurs who remain at Guantánamo have also been cleared for release, but not even Albania will accept them -- and neither will the United States. Instead, American diplomats say they have asked nearly 100 countries to provide asylum to the detainees, only to find that Chinese officials have warned some of the same countries not to accept them.

     So, here we have some folks that want to be free from communist tyranny, but Ponti says they are guilty of being terrorists!

     Most of the five Uighurs in Tirana said they had left their homes in China's far-western Xinjiang Province, an area the Uighurs call East Turkestan, to earn more money for their families and escape government harassment. They said they drifted into Afghanistan after travels through other Central Asian countries, and heard that the Uighur hamlet was a place where they could get free food and shelter while trying to figure out where to go next.

     The youngest, Ayoub Haji Mamet, who was 18 when he was captured, had a quixotic plan to make his way across Europe and then fly to the United States to attend school.

     International human rights groups have long accused the Chinese authorities of oppressing the roughly nine million Uighurs in Xinjiang, where there have been occasional acts of separatist violence. The State Department's own 2006 human rights report for China describes ethnic discrimination, the suppression of Muslim religious freedom and the persecution of those thought to be separatists, many of whom have been executed.

     ...Several of the Uighurs said their most traumatic experience at Guantánamo was their interrogation by a team of Chinese security officials in September 2002. The Chinese "had all of our files from the Americans," Mr. Qassim said, threatened them repeatedly and insisted that the prisoners return with them to China. They refused.

     But American intelligence personnel at Guantánamo soon began to doubt that most of the Uighurs represented a real terrorist threat, officials who served there said. By late 2003, senior national security officials in Washington cleared most of the Uighurs for release -- 14, by one official's count.

     Some officials at the Pentagon advocated sending the Uighurs back to China, and the State Department eventually sought and received assurances from the Chinese that they would treat the men humanely. But senior officials finally decided not to repatriate them, citing China's past treatment of the Uighur minority.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2007 @ 10:01am

324. What goes around----comes around!!

     Posted by bigshot at 06/11/2007 @ 8:49pm