Bush Commutes Libby's Jail Sentence

posted by David Corn on 07/02/2007 @ 7:56pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (356)

Subscribe Now

It's appropriate.

The president who led the nation into a disastrous war in Iraq by peddling false statements and misrepresentations has come to the rescue of a White House aide convicted of lying by commuting his sentence. Before the ink was dry on today's court order denying Scooter Libby's latest appeal--a motion to allow him to stay out of jail while he was challenging his conviction--George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence. Libby will no longer have to serve the 30-month prison sentence ordered by federal district court Judge Reggie Walton. He will, though, have to pay the $250,000 fine that was part of the sentence.

The commutation--which is not a pardon and does not erase Libby's conviction--is a reminder that Bush and his crew do not believe in accountability. Bush has been rather stingy in the use of his pardon power. And regulations issued by his Justice Department note that recipients of pardons should serve their sentences and demonstrate contrition before obtaining presidential absolution. (Libby had expressed no remorse and was not scheduled to report to jail for several weeks.) Yet with this commutation, Bush ducked those requirements, and he is allowing Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, who was found guilty of lying to federal investigators in the CIA leak case, to go unpunished. The fine will be no problem for Libby. His neoconservative friends and admirers will kick in to cover that tab. (Perhaps even Cheney will send a check.)

Libby had become a symbol of the Bush White House's problem with the truth. After all, his lies had been designed to block FBI agents and federal prosecutors from learning the full truth of a White House effort to discredit a critic who had accused the Bush administration of twisting the prewar intelligence. And now the final act in the long-running CIA leak scandal--Bush's commutation--stands as another symbol of this grand theme: lying doesn't really bother this crowd. In the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush claimed he would bring responsibility to the White House and, as a PR stunt, he dubbed his campaign jet Accountability One. Yet with this commutation, he takes the position that in his administration an aide who purposefully misleads government officials investigating a possible national security crime need not be held fully accountable.

This is no shocker. Early on in the CIA leak affair, the White House announced that anyone involved in the 2003 leak that disclosed the CIA employment of Valerie Wilson, an undercover Agency officer, would be booted out of the administration. But Karl Rove, who had disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson to two reporters and who apparently lied about his actions to White House press secretary Scott McClellan, was not pink-slipped. Bush has never acknowledged this broken promise. (Libby left the White House only after he was indicted in the fall of 2005.)

Bush shielded Rove, and now--better late than never--he's doing the same for Libby. Ever since Libby's conviction in March, neoconservative and conservative Libby partisans have been urging--or demanding--that Bush pardon Libby. They have cried that his indictment, his conviction, and his sentence were travesties of justice. They blasted Bush for declining to intervene in the proceedings, branding the president (their pal!) a coward. They acted as if Bush's refusal to pardon Libby was a personal betrayal of each and everyone of them. They showed more concern for Libby than any of the civilians who have perished in Iraq in the years since they, Libby and their allies engineered the invasion of Iraq. Libby was their cause; he was one of them.

Once again, Bush, being nudged by the neocons, has sent a clear message: telling the truth doesn't matter. Bush has refused to acknowledge that he, Cheney, and other administration officials--to be polite about it--stretched the truth about Iraq and the threat it posed before the war. Today, he says that if you lie to protect the White House (especially the vice president), you can escape retribution. But if Bush, Cheney and the others could get away with big untruths about war, why shouldn't Libby get away with small lies about a cover-up? Fair's fair, right?

The foundation of a democratic judicial system is that the sentence fits the crime. In this instance, the commutation fits the administration.

******

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 (356)

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SCOOTER IS FREEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by woodyee at 07/02/2007 @ 8:03pm
I heart Scooter! :-)

Posted by woodyee at 07/02/2007 @ 8:03pm
This just might be the thing that gets the congressional Dems boiling enough to start impeachment proceedings.

Posted by BlueTexan at 07/02/2007 @ 8:13pm
Posted by BLUETEXAN 07/02/2007 @ 8:13pm

This just might be the thing that gets the congressional Dems boiling enough to start impeachment proceedings.

They would have done it already, if someone actually could have thought of a reason.

Posted by pontificus at 07/02/2007 @ 8:17pm
A fitting end to a political witchhunt, brought about by the odious Wilson and Plame.

Posted by pontificus at 07/02/2007 @ 8:19pm
Journalist Eric Margolis:"After CIA rejected the Niger file, it was eagerly snapped up by VP Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, who were urgently seeking any reason, no matter how specious, to invade Iraq. Cheney passed the phony data to Bush, who used it in his January 2003 address to the nation in spite of warnings from CIA. . . ."

If Libby believes that defrauding America with the Niger documents he "knew" were false to justify invading Iraq is not a crime, he should consult competent legal counsel.

Someone has to pay for this fraud, and Libby, as much as any of the neocons, was directly responsible for fraudulent evidence used to invade Iraq.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/02/2007 @ 8:21pm
I wish I could say I was surprised. The real fact in our country is--the larger the crime, the less likely you are to face the music. Steal something minor to feed your family and if you're poor--you end up in jail. Steal an election, and the free will of what was a fine country and you are called a patriot. When will the lies and deception end......when the neocons are out of office.

Posted by jpolston at 07/02/2007 @ 8:33pm
Unfortunately, this Administration's utter lawlessness is about as newsworthy, by now, as "dog bites man." If Congressional Democrats believe that it is unwise to impeach Bush and Cheney -- and they may be right about that -- then they should do everything in their power, until January 2009, to neuter this Administration. A good place to start, in the interests of the American people, would be the complete de-funding of the Iraq war, the CIA prisons and other outposts of the Bush gulag, and all of the Administration's illegal "terrorist surveillance" programs.

Posted by sgoodman at 07/02/2007 @ 8:58pm
David: The commutation--which is not a pardon and does not erase Libby's conviction--is a reminder that Bush and his crew do not believe in accountability.

David,

As you know, I'm a sloppy writer but I think your sentence above should have been written as:

The commutation--which is not a pardon and does not erase Libby's conviction--is a reminder that Bush and his crew DO BELIEVE in accountability, just NOT to the full extent permitted by law in case(s) of administration loyalist(s).

You probably won't admit it publicly, but I'm almost certain if you see Libby anytime soon, you will NOT be telling him: "You ought to be in jail!" His saga provided lots of materials with which YOU were able to provide for your family and kept the Left entertained!

Posted by Happy at 07/02/2007 @ 9:01pm
A good place to start, in the interests of the American people, would be the complete de-funding of the Iraq war, the CIA prisons and other outposts of the Bush gulag, and all of the Administration's illegal "terrorist surveillance" programs.

Posted by SGOODMAN 07/02/2007 @ 8:58pm

You da MAN! That's exactly what I would want your side to do! But, I know for sure, your side don't have the balls!

Posted by Happy at 07/02/2007 @ 9:03pm
Tomorrow night on Keith Olbermann's Countdown, he'll be making a special comment calling for the resignations of Bush and Cheney.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/02/2007 @ 8:55pm | ignore this person

So? There's nothing that he or anyone else can do about this! By the way, I thought his ratings were supposed to be up? Up as in 2nd place? He's a distant third! Maybe Bush will commute his sentence from toiling in a 3rd place hack network.

Posted by woodyee at 07/02/2007 @ 9:15pm
A good place to start, in the interests of the American people, would be the complete de-funding of the Iraq war, the CIA prisons and other outposts of the Bush gulag, and all of the Administration's illegal "terrorist surveillance" programs. Problem is the Dem's (most of them anyway, including Hillary and Obama) already approved for more funding. In fact they gave Bush more money than he asked for...again. I have lost faith that they'll do anything to reverse the damage, if anything they'll just continue on where Bush and Co. left off.

Posted by johnnylange at 07/02/2007 @ 9:32pm
Did not someone say-- WORSE THAN WATERGATE... True it is.

hsuB does indeed beat Nixon, as I do not believe Nixon was able to commute anyone before he had to resign per the vote on articles of impeachment his second term. hsuB never really cared all that much about all the death he's caused to be too concerned about obstructing justice just a little bit longer.

Little does he know what history has in store for such horrible misleaders such as the hsuB/cHeney admin.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/02/2007 @ 9:38pm
No conviction or indictment of any underlying crime---therefore no time is appropriate. Sentence was excessive and beyond sentencing guidelines. Conviction and fine stands---also appropriate. Good decision by Bush.

Posted by Len Mosse at 07/02/2007 @ 9:44pm
The power of the President to "Commute" is of course, absolute.

Posted by conshame at 07/02/2007 @ 9:45pm
The republican party will not recover from this national outrage.

Wanna bet----a few years of democrats in power and the nation will be chomping at the bit for republicans to be back and running the show.

Posted by Len Mosse at 07/02/2007 @ 9:46pm
This doesn't even fit the guidelines by the DOJ for commutation of sentences. He's supposed to have serverd part of his sentence first. He's also not supposed to be appealing his sentence.

I will no longer call this man president. He has no respect for the office. He's a disgrace.

Posted by kevana at 07/02/2007 @ 9:47pm
I'm convinced Bush would have pardoned Libby outright, if Bush were not so weakened politically. What he has done is to buy Libby time until the election next year, after which Bush will pardon Libby. In the meantime, Libby's friends will post the appeal bond so the fine need not be paid pending appeal, and the Bar will similarly defer disbarment. Then comes November 2008 and the pardon -- bye bye fine, bye bye disbarment, bye bye conviction. What a farce!

Here is something the Democrats can and should do, and it doesn't need Bush's cooperation. The Constitution must be amended so as to eliminate any sitting President's power to pardon, or otherwise reduce the sentence of, any official of his Administration or of any Administration in which the President served as Vice President. The latter provision would have prevented George H.W. Bush from pardoning Casper Weinberger.

Until and unless the President's pardon power is reduced to eliminate self-interested pardons, this nonsense will continue.

Posted by slaskin at 07/02/2007 @ 9:56pm
It's unconsionable to defund troops who are in harms way and in need of constant support.

Sorry Frank,

You are buying into Republican rhetoric! Defunding the war, but "funding withdrawal activities" (obviously a much lower dollar amount) is all you have to do to make sure the troops are not harmed "while they withdraw".

The votes will be there in September after it is clear to "everybody" that the surge did not work.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/02/2007 @ 10:01pm
oh man! that was faster than i thought!

"well, look...if i spend one day in prison, you had better have me offed, cause i'm gonna sing like a canary if you hang me out to dry."

wonder if it was something to that effect...or concerns that a few weeks in lockup might loosen a tongue that need be tight...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/02/2007 @ 10:02pm
Wash off good, Frankgrits.

Posted by woodyee at 07/02/2007 @ 10:34pm
A perfect example of the corrupt president and and his corrupt administration.

Posted by kevin99999 at 07/02/2007 @ 10:37pm
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

William Jefferson Clinton granted a total of 450 pardons and commutations during his 8 years.....and he claimed that he reviewed each case.....yeah, right, give me another double!

Posted by Happy at 07/02/2007 @ 10:54pm
Well, I not surprised.

What else would you expect a puppet president to do for his puppet-master and his puppet-master's puppy?

This is a true indication of how low this administration has dragged the respectability of our country and the rule of law. Now this deserter preppy rich kid Ivy league cheerleader pardons a felon convicted of perjury and obstruction of a criminal investigation of treason.

Cheney outed Ms. Plame and the puppet-master's puppy lied to prevent investigators from finding the truth of Cheney's treason.

The preppy cheerleader knew from the first. Cheerleader didn't order it, in this administration the cheerleader doesn't order anything. Cheney, the dark leader of this throughly corrupt administration, runs things. But the cheerleader knew, so he is an accessory to the treason of Cheney.

You want "High Crimes" for impeachment? Cheney for treason for outing a covert CIA agent "in time of war". The cheerleader and the puppy as accessories to treason. Impeach Cheney and the cheerleader. Throw the puppy in the kennel with the really "Big Bad Dogs" and see how long it takes for him to become a Big Bad Dogs's bitch.

They all deserve it.

We can't keep letting these Sons of Bitches get away with screwing over our country and our laws.

Don't let them "Get away with it".

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

a magnitude better man than his worthless son.

icf itmfa

Posted by COProgressive at 07/02/2007 @ 11:38pm
I know that the corporate media in the pocket of the right wingers is not going to make a big deal of it. The Washington Post has already started softening up the image of republicans. Other media is not far behind.

Posted by kevin99999 at 07/02/2007 @ 11:43pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 07/02/2007 @ 11:16pm | ignore this person

So, you can Google. I'm impressed, but so what?

How many of those committed treason in the NutHouse...errr Whitehouse?

What a facepainter......sick.....

"These guys [Republicans] are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen." - John Kerry

Rethuglicans can never again talk about "Law and Order"!

icf itmfa

Posted by COProgressive at 07/02/2007 @ 11:46pm
The truth is that Scooter Libby was part of a rogue political operation in the White House.....

And Bush didn't pardon him. Bush agrees he is a criminal!

Posted by ZERO 07/02/2007 @ 11:24pm

I hope you remember, right after the verdict, my guess of a commutation (after I read somewhere a persuasive piece). I have never denied the possibility Libby may have lied, thus....now, what Bush did shows political savvy! When he leaves office, clear Libby of the conviction and he can practice law again!

Now, regarding your "truth", it's a truth that underwent an expensive investigation, congressional snooping and God knows how many sources of potential `smoking-gun' leaks, and so far, ZERO! Read David's book! If you are too lazy, look up what `Hubris' mean....it's NOT lying!

As a general comment on why Bush really don't give a shit for what the Dems/Libs think. Think back to the beginning of his Presidency, the Libs/Dems won't let go of Gore's losing the vote counts in FL and most galling, even the ruling of the SCOTUS....and constantly hounds him w/this pure BS....downright stupid meanness.

FRANKly, the more he can piss you all off, while making decisions the Right and some/many independents can accept as rational and practical, the HAPPIER I am....for he is getting some revenge intentional or not! LOL!!!

Posted by Happy at 07/03/2007 @ 12:21am
PONTIFICUS, WOODEYE, H&POCRISY,

So much for the rule of law for you rightwing extremists. Of course, on the far left and the far right there is no such thing as the rule of law. You cheer the pardon of a man who is a traitor to his country? Are you people brain dead? With this blatant disregard for the rule of law, I find it hard to believe that Jonathan Pollard is still behind bars.................

Posted by POSEIDON at 07/03/2007 @ 12:29am
FRANKGRITS,

This should suprise no one. Before Bush leaves office, Libby will get a FULL PARDON..............

Posted by POSEIDON at 07/03/2007 @ 12:30am
WASHINGTON (AP) - Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is disputing President Bush's assertion that the 30-month prison sentence given to former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby was "excessive."

That was 1 of the reasons the president cited in commuting the sentence hours after a federal appeals court ruled that Libby could not remain free while fighting the case.

Fitzgerald said in a statement that Libby was sentenced under the same laws as other criminals. He also said "It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals."

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 12:50am
HsuB/cHeney follow no rule of law-- much less the spirit of it. Impeachment of the hsuB/cHeney admin will be most refreshing.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 12:51am
Journalist Eric Margolis:"After CIA rejected the Niger file, it was eagerly snapped up by VP Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, who were urgently seeking any reason, no matter how specious, to invade Iraq. Cheney passed the phony data to Bush, who used it in his January 2003 address to the nation in spite of warnings from CIA. . . ."

If Libby believes that defrauding America with the Niger documents he "knew" were false to justify invading Iraq is not a crime, he should consult competent legal counsel.

Someone has to pay for this fraud, and Libby, as much as any of the neocons, was directly responsible for fraudulent evidence used to invade Iraq.

Posted by METTEYYA 07/02/2007 @ 8:21pm

If you fellas repeat a lie often enough you may come to believe it but those who read accurate records don't.

here is the excerpt from Bush's 2003 SUA: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

Now you hawkers of the big lie may believe that Mr & Mrs Wilson are the British government but most of us know differently. The reality is that Bush was quoting from British intelligence from which the Brits, concerning its accuracy have never resiled.

Plame and Wilson were irrelevant.

The reason that Bush will never be impeached is that the charge he lied can only be sustained by the many similar lies and half truths of those who seek his impeachment.

This blatant lie that Margolis parades is but one of many from your perfidious impeachment cabal.

Posted by lrjones4 at 07/03/2007 @ 01:09am
In your wisdom Sir, I am afraid that I am skeptical

Mr. Libby lied to us, to the American people in the face of direct questioning. I fear his lies were only. so that he could to shield you, or your vice president or your administration

I am not a fool, I am not blind, nor Sir are the majority of the citizens of this great land. He was found guilty of nothing more than lying and deception I suppose �a small crime in some minds �in some places

But most of us see past this Sir, We see that we are being lied to. We are being deceived. This man is a traitor to the Constitution, and America as a whole

He is a shallow - lying man - of poor character, who would deny his own God if it fit his plans, or perhaps the plans of his superiors.

This is neither noble or admirable. And yet you Sir, will defend him, and commute his sentence. You Sir will let him walk free.

When I read that you said "I respect the jury's verdict" I felt with a heavy heart, that it was a bold faced lie. A cold - calculated - heartless attempt to again bend the minds of those you are charged to serve and protect.

Few Sir, if any true Americans or Christians will respect your thinly concealed "decisions".

I fear that the respect you seek, the adoration you crave, is only for what you hope to find within the inner circle of your confidants, supporters and friends.

You Sir have turned your back on the American people. You have chosen the gains and adoration of your piers over your constitutionally mandated paternal responsibilities to us the American people

You have allowed deception deceit and depravity to reign in the hallowed halls of the White house. You have failed in your charge to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

I sit here tonight afraid for our future. My future and the future of my children Afraid because of the total lack of true leadership that I see.

Is there a truth I am failing to see? Amidst the glaring distortions and lies that confront me daily on the lips of your defenders and supporter? In the now rapacious, repetitive, worthless, glossy headline news I try to block out of my life� am I missing some beautiful undiscovered kernel of Devine inspired wisdom?

I fear not Sir, nay�I know not

You have failed us all Sir. You have chosen personal gain over your true responsibilities. History will long remember this betrayal. There will be no glorification of the deceit.

and yet still... even when I feel that it is too late to repair that which has been undone

I hope, I pray, I implore you Sir on the face of all that is true and just, in the name and Spirit of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Face your opposition, face your adversity, face the failures of the past and stand tall.

Speak truth to the darkness

do what is just and right, with conviction and purity of purpose

Defend, Protect and Elevate the office that you hold, for those who came before and those to follow, in the spirit of the Founding Fathers, Make your mark upon history.

Speak truth to the darkness

Posted by rkleeman at 07/03/2007 @ 01:19am
It is way more than obvious hsuB/cHeney are obstructing justice and made a deal with Libby, no jail time for Libby-- he just lie to keep hsuB/cHeney from the gallos for treason:

WASHINGTON - Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald used his opening statement in the CIA leak trial Tuesday to allege that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff lied and destroyed a note showing Cheney's early involvement.

Fitzgerald said Cheney told his chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby, in 2003 that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and Libby spread that information to reporters. When that information got out, it triggered a federal investigation.

"But when the FBI and grand jury asked about what the defendant did," Fitzgerald said, "he made up a story."

Fitzgerald alleged that Libby in September 2003 "destroyed" a Cheney note just before Libby's first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson from reporters, not the vice president.

Attorney Theodore Wells said Libby went to Cheney in 2003 and complained that the White House was subtly blaming him for leaking Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak.

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Wells said, recalling the alleged conversation between Libby and Cheney. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 01:49am
RIO BRAVO,

I stand corrected. You rightwing extremists cheer the Commutation of sentence of a man who is a traitor to his country? Play dumb as you might, we all know that the Bush White House including Lewis Libby outed a covert CIA officer, which is clearly betraying National Security. And to refresh your memory, or lack of attention span or ability to read, or a combination of all of the aforementioned, I don't recall cheering any of the Pardons or Clemencies or Commuations of Bill Clinton before he left office, including the Marc Rich Pardon............

Posted by POSEIDON at 07/03/2007 @ 02:02am
A fitting end to a political witchhunt, brought about by the odious Wilson and Plame. Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/02/2007 @ 8:19pm

Funny how wingnuts claim the conservative republican appointed Fitzgerald and conservative republican appointed Judge Walton and conservative republican AG Ashcroft can mount a political witchunt. It must be the liberal CIA, right doofus?

Scoter Libby is Alger Hiss of the "W" era. He's a traitor to his country. The only thing worse than a traitor is a President who pardons him

The CIA asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether a crime was committed. DOJ ran the investigation until Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself because of a conflict of interest - Rove was his campaign manager in a Senate race. DOJ knew Plame was a CIA NOC, they knew she had traveled out of the country on CIA business in the last five years and they knew the disclosure of her identify by Libby, Rove, Hadley and Armitage was a possible IIPA violation. Deputy AG James Comey turned the investigation over to US Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald. Scooter lied and obstructed justice. If he had not, Fitzgerald would have learned the truth and whether the leakers both knew she was a NOC and intended (frame of mind) to destroy her cover.

Posted by NeilSagan at 07/03/2007 @ 02:05am
here is the excerpt from Bush's 2003 SUA: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

LRJones4,

The problem with your assertion is that Libby and Cheney (and probably Bush) knew this African connection thing was false because the CIA told them that the Niger document was a forgery!

If you were president and your CIA told you that the document that you wanted to use to claim Iraq was building a nuke was a forgery, would you use this document in a major speech to the public at all?

You would only use it if you were trying to fool the public into thinking war was justified, and for this "crime" someone has to be held accountable!

Trying to split hairs and blame in on the British does not absolve you of your responsibility to the public to not mislead them into war! Why even talk about British intelligence if you know it is based on a forgery?

If this is Bush's defense, he is starting to sound like Clinton's "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman (I only let her suck my dick and I came all over her dress, but that ain't sexual relations, right?)" retort. Bush:"I didn't knowingly use forged documents to mislead people into going to war, I just failed to tell the American people that the British were using forged documents to reach "their" conclusions! That ain't misleadin', right?"

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 02:13am
Lies can take many shapes and forms. The President's slippery words about the threat posed by Iraq can be read for their intent not just their literal meaning or whether there is sufficient ambiguity in his words to create a reasonable doubt.

Bush and Cheney wanted this war bad enough to lie for it... and they did.

There were three fraudulent pieces of "evidence" on which the Bush adminstration rested its decision to invade Iraq; an IRAQI nuclear bomb evidenced by the attempt to procude massive quantities of uranium, aluminum tubes suitable for centrifuges, and the threat of giving the bomb with with al Quada.

The uranium story was a lie based on forged documents and Cheney knew it even if Bush didn't. Our own department of energy said the tubes were not suitable for uranium enrichment. In fact, they were the same type of tubes used for short range missles. The Atta/Saddam connection was also false, fraudulent. This evidence was produced by Cheney accolites.

It is a crime to lie or deceive Congress for war authorization. Without that decpetion, the people of the United Sates would never have consented to a war of choice with Iraq.

Posted by NeilSagan at 07/03/2007 @ 02:21am
"It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals."

Posted by NeilSagan at 07/03/2007 @ 02:24am
Ha Ha. These guys can do what they like, and as much as you thrash and whinge, there's nothing you can do about it. Impeach Bush & Cheney? In your dreams. Stop the war? What have the Dems done? Restore your constitution? Get real - the Dems can see the convenience of Bush's little 'reforms' and will embrace rather than ditch them. From W on, all presidents will use those cunning little waivers, spy on their citizens etc, in some measure.

Unless, of course, there is another American Revolution. But that would mean going outside of the known (the tiny Dem-Rep spectrum of US politics) into terra incognito - and there be monsters.

Good luck you US progressives - I hope you can find a way through.

Posted by mikecope at 07/03/2007 @ 02:43am
Gee guys. Why do you continue to prepetrate the lie that the President lied to get us in a war. You are so warped you do not even know that you are lying. The lack of ethics by the anti-Bushites (the anti-neocons) is truly pathetic. So Libby gets to live a ruined life while the lying couple Wilson and Plame get to pretend they have been damaged. So the special prosecutor keeps investigating, even though he knows there is no crime. Armatage exposes Plame, he is not prosecuted . . . why? It is not a crime. That's precious.

Posted by Ilbert at 07/03/2007 @ 02:46am
Posted by NEILSAGAN 07/03/2007 @ 02:24am

"It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals."

From the absurd to the sublime. When the salivating hounds of the left start portraying themselves as the last bastion of democracy, you know the limit of absurdity has been reached. Trying to stop laughing here.

Posted by pontificus at 07/03/2007 @ 04:20am
Posted by NEILSAGAN 07/03/2007 @ 02:21am

Neil,

In your endeavour to nail Bush you Zero in on the WMD threat presented by Iraq which was used to justify the war. If one is not a partisan it is reasonable to assume as the 2004 Senate investigation did that no one, including Cheney, leaned on the intelligence community to rig its assessment of October 2002. The Senate laid the blame in every one of its 117 conclusions, with the exception of conclusion 114 in which blame was attributed to Cheney in a minor way for the manner in which he presented a part of the intelligence, fairly and squarely on the incompetence of the intelligence agencies.

It has been claimed by the Bush opponents that he, after the event, rationalised the war on humanitarian grounds. This actually is another very obvious lie. If one takes the time to read through his speech to the UN in Sept 2002 it will be found that a major part of the justification to remove the Saddam led Baathist regime was on humanitarian grounds. These grounds are virtually those that are enumerated in the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. That act in clear terms suggests that those humanitarian abuses can only be righted by the removal of Saddam from office. These omissions are what make the impeachment cabal's case so weak as to be worthless in what it seeks to effect.

Posted by lrjones4 at 07/03/2007 @ 04:23am
Posted by NEILSAGAN 07/03/2007 @ 02:05am | ignore this person

To be historically accurate, Lewis Libby has received thus far a Commuation of sentence, not a full pardon, as of yet.............

Scoter Libby is Alger Hiss of the "W" era. He's a traitor to his country. The only thing worse than a traitor is a President who pardons him (or commutes his sentence)

Posted by POSEIDON at 07/03/2007 @ 04:44am
Posted by ILBERT 07/03/2007 @ 02:46am | ignore this person

And back to the rightwing theatre of the super-absurd...........

The former Hunchback of the State Department should have been prosecuted for outing Plame.............."Dick" Armitage was one of the orginal neo-con fanatics who signed a letter from the Project for a New American Century begging the Clinton Administration to take out Saddam years before Bush Jr. was given the Presidency by the Rhenquist Court. Why on earth Colin Powell would want neocon trash like Armitage for his number two that is simply mindboggling.............Unless of course you think like anyone associated with the Bushites..............

Posted by POSEIDON at 07/03/2007 @ 04:52am
Posted by METTEYYA 07/03/2007 @ 02:13am

Mette you seem to miss the fairly obvious point that the Brits did at the time of Bush's SUA and still did long after the war started, believe and have even had several investigations into the Niger uranium claim that decided that Iraq inquired about Niger uranium. It matters little whether the Brits were correct or not that was their understanding, shared with Bush and held until well after the war commenced. Bush was stating the truth. No ifs or buts.

"In late February of 2002, the CIA sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate the claims himself. Wilson had been posted to Niger 14 years earlier, and throughout a diplomatic career in Africa he had built up a large network of contacts in Niger. Wilson interviewed former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, who reported that he knew of no attempted sales to Iraq. Mayaki did however recall that in June 1999 an Iraqi delegation had expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations", which he had interpreted to mean yellowcake sales.[4]"

Your Senate agreed with this. Look at the following quotes, which show that you have absolutely no grounds to say that Bush lied.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence suggested that the evidence Mr. Wilson found could be interpreted differently:

[Wilson's] intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, (REDACTED) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."[6]

The following quotes come from a left wing blog site but indicate from a source biased in your favour that Bush was stating the position held by one of the worlds highly credible intelligence sources. http://yourplanetisdoomed.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html

"Since the war in Iraq began, two independent British inquiries have firmly reiterated that the original intelligence concerning Niger was sound, and has withstood careful scrutiny..."

..we now move forward in time to the Butler Review. A five-member panel of privy counsellors hand-picked from inside Number 10 Downing Street, this inquiry had only the single backing of Tony Blair's New Labour party (the Liberal Democrats declined to take part, predicting "another whitewash", because the role of politicians had been excluded from the inquiry's remit, and the Conservative Party withdrew their support soon after). The committee also met entirely in secret and its terms of reference were so tightly drawn it guaranteed the key questions the British people were asking could not be fully answered.

Although highly critical in parts, the Butler Report eventually cleared ministers � and, by extension, George Bush � of making unfounded statements on the specific issue of uranium. This did not come as a surprise to the committee's critics who argued that the review lacked integrity...

Posted by lrjones4 at 07/03/2007 @ 05:16am
Federal inmate No. 28301-016 would have choked and croaked once he put on his pretty orange uniform. bush knew his henchmen were afraid of putting on uniforms during a war, just as he was. libby had to be sprung. Besides, Congress can't touch him if witnesses lie and avoid giving testimony.

Posted by gore4pres at 07/03/2007 @ 06:11am
Or during questioning answer they can't recall or they can't remember 60 plus times........(LOL)

Posted by GORE4PRES 07/03/2007 @ 06:11am | ignore this person

Posted by POSEIDON at 07/03/2007 @ 06:25am
A fitting end to a political witchhunt, brought about by the odious Wilson and Plame.

Posted by PONTIFICUS

Ponti, You are as full of crap as usual. You say that congress doesn't have any evidence that Bush or Cheney have broken the law? What friggin planet have you been living on the last 6 years? And talking about witch hunts. When Clinton was in office, the conservative folks ran nothing but witch hunts for both of his terms in office only to go through impeachment proceedings over a b.j. The only way fools like you will see the truth is if you lose everything you have, and the way this country is heading you may very well lose everything you have (that is unless you happen to be a multimillionare or better)! So, you believe that a trial before his peers, Scooter Libby is found guilty and he should be pardoned for dragging our nation into a war under false pretenses is the way the country should be run? Go on ahead and bury your head in the sand and continue waving the flag as the country goes down the drain.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/03/2007 @ 07:46am
I'm afraid that the neoconservatives are going down with a whimper rather than with a bang. "Commutation"? What's that supposed to mean? My guess is that it lets neoconservatives have it both ways. They can tell their base that they were nice to Libby, while telling their detractors (about 70% of the country now) that they really do favor accountability, sort of, only not too much � well, actually only a very little.

The neoconservatives are loyal to their own and smear anyone who seems to threaten them. They have the same morality as a pack of attack dogs.

The Democrats, however, are still too entangled in the net of triangulation to do what needs to be done. I only hope that I live long enough to see the truth become common knowledge: that the Bush administration has been one of the worst this country has ever known, and that both they and the Democrats of the years 2000-2008 represented our national moral fiber at its weakest and our selfish arrogance at its strongest.

I hope I live long enough to see the "Bush versus Gore" decision placed where it belongs: right next to Dred Scott and Plessy versus Ferguson.

I hope I live long enough to hear a new generation of young Americans say: "How could our own (grand)parents have been so stupid?"

Posted by JakobFabian at 07/03/2007 @ 07:46am
Lying about a bj is a lot different than lying about treason.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 09:04am
You're either a servicer of dic'tator philosophy or you're against new con dic'tator philosophy. Face it, you're over your head on this, drowning in a cesspool along with the rest of repub coolaid drinkers if you're continuing to follow this hsuB/cHeney admin like limmings over the cliff.

hsuB is a criminal covering up a crime laced with the death of thousands of our sons and daughters, 100's of thousands of Iraqis and filled with billions of stolen US citizenry taxes. hsuB 'is' the worst president in our US history. It will be a joy to finally see him get his just rewards via impeachment, disgrace and real jail time. He has willingly committed crimes.

His dumb-ass act isn't going to stop him from settling up for the shit he's put this nation through. I say, he can commute Libby's sentence-- he can't commute his own.

I say, Biden, not only will hsuB get millions of letters of protest, so will the congress. Congress must do it's job and impeach the scum currently sliming our WH. It's the right thing to do-- now.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 09:07am
Well, I doubt it should come as any suprise to anyone by now that there are two systems of justice in the United States. One for the rich, powerful, wealthy and well-connected and one for everyone else.

Posted by hhemwm at 07/03/2007 @ 09:41am
And for all of those Libby apologists here playing their usual moral equivalency game. . . this case is a little different than Marc Rich. This involves a war, lest we forget.

Nice try though. Moral equivalency is a fun game to play, isn't it?

Posted by hhemwm at 07/03/2007 @ 09:43am
Let me repeat; this involves a war. A war. The one we are fighting over in Iraq than keeps consuming all of those lives.

Remember this: Libby's lies helped bring our nation into a war. A war. Must I keep repeating this is about a war?

Posted by hhemwm at 07/03/2007 @ 09:44am
"The difference is it was the President, not a functionary in the VP's office. Having said that, I will repeat my mea culpa that during that time I suffered from delusional hatred every bit as bad as yours. And even though the charges were nothing more than mere technicalities and did not pose a grave threat to the Republic, my rhetoric was every bit as dire and irresponsible as yours."

Mary I really do worry for you; you just cannot see that Libby's actions are connected to a much larger picture and that is helping the Vice President discredit all of the critics of the administration's phony case for war. This is not about bjs and personal lives, this is about the national security of the United States of America.

It never ceases to amaze me how Bush supporters and apologists can equate the Lewinsky affair with lying an entire nation in a war that has become so costly. . . I don't know what world you are living in but I don't want to go there.

Posted by hhemwm at 07/03/2007 @ 09:48am
He got it right:

"The arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking. Will the president also commute the sentences of others who obstructed justice and lied to grand juries, or only those who act to protect President Bush and Vice President Cheney?" -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 09:58am
MARYBRETBRAD, I feel extremely sorry for you because you wouldn't know the truth unless it hit you over the damn head you moron. If you remember correctly, the Republican Congress established a special investigator to investigate the Whitewater Scandal,ie Kenneth Starr. Now, you tell me what a B.J. has to do with that? Also, I'd like to smack Clinton myself for being an idiot who couldn't keep his damn pants on. It's because of him that W is in office. All people like you care about is pushing your conservative agenda down everyone else's throats. If you wish to thump your bible, great, go ahead and do it, but leave me the hell alone. My FREEDOM OF RELIGION means I should be free from the religious rights crap if I choose to. If you want to wave the flag around, great, go ahead and do it. But don't send soldiers off to war so you can feel patriotic. If that is what takes for you to feel patriotic, get your ass into the U.S. military and be a real patriot not an armchair one. Go over to Iraq and do a few patrols for bombs on the roads. Maybe losing an arm or leg or your life might make you change your perspective a bit. That is, when you decide which sex you are MaryBretBrad.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/03/2007 @ 10:01am
Doubtful that it would pass, but we need the Constitution amended to prohibit the President from pardoning or commuting the sentence of someone who works for him, either in the executive branch or politically.

The current process encourages lawlessness. The executive can - indeed has - order a subordinate to break the law, with the promise of no punishment. It puts his staff above the law.

It's OK, in my mind, for a future President to pardon or commute, but for a sitting President to insulate his staff from the law reeks - really, really reeks.

Of course the eunuch Democrats will let this pass also. Sigh.

Posted by JazzyJake at 07/03/2007 @ 10:08am
So Libby gets to live a ruined life ....

Posted by ILBERT 07/03/2007 @ 02:46am | ignore this person

Ruined life? Not on your life. Lier Libby is one of the richest men in Washington. I sure he will live very comfortably in his mansion while receiving checks in the mail for not sitting on the boards of dozens of companies (like Haliburton?) and receiving $250,000 a year from each for doing nothing. I should be so ruined.

If one is not a partisan it is reasonable to assume as the 2004 Senate investigation did that no one, including Cheney, leaned on the intelligence community to rig its assessment of October 2002.

Posted by LRJONES4 07/03/2007 @ 04:23am and again @ 05:16am | ignore this person

A perfect example of bullshit at its finest and not reasonable at all. Which party controlled the Senate in 2004? Do you people on the bottom on the world understand what CYA means?

Give it up. Rationalize all you'd like, but this corrupt administration did EVERYTHING they could to go to war with Iraq. It was their PNAC plan from the '90's. They lied, they fearmongered, they bulled until THEY GOT the fiasco that WE'VE GOT today. You're stupid rhetoric changes nothing and only wastes bandwidth.

Posted by RIO POLLO 07/03/2007 @ 01:02am | ignore this person, he is an idiot

Your "Mommy, Bobby did it too" defense is just too childish for words. Isn't it your nap time?

From the absurd to the sublime. When the salivating hounds of the left start portraying themselves as the last bastion of democracy, you know the limit of absurdity has been reached. Trying to stop laughing here.

Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 07/03/2007 @ 04:20am | ignore this person

Yeah, do try to stop laughing. Our rule of law has been commandeer by the "Commander Guy" to prove once again, as the shrub has said before, "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator."

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

icf itmfa

Posted by COProgressive at 07/03/2007 @ 10:08am
Quoth Bush July 2005: "I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." True to his word, Libby no longer works for him.

OK, so in 2004 he said he would fire "anyone involved" in the Plame leak but that was just stuff he said.

You can't expect someone in high office to hold to stuff they say. This administration is too busy contradicting itself and prevaricating to keep track of anything said. You say stuff or have the press secretary muppet say stuff, the media muppets write it down, the consumers consume it and 24 hours later you say the exact opposite or deny saying what you said, the media muppets write it down, the consumers consume it and then we all tune in to reruns of Everybody Loves Raymond and plan the purchase of some new object we don't need and can't afford. Democracy's slow death by complacency is what we are looking at here.

Posted by cpoh at 07/03/2007 @ 10:48am
And this decision is a surprise to anyone....why?

I knew from the moment that dude was convicted that he wasn't going to spend a day in jail. He knows where far too many of the bodies are buried and folks knew that the minute he met his cell mate Muhammad, he was going to do anything he needed to to get out.

I'm also not surprised because this is coming from an administration that believes that the Constitution is something that you wipe your ass with.

Posted by edwriter at 07/03/2007 @ 11:27am
Impeachment is the least that the Congress should do...

Posted by jkrogman at 07/03/2007 @ 11:54am
I'm also not surprised because this is coming from an administration that believes that the Constitution is something that you wipe your ass with.

Posted by EDWRITER

Well put. I'd throw in that commuting Libby's sentence is a joke. Oh ya, $250,000 is really going to hurt him. Everyone knows damn well that that Libby won't pay one cent of that. If he really had to, he'd roll over on Cheney and Bush. This was all premeditated once Libby went on trial. Libby was not to say anything and basically obstruct justice where he could, and Bush would present his get out of jail free card. If Bush failed to produce the get out of jail free card, Libby would roll him over. One thing about these guys, they look out for #1 (and it ain't the United States of America). As Bush so consistantly points out, he doesn't care what the polls say, he's just going to do what he wants to do even if the only people believing him would like to move back in time before the 1860's.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/03/2007 @ 12:07pm
This administration must HATE AMERICA--because the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS HATE THEM!!

Posted by eriksolevad at 07/03/2007 @ 12:26pm
I can almost understand why the Democrats are so timid about holding this administration to account. They're awfully good at hanging themselves.

Bush just missed his last chance to be viewed historically as a man of principle. Not that we didn't see it coming.

I'm not at all surprised that he took this utterly autocratic action after spending the day with Vladimir Putin.

Posted by MyParadigm at 07/03/2007 @ 1:07pm
Bush just missed his last chance to be viewed historically as a man of principle

that ship sailed long, long ago. Bush knew everything about the leak from the start. everything he said about it was lies.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 1:22pm
When the salivating hounds of the left start portraying themselves as the last bastion of democracy, you know the limit of absurdity has been reached. Trying to stop laughing here.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/03/2007 @ 04:20am | ignore this person

The above coming from an utter fascist - come to think of it, I can't stop laughing. Poor little righties - shown time and again to be without any trace of integrity. So one of theirs gets convicted by a jury in a case in which one of their Dear Leader's appointees has presided. A sentence meeting guidelines, approved by GOP appellate judges. And they whine - unfair, unfair, unfair. Don't make poor Scooter pay for that, it's really all Bill Clinton's fault. Or Hillary Clinton. Or or or or...Truth is, Pontificus, it's the left that's defending liberty in this country. People like you are too busy hiding from the latest rightie boogeyman (let's see, is it commies, Muslims, gays, women, people who think...?). Your side likes to talk a talk, but it's like reading the old Soviet Constitution - a lot of words that are entirely the opposite of any subsequent actions. Fact is, the whole concept of democracy is principally a liberal construct. It involves the rule of law, not the establishment of the cult of personality that your side has lived these last 25 years or so. The fascists, the American Right, are, by definition, no "bastion of democracy".

Posted by jmusolino at 07/03/2007 @ 1:25pm
Because I may not be aware of all the legal intricacies, this analysis of the situation may be off base, but this is what I see happening now.

The main reason why Bush would help Libby out is to prevent him from going to the cops and spilling his guts. By commuting his sentence, Bush essentially gives Libby what he wants (he won't have to pay a nickle because the fine will come out of the neocon bank accounts), but by not giving him a pardon, he still leaves him open to further prosecution if something else turns up. With a pardon, Libby could have gone and squealed without jeopardizing himself, although he would have no particular reason to that we know of, but he could have. Now he might still face further prosecution if he testifies to other misconduct that so far hasn't been detected.

Posted by danmiller at 07/03/2007 @ 1:34pm
Why do people keep saying that there was no underlying crime? Outing Valerie Plame who was running the CIA shop on detecting WMD in the Middle East is a crime!! Now we have lost any chance to find out what the Iranians were or are doing with their nuclear development thanks to the Bushies' need to attack their political opponents. To protest that no one was convicted of that crime is the same as admitting that Libby needs to be charged with treason since it was his deceit that is responsible for not being able to convict the appropriate individuals.

Posted by danmiller at 07/03/2007 @ 1:44pm
B.J. Clinton never handed out these kinds of fraudulent commutations.

Posted by marc rich at 07/03/2007 @ 1:59pm
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/iraq/documents.html

"A perfect example of bullshit at its finest and not reasonable at all. Which party controlled the Senate in 2004? Do you people on the bottom on the world understand what CYA means?

Give it up. Rationalize all you'd like, but this corrupt administration did EVERYTHING they could to go to war with Iraq. It was their PNAC plan from the '90's. They lied, they fearmongered, they bulled until THEY GOT the fiasco that WE'VE GOT today. You're stupid rhetoric changes nothing and only wastes bandwidth."

Posted by COPROGRESSIVE 07/03/2007 @ 10:08am

Your problem it seems to me is that you haven't got a clue what this debate is all about. Have you read any of the documents that you imagine you understand?

Here is the guts of the argument that proves beyond doubt that Bush (and his admin) did not, nor did any one else for that matter, manipulate any of the American intelligence information on Iraq. The information used by Bush all comes with the authority of the American Intelligence agencies as certain proof that Iraq was in possession of WMD. That Intelligence assessment is contained in:

(i) The National Intelligence Assessment 2002.

The Senate Select Committee assessment of that intelligence is in:

(ii) Select Committee on Intelligence

United States Senate July 7 2004.

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/iraq/documents.html

I have little doubt you and few here have ever heard of either document let alone read them. In your case, if you had, you wouldn't have been making such inane comments. Here are the members of the Senate Committee. Nine Republicans and eight Democrats. Have a look at the names and tell me which Democrat members you think are Bush lackeys:

Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,

7 July 2004

* John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), Vice Chairman

* Evan Bayh (D-Ind.)

* Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.)

* John Edwards (D-N.C.)

* Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

* Carl Levin (D-Mich.)

* Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.)

* Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

* Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Chairman

* Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.)

* Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

* Mike DeWine (R-Ohio)

* Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)

* Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)

* Trent Lott (R-Miss.)

* Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)

* John W. Warner (R-Va.)

You appear to me to be one of the more intellectually lazy members on this forum in that you are content to belch out thoughtless nonsense.

If you have not fully read both reports (unclassified at least with the NIE) then how about getting off your backside, read them then come back and make an intelligent contribution.

It is pretty obvious that you and your lazy mates have got most of your ideas from equally lazy and poorly informed leftie shock jocks or more likely by sycophantic osmosis. ie hang around sites, like this one, long enough until you also can parrot the jargon.

There are 117 conclusions the Select Committee came to all of which blame the abysmally flawed intelligence the American agencies provided this administration with. Let's just look at one that is relevant to Niger uranium:

Conclusion 19. "Even after obtaining the forged documents and being alerted by a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analyst about problems with them analysts at both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not examine them carefully enough to see the obvious problems with the documents. Both agencies continued to publish assessments that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa. In addition, CIA continued to approve the use of similar language in Administration publications, including the State of the Union.

For drones similar to you who have problems with foreign input getting Bush off the hook you imagine is there; the British Intelligence agency, which certainly has better worldwide credibility than the CIA, was also telling Bush that the Niger-Iraq/uranium intelligence was credible.

Posted by lrjones4 at 07/03/2007 @ 2:15pm
I hope that Management of The Nation will forward the comments of this thread to John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.If these

Posted by: FRANKGRITS 07/03/07@2:00pm

I second that emotion, Grits. Who the hell does he think he is,anyway? The President of the United States? Sheesh!

Posted by marc rich at 07/03/2007 @ 2:24pm
If conservatives were intelligent they would have forgotten Libby the second he was convicted,but these people are all over the place defending a convicted felon and making themselves look weak on crime and in support of people who lie.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2007 @ 2:39pm
Robert Novak reported the truth, that Joe Wilson got his job because his wife worked at the CIA.

MARYBRETBRAD 07/03/2007 @ 2:28pm

What are you, a talking puppet? Do you really think that after all the conversations on this topic on these pages that anyone takes that crap seriously?

Novak reported gossip. Gossip, the exact word Armitage used in discussing his chat with Novak. Novak "reported" it ONLY after getting a White House heavy, Karl Rove, to confirm that it was a circulated rumor.

Wilson "got his job" because he was experienced in African politics and nuclear proliferation.

Posted by MyParadigm at 07/03/2007 @ 2:43pm
And the balless little daddy's boy wasn't even man enough to give him a full pardon.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/03/2007 @ 2:53pm
I'm not surprised that Bush- a "man" who never worked for anything in his life- knows nothing about suffering, would think 30 months in a minimum security prison would be too harsh. I just wish he felt the same way about destitute mothers with multiple children serving minimum 20 year terms because their "boyfriends" threatened their lives and stashed drugs in their apartments. There are thousands of these women in prisons today- many of which never saw their children grow up and never received payment for drugs or even handled them. It makes me sick- to say the sentence was "too harsh" shows a complete disconnct with the world he's supposed to be leading. I hate him more than any right-inger ever hated Clinton.

Posted by phillymark at 07/03/2007 @ 2:54pm
Posted by LRJONES4 07/03/2007 @ 2:15pm | ignore this person

You didn't answer the questions. I'll add another.

In the report you site, do you believe it to be non-partisan?

Which party controlled the Senate in 2004?

Do you people on the bottom on the world understand what CYA means?

What does your blather have to do with the topic of this post? O.K. two questions. Is it another attempt to have people turn their attention away from the fact that this administration has no regard for the rule of law and that someone in the WH compromised a covert CIA project to discover WMD's "in time of war"? Don't look at the issue at hand, quick look over there, nothing to see here, just another stupid Red Herring.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

icf itmfa

Posted by COProgressive at 07/03/2007 @ 3:13pm
It is no use - they are called true believers for a reason and it is not because they are open minded or reasonable.

Posted by CaptainKirk at 07/03/2007 @ 3:19pm
Lying about a bj is a lot different than lying about treason. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/03/2007 @ 09:04am

Your saying that Libby's intent when lying to the FBI about his conversation to Tim Russert was to bring down the government of the United States and remove from The People their soveriegn authority to govern themselves.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/03/2007 @ 2:27pm

It is way more than obvious hsuB/cHeney are obstructing justice and made a deal with Libby, no jail time for Libby-- he just lies to keep hsuB/cHeney from the gallos for treason:

WASHINGTON - Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald used his opening statement in the CIA leak trial Tuesday to allege that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff lied and destroyed a note showing Cheney's early involvement.

Fitzgerald said Cheney told his chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby, in 2003 that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and Libby spread that information to reporters. When that information got out, it triggered a federal investigation.

"But when the FBI and grand jury asked about what the defendant did," Fitzgerald said, "he made up a story."

Fitzgerald alleged that Libby in September 2003 "destroyed" a Cheney note just before Libby's first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson from reporters, not the vice president.

Attorney Theodore Wells said Libby went to Cheney in 2003 and complained that the White House was subtly blaming him for leaking Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak.

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Wells said, recalling the alleged conversation between Libby and Cheney. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

(When it says Libby, Libby, Libby on the lapel, lapel, lapel, you will like it, like it, like it back on your table, table, table. ...) And the 'it' is impeachment.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 3:49pm
Nobody can long suffer the fools.

"Stupidity has a certain charm - ignorance does not." ~ Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)

Posted by CaptainKirk at 07/03/2007 @ 4:00pm
What If Libby Was Black Or Mentally Retarded?

Bob Cesca, 07.02.2007

Regarding the record 152 executions during his two terms as governor, Bush "wrote" in his autobiography, A Charge To Keep, "I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own."

SURPRIZE-- hsuB is a liar!!! Who knew!!!

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 4:03pm
The plain truth I see here is that we have 3 idiots (Ponti, MARTYBRETBRAD, and someone posing as Marc Rich). My guess is that these folks are probably paid to read and respond to liberal blogs and to stir up the proverbial shit. If not, they are just plain stupid. They can't come up with anything of substance except to rant and rave about what they are told to say by the conservative media they listen to. Also, from what I've seen and heard, not one of them has served in the armed forces and yet they are tough as hell from their keyboards. I think we should pass a law that requires you to serve in the military if you vote for war. I wonder how many of these Bush types would turn tail and run or vote another way in that case. My guess is that about 90 to 95% of them would. It's always easy to be patriotic when it's someone elses blood being spilled for your country. When it's your family members or yourself in the war, waving the flag around doesn't seem that important anymore. Since the 4th of July is around the corner, I wish you bible thumping flag waving morons would keep this in mind. We probably have soldiers getting blown up right now while while you morons are concerned about Scooter Libby. His problems kind of pale in contrast don't you think?

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/03/2007 @ 4:08pm
Robert Novak reported the truth, that Joe Wilson got his job because his wife worked at the CIA. He knew this because Ameritage told him so. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/03/2007 @ 2:28pm

Don't forget to add that, before the article was printed, Libby was Novak's second, confirming source.

Posted by nathanhale at 07/03/2007 @ 4:10pm
We have troops that have been put in jail for actions taken in the illegal and unwise invasion and continuing occupation.

I bet they would like some of that presidential compassion for extreme jail terms.

Posted by CaptainKirk at 07/03/2007 @ 4:11pm
"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own."

Has anyone in the mainstream press pointed this statement out?

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/03/2007 @ 4:12pm
Oh, it's only extreme if you are a Bush-buddy.

The GOP will never be able to make any claim of being the "law and order" party and this makes Fred Thompson completely unelectable as the irony is not lost on the thinking voters.

Posted by CaptainKirk at 07/03/2007 @ 4:13pm
President Bush ought to be ashamed of his actions, his legacy, and, ultimately, of himself. Commuting Libby's sentence is an egregious offense perpetrated on the people of the United States of America, and on the Constitution which undergirds their sense of right over wrong, freedom over oppression, democracy and the rule of justice over the corruptions of power.

Posted by jnanblau at 07/03/2007 @ 4:33pm
"You people need to wake the fuck up and get your heads out of Rush Limbaugh's ass."

Time to hit the sack. I can't wait to hear Limbaugh's spin tomorrow. Round 'em up!

Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/02/2007 @ 11:52pm

Moron, read a book.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/03/2007 @ 1:36pm

This is too good...

and another of his gems....

"This is why the Fairness Doctrine is so important." .. Catch Olbermann tonight. 8pm est, MSNBC. Sacrifice O'Reilly for one night. Adios.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/03/2007 @ 2:36pm | ignore this person

Do we get a "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" to help us balance out all the other MSM on network, cable, print?

Frank is just plain stupid...and he tries so hard...it is so uncomfortable to watch him try so hard and come off so ..goofy...maybe it is his head is so far up Hillary ass that he is oxygen starved and thinks he lives there...

Posted by john maasch at 07/03/2007 @ 4:47pm
.....The extreme right currently monopolizes the people's airwaves. This must be corrected through Congressional legislation to level the playing field and give the people a fair chance to hear both sides of the story,.....

Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/03/2007 @ 2:20pm

FRANK, please tell us what kind of technology the right is using to "monopolize" the people's airwaves? I'll enter into a JV w/you and give you 10% of the Take.

Of all the posters in our little circus, you, the HRC ball licker, have Star Potential to be the first American Dictator!

BTW, our new poster, Marc Rich, is not all those folks that you see everywhere you turn......It's either HMAN or MASK on vacation somewhere!

Mr. Bush, thank you for a nice $tart to July!!!!!

Posted by Happy at 07/03/2007 @ 5:17pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

Nice try, but think of what you've written: It would not be considered excessive when a jury gave someone the death penalty (regardless of the specifics of the case), but it is when the judge gave what is far below what any normal person would have gotten after demanding a trial with the Feds (do a little homework and you'll discover how the Feds play the game) and did not depart from the guidelines after a jury found the defendant guilty? Sorry, but you're an apologist moron.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/03/2007 @ 5:45pm
Here are the members of the Senate Committee. Nine Republicans and eight Democrats.

That senate committee was "chaired" by a Republican and therefore the final "conclusions" were written by the Republicans.

The CIA warned the White House that the Niger documents were a forgery, and because the British were relying on the same forged documents, using British intelligence in a speech to the nation to "support" going to war in Iraq was a FRAUD!!!!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 6:03pm
The jury found him guilty and the judge let him off easy. It might make sense to you to twist this all around and weasel out of the fact that Georgie is nothing more than a lying hypocrite, and the laws apply to some people but not others, but as you said, not that facts matter. This is nothing more than a Rove stunt to try and have their cake and eat it too. And with fools like you, it is obviously working. Do you have any idea of what goes on in the federal courts? (Obstruction of justice is nothing more than an add on in conspiracy cases. Don't take the plea [if one is even offered] and demand a trial and the judges hammer your ass into the deck. I know; I did time with the feds. Check out Frontline's series on the US government's inane war on drugs if you think I'm exagerrating.) Take a look at the men and women serving ten, twenty years on conspiracy charges; shouldn't they, too, have their sentences commuted? Are there penalties imposed by a judge not excessive? Face it, you're a hypocrite.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/03/2007 @ 6:06pm
Here is the guts of the argument that proves beyond doubt that Bush (and his admin) did not, nor did any one else for that matter, manipulate any of the American intelligence information on Iraq. The information used by Bush all comes with the authority of the American Intelligence agencies as certain proof that Iraq was in possession of WMD. Posted by LRJONES4 07/03/2007 @ 2:15pm | ignore this person

Jones,

Nice bit of hack sophistry. I noticed the back peddling on whether or not Bush was placing greater emphasis on the humanitarian vs. the fear pretext for war. If you are not privy to the fact that the humanitarian gruel was served for saps like yourself, then you are a very sad and dumb puppy. Everyone knows Bush and crew needed to play up the fear and mushroom cloud metaphors to sell this war (Americans would not endorse war for the sake of saving Iraqi children and you know it), so we could really care less if Bush did include some ornamental side dishes of human rights sprinkled around the dark and bloody main course. Just as the Democrats are pulling the levers and dominating the direction of the various Senate committees, the Republicans were doing the same in 2003-07. Pat Roberts, Kit Bond and Orrin Hatch used the Senate Intelligence report to bludgeon Wilson, so we place about as much respect with that investigation as with the British white-washings by Butler and other loyalists.

The theory that Iraq tried to acquire yellowcake from Niger rests on the evidence of Wissam al-Zahawie's 1999 visit to that nation to strike up a secret arrangement, despite the fact that Iraq already had over 500 lbs. of yellowcake and low enriched uranium. al-Zahawie claimed he was in Africa visiting four different nations to establish an end to Iraq's isolation, but whatever the case there is no verifiable evidence substantiating the Bush claims of a reestablished nuclear program--all you have is supposition as to the 1999 visit. Charles Deulfer, in the Deulfer Report dismisses your stupid "Saddam was looking for yellowcake" claims.

As to the intelligence community bearing responsibility for the innocent human rights-seeking Bush administration, are you for real? Douglas Feith was grilled by Republicans and Democrats this past spring over the government report stating his selective use of intelligence cherry-picked to bang the war drum. Bush was warned by the CIA not to use the hokey Niger story in his SOTU. Bush and his minions selectively presented their story hoping the fog of 9-11 was still thick enough to mask the tattered arguments and buy them enough time to send in troops and proclaim the "Long War."

John McLaughlin, the CIA's No. 2, had testified to the Senate intelligence committee that "we've looked at those [British] reports [claiming Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa] and we don't think they are very credible."

This war has everything to do with the Manifest Destiny-White Mans' Burden crowd using militarism to try and circumvent the loss of American dominance over the next century. Bush and his PNAC gang wanted the war and your claims that the intelligence community misled them are foul and rotten to the core. You are correct as to the Clinton directives sharing the goals of Bush, however. Bush is not an isolated example of American abuse and exploitation.

Posted by Oustbush at 07/03/2007 @ 6:07pm
Nice try?

Get convicted in a federal court and see how easy it is to get that verdict overturned. It's excessive? That's joke. I'm sorry you're too dense to appreciate the absurdity of this act. Make all the excuses you want, but the judge followed the guidelines that apply to all defendants, the same guidelines that the Supreme Court recently upheld to be "reasonable."

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/03/2007 @ 6:09pm
the same guidelines that the Supreme Court recently upheld to be "reasonable."

Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/03/2007 @ 6:09pm | ignore this person

That's what makes this whole get out of jail stunt so absurd! What are these jerkoff conservatives going to do, disavow the Roberts court?

Posted by Oustbush at 07/03/2007 @ 6:16pm
Bush affirmed the jury's guilty verdict by leaving the conviction and the $250,000 fine in place. Bush replaced the Judge's opinion that a just punishment needed 24 month in prision also. How is that a contradiction that Bush didn't replace the verdict of a jury?

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

You're irrational. The jury's verdict invoked the guidelines; the fine, the period of supervised release, and the time is a result of a guilty verdict. If a jury member did not feel that the defendant should do any time, then they should not vote to find the man/woman guilty of the crime. That is the way the federal system works; the judge imposed the sentence according to the guidelines of what a jury convicts on.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/03/2007 @ 6:19pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/03/2007 @ 6:09pm | ignore this person

Good luck with these block-headed asshole conservatives, gotta run!

Posted by Oustbush at 07/03/2007 @ 6:20pm
That's what makes this whole get out of jail stunt so absurd! What are these jerkoff conservatives going to do, disavow the Roberts court?

Posted by OUSTBUSH

Read the comments of this dumbass Mary and you'll find your answer. Evidently they believe it's okay if it's not one of their people doing the time.

Posted by mtspence05 at 07/03/2007 @ 6:22pm
HA,

Thanks for encouraging hsuB towards impeachment. Yes, he and you are really that stupid!

Ranks almost as high up there as "Bring it on." But telling our enemies to go ahead and come kill our troops, pretty much will stay up there above-- supporters of new cons, servicers of dic'tator philosophy are above any law and punishment.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/03/2007 @ 6:32pm
Hey Dan Rather's documents were forgeries.

Mary,

Dan didn't cost us $500,000,000,000 by misleading us with intelligence he knew was false!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 6:39pm
The actual forgery gives you no information on true or false.

What?

Are you saying the "fact" that the Niger government was NOT contacted by Iraq (or Iran) to buy uranium, as the forgery demonstrates, gives you no information on this issue?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 6:50pm
Mary,

At the very least, the forgery demonstrates that "somebody" was interested in "making it look like" Iraq and Iran were interested in buying uranium from Niger.

Who do you think that "somebody" is?

Was it AIPAC, was it the Italian SISMI, the Britsh government, the Bush Administration, or God forbid, ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 6:56pm
Mary,

I will repeat my above post in hopes you will answer it this time!

At the very least, the forgery demonstrates that "somebody" was interested in "making it look like" Iraq and Iran were interested in buying uranium from Niger.

Who do you think that "somebody" is?

Was it AIPAC, was it the Italian SISMI, the Britsh government, the Bush Administration, or God forbid, ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!?

Who do you think this "somebody" was, Mary?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 7:04pm
Mary,

After you are finished answering who this "somebody" is who wants to make it "look like" Iraq and Iran were interested in purchasing uranium from Niger, I have another question.

Why would this "somebody" want to make it "look like" Iraq and Iran were interested in purchasing uranium from Niger?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 7:09pm
From BBC: Italy spy chief denies Iraq claim Nicolo Pollari in March 2005 Nicolo Pollari testified to Italian MPs in a closed-doors briefing Italy's chief of military intelligence (Sismi) has denied any role in passing bogus documents to the US claiming Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Sismi chief Nicolo Pollari was briefing a parliamentary committee investigating the forged Niger dossier claim.

The claim was used by US President George Bush to help justify the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. It is now at the centre of a CIA leak investigation.

Sismi "had no role in the fabrication of the dossier," Mr Pollari said.

He was quoted as saying the dossier had been passed to the US "via a journalist for the Panorama weekly, who left it at the US embassy in Rome, and it was delivered to the French intelligence services by Rocco Martino".

Mr Pollari said Mr Martino had earlier been dismissed from Sismi.

Spy agency 'confused'

The special session of the parliamentary intelligence committee was called after the Italian daily La Repubblica alleged that Sismi had circulated the dossier, knowing it to be fake.

Bush delivers his State of the Union address in January 2003 President Bush cited the Niger-Iraq allegations in an address in 2003 But Mr Pollari insisted that "from the start we shared the confusion of other intelligence agencies about the dossier, until we declared it was not credible".

Mr Bush used the claim that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Niger in his address on 28 January 2003, ahead of the Iraq invasion.

In the weeks after the president's address, the US moved away from the allegations.

A separate British intelligence report later also accused Iraq of seeking to buy uranium ore from Niger.

A member of the Italian investigating committee, Senator Massimo Brutti, denied his earlier statement that the committee was told Sismi had warned the US that the dossier was fake.

Mr Brutti said he had made his earlier statement in confusion, when facing a barrage of questions by reporters.

'No recollection'

After Mr Bush's January 2003 address, US National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley - then a deputy national security adviser - took responsibility for the mistaken inclusion of the Niger uranium claim and offered to resign.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby Lewis Libby's indictment is a huge blow to the Bush administration

US officials confirmed on Wednesday that Mr Hadley did meet Mr Pollari in September 2002.

But Mr Hadley said nobody involved in the meeting "has any recollection of a discussion of natural uranium, or any recollection of any documents being passed".

Mr Hadley said the documents containing the uranium claims had emerged via the US State Department and then the CIA, but had not directly come to the National Security Council (NSC).

The UK government also used the Niger claim in making the case for the war. It said it had received the information independently from an unnamed intelligence source.

An Italian journalist, Elisabetta Burba, has previously said she received a copy of the dossier in 2002 from a man she knew as a security consultant and passed it to the US embassy in Rome for verification.

Prior to Mr Bush's address, the CIA had sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate the Iraq-Niger link and he reported that no such attempt to buy uranium - which can be used to make nuclear weapons - was likely to have taken place.

An inquiry into his mission and the leaking of a CIA agent's name led to the indictment and resignation last week of Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 7:24pm
From Professor Juan Cole:

But journalist Matthew Yglesias has already tipped us to a key piece of information. The Niger forgeries also try to implicate Iran. Indeed, the idea of a joint Iraq/Iran nuclear plot was so far-fetched that it is what initially made the Intelligence and Research division of the U.S. State Department suspicious of the forgeries, even before the discrepancies of dates and officials in Niger were noticed. Yglesias quotes from the Senate report on the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from Niger:

"The INR [that's State Department intelligence] nuclear analyst told the Committee staff that the thing that stood out immediately about the [forged] documents was that a companion document � a document included with the Niger documents that did not relate to uranium � mentioned some type of military campaign against major world powers. The members of the alleged military campaign included both Iraq and Iran and was, according to the documents, being orchestrated through the Nigerien [note: that's not the same as Nigerian] Embassy in Rome, which all struck the analyst as 'completely implausible.' Because the stamp on this document matched the stamp on the uranium document [the stamp was supposed to establish the documents bona fides], the analyst thought that all of the documents were likely suspect. The analyst was unaware at the time of any formatting problems with the documents or inconsistencies with the names or dates."

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 7:27pm
Come on, Mary!

Who do YOU think this "somebody" was who wanted to make it look like Iraq AND Iran were purchasing uranium from Niger?

Hint: who would have an "interest" in making it look like Iraq AND Iran were interested in purchasing uranium from Niger?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 7:58pm
And, again, Mary: Why would this "somebody" want to make it "look like" Iraq and Iran were interested in purchasing uranium from Niger?

Hint: Do you think this "somebody" thought it would be more likely that we would invade Iraq AND Iran if we thought they were purchasing weapons-grade uranium from Niger?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 8:03pm
Who the hell does he think he is,anyway? The king of the United States?

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 8:04pm
Second hint: who would benefit from our invading Iraq AND Iran?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 8:07pm
Posted by METTEYYA 07/03/2007 @ 8:07pm | ignore this person

consistently fine posts.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/03/2007 @ 8:13pm
Third hint: who in Congress is now calling for us to invade Iran, why are they saying this, and where are they getting most of their political and financial support from?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 8:21pm
Letter's from 1600

My dear scootificus

I pardon your poopshooticus

from the relentless plunge of phalluses

because you lied so well for us

and because you might still tell on us

and then it would be hell on us

(and the hamsters wouldn't have it thus)

so to welcome you back as one of us

my dear dear friend scootificus

I'll just throw justice beneath the bus

I will commute your thirty months

Posted by Will C. at 07/03/2007 @ 9:47pm
re: PONTIFICUS 07/02/2007 @ 8:17pm

'They would have done it already, if someone actually could have thought of a reason.'

Well, possible reason(s) for impeachment? This is certainly going to be fun!

1) Telling baldface lies in a State of The Union Address. 2) Abrogating his responsibilities (thinking about things) to the Vice President. 3) Allowing the swift boating of a man who did his simple duty when called on. 4) Blundering into Middle East politics (Iran strengthened, Lebanon, Kurdish Turkey, Pakistan, Palestine de-stabilized. 5) Re-estabilishing huge deficit spending. 6) Allowing Afghanistan to produce and export more opium than ever before. 7) Allowing aides to break the law regarding archiving material under the Official Secrets Act. 8) Increasing Al Quida's recruiting and fundraising power about a thousand fold. 9) Failing to make good on his promise to bring Bin Laden to justice. 10) Failing to stand by his promise that any White House leakers would be fired. 11) Trying to put our port management under an Arab company. 12) Giving and allowing aides to give false progress reports on the Iraq war. 13) Exposing the United States justice system to ridicule. 14) Lying about not being briefed on the Katrina crisis. 15) Waiting for a Democratic Congress to force him into changing strategy in Iraq.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/02/2007 @ 8:17pm | ignore this person

A fitting end to a political witchhunt, brought about by the odious Wilson and Plame.

I'm curious how 'the odious Wilson and Plame' forced Libby to lie to the FBI and Justice department.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/02/2007 @ 8:19pm | ignore this person

Posted by studntbdyrt at 07/03/2007 @ 10:05pm
Why are you changing the subject?

Not changing the subject, I am just trying to get you to answer my original question, now that we have established that the Niger forgeries sought to implicate Iraq AND Iran.

I thought by giving you several hints, maybe you would come up with an answer.

You may not be willing to answer this now, but you will see in the ensuing months that the public will be "very" interested in answers to these questions.

We, the public, don't take it very kindly when "somebody" tries to mislead us to get us into a war that killed a lot of Americans and spent $500,000,000,000 of "our" money! Money that would have been better spent elsewhere, or returned to us so we could have spent it on our families.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/03/2007 @ 10:11pm
george bush, a national shame.

SHAME that the Court elected him. SHAME that dirty politics (Florida again, Ohio, swift-boating) allowed his re-election. SHAME that all elligible voters didn't vote or were blocked from voting. SHAME that Congress let the bush cabal go on unchecked and unbalanced. Shame that the Court is ideologically stacked and voting on its prejudices, not law, reason and justice. SHAME that mr. bush's henchmen can laugh at the law as they enrich themselves. SHAME that the military-industrial complex that Ike warned us about in his Farewell Address now runs wild in Iraq under vice president cheaney, Halliburton, and Texas oil. SHAME that the administration neglects our poor. SHAME that mr. bush leaves education and children behind. SHAME that the Congress does not have the courage to regularly challenge mr. bush's abuse of power. SHAME that mr. bush is still president.

SHAME ON US:

INDEPENCE DAY is postponed till January 20, 2009. Would that the Congress would meet its responsibility and move that date forward.

Posted by gore4pres at 07/04/2007 @ 02:31am
Posted by OUSTBUSH 07/03/2007 @ 6:07pm

Ouster,

I lean to your view that the American people are no more idealistic than any other national grouping and it is very unlikely that most Americans cared about the very real suffering of Iraqis during the Saddam years. I think that is shown in the 70% who now want out of Iraq.

However to say that the humanitarian aspect was not a significant part of the decision to go to war (not only for the Administration but also for Congress) fails to recognise that that indeed was almost the only reason behind the growing impetus to do something in Iraq to fix ("Iraq Liberation Act" carries its own message) the terrible humanitarian abuses that existed. That mood preceded Bush and in a sense he inherited that "political conscience". I suggest that it is one reason that Bush has been so resolute about Iraq. It was only in the wake of 9/11 that, understandably, the focus changed to the WMD issue.

As far as the 2004 Senate Select Committee is concerned one needs to have another look at the sort of people that were on it. Because of the presence of genuine Bush-war opponents, it is hard to believe that this was not as close to a bi-partisan report as is ever possible. Have you read the report?

I have no doubt that it is a fair and honest appraisal of the WMD information that the administration went to war on. If none of these people can tell the truth and make their views known you may as well give the game away.

There are a few items in the 2002 NIE itself that are qualified by contrary minority views anyway but it is a document that any president given 9/11 would have felt pressured to act upon.

One could say that really needs action but can I be sure that this document is reliable or an outsider could have asked was the intelligence community leaned on to give such a report.

It's at this point that the Senate Committee rigorously interrogated, as they report, the relevant analysts and agencies to give them a chance to say; "yes the administration put pressure on us". They got a negative from all those inquiries and in the final 117 conclusions, 116 of them where relevant, essentially placed unmitigated blame on the intelligence community, with great attention given to the reasons for such a flawed NIE. Eg "reliance on out of date intelligence", "group think" etc.

From a post futile WMD search in Iraq it all seems so obvious but it always does with 20/20 hindsight. During late 2002 through early 2003 the admin had in its hand a NIE that justified most all the claims that the administration touted. David Kay, the WMD inspector, who had read the classified document said the differences between it and the unclassified NIE were trivial.

Of course if we come to the conclusion that Bush did not lie in this respect then the whole Libby/Cheney/Bush as traitors comes crashing down. Because the contrary case is built on the actual content of the 2002 NIE document and the Select Committee's evaluation of it. That case pits Plame and Wilson, as bit players, against the authority of the official intelligence of the American intelligence community expressed in that document bolstered by corroboration from the highly respected British intelligence agency. In that context there was no point in the administration trying to silence or punish relatively insignificant players.

It is interesting to speculate that Fitzgerald was going down the Bush/Cheney lied approach and was trying to catch a bigger fish but all he got was a minor official whose crime was lying to a grand jury and failed to get a conviction on his brief. If that is so in a perverse way it lends some credence to the Bush/Cheney did not lie etc position.

Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2007 @ 04:44am
Posted by STUDNTBDYRT 07/03/2007 @ 10:05pm

Most of your 'reasons' for impeachment aren't really reasons at all. They are policy disagreements. The ones that aren't policy disagreements have either been disproven or are not provable. It's clear that you don't have the slightest idea of what an impeachable offense is. Try again.

Posted by pontificus at 07/04/2007 @ 09:49am
Posted by STUDNTBDYRT 07/03/2007 @ 10:05pm

A fitting end to a political witchhunt, brought about by the odious Wilson and Plame.

I'm curious how 'the odious Wilson and Plame' forced Libby to lie to the FBI and Justice department.

Fitz always played a coy little game with the 'covert' charge in order to keep his investigation going as ordered by the Dems in Congress; this is a charade in which most of the posters here are fully invested in playing along with. Fitz has never formally charged anyone with outing a covert agent, even though he knows at least one person who would be liable to this charge if there were any substance to it. The evident fact is that Plame never has fit the spirit or the letter of 'covert' under the law, and it is this fact that nullified the purpose of his investigation from the beginning. The jury determined that Libby 'lied' to investigators based entirely on differing memories of Tim Russert and others. The purpose of the investigation was always in doubt, and the conviction itself is so dubious that it's highly likely to be thrown out on appeal. The fact that the prosecutor continued to investigate a 'crime' built on a foundation of sand indicates to me that his motives were primarily political.

Why do the Dems pursue these political witch hunts? Simple: political advantage. If they can't actually come up with a crime, they can at least use our institutions to damage their political enemies. You yourself are an excellent example of this, when you fantasize that your policy disagreements are grounds for impeachment, which they quite simply are not. Political advantage is the ONLY thing that matters to the leftmost part of the Democratic Party. As most people well know, the Dems are also willing to put political advantage over national security concerns. They are really not responsible people in general, because they are consumed by wrath and a political agenda which they imagine supersedes any of the real security concerns that confront our country.

Posted by pontificus at 07/04/2007 @ 10:06am
Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/03/2007 @ 2:39pm | ignore this person

What you don't understand is that rightwing lunatics are only against crimes commited by the average Joe, the ordinary citizen, the poor and the powerless. For the rich and powerful, you can commit any crime against anyone for any reason of your choosing without fear of being prosecuted. Rightwingers hate American values, they hate the judicial system for what it was intended to do, and they hate the idea of people being free to choose their own path in life.................

Posted by POSEIDON at 07/04/2007 @ 10:32am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/03/2007 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person

NO DOUBT Bush and Cheney should BOTH resign.

It's a shame when Keith Olberman has more courage than the Democrats in the House and the Senate...............

Posted by POSEIDON at 07/04/2007 @ 10:34am
the most absurd and ridiculous spectacle is that of morally challenged Tories celebrating the Libby commutation as if they had won some kind of victory. some achievement. my right wing firends, you will choke on that laughter.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2007 @ 10:40am
firends? yes my hands would not allow the word friends for the brain dead repubs.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2007 @ 10:41am
Why do the Dems pursue these political witch hunts?-PONTIDUFUS

Who are these democrats that prosecuted this witch hunt? the supporters of lies keep trying to say it's a democratic witch hunt, but I have yet to have a single one be able to tell me who these dems are.

!: Republican run CIA

2: Republican run FBI

3: Republican appointed Special Prosecutor who had just convicted several dems in Chicago

4: Republican appointed trial judge

5: 2/3 republican appointed appeals court

Where are these mystery democrats?

Posted by crabwalk at 07/04/2007 @ 1:09pm
Fitz always played a coy little game with the 'covert' charge iPONTIFIDUFUS

What? Delusional. I am going to hot button that word.

Plame WAS COVERT. Period. end of story. Fitz knew this from minute one, because the CIA, run by a republican, asked the JD to investigate a CIA agent who had her COVERT cover blown by Armitage, Libby, Rove and Novak. Republicans all.

Her job was to find out the truth about the wmd's that you neo-cons were so gosh darn afraid of. I would think having her do her job would have been to your benefit. But you are a bunch of hypocritical sheep and only do what your told by the RNC spin machine.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/04/2007 @ 1:15pm
At least we have access to WH travel records. Or do we?

Now that would be worthy of impeachment, barring the discovery of a cum stained dress. You remember the story, right? The one with no underlying crime?

Posted by crabwalk at 07/04/2007 @ 1:18pm
Posted by CRABWALK 07/04/2007 @ 1:18pm

Now that would be worthy of impeachment, barring the discovery of a cum stained dress. You remember the story, right? The one with no underlying crime?

Don't consider sexual harassment to be a crime? I believe it was in the investigation of those charges against the President that he committed his perjury and obstruction of justice.

Posted by pontificus at 07/04/2007 @ 1:47pm
but scoooooootificus, it was in the investigation of the charges against your administration that you committed perjury and obstruction of justice

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 1:59pm
hence the neccesity of the pardon for your poopshooticus

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 2:00pm
Libby's sentence has been commuted by someone who himself should be in jail, along with rest of his corrupt and criminal cohorts, rather than living in the White House

Posted by kevin99999 at 07/04/2007 @ 2:33pm
"If any of my friends monitored Limbaugh like I do, you would realize that the postings here by the right are almost word for word what comes out of Limbaughs mouth. This leads me to suspect that there is a concerted effort going on by rightwing operatives to continue to confuse the issues and advance Limbaugh's dissertations"

1. Most of us haven't seen a moniter since kindergarden

2. You might realize that it is Limbaugh who is reciting many OUR opinions and beliefs after he heard US advance them, and that he is playing to OUR interestes BEFORE he had the subject matter.

3. This leads me to suspect YOU are being misled by left wing operatives to continue to confuse the issues and advance HILLARY's dissertations.

4. You listen to Limbaugh more than anyone I know, including some real right wingers..so, Limbaugh's message doesn't take with you?...neither does AIR AMERICA and those you want to force on the air to be "fair", even tho it never took with ANY audience the first time.

5. You are too easy and transparent. Hillarys lap dog...and you will be the one looking stunned when the checks are handed out and you get...what you are worth to Hillary....zip.

You are a fool.

Posted by john maasch at 07/04/2007 @ 2:37pm
which in hamsterland is high praise

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 2:40pm
frank... the hamsters are hamsterising you. You da man

:)

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 2:41pm
introspection implies innards... something beneath the surface

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 2:56pm
I have an even beter idea frank. As the great die off continues, eventually it will be ruperts turn.

Let's buy fake news and feed the hamsters a somewhat different menu

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 2:58pm
alfalfa pellets... dispensed liberally

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 3:00pm
I have a hat. What do you say we pass it around for awhile and see what happens

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 3:03pm
I for one am sick and tired of hearing the same right wing platitudes and lies from that australian fellow. maybe he's Murdoch's son. anyway he's ignored. who has the time for such crap?

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2007 @ 3:06pm
No, most democrats I know are too lazy to get off their asses and make a difference. That's why republicans got into power in the first place.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/04/2007 @ 3:05pm

I disagree with that. Most of us are too busy living the American dream. That doesn't leave us much time to conspire or work toward overthrowing it.

for that much free time you hve to immigrate to hamsterland

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 3:10pm
oh and don't worry about that fence thing the hamsters keep talking about.

Building a fence reqires work. And work is time they can't spare

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 3:11pm
Will, did you read Olbermann's comments that I posted on Nichol's thread?

Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/04/2007 @ 3:07pm

I watched it.

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 3:12pm
I like his special comments

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 3:13pm
In a way, this latest outrage by Chimpy the wonder puppet might be the greatest gift that he could possibly have handed those who oppose him.

Hitherto, there has been little that the average person could identify with in all of the Scooter Pie mess - it has been quite easy for those so inclined to say 'that's national security and rules get bent all the time,' or 'it's beyond me, the stuff for great men to worry about,' or some such nonsense.

By commuting Scooter Pie Hole's sentence (and now dangling pardon, too), Shrub has made this political in the Tip O'Neil sense. Nimrod has cast this in terms Joe Shit the Ragman can understand, and no doubt Joe is asking himself if he would get such favorite treatment were he convicted in a court of law of the same offense, already knowing the answer.

The sorry excuse of a Yale cheerleader has succeeded in doing what his opponents (not necessarily the opposition party) could never have done in a thousand years: made this into a visceral issue for all of us. Repulsive as it seems, it may just be that we should be lining up to kiss the ass of the Shrub.

Resignation (by both Bush and Cheney) is the only realistic option for those who would hope to succeed these bums; staying in office is tantamount to leaving an abscess unlanced. It will only continue to fester, spreading its disease slowly but inexhorably.

Impeachment so too will leave it's mark on the 'pubes who would follow in the footsteps of such scum - impeachment being the cold steel that allows the festering ooze to be brought into the hot lights to be cleansed and washed away.

What a gift this arrogant troll gave us.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/04/2007 @ 4:51pm
what kind of message does this send to the children

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 4:58pm
have the hamsters forgotten about the children so soon?

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 4:58pm
have the hamsters forgotten about the children so soon?

Posted by WILL C. 07/04/2007 @ 4:58pm |

I thought they eat their young.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/04/2007 @ 5:13pm
it's not so much an eating but rather more of a snacking on

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 5:21pm
First - Mask was right and I was wrong. I thought that even Bush would not be so stupid as to give this huge a "fuck you" to the rule of law.

But on the "bright" side, it's now abundantly clear that Queen Hillary will be able to hold tens of thousands of "Republicans", call them enemy combatants or terrorists and have hundreds of her minions breaking whatever laws they want and when convicted, she can just "commute" them and carry on with whatever nefarious crap she wants.

Bush has pissed on the constitution therefore I see no reason why Queen hillary can't shit on it.

Hurray anarchy rules dude!

Posted by freedomplease at 07/04/2007 @ 6:41pm
But look on the bright side, republican unlawful enemy combatants will enjoy club med like conditions down in Gitmo

Plus they'll get bibles and elaborate menus and lots and lots and lots of water to wash all that yummy food down with

It'll be great

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 6:49pm
I for one am sick and tired of hearing the same right wing platitudes and lies from that australian fellow. maybe he's Murdoch's son. anyway he's ignored. who has the time for such crap?

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/04/2007 @ 3:06pm

Here is one of the most interesting admissions of failure to deal with the evidence. JR obviously knows, or at least one would suspect he does that the chronology of events is important. The information that existed in early 2003, in terms of its authority, should give the most rabid Bush hater cause to re-argue his position.

What I see here is some who, like the religious fundamentalists in their response to a consistent body of facts, place their fingers in their ears, gnash their teeth, then run away.

I would suggest two possibilities for this almost religious reaction to an attack upon their doctrines and verities:

(i) A fear that this method of analysis is seen as a danger to the way one arrives at one's conclusions and philosophies. More explicitly the top down method or follow the leader, approach. Which of course, right or wrong, is the approach of fundamentalism. In JR's case it may be a pastoral concern for his flock in which he does not want the flock exposed to heretical ideas.

(ii) A covert ambivalence about the Iraq war. Lefties probably do have more concern for their fellow man, at least at the intellectual level, than others. A few brave Lefties like Hitchens have followed this concern wrt Iraq where it leads. Others cannot do this, so to maintain their (shaky) rage against the war, need a psychological crutch. That crutch is a personalised hatred of a "fiendish" president from "hell" who is to blame for the all the deaths of American soldiers and all the innocent Iraqi civilians and anything else that is wrong with the ME or anywhere else for that matter because that crutch that re-enforces their rage about the war needs to be strong so that it and allows them to declare it a totally futile exercise.

Now if I was a psychiatrist I would probably be able to make a diagnosis of paranoia, in terms of the hatred and how it is expressed but as I am not I am bound by the data and the chronology which is not kind to their theories

Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2007 @ 8:06pm
Bush has spit on the fourth of July with these shenanigans, just like he spit on 9/11 with his monomaniacal war against Iraq.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/04/2007 @ 9:11pm
Here is one of the most interesting admissions of failure to deal with the evidence. JR obviously knows, or at least one would suspect he does that the chronology of events is important. The information that existed in early 2003, in terms of its authority, should give the most rabid Bush hater cause to re-argue his position.

Posted by QuagmireJONES4 07/04/2007 @ 8:06pm

oh quagmire, you're not still trying to convince us that saddam had stockpiles of WMD are you?

Posted by Will C. at 07/04/2007 @ 10:21pm
You get what you see. You (the few thoudsands idiots who threw the 2000 election to Bush) chose Bush at your will, now you stop paying taxes. Terrific terrific publics ... Read this.

Fed Up With War, Some Won't Pay Taxes Jul 4, 3:18 PM (ET) By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) - When the United States invaded Iraq more than four years ago, war opponent David Gross asked his bosses for a radical pay cut, enough so he wouldn't have to pay taxes to support the war.

"I was having a hard time looking at myself in the mirror," Gross said. "I knew the bombs falling were in part paid with my tax dollars. I had to actually do something concrete to remove my complicity."

Posted by Helen DAO at 07/04/2007 @ 10:41pm
Pontificus:

'Most of your 'reasons' for impeachment aren't really reasons at all. They are policy disagreements. The ones that aren't policy disagreements have either been disproven or are not provable.' It's clear that you don't have the slightest idea of what an impeachable offense is. Try again.'

My mistake, I assumed you were making a joke of some sort and I replied in kind. Obviously only one impeachable offense is required (or even desirable, from a prosceution standpoint), thought you might get that.

'Most are not impeachable offenses(?)'

"Most?" Didn't you start off looking for 'A' reason? Nevertheless, in case you really are ignorant of the charges alleged against POTUS, (I find that hard to believe...but maybe you get your news from Fox)...

1)On the President's orders the NSA and FBI have engaged in illegal spying on Americans,violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 2) If the White House ordered the Justice Department to consider party loyalty in hiring or promotion, that is a felony. 3) The White House ordered U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black, the chief prosecutor for Guam to be fired, to shut down his grand jury investigation of Jack Abramof. 4) The White House has been and is allowing aides to break the law regarding archiving material under the Official Secrets Act.

Also, By not provable I guess you mean as long as Bush is able to stonewall investigators and refuses to admit the obvious you people will continue to defend him no matter what harm you do to my country.

'Fitz always played a coy little game with the 'covert' charge in order to keep his investigation going as ordered by the Dems in Congress; this is a charade in which most of the posters here are fully invested in playing along with. Fitz has never formally charged anyone with outing a covert agent, even though he knows at least one person who would be liable to this charge if there were any substance to it. The evident fact is that Plame never has fit the spirit or the letter of 'covert' under the law, and it is this fact that nullified the purpose of his investigation from the beginning.'

Pure nonsense, the CIA told the court she was covert.

Since your judiciary has ruled that even innocence is not an absolute bar to conviction

'The jury determined that Libby 'lied' to investigators based entirely on differing memories of Tim Russert and others.

Actually, at least 12 witnesses contradicted Libby's statements, some of these were government employees. And Libby, by the way is a very sharp lawyer, known for his excellent memory and attention to detail. How would an investigator know if a (whitecollar)crime had been commited until the investigation? And what could possibly be more important to justice than a requirement that investigators not be lied to?

'Why do the Dems pursue these political witch hunts?' Simple: political advantage. If they can't actually come up with a crime, they can at least use our institutions to damage their political enemies. You yourself are an excellent example of this, when you fantasize that your policy disagreements are grounds for impeachment, which they quite simply are not. Political advantage is the ONLY thing that matters to the leftmost part of the Democratic Party. As most people well know, the Dems are also willing to put political advantage over national security concerns. They are really not responsible people in general, because they are consumed by wrath and a political agenda which they imagine supersedes any of the real security concerns that confront our country.'

Fitzgerald is a Bush appointee chosen because of a life long aversion to partisan politics and this is, I think, my favorite thing about you people: lie, cheat, pander, intimidate, obfuscate, and parse the English language, and if that doesn't work claim you are the poor victims of partisan politics and witchhunts. You are living a lie my friend.

Posted by studntbdyrt at 07/04/2007 @ 11:48pm
I stopped by The Nation forum to seek informative progressive dialog on the commutation of Libby's sentence by the present occupant of the White House. It is noteworthy that the same reactionary cadre remains roiling the waters of The Nation's forums. It was their overwhelming obtuseness and closed minds that led me to realize a little less than a year ago how effectively they managed to distract discussion from important liberal issues. Alas, I see they are still able to derail sensible dialog by repeating their litany of lies, misdirection, calumnies and skewing of fact. The bait is hard to resist and rarely is. I had been just as guilty of responding. I tried for a time to participate by placing all the reactionaries on "ignore" but, unfortunately, discussion was still driven by their parrotings of their masters. Thus, those whose opinions and insights I valued were continually distracted from more useful and insightful discourse by engaging the right's fifth column in these forums. Even when ignored, it was impossible to escape the reactionaries' corruptions. If all of a progressive mind would ignore them, or at least not respond to them, then perhaps these forums could realize their potential for progressive dialog. I am dismayed that so much of this forum's bandwidth regarding this heinous commutation of Libby's sentence has been devoted to dealing with those whose value system is so corrupt, whose sense of justice so warped, and whose purblind devotion to ideology so extreme, that they cannot recognize the great peril to the rule of law in this republic. Perhaps in another year or so when I may stop by again, should another issue of great import arise, I shall find a change but, I suspect, the only posters that will be familiar will be the mad mynahs of the right. Until then.....

Posted by Tiresias at 07/05/2007 @ 12:37am
Tir, how true. I for one would like you to stick around, as your incisive posts are most welcome.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 08:21am
Don't consider sexual harassment to be a crime? I believe it was in the investigation of those charges against the President that he committed his perjury and obstruction of justice.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/04/2007 @ 1:47pm

What was the crime? The judge said the case "wholly without merit'. He tossed the whole thing.

You cannot have it both ways PONTIFIDUFUS.

How can a prosecutor determine if a crime has occurred when the defendant refuses to be truthful. That is the crux here. If Scooter the Pooper had told the truth, it may have lead to a conviction on the original crime.

PLAME WAS COVERT.

chimpCO outed her. Destroyed a long career, then Libby lied about it. Repeatedly. To the law. End of story, till chimp thought paying for a crime was too much to ask. His life in a nutshell.

But, he is workin' hard. Playin' with boats with Pooty Poot while men and women get blown up for his utopian fantasy world vision of peace and love in the E.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/05/2007 @ 08:29am
Too bad, Tiresias. You will be missed. Don;t let the illogic of fear get to you, they are part of the 28% crowd. their influence is waning, the country is starting to come out of it's malaise and will toss these bums out soon. It will be another 30 years before the Talian gets much political power in the US again.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/05/2007 @ 08:33am
I am sure that if any of the apologists wives careers were ruined by a county commissioner they would roll over and take it. It's for the good of the county after all.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/05/2007 @ 08:38am
LEROYJONES,

To the best of my knowledge, the only info Chimpy had was the childishly forged documents. He did not know about the previous visit (years prior) of Iraqs emissary. If he did know about it, he should have known it came to naught and the idea of uranium being sold out of Niger was near impossible.

"British intelligence has learned"... But, British intel has adamantly refused to release their info. "Trust us" don't fly no more. Zero credibility.

A war based on lies, fear and a complete misunderstanding of the region.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/05/2007 @ 08:46am
I am still waiting for the list of democrats that instigated and prosecuted Libby? If it was a democratic witch hunt, surely you apologists have a list of those involved and their actions.

right pontificus? Show me the money, baby. Or shut the hell up.

Plame was covert.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/05/2007 @ 08:53am
MARYBRETBRAD:

You never struck me as the kind of person, regardless of how wrong you are, to be bothered by bullies. I guess I was wrong. It also strikes me as more than a little hypocritical coming from you. So many times I have read your comments which have been nothing more than rhetorical puffery and literary bullying, that I'm not sure whether to laugh at you for getting a taste of your own medicine, or come to your aid because I think it's wrong for anyone to try to bully anyone, on the Nation or anywhere else.

The bottom line regarding Plame is this. She was a NOC. That's Non-Official Cover. Meaning she was working "live without a net" so to speak. The fact that she had not been working outside the country, in the eyes of the CIA, was not enough to either a) take her off the NOC list, or b) consider her on non-covert status. The very fact that the CIA referred this matter to the justice department is de facto proof they believed that the leak was illegal.

Face it, you're wrong. I am not going to sit here and call you a bunch of names. Your continued holding out from admitting your misstep is doing that for me.

In my opinion, the more important issue is, why is the CIA operating on US soil? I was under the impression that is against the CIA mandate, and is against the Constitution. Does this concern anyone else?

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 10:30am
And regarding Armitage, I agree he should be brought to justice. As should the entire current and former Bush administration. They all should be in Levenworth for the remainder of their lives.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 10:32am
Okay MaryBretBrad, maybe you're not an imbecile. But toying with the definition of "covert" and using that to invalidate a four-year legal process conducted with the utmost professionalism looks pretty damned stupid to me.

The "unserious minority" is the group that's still playing these word games instead of working to repair the damage that our country has suffered under Republican rule.

Posted by MyParadigm at 07/05/2007 @ 10:35am
And since everyone's repeating things that have been said a thousand times before, I'll say it one more time: the outing of Valerie Plame is not that important in and of itself. But the whole affair is a remarkably complete example of how the Bush administration goes about its business. There is no question that it will be included in every historical summary of these years, as an anecdote to help explain the depth of the failure.

Posted by MyParadigm at 07/05/2007 @ 10:46am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/05/2007 @ 09:57am

Good for you! We have similar high-lights and share remarkably similar low-lights. Guess I always thought words are easy to manipulate and one can hear what one wants to hear! One big reason I despise lawyers as a broad group and their dominating infestation of the political class.

Not so with established sciences (note: this excludes global warming Al's BS "debate is over" claim)!

Posted by Happy at 07/05/2007 @ 11:24am
Happy-So you accept science unless that science isn't what you want to hear.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2007 @ 11:28am
Conservatives sure have come up with some imaginative excuses for their hypocrisy in this matter.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2007 @ 11:29am
For anyone interested, David posted a long Libby-saga piece yesterday, at his blog (DavidCorn.com) trying (somewhat lamely, sorry!) to, ?attack?ridicule?, David Brooks.

Posted by Happy at 07/05/2007 @ 11:31am
I'm Nobody,

Happy will also twist like a Yankee stadium pretzel when Queen Hillary (ahem, I think they the Democrats will call her "unitary Executive Hillary")uses the insane powers that King George has been allowed to consolidate into the Executive to further her own personal vision of AmeriKa. Happy will be delighted when Hillary's crooks and henchmen finally get punished for their crimes and then she commutes their sentences (while still not even in jail, thus making a mockery of the DOJ guidelines for commutation!)

And the band played on......does anyone still think there is a difference between the corruption of the Republican branch versus the corruption of the Democrat branch of the same corporate bought-and-paid-for party?

Posted by freedomplease at 07/05/2007 @ 11:45am
FreedomPlease-Partisan people have exposed their hypocrisy in the Clinton/Libby matters.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/05/2007 @ 11:49am
MBB,

Do you know that Brewster Jennings is (now was) a CIA front company? Did you know that information before the Admin blabbed it to the DC muckrackers?

Did King George vow to the American people that anyone involved from his Admin in the outing of Plame (whether she was covert or not) would be punished?

Did you know that the maximum sentence for the conviction on the counts that Libby was convicted for is more than 20 years. Thus one could argue that 30 months was extremely reasonable.

It's good to know that King George has a better idea of justice for members of his Administration than does the judicial branch of our government.

Posted by freedomplease at 07/05/2007 @ 11:53am
MBB,

Common ground...we both believe that Democrats are just another shade of hypocritical "evildoers". Obviously, they can't be far from the Republicans given that both wings of the same party get their money from the same places (and thus swear their true allegiance to the same place).

Posted by freedomplease at 07/05/2007 @ 12:08pm
I am stupid, and you know that. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/05/2007 @ 09:57am | ignore this person

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 12:10pm
That's how I wear that ignorance like a badge of honor. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/05/2007 @ 09:57am | ignore this person

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 12:12pm
Novak shouldn't have identified Plame and it was wrong of him to do so. That doesn't mean a crime was committed.

Mary,

You keep missing the point.

Why would Cheney/Rove/Libby want to "out" Plame? Was this considered "punishment" of Wilson, and, if so, "why" would Cheney/Rove/Libby want to punish Wilson?

Is it appropriate for Administration officials to attempt to silence "anyone"? And what did Wilson know that was so damaging that it would motivate Cheney/Rove/Libby to try to silence him?

These are the more important questions, not whether she was or was not covert is some convoluted legal sense of the word!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/05/2007 @ 12:49pm
nicely done Frank.

all y'all: covert? fucking covert? what is this, have we entered a time warp? why do otherwise intelligent people argue with the braindead, the repub living dead about this? have you no pride? have you no shame? covert? fucking covert?

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 12:50pm
Pontifidufus and MaryBrainBurned as fun to watch, in a passing the train wreck fashion (you don't want to, but you just can't help it), although I only know about their comments by either forgetting to log in, or in the other peoples comments. I think of them similarly to standing next to a chronically flatulant person, if that stinks, don't stand next to the source.

Posted by brantl at 07/05/2007 @ 1:03pm
Sorry JR, I know you don't like references to Hitler but this is so similar.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/05/2007 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person

not if they are pithy and apropos. after all Hitler ruined my first country and my second, Austria and Germany. now Bush has ruined my last country. the first two have bounced back, and I have every expectation that the third will too, over time.

keep up the fine and painstaking work Frank.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 1:12pm
MARYBRETBRAD:

Sorry, had to work, now I'm back.

Let me ask you a question, Mr. Super-Patriot.

Do you think that it's likely that outing Plame would have an adverse effect on current anti-proliferation activities by the CIA due to her connections and interactions with people (specifically other undercover agents) who are currently working on highly secret and very delicate operations? If you answer yes to that question (and to answer no, honestly, would be proof of your inability to grasp reality) then you have basically proven my point.

The bottom line is, yes, she was undercover, and yes, that undercover status (even though she had not been abroad in the prior 5 years) which she maintained EVEN IN THE US helped to reinforce the undercover status of other NOCs. While her being outed may or may not have jeopardized her person and those around her, it certainly jeopardized ongoing operations. Therefore, outing her is STILL a federal offense.

As for your inane comment about me believing all Republicans should be sent to Leavenworth for life because of their party affiliation, no. I was specifically referring to the Iraq War, illegal wiretapping, vote-caging, perjury, treason. Perhaps you would do well to understand what those actions are. If you are honest with yourself, you would realize what I say is correct, instead of making some smarmy, off-hand comment.

I wonder how vehemently you believed Clinton should have gone to prison for lying about a blow-job... we already know how your buddies like WOODYE, ALLUDRA, and HAPPY felt about it. Care to own up?

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 3:19pm
A few thoughts:

* In commuting the sentence of one of his minions, Dipshit (aka Chimpy, Boy Blunder, Dubya, etc) has finally cast the debate about his (an)administration's disregard for the rule of law in terms anyone can understand.

Even a schmuck like me can imagine himself lying to a grand jury, going to trial and being convicted with the inevitable result. By commuting, the lesser scion of (arguably) greater fathers has highlighted in a way the Democrats never could possibly hope to the difference between lying to save the sorry asses of Cheney, Georgie and familiars, and lying to save your own sorry ass.

* Neoconistas would quite likely exhibit greater outrage if someone were to succeed in google-mapping an ICBM silo and posting it on the internet than they are about the disclosure of the name of a highly trained human asset.

The implicit line seems to be that Valerie Plame is expendible and should shut the fuck up and quit whining. Never mind that our government spent years and many hundreds of thousands of dollars in her training and employment. Never mind that her expertise was needed most at the very time that she was lopped off by Cheney's goon squad.

Never mind that she is a wife and mother trying to live out the American dream like the rest of us - in a fashion more true to that ideal and more patriotically that the rest of us can even fathom. She was cast loose because she happened to be married to the wrong guy. A guy who told the truth.

* The Australian Defence (their spelling) Minister, Dr. Brendan Nelson, has admitted that the Iraq war, at least from the perspective of the Howard Government, is (in part) about oil.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070507B.shtml

Which begs a question: If the Aussies are going to war to secure access to oil, and the population of Australia is somewhat over 20 million (less than 10% of the US), and the GDP of said country is about $675 billion USD (vs. US' $13 trillion USD GDP), one has to wonder if the same logic might underlie our decision to invade Iraq.

Hell, the Iraq war has cost us over $400 billion so far and is only going to increase (exponentially) from here - and that is just in treasure, not lives lost. In other words, so far, we have spent nearly 2/3 of Australia's annual GDP on the Iraq war, a country that now admits that its own involvement IS about the oil, yet we are to believe that OURS is about something other than oil?

I was born at night, but it was not last night.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/05/2007 @ 4:24pm
This a great title:

Mr. Bush, Tear Down That Curtain!

Anthony D. Romero| BIO

Posted July 4, 2007 | 12:18 PM (EST)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-d-romero/ mr-bush-tear-down-that-_b_54929.html

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2007 @ 4:25pm
HsuB/cHeney might as well have grabbed a baby from its mother's arms and held it up between them and an assassin, exposing their cowardice-- but why even continue the arguement as to whether they broke the letter of the law? They are greedy little cowards and will do anything to protect their own asses before the needs of the nation, our laws or our constitution.

It is only fitting that like minded cowards protect the lying cowardly hsuB/cHeney admin.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2007 @ 4:36pm
MARYBRETBRAD:

Actually, it is illegal to interfere with ongoing activities of the CIA. I don't know the exact statute, but I just talked to a buddy of mine who is in the CIA, and he assured me that it is patently illegal. He should know, he's a lawyer.

And the fact remains that she was a NOC. Last I checked, that is still considered undercover, regardless of where she was stationed.

Oh, and you never did answer my question regarding Clinton.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 4:36pm
hsuB proved once again that he is no president of our nation-- he is only the leader of a gang of criminals.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2007 @ 4:49pm
MARYBRETBRAD:

You said:

The Iraq War: Cite the statute.

My response:

It's called the Constitution... you know, the whole "high crimes and misdemeanors" bit? I'm pretty sure manufacturing false evidence to justify invasion of a sovereign nation would fall under that heading.

You said:

Vote Caging: I don't know what that is, but yesterday John Fund wrote an article about people in Mississippi being denied the ability to vote because of their race. Of course you didn't hear about it because it was blacks forbidding whites to vote.

My response:

You mean the same John Fund who co-wrote books with Rush Limbaugh and continues his blatant falsehoods in the WSJ? Pardon me if I doubt the veracity of ANYTHING that guy writes. But if he is in fact correct, I would find that just as troubling as the verified and documented actions of the Republican Party in Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico. As for vote caging, it essentially is the practice of sending a card out to people's last known addresses, and if the card is returned to the sender, i.e. the state voting board, that person is stricken from the voting rolls. This happens mostly to low income people who tend to move around a lot and fail to supply a forwarding address (usually low income people of any particular race, who vote resoundingly for the Democrats), or, even more troublesome, men and women in the armed forces.

You said:

Perjury: Okay, Libby was convicted and fined $250,000. Anybody else?

My response:

And that fine will be paid by his legal fund. So he essentially gets out completely unscathed. And he was sentenced to 30 months in jail. That would have been his true punishment.

You said:

Treason: Who is trying to overthrow the duly elected government of the US.

My response:

You don't know the true definition of treason, do you? You only know one part of it. Allow me to provide the rest.

treason: �noun 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

There have been MANY instances by the Bush administration of treason. The illegal wiretapping, the prosecution of the Iraq War, Gonzalez-gate, etc. are just a handful.

You said:

As to Clinton, as much as I hated him with blind rage, I don't recall thinking he should be in jail. I thought the discrace of being removed from office would be punishment enough. In retrospect, it was a be-careful-what-you-wish-for moment. If Clinton had been removed, I am certain Gore would be President right now instead of Bush. Thank God I didn't get my wish.

My response:

Somehow I doubt that. Something tells me you were almost breathless in your desire to see him behind bars for getting a blowjob. Truth is, he should have been behind bars for numerous other things, but none of them had to do with getting a hummer in the Oval Office, nor did they have to do with the blinding white-hot hate that people like yourself invoke against anyone with whom you disagree. That's just moronic.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 4:51pm
FRANKGRITS:

He got the money from his defense fund, begun by his partners in crime who didn't want to go down with him once he started squealing in prison.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 4:52pm
Novak published and article that said Republicans were perplexed as to why Cheney would send Wilson to Niger.

Mary,

So correct me if I am wrong: Cheney sends Wilson to Niger to try to substantiate the Niger documents; Wilson reports that the Niger documents could NOT be substantiated and are probably forgeries; so Novak, with Karl's blessing, outs Plame, the wife of Wilson, because "without" outing Plame, the Republicans "could not" (tell their side of the story) continue to assert that the Niger documents (used by the British intelligence) were evidence that Iraq was trying to build a nuke, correct?

I seem to be missing the part on how outing Plame "allows" the Republicans to tell their side of the story. Please help!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/05/2007 @ 4:54pm
MBB

Take a look at point two as I posted at 4:24pm; where do you honestly stand?

Posted by skeletonman at 07/05/2007 @ 4:54pm
Wowie Zahawie

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/05/2007 @ 4:50pm

Isn't that one of those 'senior Al Qaeda lieutenants' we killed last week? Or was it captured? I forget.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/05/2007 @ 4:59pm
Lying to take the country into a war against a sovereign nation, despite how despicable he or she is is treason. Technically, Bush and Cheney and their cabal could be put to death for such behavior and lawlessness. Since I don't believe in the death penalty, life in Leavenworth would be acceptable.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 5:06pm
You can't put someone in Leavenworth for violating the dictionary definition of a word. You have to look at the definition in the statute.

OK Mary, that sounds fair. So what about section 1031 of the United States Code concerning "Major Fraud Against the United States"

Here is the statute:

Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States

(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent - (1) to defraud the United States; or (2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,

in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. (b) The fine imposed for an offense under this section may exceed the maximum otherwise provided by law, if such fine does not exceed $5,000,000 and - (1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or (2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.

(c) The maximum fine imposed upon a defendant for a prosecution including a prosecution with multiple counts under this section shall not exceed $10,000,000. (d) Nothing in this section shall preclude a court from imposing any other sentences available under this title, including without limitation a fine up to twice the amount of the gross loss or gross gain involved in the offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3571(d). (e) In determining the amount of the fine, the court shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. sections 3553 and 3572, and the factors set forth in the guidelines and policy statements of the United States Sentencing Commission, including - (1) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, including the harm or loss to the victim and the gain to the defendant; (2) whether the defendant previously has been fined for a similar offense; and (3) any other pertinent equitable considerations.

(f) A prosecution of an offense under this section may be commenced any time not later than 7 years after the offense is committed, plus any additional time otherwise allowed by law. (g)(1) In special circumstances and in his or her sole discretion, the Attorney General is authorized to make payments from funds appropriated to the Department of Justice to persons who furnish information relating to a possible prosecution under this section. The amount of such payment shall not exceed $250,000. Upon application by the Attorney General, the court may order that the Department shall be reimbursed for a payment from a criminal fine imposed under this section. (2) An individual is not eligible for such a payment if - (A) that individual is an officer or employee of a Government agency who furnishes information or renders service in the performance of official duties; (B) that individual failed to furnish the information to the individual's employer prior to furnishing it to law enforcement authorities, unless the court determines the individual has justifiable reasons for that failure; (C) the furnished information is based upon public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or GAO report, hearing, audit or investigation, or from the news media unless the person is the original source of the information. For the purposes of this subsection, "original source" means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the Government; or (D) that individual participated in the violation of this section with respect to which such payment would be made.

(3) The failure of the Attorney General to authorize a payment shall not be subject to judicial review. (h) Any individual who - (1) is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by an employer because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or others in furtherance of a prosecution under this section (including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in such prosecution), and (2) was not a participant in the unlawful activity that is the subject of said prosecution, may, in a civil action, obtain all relief necessary to make such individual whole. Such relief shall include reinstatement with the same seniority status such individual would have had but for the discrimination, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/05/2007 @ 5:09pm
I'm sure we can even go a step further and add a conspiracy charge since many of those defense contractors that lobbied Cheney to invade Iraq are clearly beneficiaries of Cheney's fraud, and this may explain why he doesn't want to disclose to Congress who has been visiting him, and the purpose of their visit, right?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/05/2007 @ 5:12pm
No, that was no lady, that was Chemical Ali. He was sentenced to death for crime against humanity in his part in the genocide of using point gas against the Kurds.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/05/2007 @ 5:05pm

Dude, I was making a joke about your use of the term 'Wowie Zahawie.'

It's really not funny if you have to explain it.

I notice that you haven't addressed my earlier question regarding giving up the location of a missle silo vis a vis outing Valerie Plame.

Care to step up?

Posted by skeletonman at 07/05/2007 @ 5:13pm
MARYBRETBRAD:

I think METTEYYA just brought the exact statute for the point I was making. I do believe it's check, and mate.

So my question is, would you be this blithe and dismissive of these obvious crimes had a Democrat or Green (or ANY non-Republican, for that matter) perpetrated them? Somehow I highly doubt it.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 5:14pm
Worse Than Libby

Marty Kaplan

Posted July 5, 2007 | 11:37 AM (EST)

Commuting Scooter's sentence wasn't the worst thing W did this week. Libby, after all, was just a bit player in the Bush-Cheney epic, a mere hit man deployed to rub out a critic. The big story remains the war whose rotted foundation Joe Wilson dared to expose; the ball to keep your eye on is in Baghdad and Basra.

And just in case anyone was wondering whether Dick Luger's recent demurral, or John Warner's ominous throat-clearing, or Gordon Smith and Olympia Snow's timorous ass-covering, had actually breached the Bush bubble in recent days, the answer was on full view in the president's Fourth of July speech. It was the same as his answer to the Libby sentence -- Go f- yourself -- but the question in this case, the Iraq war itself, is way more consequential.

"I've heard it all before," Patti Scott, 72, of Richmond, Virginia, told the Washington Post after the speech. It's true; we have all heard it all before. It was an anthology of nearly every inane slogan, smirking lie, psychotic delusion and neocon non sequitur we have been fed since the rumors of war first rumbled. The only difference was that it was packaged in Independence Day wrapping. The analogy was implicit, but painful: W stands for Washington, with George W. Bush the latter-day father of our country's freedom. Another, more poisonous analogy -- Bush, who notoriously ducked his own Texas Air National Guard duties, was speaking here to the West Virginia National Guard, who have not been so fortunate as their commander-in-chief -- went blissfully unremarked.

"In this war, we face dangerous enemies who have attacked us here at home." No, those who attacked us at home were from Saudi Arabia and trained in Afghanistan. It is your pre-emptive war that has made Iraq an al Quaida recruiting ground.

"I know the passage of time has convinced some... that the danger doesn't exist." Ah, the "some say" straw man. Who is he talking about? Is Hillary soft on Osama? Is Barack blind to bin Laden? Or does he mean the peeps who painted that "Mission Accomplished" sign?

"But these people want to strike us again. We learned on September 11th that in the age of terror, the best way to do our duty... is to go on the offense." That was Afghanistan; this is Iraq. And if you really mean it, why not Pakistan?

"The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power." Really? He was one bad dude, and Iraqis suffered for it, but hundreds of thousands of them have been killed since he fell. Is a world where America is a pariah, where our armed forces are stretched dangerously thin, and where radical jihadists have a ready-made poster-boy in Bush: is that world safer than before shock-and-awe?

"Many of the spectacular car bombings and killings you see are as a result of al Quaida -- the very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th. A major enemy in Iraq is the same enemy that dared attack the United States on that fateful day." But to quote from McClatchy's invaluable Jonathan S. Landay, "U.S. military and intelligence officials... say that Iraqis with ties to al-Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops. The group known as al-Qaida in Iraq didn't exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn't pledge its loyalty to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn't controlled by bin Laden or his top aides... U.S. intelligence agencies and military commanders say the Sunni-Shiite conflict is the greatest source of violence and insecurity in Iraq."

"If we were to quit Iraq before the job is done, the terrorists we are fighting would not declare victory and lay down their arms -- they would follow us here... However difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it." Why in the hell would they not follow us here, no matter what the outcome in Iraq? "Victory"? "Win"? "The job is done"? We are going to win their civil war?

"If we were to allow them to gain control of Iraq, the would have control of a nation with massive oil reserves -- which they could use to fund new attacks and exhort economic blackmail on those who didn't kowtow to their wishes." Ah, blood for oil. As if OPEC didn't already make us kowtow. As if permanent US bases in Iraq, and permanent control if its oil, were not the real goal we are seeking, with "freedom" (like WMDs before it) the lure in a bait-and-switch scam.

"There are many ways for our fellow citizens to say thanks to the men and women who wear the uniform and their families. You can send a care package. You can reach out to a military famly in your neighborhood... You can car pool." Instead of sending them a care package, how about sending them home? Instead of car pooling, how about an energy policy that prevents our country from financing the very nations who hold our economy hostage, let alone the terrorists they quietly harbor?

For anyone who believes that the September surge reports by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will make a difference, or that wavering Congressional Republicans will cause Bush to change his strategy, just listen to what the president said on July Fourth about our the American Revolutionary War: "Our first Independence Day celebration took place in a midst of a war -- a bloody and difficult struggle that would not end for six more years later before America finally secured her freedom." Ignore the grammar, folks, but do the math. As long as George Bush is president and Dick Cheney is Vice President, as long as the Republicans retain a cloture-proof majority in the Senate, this surge and this war will not end.

That's the stick the president poked in our eye on the Fourth of July. Commuting Scooter's sentence is a galling and convenient illustration of his arrogance and unaccountability, but it is far from the worst damage he is doing to our country every day he remains in office.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2007 @ 5:17pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/05/2007 @ 5:17pm

A brilliant non-answer.

The question is which is the greater disservice to the nation - disclosing the location of a missle silo or outing a highly trained agent engaged in the counter proliferation of WMD (what we are supposedly fighting a war about).

No more attempts to avoid the question. It's really a simple inquiry, after all.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/05/2007 @ 5:22pm
MARYBRETBRAD:

You said:

I'm afraid the CIA felt that the cost was justified in that undermining the President's case for war was more valuable to them.

My response:

Please show me and the rest of us here ANY evidence that ANY of the cases Bush made for justification of the invasion of Iraq was not completely shot through with holes and manufactured, whole cloth, from the neo-conservative PNAC playbook. There were no weapons of mass destruction, we haven't brought democracy to a beleaguered people, nor did we ever truly intend to (let's not forget we created Saddam in the first place), the cost of the war has NOT been paid for by the oil proceeds of the Iraqi oil fields, there HAS been a persistent indigenous guerrilla insurgency, we ARE caught in a quagmire...

Are there ANY claims made by this administration or its cheerleaders (including the Cheerleader-In-Chief) about this war that have not been proven 100% completely false?

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 5:26pm
Wasn't there a claim that the Iraqis had nukes? And that they had a reliable delivery system that would make London a viable target in less than 45 minutes? I seem to remember Cheney uttering that lie. Anyone else remember that?

Or how about the one about how Saddam helped Al Qaeda...

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 5:28pm
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 5:28pm
or at least a call to the NYT telling them not to publish the article

the gov't cannot tell the NYTimes not to publish an article. remember the Pentagon papers?

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 5:36pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 07/05/2007 @ 5:28pm

Didn't a certain Dick make such a claim on/around March 16, 2003?

Posted by skeletonman at 07/05/2007 @ 5:37pm
MARYBRETBRAD:

No one here said you were an "evildoer". But you are an enabler. It's people like you who continue to allow cabalists like Bush, Cheney, et al. to continue on their course of base treason and monumental criminality. You're sort of like the Germans who turned their heads and denied that the Nazi regime was perpetuating genocide and aggressive war against sovereign nations.

I guess instead that makes you the "evil-do-nothing-er".

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 5:41pm
SKELETONMAN:

That sounds about right. It was in the run-up immediately prior to the war.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 5:42pm
Ok ladies and gents. Off to an appointment. I'll catch you later, around 10 or 11pm. Have fun plotting my demise.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 5:43pm
MBB

I'll make this easy for you.

The answer is that each breach of our national security would be equally egregious.

That the outing of Plame is an egregious breach of national security engineered by our own goddamned government is something the neoconistas just cannot seem to get hold of. Just 'cause your homies did it doesn't make it right.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/05/2007 @ 5:44pm
Since I'm the only "evildoer" here today I'm haveing trouble keeping up. I've addressed it now, but I've got to inteview someone in a few minutes.

OK Mary,

When you get back from your interview, I have another United States Code Section for you so it is clear that we are not trying just use the dictionary to come up with our impeachment charges.

Here it is:

Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/05/2007 @ 5:48pm
Of course if we come to the conclusion that Bush did not lie in this respect then the whole Libby/Cheney/Bush as traitors comes crashing down. Because the contrary case is built on the actual content of the 2002 NIE document and the Select Committee's evaluation of it. That case pits Plame and Wilson, as bit players, against the authority of the official intelligence of the American intelligence community expressed in that document bolstered by corroboration from the highly respected British intelligence agency. In that context there was no point in the administration trying to silence or punish relatively insignificant players.

It is interesting to speculate that Fitzgerald was going down the Bush/Cheney lied approach and was trying to catch a bigger fish but all he got was a minor official whose crime was lying to a grand jury and failed to get a conviction on his brief. If that is so in a perverse way it lends some credence to the Bush/Cheney did not lie etc position.

Posted by LRJONES4 07/04/2007 @ 04:44am | ignore this person

Mr. Jones,

I don't have as much time as I'd like but your comments are certainly worthy of a response. Concerning the Intelligence Committee report, I have read sections but not its entire content; as of today the complete report resides in a pdf downloaded to my travel drive and I will have more time to go through it. Regarding its vindication of the Bush administration, I believe that the report fails in this consideration and the Additional Views put forth by Vice Chairman Rockefeller IV, and Senators Levin and Durbin and here state that position:

"Regrettably, the report paints an incomplete picture of what occurred during this period of time [the 18 month period between 11 Sept.2001- March 20, 2003]. The Committee set out to examine ten areas of investigation relating to pre-war intelligence on Iraq and we completed only five in this report. The scope of our investigation was divided in a way so as to prevent a complete examination of all matters within the Committee's jurisdiction at one time."

They are referring to the phase two part of the investigation that Chairman Roberts never convened. It is their opinion, just as it was the opinion of Roberts, Hatch and Bond to file Additional Views from which they then attacked former ambassador Wilson; the contents of which were later used by partisan Republicans and even the Washington Post (which was staunchly pro-war) as if they were the bi-partisan views of the entire committee.

The Committee Report also records American intelligence officials failure to agree with the British White Paper on the evidence of Iraq pursuing African uranium. I don't have the specific section for you but I have seen it. Also, analysts in the State Department were in agreement that the Niger story was not credible. In my view there was enough dissenting intelligence from the NIE, and Senate Intelligence report in no way acknowledges BushCo. innocence due to the Roberts stonewalling of phase two.

Fitzgerald went down the "Cheney lied" trail because of the testimony of numerous reporters having been contacted by Bush officials beyond Armitage. Rove infamously stated that Plame was "fair game." Cheney was at the center of the operation, writing handwritten notes on the Wilson article and directing Libby to push the nepotism angle in their attempt to soil Wilson's reputation.

Posted by Oustbush at 07/05/2007 @ 6:03pm
Deep down, you know there isn't a court in the US that could convict on these charges.)

So you are trying to convince us that if we could prove that Cheney was receiving defense contractor visitors that were lobbying him to invade Iraq so "they" can make a lot of money, and Cheney used his influence to deceive Bush with the Niger forgeries so he could convince America to invade Iraq on "their" behalf, that "no" court could convict Cheney as part of the conspiracy to defraud the US with the false evidence that he provided?

Well if it were really a slam dunk for Cheney as you suggest, why is he stalling on disclosing who has been visiting him and the purpose of their visits?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/05/2007 @ 6:47pm
And you really should re-read Title 18 Section 1031 and Title 19 Section 371 in greater detail, particularly how it has been used in the federal case-law, so you will learn that one does NOT have to personally gain economically to be guilty of defrauding the United States.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/05/2007 @ 6:54pm
I know I sound like Les Nessman when he said, "I thought turkey's could fly" but I really though democracy would take off in the ME. I was wrong, but that doesn't make me a liar; only mistaken.

actually, wild turkeys CAN fly.

Wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) live in woods in parts of North America and are the largest game birds found in this part of the world. They spend their days foraging for food like acorns, seeds, small insects and wild berries. They spend their nights in low branches of trees (yes, wild turkeys can fly!).

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 7:31pm
But this suprised everyone except people who read The Nation. It surprised the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Chinese. Everybody except the anti-war crowd assumed Saddam was lying. Only people who read The Nation got it right when they gave Saddam the benefit of the doubt.

this is the biggest bullshit myth. at one time they may have thought he had WMD, but they all wanted the Un inspectors to finish the job, they found nothing, and none of those countries supported the illegal invasion. that counts for a lot more than hat they thought at one time. you may not be lying Mary, but you are posting worthless drivel, long discredited, just the same.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 7:36pm
more accurate might be you are posting other people's lies.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 7:38pm
oh please, american oil companies have been implicated in the oil scam. you know nothing. my point stands. our allies, france and germany declined to take part in that disaster.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 8:29pm
the day you gotcha me mary, hell will freeze over and Maasch will win the spelling bee.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 8:30pm
because document recovered after the invation of if Iraq implicated high ranking government officials (prime ministers, etc.) in a bribery scheme that enriched them by giving them 10 million oil futures for $10 a barrel once these countries succeeded in getting the UN sanctions lifted.

Is this another "forged" document like the Niger forgeries, or do you have a "credible" source for the document?

And, just curious, do you consider it "bribery" when the US "rewards" developing countries with foreign aid that go along with our positions in the UN Security Council?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/05/2007 @ 8:44pm
does anyone besides me get the feeling that time in hamsterland stopped in 2003

Posted by Will C. at 07/05/2007 @ 9:39pm
and started on jan 20, 1992

Posted by Will C. at 07/05/2007 @ 9:39pm
thus the hamster resistance to the theory of evolution

Posted by Will C. at 07/05/2007 @ 9:40pm
MARYBRETBRAD:

Actually, Cheney has made millions on this war, via his stock options in the blind trust set up at the time of his taking the Vice President position. Just look at the rise in stock price of Halliburton. Sorry, you're wrong.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 11:09pm
And regarding the Oil for Food program, the actual enablers of (and the true beneficiaries of those ill-gotten windfalls) were American companies. The failure in the program was built into the system, on purpose. You should really get a better understanding of the way the UN works, instead of parroting the hard-right rhetorical dogma. The UN is nothing more and nothing less than an arm of US international policy. Only recently has the UN started having any sort of independent policy not in line with that if the US.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 11:13pm
Regarding Cheney's ill-gotten gains, I can provide exact numbers if you'd like.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/05/2007 @ 11:15pm
The reason there are not more far right new cons. servicers of dic'tator philosophy, here is that the pres dem candidates are getting more funding, thus less paid repub info-discombobulationists available...

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2007 @ 11:32pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 07/05/2007 @ 11:09pm

Actually, Cheney has made millions on this war, via his stock options in the blind trust set up at the time of his taking the Vice President position. Just look at the rise in stock price of Halliburton. Sorry, you're wrong.

Sorry, Jorchy, but it is you who are wrong. Cheney didn't set up a 'blind trust'; he donated the options to charity. They're not his anymore. All that appreciation in value of Halliburton? Going to charity and the University of Wyoming, which is I'm sure a whole hell of a lot more than you've ever done for the disadvantaged by what has no doubt been a lifetime of braying your idiotic, false lefty talking points.

From factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

Stock Options

That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education, a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizable donation to the chosen charities.

Posted by pontificus at 07/05/2007 @ 11:37pm
Don't feel too bad about this JORCHY, you're not the first person here I've had to correct on this. Previously, JACKRABBIT felt it was justifiable to impeach Cheney NOW because he might, at some indeterminate time in the future, attempt to break the very irrevocable charitable trust he set up. I'm sure it's all very logical in some far-off lefty political fantasy world, but it's hardly applicable to the real world the rest of us live in.

Posted by pontificus at 07/05/2007 @ 11:45pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 07/05/2007 @ 11:13pm

Congrats, JORCHY, you get today's 'Let's All Blame America First' award, for blaming even the misdeeds of the corrupt, America-bashing UN on America. You're the first person I've seen to advance the theory that even the fact that UN officials were lining their pockets with Saddam's money in order to subvert the sanctions they were supposed to be enforcing were all working at America's behest. No doubt we're responsible for putting Saddam Hussein 's Iraq in charge of the UN Human Rights Commission as well.

Geez, you're a funny guy, but not that funny considering the company you keep.

Posted by pontificus at 07/05/2007 @ 11:51pm
PONTIFICUS:

Actually, the pocket-lining was going on by the executives of the oil companies who were the hand-maidens to Saddam's fraud. And guess what? It's all part of the design. I'm sorry if you are too much of a moron to understand the way international corporate capitalism really works. Your myopathy and pure blindness to the realities of the world of global capitalism simply reinforce the fact that your dogma is limited. Hence your moronic statements about me being a "blame America first" type of person. Perhaps if you could reduce your ignorance a bit you would understand what I was really saying, instead of your knee-jerk interpretation of what you thought I was saying.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/06/2007 @ 01:16am
PONTIFICUS:

In point of fact, he still owns a sizable portion of stock options, in a blind trust. Maybe you should read the WSJ a little more closely. This was broadly covered years ago.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/06/2007 @ 01:17am
Oh, and let's not forget the fact that he continues to receive defined benefit payout from Halliburton. Almost forgot about that one.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/06/2007 @ 01:19am
Posted by JORCHEIM 07/06/2007 @ 01:17am

In point of fact, he still owns a sizable portion of stock options, in a blind trust. Maybe you should read the WSJ a little more closely. This was broadly covered years ago.

Bullshit. Substantiate that. Factcheck.org investigated all of the Cheney's finances and found no such thing. Until you provide some documentation, I'll assume you're making that up.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 08:14am
Posted by JORCHEIM 07/06/2007 @ 01:19am

Oh, and let's not forget the fact that he continues to receive defined benefit payout from Halliburton. Almost forgot about that one.

This canard has also been debunked long ago. Again, from factcheck.org:

Deferred Salary

The $398,548 Halliburton has paid to Cheney while in office is all deferred compensation, a common practice that high-salaried executives use to reduce their tax bills by spreading income over several years. In Cheney's case, he signed a Halliburton form in December of 1998 choosing to have 50% of his salary for the next year, and 90% of any bonus money for that year, spread out over five years. (As it turned out, there was no bonus for 1999.) We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document the deferral agreement as well, and he supplied us with a copy of the form, posted here publicly for the first time.

Legally, Halliburton can't increase or reduce the amount of the deferred compensation no matter what Cheney does as vice president. So Cheney's deferred payments from Halliburton wouldn't increase no matter how much money the company makes, or how many government contracts it receives.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that if the company went bankrupt it would be unable to pay. That raises the theoretical possibility of a conflict of interest -- if the public interest somehow demanded that Cheney take action that would hurt Halliburton it could conceivably end up costing him money personally. So to insulate himself from that possible conflict, Cheney purchased an insurance policy (which cost him $14,903) that promises to pay him all the deferred compensation that Halliburton owes him even if the company goes bust and refuses to pay. The policy does contain escape clauses allowing the insurance company to refuse payment in the unlikely events that Cheney files a claim resulting "directly or indirectly" from a change in law or regulation, or from a "prepackaged" bankruptcy in which creditors agree on terms prior to filing. But otherwise it ensures Cheney will get what Halliburton owes him should it go under.

Cheney aides supplied a copy of that policy to us -- blacking out only some personal information about Cheney -- which we have posted here publicly for the first time.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 08:16am
Posted by JORCHEIM 07/06/2007 @ 01:16am

Actually, the pocket-lining was going on by the executives of the oil companies who were the hand-maidens to Saddam's fraud. And guess what? It's all part of the design.

What exactly ARE you talking about then? What executives of what oil companies? If the UN functionaries and other politicians (eg. Galloway and Chirac's office) were selling Saddam's fungible oil options, somebody had to buy them, this does not make those who buy them complicit in the scheme. Your so-called 'rational' doesn't make any sense; it would make ANYONE involved in this little ripoff, including those consumers who ultimately purchased the resulting gasoline for their own personal use, complicit. Get real.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 08:24am
Posted by JORCHEIM 07/06/2007 @ 01:17am

In point of fact, he still owns a sizable portion of stock options, in a blind trust. Maybe you should read the WSJ a little more closely. This was broadly covered years ago.

Hey JORCHEIM, is Lautenberg the source of your 'blind trust' mis-information? You'd better have another source, because he and you were debunked by factcheck.org long ago. [factcheck.org]

November 04, 2005 Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% last year, senator finds

An analysis released by a Democratic senator found that Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock options have risen 3,281 percent in the last year...

libertypost.org carries the water on yet another sterling example of neoclassical modernist humanism...,

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asserts that Cheney's options -- worth $241,498 a year ago -- are now valued at more than $8 million. The former CEO of the oil and gas services juggernaut, Cheney has pledged to give proceeds to charity.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 08:31am
JORCHEIM's insistence on believing things that aren't true are typical of the beliefs of the left, which are filled with patently false folklore that almost no-one else takes seriously. I guess the theory among these people is that if you imagine enough smoke, you just might be able to start a fire.

Conflict of Interest

It is important to note here that Cheney could legally have held onto his Halliburton stock options, and no law required him to buy insurance against the possibility that Halliburton wouldn't pay the deferred compensation it owes him. Both the President and Vice President are specifically exempted from federal conflict-of-interest laws, for one thing, as are members of Congress and federal judges.

And even federal officials who are covered by the law may legally own a financial interest in a company, provided they formally recuse themselves -- stand aside -- from making decisions that would have a "direct and predictable effect on that interest." And Cheney says he's done just that.

Cheney says he takes no part in matters relating to Halliburton, and so far we've seen no credible allegation to the contrary. Time magazine reported in its June 7 edition that an e-mail from an unnamed Army Corps of Engineers official stated that a contract to be given to Halliburton in March 2003 "has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." But it wasn't clear who wrote that e-mail, whether the author had direct knowledge or was just repeating hearsay, or even what was meant by the word "coordinated," which could mean no more than that somebody in Cheney's office was being kept informed of contract talks.

Indeed, a few days later it was revealed that Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was informed in advance that Halliburton was going to receive an earlier contract in the fall of 2002 -- to secretly plan post-war repair of Iraq's oil facilities. But being informed of a decision after it is made is a far cry from taking part in making it. And according to the White House, Libby didn't even pass on the information to Cheney anyway.

So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 08:38am
Jesus M. F. Christ you are a windbag Pontificus! This crap all comes from an analysis of a Kerry ad in 2004. And it says next to nothing about the point Jorcheim orginally made.

From your source:

The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizable donation to the chosen charities.

So tell me - how much money DOES Dick Cheney actually have in Halliburton stock options? What is the definition of "after tax profits" and why does your article say "significant financial sacrifice" and not actually say how much of Halliburton the Vice president still owns?

Posted by MyParadigm at 07/06/2007 @ 08:49am
Posted by MYPARADIGM 07/06/2007 @ 08:49am

Jesus M. F. Christ you are a windbag Pontificus! This crap all comes from an analysis of a Kerry ad in 2004. And it says next to nothing about the point Jorcheim orginally made.

The points are one and the same, MP. JORCHEIM's charges are nothing but a rehash of charges that Kerry made that were debunked long ago.

So tell me - how much money DOES Dick Cheney actually have in Halliburton stock options?

According to factcheck.org, NONE.

What is the definition of "after tax profits"

The charitable trust will owe taxes on any appreciation of the stock options; then the proceeds (after tax profits) will go to charitable use.

and why does your article say "significant financial sacrifice" and not actually say how much of Halliburton the Vice president still owns?

Because Cheney had every right to keep those options if he wanted to, even as VP. Giving them up was a significant financial sacrifice because Halliburton is a well-run company, which he well knows, and the value of those options increased substantially over the last few years. It did not benefit him, however; it benefited the charities.

Thus, the left wing folklore of Cheney benefiting from Halliburton is debunked.

Be

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 09:50am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/06/2007 @ 09:50am

Debunked in the real world, I should say. Superstitions and doctrine can never be debunked for people who treat their beliefs as a religious faith.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 09:54am
OK, for some reason I cannot get to pages 7,8, so excuse me if I cover ground already covered ad nauseam.

MBB , the fat is seeping into your brain, moron.

Plame was covert. Period. confirmed by the republican head of the CIA.

Congessional testimony:

Waxman: "But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This disclosure of Ms. Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice No dems filed a crimes report, it was the republican run CIA.

Our first witness is Ms. Valerie Plame Wilson. She's a former covert CIA employee

Plame, 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.

My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in both the White House and the State Department. All of them understood that I worked for the CIA, and having signed oaths to protect national security secrets, they should have been diligent in protecting me and every CIA officer.

The CIA goes to great lengths to protect all of its employees, providing at significant taxpayers' expense painstakingly devised and creative covers for its most sensitive staffers.

Not only have breaches of national security endangered CIA officers, it has jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents, who in turn risk their own lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence. Lives are literally at stake.

Rep Yarmouth: " 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: My expectation, Congressman, was that as of all CIA operations officers -- every officer serving undercover -- that senior government officials would protect our identity.

REP. WAXMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hodes.

Before we yield our time, we have a long list of people that seem to have either intentionally or inadvertently passed on your status and your name as a CIA agent, and that included the president, vice president, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer just to name a few. Did any of those people -- the president, the vice president, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Ari Fleischer -- did any of them ever call you and apologize to you?

MS. PLAME WILSON: No, Chairman.

REP. WAXMAN: None of them ever called you to express regrets.

MS. PLAME WILSON: No.

MS. PLAME WILSON: No, no. But I was covert. I did travel overseas on secret missions within the last five years.

REP. DAVIS: I'm not arguing with that.

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. Just like a general is a general whether he is in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan, when he comes back to the Pentagon, he's still a general. In the same way, covert operations officers who are serving in the field, when they rotate back for a temporary assignment in Washington, they, too, are still covert.

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 classifie

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.

MARYBETBRAD, you are wrong, wrong wrong.

Iraq had no wmd;s. Iraq had no way to acquire uranium from Niger. Iraq was no threat to you or your children. Bush and Cheney lie all the time, repeatedly. cheney still tries to link Saddam and 9/11 given any opportunity. We are bogged down in Iraq because of you.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/06/2007 @ 10:04am
(yes, wild turkeys can fly!).

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/05/2007 @ 7:31pm

sure can! I have some sitting 30 feet up in some pine trees on my property right now.

Fucking morons,

Posted by crabwalk at 07/06/2007 @ 10:08am
Posted by CRABWALK 07/06/2007 @ 10:04am

Iraq had no way to acquire uranium from Niger. Iraq was no threat to you or your children. Bush and Cheney lie all the time, repeatedly.

You're really amazing, CRABBIE. Do you really believe that you can possibly know all this stuff? I really just don't think you're able to distinguish fact from your opinion.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 10:11am
Prove me wrong Ponti. You have yet to do it.

Plame was covert.

The French control the uranium supply in Niger, down to the gram. They said there is no way Saddam could have gotten any.

Are you saying Saddam actually had thousands of litres of anthrax and a stockpile of nukes? That the aluminum tubes were for rockets?

Been through this a thousand times. No wmds. Period.

Bush refused to commute hundreds of sentences and allowed many to be executed because he said he believed in the jury system. Till now.

Just too tough for a white rich gy to get a fair trial, I guess.

Moronic sheep.

By. going to remodel the bath. Unless I find some missing wmd's in the stool, next to your desiccated brains, Ponti and MBB.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/06/2007 @ 10:23am
I guess Chimpy and VP Howler Monkey are different than all other politicians that came before.

Bush is a liar. Cheney is a liar. No doubt. I have the lists, but you neo-clowns refuse to read them, or offer up twisted logic to defend your all ready assumed assumptions.

Morons. Sheep.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/06/2007 @ 10:25am
Posted by CRABWALK 07/06/2007 @ 10:23am

Prove me wrong Ponti. You have yet to do it.

Plame was covert.

I don't have to. Your baseless assertion has no more real-world significance than if you were baying at the moon. No charge has ever been put forth in a court of law which might provide a basis for your assertion. Even if such charges had been put forth, they would still have to be proven. In this country it is people like you who have to prove your charges. Those you so wildly and irresponsibly accuse do not have to prove their innocence.

The French control the uranium supply in Niger, down to the gram. They said there is no way Saddam could have gotten any.

More meaningless statements which you represent as fact. Utterly worthless.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 10:27am
I am Utterly worthless.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/06/2007 @ 10:27am | ignore this person

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 10:47am
the reason the repubs here are arguing that the sun sets in the east, is that they are in denial about their future prospects, which are zilch. how are ya gonna win anything with those appro ratings?

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 10:49am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2007 @ 10:49am

the reason the repubs here are arguing that the sun sets in the east, is that they are in denial about their future prospects, which are zilch. how are ya gonna win anything with those appro ratings?

So, our arguments are all false because Bush's approval ratings are low?

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 10:51am
PONTI,

I see you have tried really hard to debunk the myths of `warmongering' for profit by Cheney & Co. Hopefully, some less rabid partisans/readers will see the generosity of Dick Cheney.

What the Leftest moonbats refuse to believe is that for many accomplished and wealthy folks, giving a large portions of their wealth to charitable causes are the icing-on-the-cake for their lives' achievements and their legacies. The massive givings, even by a Dem like Warren Buffet, just goes by their empty heads!

Who knows, someday, one of you or your grandkids, may stumble on a donated "Happy Pavilion for Handicapped/Disadvantaged Scouts" somewhere in a Texas Scout camp......IF the Dems don't f*&% up the Economy big time!

Posted by Happy at 07/06/2007 @ 11:01am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 07/06/2007 @ 10:51am | ignore this person

reading comprehension not your strong suit is it?

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 11:04am
Posted by HAPPY 07/06/2007 @ 11:01am

It's the quasi-religious fervor that people like CRABWALK and JR bring to the discussion that fascinates me so much. Like the people who believe the moon landings were faked, no matter how many facts you bring to the table, they still remain unconvinced. CRABBIE is especially peculiar the way he presents his debatable opinions about things that he CANNOT know for sure as irrefutable fact. JR is less fun, he's so far out of his league he just mumbles most of the time.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 11:18am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/06/2007 @ 11:38am

It's a fact that Saddam's representatives TRIED to establish trade relations with Niger, and that Niger has only one product that Saddam would want. Wilson said that Saddam had not attempted to buy yellowcake, but it depends how you define 'attempt'. Most people define Saddam's trade mission as an attempt, Wilson said it was not. There's the difference.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 11:44am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/06/2007 @ 11:44am

As for this Cheney profitting business, well I doubt that there would be much of a paper trail. That's not how these people operate. The deals are made behind closed doors, (secret energy meetings?), and the money is laundered and laundered again. Add to that, six years of a rubber stamp, look the other way leglisature and voila, ole Jeb's a millionaire.

Here's where you beliefs go from the rational to the mystical and superstitioua. You're saying that 'of course there's no evidence, these people are way too smart and devious for that.' If you're willing to follow that kind of logic, anything and everything is possible, and your positions are nothing more than superstitions.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 11:48am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/06/2007 @ 11:45am

Nice try but you didn't answer the question.,/i>

The question is answered by implication. If Wilson is playing word games in order to discredit the President's views, then he's not providing a service to ANYONE, except the raving left.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 11:49am
Libby is free while thousands of Iraqis are refugees, the wealthy living in Jordan, the not so wealthy who knows where, in refugee camps perhaps, many homeless, and those left behind facing grave dangers daily with a civil war fomented by our presence, while our media and military spout off the pretended successes of the surge. Meanwhile the most expensive US embassy continues to be built in Iraq, the future of who will control the oil up for grabs, and the war profiteers cheering with glee with every new troop that is transported to the killing fields. But what is more disconcerting is the lack of public outcry. Are US citizens too busy to even notice the actions of the crooks who run the country and their whittling away of the US Consitution? Where are the leaders as Lee Iacocca has shouted from the mountaintop? Pitiful.

Posted by skilover at 07/06/2007 @ 11:53am
Posted by SKILOVER 07/06/2007 @ 11:53am | ignore this person

two million external refugees AND two million internal refugees. that in a country of 25 million.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 11:59am
Pontz, what a sad lonely clown you are. your world is sinking.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 12:00pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2007 @ 12:00pm

Pontz, what a sad lonely clown you are. your world is sinking.

That's all you got left, JR?

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 12:03pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/06/2007 @ 12:00pm

Implication? I give up.

Word too big?

We know where you're coming from.

It's a strange and far away place called sanity.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 12:07pm
You're saying that 'of course there's no evidence, these people are way too smart and devious for that.' If you're willing to follow that kind of logic, anything and everything is possible, and your positions are nothing more than superstitions.

PONTIFICUS 07/06/2007 @ 11:49am

... or you're a law enforcement officer. Or, who knows, maybe just a regular person who isn't hopelessly naive.

Posted by MyParadigm at 07/06/2007 @ 12:08pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 07/06/2007 @ 12:08pm

... or you're a law enforcement officer. Or, who knows, maybe just a regular person who isn't hopelessly naive.

Some people say that the very fact that there is no evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination PROVES just how powerful and high-level the conspiracy was. Do you find such views reasonable?

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 12:12pm
I want to thank conservatives for their imaginative excuses for their hypocrisy in this matter-You have amused.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2007 @ 12:20pm
su�per�sti�tion /ˌsupərˈstɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-per-stish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation �noun 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. 2. a system or collection of such beliefs. 3. a custom or act based on such a belief. 4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion. 5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 12:21pm
I'm feeling more and more that the wingers on this site for the most part , are plants.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/06/2007 @ 11:41am

Hence the handle 'Ficus.

Oh, wait.

You didn't mean THAT kind of plant, did you?

Posted by skeletonman at 07/06/2007 @ 1:46pm
Slate Magazine, June 18, 2007 "Free Scooter Libby: The case gets weirder by the day."

By Christopher Hitchens

If Scooter Libby goes to jail, it will be because he made a telephone call to Tim Russert and because Tim Russert has a different recollection of the conversation. Can this really be the case? And why is such a nugatory issue a legal matter in the first place?

Before savoring the full absurdity of the thing, please purge your mind of any preconceptions or confusions. Mr. Libby was not charged with breaking the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Nobody was ever charged with breaking that law, designed to shield the names of covert agents. Indeed, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, determined that the law had not been broken in the first place.

The identity of the person who disclosed the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak--his name is Richard Armitage, incidentally--was known to those investigating the non-illegal leak before the full-dress inquiry began to grind its way through the system, incidentally imprisoning one reporter and consuming thousands of man hours of government time (and in time of war, at that). In the other two "counts" in the case, both involving conversations with reporters (Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time), Judge Reggie Walton threw out the Miller count while the jury found for Libby on the Cooper count. The call to Russert was not about Plame in any case; it was a complaint from the vice president's office about Chris Matthews, who was felt by some to have been overstressing the Jewish names associated with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Russert was called in his capacity as bureau chief; any chitchat about Wilson and Plame was secondary.

The call was made after Robert Novak had put his fateful column (generated by Richard Armitage) on the wire, and after he had mentioned Plame's identity to Karl Rove.

Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?

See Slate magazine for the full text of the column

Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/06/2007 @ 2:00pm
good stuff on wash. post. a discussion about is america Rome? about empires and such. the comments are particularly edifying. these people really write, whereas here they mostly snipe. to my regret I must include myself in that criticism.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/2007/07/is_america_rome/al l.html

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 2:11pm
Wanna bet----a few years of democrats in power and the nation will be chomping at the bit for republicans to be back and running the show.

Posted by LEN MOSSE

You've have got to be kidding me, What country have you been living in? LOL

Posted by economike at 07/06/2007 @ 2:26pm
Mike, hilarious yes. repubs raus.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 2:50pm
it is said that one is known by the quality of one's enemies. well what I lack in quality of enemies I make up in quantity. I love being attacked from all repubs.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 2:57pm
I'm feeling more and more that the wingers on this site for the most part , are plants.

no, they are fossils.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 3:08pm
As for this Cheney profitting business, well I doubt that there would be much of a paper trail. That's not how these people operate. The deals are made behind closed doors, (secret energy meetings?), and the money is laundered and laundered again. Add to that, six years of a rubber stamp, look the other way leglisature and voila, ole Jeb's a millionaire. All you people who think the Bush family is so damn great, please explain to me the undivided loyalty to a dictator family that has been screwing the U.S. at every turn. Also keep in mind that it was Saudi Arabia where Bin Laden and most of the 9/11 attackers came from. The country with the most to gain from all of this, besides Israel, is Saudi Arabia and lets not forget our good friends at Exxon Mobile, Shell, BP and a few others.

Posted by FRANKGRITS

I have some mere speculation about where these guys may be getting profits from the Iraq debacle. How much unmetered oil is coming out of Iraq? We're talking about one of the largest possible oil producing countries in the world here. I don't buy into the crap we're being told that Iraq isn't able to produce any oil. Is not Halliburton in charge of getting the oil fields back into production? A nice little civil war between the folks in the country to divert their attention away from oil being pumped, shipped and stocked elsewhere. Cheney and Bush will profit handsomely once they are out of office. I personally think that once a president leaves office he shouldn't be able to work again. Their pension, not to mention security detail, are waaay more than anyone else could ask for. Look at Bush senior. The guy has been working for the House of Saud since he's been out of office. He's not retired, he's just retired from working in the government realm. That just gives me a warm feeling knowing that the leaders of Saudi Arabia have access to highly classified information that only the present leaders of this country should have access to.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/06/2007 @ 4:18pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/06/2007 @ 11:44am

As for this Cheney profitting business, well I doubt that there would be much of a paper trail. That's not how these people operate. The deals are made behind closed doors, (secret energy meetings?), and the money is laundered and laundered again. Add to that, six years of a rubber stamp, look the other way leglisature and voila, ole Jeb's a millionaire

Sorry Frank, I accidentally added some of my coments behind yours. I got some coffee, came back and forgot where I was at. Evidently, I needed the coffee. Sorry about that.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/06/2007 @ 4:28pm
As for this Cheney profiting business

Cheney does NOT have to personally benefit to violate 18 USC 1031 (a)(1) or 19 USC 341, The United States just has to lose a significant sum of money based on the deception.

If the impeachment counts (and/or indictments) are based on these two federal statutes, then the Niger forgeries along with other Cheney acts to deceive us into invading Iraq, should be ample evidence to remove him from office (I don't think he will go to jail because of his age and poor health)

Posted by Metteyya at 07/06/2007 @ 4:39pm
Posted by METTEYYA 07/06/2007 @ 4:39pm

Cheney does NOT have to personally benefit to violate 18 USC 1031 (a)(1) or 19 USC 341, The United States just has to lose a significant sum of money based on the deception.

If the impeachment counts (and/or indictments) are based on these two federal statutes, then the Niger forgeries along with other Cheney acts to deceive us into invading Iraq, should be ample evidence to remove him from office (I don't think he will go to jail because of his age and poor health)

Yah, and as FRANKGRITS and WOLFGANG have pointed out, when you add in all the things that you DON'T know about Bush and Cheney, because these guys are just too smart to be caught, then impeachment is a slam-dunk! Heck, when I think of all the things you imagine they are guilty of, impeachment is just too good for them, why not burning at the stake?

Posted by pontificus at 07/06/2007 @ 4:44pm
Re-indicting Libby based on 18 USC 1031 (a)(1) and 19 USC 341 would also result in a conviction. Libby AND Cheney had knowledge of the Niger forgeries yet passed them on to the President in order to deceive America and make it look like there was evidence to justify invading Iraq.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/06/2007 @ 4:46pm
If the impeachment counts (and/or indictments) are based on these two federal statutes, then the Niger forgeries along with other Cheney acts to deceive us into invading Iraq, should be ample evidence to remove him from office (I don't think he will go to jail because of his age and poor health)

Posted by METTEYYA

Metteyya, You do know, of course, that if Cheney were to be impeached and removed from office, he certainly wouldn't have to go through a prison sentence. His boss will most definitely pardon him because whatever sentence is brought against him will be much to harsh from him. Keep in mind that this is the same president who doesn't mind extending soldiers tours over in Iraq, but heaven forbid that one of his buddies has to play drop the soap in the shower for a few months in a federal pen!! Meanwhile, our soldiers lose arms, legs, and their lives, but I guess that's acceptable to brave old W. What a guy.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/06/2007 @ 4:47pm
impeach now. warcrimes trial later.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 4:54pm
Yah, and as FRANKGRITS and WOLFGANG have pointed out, when you add in all the things that you DON'T know about Bush and Cheney, because these guys are just too smart to be caught, then impeachment is a slam-dunk! Heck, when I think of all the things you imagine they are guilty of, impeachment is just too good for them, why not burning at the stake?

Posted by PONTIFICUS Ponti, I never knew you'd come around here. There's hope for you yet! I like the burning at the stake idea. So, you think we are bad, or evil for questioning the likes of Cheney and W while our soldiers are over there like sitting ducks being blown up left and right. Well, keeping them in harms way is pretty damned close to evil if you ask me. So, here we are in middle of our war pretty much designed by Bushco. WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS MESS IF WE HAD NEVER ATTACKED IRAQ. 3 well placed bullets could have taken care of Hussein and his sons, and we could have pretty much made a bargain with the remaining leaders of Iraq to slowly settle things down. But no, we had to go in there, blow the hell out of the place, and kill thousands of people not to mention our own soldiers and because of what? Bush didn't like Saddam? That can't be the reason, so then I ask, why in the hell did we go into Iraq? It sure as hell wasn't for democracy and it sure as hell wasn't about weapons of mass destruction. So, there has to be another angle. Oh ya, that's right, their just happens to be oil in Iraq and oh, ya, that Saddam fellow actually did threaten Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. So, either our soldiers are dying for oil, or Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, or maybe both.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/06/2007 @ 5:05pm
while our soldiers are over there like sitting ducks being blown up left and right.

they're being blown up while driving around, like those little metal ducks moving from left to right at the shooting gallery.

consistently fine posts Wolf. a nom de plume or a teutonic background?

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 5:21pm
that Saddam fellow actually did threaten Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. So, either our soldiers are dying for oil, or Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, or maybe both.

this threat had been removed in '91. Saddam had no capability to seriously attack anyone.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 5:23pm
Bush1 suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait in the first place. we needed a new villain after the wall fell, in order to keep the cold war military industrial juggernaut going. his ambassador to Saddam told him his dispute with Kuwait was an internal matter. you can look it up.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 5:32pm
I go away for a week's vacation and look at the trouble you kids get into!

Scooter commuted?...who could have predicted that?!?!?

Oh, yeah...me.

Posted by Mask at 07/06/2007 @ 5:47pm
Mask,

I gave you my congrats on your prediction....but now you have to sift through 400+ postings to find it!

Posted by freedomplease at 07/06/2007 @ 5:49pm
Oh, yeah...me.

Posted by MASK 07/06/2007 @ 5:47pm | ignore this person?

commuted? really? anyone corroborate?

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 6:02pm
Bush1 suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait in the first place. we needed a new villain after the wall fell, in order to keep the cold war military industrial juggernaut going. his ambassador to Saddam told him his dispute with Kuwait was an internal matter. you can look it up.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF

I've read about that. I was just trying to point out to Ponti the fool that we aren't in Iraq for the reasons being told by our honest folks in the White House. I stand corrected. Thank you. Now that you've removed those two possibilities, we're back to oil. I guess a side note could be that the defense contractors stand to make healthy pay checks off the war, but that one is too obvious even for Ponti. If you think about it, it's a pretty sweet deal for the ultra rich. The military is used to protect their overseas interests at tax payer expense, and since the wealthy own a good chunck of the defense contracting interests, they clean up double at tax payer expense since the military has to purchase their weapons. Kind of like being a crooked banker in the game of Monopoly. You've got the monopolies so everyone has to pay you to stay in the game, and whenever you want, just pull cash out of the bank since, hell you own that too!! Life just gets better and better for these folks I tell you.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/06/2007 @ 6:13pm
FreedomPlease-Did anyone not predict that Libby would have his sentence commuted or be pardoned?Everyone I know assumed he would never serve a day.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/06/2007 @ 6:23pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2007 @ 6:02pm

I don't recall commuted; I recall a post-post exchange with the Masked One not long ago in which he gave a time frame; my personal bet offered was the Friday before the 4th (i.e. a week ago today, June 29th).

I don't remember commutation being mentioned, but I could be mistaken. That happened to me once.

Once.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/06/2007 @ 6:45pm
I don't remember commutation being mentioned, but I could be mistaken. That happened to me once.

Who cares about the predictions of Mask, except Mask?

This Masked guy does a wonderful job of trying to change the subject when it doesn't favor AIPAC interests, so screw him or her!

If Mask can't take this plot between defense contractors on the right and AIPAC on the left to deceive America into invading Iraq, and now Iran, then he should take his marbles and go home!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/06/2007 @ 7:04pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/05/2007 @ 09:57am | ignore this person:

My IQ is higher than 130. On the GRE (Graduate Record Exam) I scored an 800 on the analytical reasoning section. That puts my ability to reason analytically in the top 1% of all people who apply to graduate school. (My verbal was a pathetic 530. I keep telling all of you I'm no good with English.) This isn't something I think I'm bragging about, but you keep confusing people who don't agree with your opinions with people who are stupid.

1. The tacit assumption is that IQ tests are something other than the most qualitative measure of intelligence or, worse, that they are objective measures (e.g. how culturally dependent are they?). There is certainly significant debate on the subject of standardized tests of any kind. For example, the arbitrary partitioning of the various types of intelligence - verbal, analytical, etc. - is questionable. There is no certainty that overall intelligence is the sum of these parts as implied by the tests. One need only consider the idiot savant or certain autistics or certain geniuses. [I cannot resist observing that the triune username of this poster might be taken such that the quoted scores should be divided by three and thus justify the labels - literally. ]

2. Having dealt with graduate students for over 30 years, the disconnect between the GRE scores and performance is often shocking. In fact, the only score that seems, in my experience, to correlate well with performance is verbal ability - and I am a physical scientist. As far as I am concerned, the GRE measures mostly rote learning ability and quality of memory. I am even less clear on what an IQ test really tells us. Originality, creativity, and skepticism, the most important attributes, go uncalibrated.

3. Even granting the implication that such tests have some validity, it does not follow that one achieving a high score exploits the capability. Nor does it mean that what is measured is at all relevant to the complex social problems entertained in The Nation forums.

It seems to me that to invoke such authority in a discussion belies the reported results. An appeal to such measures is a somewhat desperate act and exhibits that certain unawareness, even insensitivity, so characteristic of the reactionary. There may well be, and probably are, discussants here whose IQ may be yet higher than the reported scores of this person and whose GRE performance is much more spectacular. Thus, citing these results is of little import and suggests an extremely literal mind when charges of "stupidity" etc. are leveled. Further, there may be untested participants who would score high on any such assessment. This forum is atypical of the general populaton, and while one may lie in the first percentile for the population taking the test, the fraction in which one is found here could be less lofty. The point is that these test results are neither convincing nor useful.

The ability to be analytical can be turned to any end as anyone who has witnessed a courtroom trial has seen. The sophists were famous for their ability to take any side of an argument, being able to present a logical or analytical case for anything. As was early noted by many in ancient Greece and in later times, sophistry escapes the mark often because it is blind to the actual search for truth. Such a quest requires an open mind devoid of enslavement to an ideology.

Given the argument, and recognizing that probably not even one of the forum's participants could be "stupid" in the literal sense of the word, one needs to deconstruct what may be actually meant by the epithet - one must analyze it(!) - since "stupidity" may take many forms. The stupidity referred to by many here, perhaps, is a charge that another is obtuse or has a closed mind regarding seeking the truth. But I suspect it is not even that. It is, I would argue, that the interlocutors are in separate moral universes where the values of one are "stupid" within the compass of the other's.

It is because of this "orthogonality" of value systems, and the ideological commitment to them on one side, that makes it, as I argued in my previous post, a waste of time and energy to debate the points between the two camps. You cannot expect those who have no real values in common to ever reach agreement, since the issues are always sufficiently complex as to allow the use of some datum to justify one's cause. The facts are at the mercy of the values in such complex systems. Were an objective conclusion obtainable, then a mathematics for the situation could be devised. In the orbit of value systems, this cannot obtain, and, unless others are capable of being convinced ( a trait uncharacteristic of the far right and far left, but a trait encompassing less range for the right, in general ), then you may expect to get just as far as when I left a year ago - nowhere.

It is this that has led to the near "dictatorship" of those who hold the reins of power and their unwillingness to compromise - to require their way or no way. I can only see this getting worse. What liberals should do is avoid wasting time and energy on those whose opinions are already frozen, and should invest their time and resources in winning the young and those many independents whose minds are not sealed. Why even countenance the reactionaries? What is there to be gained?

Were the debate between true conservatives and liberals, then some compromise, some movement could be achieved. But such conservatives of the mold of Eisenhower or even John Major are now exceedingly rare and the reactionaries that have replaced them have no values in common with the liberal. Thus the impasse, thus the invective, thus the waste of everyone's time and thus a suffering nation.

I checked back here to see if things may have changed, but such is the allure of the bait, that I myself took it. The experiment has been run with a clear result. As with Piero and Francesca, the ideological gusts of the right wing fifth column here blow discussion about helter skelter such that there is no net progress. It can be fun, but it is sterile. Life is too short.

It was nice to see the stalwarts from my earlier stint here - still willing to break their lances against the impenetrable. In the ensuing years, I hope that you will still have a forum in which you can exchange both ideas and epithets freely - but I have my doubts.

Posted by Tiresias at 07/06/2007 @ 8:22pm
In submitting my last post, I could not help but notice that MaryBretBrad again cites performance on a test, in this case one given by the Army. There is an apparent penchant for appeal to authority and for being in some kind of hierarchy. This is a personality trait characteristic of the reactionary. Self-worth and value - standing, if you will - is achieved only by recognition and certification by some authority, be it diety, field marshal, party leader, ETS... It is in stark contrast to the outlook of the liberal, and it is so very sad. But it neatly illustrates my contention that there is no hope of productive dialog with such individuals.

Farewell!

Posted by Tiresias at 07/06/2007 @ 8:43pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 07/06/2007 @ 5:49pm

Thanks....didn't YOU predict that a Libby pardon/commutation would "push Pelosi towards impeachment"?

Posted by Mask at 07/06/2007 @ 9:10pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2007 @ 6:02pm

Apparently FREEDOMPLEASE remembered me saying that. Also since I'M NOBODY said that there was nobody who didn't predict it, I'll include myself in that group as well.

Seriously JOHANN, that the best "put-down" you can come up with? or you just feeling ornery today?

Posted by Mask at 07/06/2007 @ 9:11pm
BTW, JOHANN....read the "Clinton Spy Scandal" thread on "The Notion"....

since when did you become a FRANKGRITS Hillary lap-dog???

Posted by Mask at 07/06/2007 @ 9:23pm
My IQ is higher than 130. On the GRE (Graduate Record Exam) I scored an 800 on the analytical reasoning section. That puts my ability to reason analytically in the top 1% of all people who apply to graduate school. (My verbal was a pathetic 530. I keep telling all of you I'm no good with English.) This isn't something I think I'm bragging about, but you keep confusing people who don't agree with your opinions with people who are stupid.

We don't think you are stupid, Mary, we are just intelligent enough to realize that you are pretty selective on how you use your intelligence.

You try to reduce the discussion to a debate you think you can win, like "Plame wasn't really covert", or "Wilson is playing word games when he says Iraq wasn't trying to purchase weapons-grade uranium from Niger", but opt out of discussions that focus on "who" would want to forge documents to make it look like Iraq AND Iran were purchasing uranium from Niger and "why"? Or opting out of discussions on why 18 USC 1031(a)(1) could not be applied to Cheney's role in passing the Niger forgeries to Bush to use in his deceptive speech about Iraq since this subsection of the federal statute does NOT require that Cheney personally benefit from his deception.

You aren't the only one on this board with a high IQ and perfect test scores, so you should show little humility before "assuming" the posters here are not as smart as you!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/06/2007 @ 10:03pm
mask. what are you talking about? a put down? because I want proof of something YOU claimed? and the thing with Frank? I have no idea what you are talking about. if indeed you predicted something, corroborate. that's how it works. since you have NOT done so, I consider your claim piffle.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 10:15pm
I said the thing with Hill is an allegation. that is a fact. Mask you are loony.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 10:16pm
I saw people predict a pardon. I saw no one predict a commutation. prove or shut up.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 10:17pm
I consider your claim piffle.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/06/2007 @ 10:15pm

"piffle"!?!??! Did you just step off the train from 1920s London?

heheh

Posted by Mask at 07/06/2007 @ 10:18pm
Sentence commutated or pardon.....soon......dartboard says in July!

Posted by HAPPY 06/14/2007 @ 6:29pm | ignore this person

From Corn's "Libby is Closer to Jail....." 6/14/2007

Posted by Happy at 07/06/2007 @ 10:52pm
I haven't been here for a while, so I thought I'd to give the Bush Bubbahs the good news. This Libby commutation is is playing out beautifully.

Please click here

Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday.

The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvassed 1,100 Americans by telephone July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. The findings are available on ARG's Internet site.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/06/2007 @ 11:18pm
Marybretbrad, "But this surprised everyone except people that read The Nation" Almost every other country in the world wanted the UN inspectors to continue their work. I think that some of these other countries had doubts because they regarded US intelligence as being far better than it actually turned to be. But all of them, civilized enough, wanted the UN to continue the investigation and handle the case. Moreover, everybody in the military and diplomatic world knows that one thing is to want nukes, another to have them, yet another to use them. Even if we would had found nuclear reactors, they would had probably been ten or more years lagging Iran. "Well, technically we have brought democracy they haven't embraced it.." We have instead created a vacuum of power and replaced it with our imposed model of democracy. Since democracy is when the political power resides on the people, any model not created by the initiative of the people - as when our founding fathers wrote the Constitution- is dead wrong. Democracy, is the result of an historical struggle, autodetermination, and maturation (acquisition of a set of values) in a society, it just does not happen in any given country because the US wants it to happen. "we created Saddam and we were morally obligated to retire him because of his murders.." When will the neo-cons understand they play such an infantile game? Politics is somewhat like chess, you want to anticipate the consequences of your moves, and the other's moves as well. What is the 1st problem for the US in the area since the times of Jimmy Carter? Iran and religious fundamentalists. Saddam, as cruel as he was, played a role favorable to the US by semi-containing Iran, he was not a fundamentalist, nor he did support terrorist groups. Yes, he comitted atrocities, but I am sure the US could have possibly worked out a solution with moderate members of his own nationalist party to topple him and continue in his line with slow movements to give the other ethnias the rights they have always deserved. Bottom line lesson is: you don't create a sudden power void because it will be filled out with much more violence, like the vortex of a blender, or like when a pendulum is driven to the extreme and the reaction towards the other side is extreme. You want changes to be gradual and in the stable region for a political process to really succeed. "Cheney would have made much more in Halliburton". Typical 'petit bourgeois' reasoning. All the contracting that Hallirichton has made in the war is surely considered by the company to be Cheney' sales and will return to him at much more than any current return on any investment, I am going to tell you. Accountants know of many paths to increase your estate without showing it directly. Bottom line: I would really be surprised if one way or the other prominent figures of the administration have not increased substantially their estate. Often times investigations just don't happen, but just looking on their secrecy style, their friends, and their motto in life, well its hard it be in any other way. So you are right maybe a judge will not be able to condemn in the absence of tangible proofs, but history will certainly, and discoveries around this administration will pop up for the next 20 years or so.

I have followed some of your posts and have no doubt that you have the IQ you declare to have. But, what are you trying to do? To prove us wrong as a group, to convert us showing how we could not see your facts? That is a bit of disrespect on your side because of your blindness to see others' point of view as when you criticized Michael Moore. You do exactly what you accuse others to do, mainly to be deaf to another's perspectives. Isn't it a surprise that the war in Iraq is between the US conservatives and the Muslim conservatives? Conservative type intolerance, bigotry and ultra-nationalisms have led the world to the greatest and cruelest wars! As for us liberals, we are the inclusive not divisive type, we want everybody to have rights and voice. Even conservatives may be OK if they don't use the nation's power to their own benefit and negate the people their freedoms and the right to pursue happiness and have their fair and equitable share of this wonderful world.

Posted by Frank42 at 07/07/2007 @ 12:27am
you know know what's funny. I was reading the letters to the editor in one of the local papers from a sorry group of enraged hamsters appartently deeply troubled by the liberal reaction to the scooter libby pardon.

they made the same arguments as scootificus. I was hilarious

It's like they've all been implanted with a chip

Posted by Will C. at 07/07/2007 @ 02:15am
so scootificus, you wouldn't by chance be scootificus from borg would you?

Posted by Will C. at 07/07/2007 @ 02:16am
so scootificus, you wouldn't by chance be scootificus from borg would you?

Posted by WILL C. 07/07/2007 @ 02:16am

That would imply a certain degree of individuality, would it not?

To my recollection, there were only two Borg that achieved that status: Locutus, aka Jean Luc Picard (in 24th C biker togs) and that icky-hot Borg queen played by Alice Kriege in the movie, the one that Data snogs.

While your overall point (i.e. that wingnuts are part of a collective 'conscious') is well taken, I personally doubt that the 'Ficus has achieved such lofty status as the aforementioned twain.

Jonathon Frakes lives in the town in which I work (no shit, he really does). Next time I see him, I'll ask.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/07/2007 @ 07:31am
PONTIFICUS:

1: Wh are the dems of the dem witch hunt, still unanswered after 3 days.

2: The CIA said she was covert, she served outside the country within five years, the JD says she was covert.

What have I made up? You are the one living the fantasy. Do you have anything, anything, to back up your claims. Other than toeseningss ideas.

3: How would Saddam have acquired uranium from Niger if the French said no? Would he have done this years after having asked and been rebuffed? How?

Fact: Plame was covert

Fact: Saddam did not acquire uranium from Niger, nor could he.

Please show me my fantasy. Yours is evident.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2007 @ 08:30am
Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?-SOMEONENEW

The judge said the evidence was overwhelming that Libby lied. He did not forget, he did not have minor inconsistencies. He lied. Proven in a court of law, convicted by his peers.

Why do you people hate America so much?

Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2007 @ 08:32am
GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY

Crime s by Cheney were covered up by Libbies lies. That is why we cannot prove it. Cheney refuses to take an oath, Libby lies.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2007 @ 08:35am
Cheney refuses to take an oath

Posted by CRABWALK 07/07/2007 @ 08:35am

This is one of the things that is so frickin' galling about this lump of feces with legs. That this cowardly dastard sits on his fat ass playing god with the lives of better Americans while he flips us all the bird, making up bullshit about how he is neither this nor that, beholden to no one is beyond the pale.

In point of fact he is a traitor to his oath and to us all, and shouldn't even be allowed to wipe the asses of the limbless and/or brain-injured vets whose lives he has ruined for no reason other than to satisfy his egomaniacal need to be a two bit despot.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/07/2007 @ 08:46am
When did John Dean become a leftist?

Author of "conservatives without a conscience"

Must be a book about all of the apologists here. You know, the ones that are still upset at Clinton for lying under oath about a crime that never happened. The ones that want the Ten Suggestions posted in every public venue available, the one that says "Thou Shalt not Lie".

the ones that voted for a president that said he would restore credibility to the White House. They voted for him because he seemed honest and they wanted honest. Till they got pants shitting fear over things that never existed. Boogeyman for adults.

sheeple without consciences.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/07/2007 @ 08:55am
Posted by SKELETONMAN 07/07/2007 @ 07:31am

:)

I hear because the hamsters haven't reached the technical development to build their first cube ship (no doubt because of their disdain for science and education) they've settled on the stopgap measure of block heads for the interim between now and when they destroy earth

Posted by Will C. at 07/07/2007 @ 11:14am
because of course, we won't be assimilated

Posted by Will C. at 07/07/2007 @ 11:14am
Posted by WILL C. 07/07/2007 @ 11:14am

It's hard to achieve warp speed when all you've got for power are those little wheels on which hamsters like to run. Shit, it'd take, like, a billion of the suckers to even achieve impulse speed, no?

Posted by skeletonman at 07/07/2007 @ 11:38am
because of course, we won't be assimilated

Posted by WILL C. 07/07/2007 @ 11:14am

Well said.

Posted by skeletonman at 07/07/2007 @ 11:38am
no one has to prove a crime to proceed with an impeachment. it is a political trial. conviction does not carry any criminal penalties either. resigning the office stops any impeachment in its tracks. while only two presidents have been impeached, numerous judges have been.

here is the list:

William Blount, senator, impeachment dismissed, though expelled from senate. senators cannot be impeached

John Pickering,judge, convicted

Samuel Chase, associate judge, supreme court, acquitted

James Peck, judge, acquitted

West Humphreys,judge, convicted

Andrew Johnson, president, acquitted by a single vote

William Belknap, former secretary of war, acquitted after he resigned.

Charles Swayne, judge, acquitted

Robert Archbald, judge, convicted

Harold Louderback, judge, acquitted

Halsted Ritter, judge, convicted

Harry Claiborne, judge, convicted

George English, judge, resigned

Alcee Hastings, judge, convicted

Walter Nixon, judge, convicted

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/07/2007 @ 12:50pm
oh yes, and Bill Clinton, president, acquitted.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/07/2007 @ 12:52pm
Spiro Agnew, vice president, would surely have been impeached, after pleading nolo contendere to corruption and bribery charges, but he resigned.Richard Nixon, president, too would have certainly been impeached. he too resigned.

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/07/2007 @ 1:10pm
Nolo contendere, in criminal trials, in some common law jurisdictions, is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes a charge, serving as an alternative to a pleading of guilty or not guilty. Its literal translation from Latin means, "I do not contest," and is also referred to as a plea of no contest, to stand mute, or, more informally, a nolo plea. Nolo contendere, while not technically a guilty plea, has the same effect as a guilty plea, and is often offered as a part of a plea bargain.[1]

Posted by johannesrolf at 07/07/2007 @ 1:12pm
George English, judge, resigned

Alcee Hastings, judge, convicted

Walter Nixon, judge, convicted

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/07/2007 @ 12:50pm

And, uh, where is Judge Hastings now...politically?

Posted by Mask at 07/07/2007 @ 2:17pm
elected

Posted by Will C. at 07/07/2007 @ 8:05pm
Posted by WILL C. 07/07/2007 @ 8:05pm

Right you are, young WILLIAM. So, impeachment is NOT the absolute end of a political career, is it?

Nor is impeachment a "black mark"...as good ol' Bill Clinton has higher approvals now than then (and they were pretty good then).

Posted by Mask at 07/07/2007 @ 8:54pm
So, impeachment is NOT the absolute end of a political career, is it?

Posted by MASK 07/07/2007 @ 8:54pm

hey sugar buns, hows the vagina hangin? I don't believe I ever said impeachment was the absolute end to a political career.

are ya just stupid?

Posted by Will C. at 07/08/2007 @ 12:43am
Posted by WILL C. 07/08/2007 @ 12:43am

Well, first, I didn't say you did.

Second, still having the sexual identity problems?...okay. I was thinking the other day one of the forgotten "down-sides" to a Libby commutation of sentence was...

you wouldn't have any prison anal rape "jokes" left.

heheh

Posted by Mask at 07/08/2007 @ 07:33am
I guess PONTI left the house and can't find his way back.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2007 @ 08:40am
Too bad Scooter won't get to take hi "Pope on a rope" to prison.

I guess the new slogan is " I won't have to do the time, so I will do the crime". The rallying cry of the neo-con movement.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2007 @ 09:41am
Oh, well, still more admin officials doing time under Bush than any other admin.

Restored credibility. Yep, sure did. Everybody trusts the president now.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/08/2007 @ 09:43am
Posted by MASK 07/08/2007 @ 07:33am

Well, first, I didn't say you did.

sure you did baby cakes, when you started lecturing me on it

Second, still having the sexual identity problems?...okay.

no, you're a women

I was thinking the other day one of the forgotten "down-sides" to a Libby commutation of sentence was...

you wouldn't have any prison anal rape "jokes" left.

heheh

wow. you were thinking about me on your vacation. You're a freak

Posted by Will C. at 07/08/2007 @ 11:08am
Conyers brought up IMPEACHMENT on Stephanopoulos: counted 'impeachment' said 7 times. Cited the poll that says a majority want cHeney impeached. Also Conyers said that 'if' he wants impeachment he'll be on again next week... as the supoenas deadline are up tomorrow.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3356341

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 12:16pm
er, subpoenas

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 12:17pm
WILL Dodge bait--

Posted by WILL C. 07/08/2007 @ 11:08am

Uh, WILL, care to explain to the class EXACTLY how you KNOW I'm a woman?

Posted by Mask at 07/08/2007 @ 12:27pm
Ohh duh-- you wear a mask...

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 12:28pm
Oh as for predictions, I said that if hsuB pardonned Libbiness his poll numbers would sink lower. And I do recall Masky saying they couldn't sink no lower. But it was about a pardon and not a commutation. But hsuB's poll numbers will still sink lower and he's to be impeachedanyway too!?!?! A two'fer!?!?! YYyyYYYyyEEEeeeSSSS.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 12:33pm
Uh, WILL, care to explain to the class EXACTLY how you KNOW I'm a woman?

Posted by MASK 07/08/2007 @ 12:27pm

tits

Posted by Will C. at 07/08/2007 @ 12:34pm
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3356341

Yes, watch it. Conyers quotes the poll....then says he isn't "putting it on the table".

Odd, given impeachment is imminent, eh, HSUB?

Posted by Mask at 07/08/2007 @ 12:44pm
BTW, just heard a concensus about 'commutation'-- it simply a tactic to freeze Libby from talking about hsuB/cHeney. A pardon would allow him to talk like being immunized, thus a commutation keeps Libby seeking appeals w/out jail time and buys hsuB/cHeney time to stall further on other fronts. Makes sense. For criminals that is.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 12:53pm
Masky masky masky, Conyers is asked that first as he's reading the poll and says no, he's reading a poll. But then later when asked about impeachment again states 'if' he is, per the subpoenas, he'll be back on next week.

Nice try but:

Masky since you 'say' that you are really for hsuB/cHeney being impeached-- what have you done for that to happen?

Well, apart from telling everyone not to bother...

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/07/2007 @ 10:20pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/07/2007 @ 10:45pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 02:44am

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 11:21am

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 1:00pm
Masky still can't or won't answer that one. He's waiting for a pardon or commutation, you think?

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 1:11pm
Uh, WILL, care to explain to the class EXACTLY how you KNOW I'm a woman?

Posted by MASK 07/08/2007 @ 12:27pm

tits

Posted by WILL C. 07/08/2007 @ 12:34pm

Really? Masky doesn't come across as the nurturing type...

Oh I get it:

"Implants"

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 1:22pm
mask will have to elaborate on that

Posted by Will C. at 07/08/2007 @ 1:23pm
Mask what a fa�ade you are. Implants. Makes sense.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 1:31pm
Yes, watch it. Conyers quotes the poll....then says he isn't "putting it on the table".

Mask,

You are missing the import of Conyer's statement. He is telling the White House if they continue to resist efforts to disclose documents and elicit testimony from key witnesses, impeachment "may" be the appropriate course of action since 58% of the public supports impeaching Cheney.

Otherwise, why would Conyers (not Stephenopolis) "initiate" the discussion of public support for impeachment?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2007 @ 2:09pm
Exactly.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 2:24pm
Quid pro quo-- BABY:

"House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers spoke of "the general impression" that Bush last week commuted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 2 1/2 year sentence in the CIA leak case to keep Libby quiet. The White House said Conyers' claim was baseless.

"What we have here _ and I think we should put it on the table right at the beginning _ is that the suspicion was that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House, and that there was some kind of relationship here that does not exist in any of President Clinton's pardons, nor, according to those that we've talked to ... is that it's never existed before, ever," Conyers said in a broadcast interview Sunday.

Conyers said he wants Bush to waive executive privilege and let his pardon lawyers or other experts, "who it appears that he did not consult, explain this in a little more detail. ... Commutations usually follow after a person has served some period of time. And of course, this isn't the case here."

The special prosecutor in the leak case, Patrick Fitzgerald, took issue with Bush's claim the prison term was excessive.

Leahy, asked about the prospect of Fitzgerald testifying before the committee, said, "We may very well find ourselves going down that path."

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 3:00pm
tits

Posted by WILL C. 07/08/2007 @ 12:34pm

So, WILL how do you KNOW I have breasts?

Posted by Mask at 07/08/2007 @ 7:43pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 1:00pm

Well, HSUB, if your reading of what Conyers said is right...

by NEXT SUNDAY, we'll know if impeachment is in the works...and won't have to wait until Halloween.

Care to put your money where your mouth is and up your time-frame from "in less than 4 months" to "in less than 7 days"?

Posted by Mask at 07/08/2007 @ 7:45pm
So, WILL how do you KNOW I have breasts?

Posted by MASK 07/08/2007 @ 7:43pm

you silly girl, they protrude from your chest

Posted by Will C. at 07/08/2007 @ 9:08pm
Ooops I posted this on the wrong site:

Article II, Section 2, which states that the President: shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

So can the president pardon his staff for perjury or obstruction of justice before they testify and thus enabling himself to skate from impeachment even though the constitution states the pardon power doesn't extend to impeachment? I know the immediate interpretation is that a president couldn't pardon himself or a v.p., judge, etc.; that had already been impeached, but what about pardons to prevent impeachment-- ipso facto cognito ergo?

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 7:22pm

If proven that occurred-- would it not make the Libby commutation part of an impeachable offence by extention, kinda similar to 'fruit of the poisonous tree' in reverse, (one could say: Qvod cibvs est aliis, aliis est wenenum-- ha), or is it simply a quid pro quo, bribery, an impeachable offence in itself, thus renderring the Libby commutation illegal and void?

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 8:44pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 9:10pm
Maybe I shoulda stayed in law! If a nonlawyer like me could figure this out, wonder what all those lawyers on the Hill are thinking? No wonder Conyers wants into this and not buying the old 'it's-all-legal-and-you-can't-do-anything-about-it' and 'you're-wasting-your-time' argument. Conyers is one smart guy.

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 9:13pm
One more time:

Masky since you 'say' that you are really for hsuB/cHeney being impeached-- what have you done for that to happen?

Well, apart from telling everyone not to bother...

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/07/2007 @ 10:20pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/07/2007 @ 10:45pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 02:44am

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 11:21am

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 1:00pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 1:17pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 8:21pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 9:14pm
was our resident sweety pie mask for impeachment before she was against it?

Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Posted by Will C. at 07/08/2007 @ 9:19pm
Masky's only for impeachment whenever I call her a hsuB lover, new con supporter, servicer of dic'tator philosophy, and she gets her feelings hurt and wants some lovin. The rest of the time she's back to servicing dic'...

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 9:37pm
The rest of the time she's back to servicing dic'...

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 9:37pm

I'll becha dick shot her in the face more than once

Posted by Will C. at 07/08/2007 @ 9:43pm
you silly girl, they protrude from your chest

Posted by WILL C. 07/08/2007 @ 9:08pm

And when have you seen my chest?

(this dodging will go on for hours, folks....WILL has some "issues" with sexuality, women, and the people he encounters on the Blogosphere he dislikes)

Posted by Mask at 07/08/2007 @ 10:33pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 9:37pm

HSUB, you joining in with WILL on this "Mask is a woman" thing?

You have some problem with women too, that you feel calling a man a woman is a put-down?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 07/08/2007 @ 10:34pm
Mask is a girl?

Posted by jorcheim at 07/08/2007 @ 10:39pm
Oh, I see... Will was being facetious... nevermind.

Posted by jorcheim at 07/08/2007 @ 10:40pm
Mask is a gay Jewish male! Isn't it sort of obvious?

Just so it is clear, however, I have nothing against Jews or gays, but when he hides his AIPAC leanings, I get a little annoyed!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/08/2007 @ 11:30pm
You have some problem with women too, that you feel calling a man a woman is a put-down?!?!?

Posted by MASK 07/08/2007 @ 10:34pm

It's ok if you have implants, really. It makes you no less of a woman, or a man... I thought you being a woman was your only major redeeming quality actually... But then again:

One more time:

Masky since you 'say' that you are really for hsuB/cHeney being impeached-- what have you done for that to happen?

Well, apart from telling everyone not to bother...

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/07/2007 @ 10:20pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/07/2007 @ 10:45pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 02:44am

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 11:21am

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 1:00pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 1:17pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 8:21pm

Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/08/2007 @ 9:14pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/08/2007 @ 11:56pm

David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

Bush Commutes Libby's Jail Sentence

posted by David Corn on 07/02/2007 @ 7:56pm

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

Bush Commutes Libby's Jail Sentence

posted by David Corn on 07/02/2007 @ 7:56pm

Share this article

David Corn

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation