A Grave Indictment, but Grave Questions Remain

If a senior White House official leaks classified information that identifies an undercover CIA officer to reporters in order to undermine a critic of the administration, he is not entitled to lie about it to FBI agents and a grand jury charged with the task of determining if such a leak violated the law. That was special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's message, as he held a dramatic press conference at the Justice Department to explain the five-count indictment his grand jury issued against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. "This is a very serious matter," he insisted.

The indictment charged Libby with two counts of making false statements to the FBI, two counts of committing perjury (by lying twice to the grand jury) and one count of obstruction of justice. All these charges referred to Libby's account of how he came to learn of Valerie Wilson, the undercover CIA official who was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a White House critic, and who was outed in a July 14, 2003 Bob Novak column. During interviews with FBI agents and in his testimony before the grand jury, Libby--who, before the Novak column was published, told Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA--repeatedly claimed that he was merely passing along information he had heard from other reporters. For instance, on March 5, 2004, Libby, answering questions about a July 12, 2003 conversation with Cooper, told the grand jury,

All I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters....I said, reporters are telling us that [about Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA]. I don't know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know--I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.

On March 24, 2004, Libby, in another appearance before the grand jury, said,

All I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true....So I wanted to be clear they [the reporters to whom he spoke] didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know if it [the information about Valerie Wilson] was true, and I wanted them to understand that.

But, according to the indictment, Libby had actively gathered information on Joseph Wilson and his wife after newspaper stories appeared about a trip that Joseph Wilson had taken to Niger for the CIA in February 2002, during which he had concluded that the allegation that Iraq had been shopping there for weapon-grade uranium was highly dubious. In May 2003, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, using Wilson as a source, wrote about this trip without naming Wilson. The Washington Post did the same the following month. And on July 6, 2003, Wilson published an op-ed piece in the Times describing his mission to Niger and his findings, which undercut the Bush administration's use of the Niger allegation in making a case for war.

In late May 2003--after the first Kristof column and before Wilson went public with his op-ed--Libby asked Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman for information on the unnamed ambassador's trip to Niger. Grossman ordered the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report on the ambassador and the trip and subsequently told Libby that Wilson had been the ambassador. On June 9, 2003, according to the indictment, classified CIA documents that covered Wilson and the Niger trip (without mentioning Wilson by name) were faxed from the CIA to Libby. Two or three days later, Grossman told Libby, the indictment says, that "Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." About that time, Libby spoke with a senior CIA officer, who also informed Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Also about the time, the indictment states, Cheney told Libby that Wilson's wife was employed at the CIA in the counterproliferation division. This is an intriguing fact. Usually in Washington, principles ask their subordinates to dig up information for them. Apparently, Cheney was doing his own fact-finding on the Wilson front. The indictment does not explain what Cheney was up to or why. It notes that "Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA." Cheney had a back-channel behind his back-channel (Libby).

Libby was not done gathering information on Joseph and Valerie Wilson. On or about June 14, 2003--still weeks before Wilson's op-ed article appeared--Libby, according to the indictment, met with a CIA briefer and "discussed with the briefer, among other things, 'Joseph Wilson' and his wife 'Valerie Wilson' in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger." (Fitzgerald's use of quotation marks in this passage of the indictment suggests he has notes from this meeting.)

Libby, as depicted in the indictment, was aware of the sensitive nature of the material he had collected on the Wilsons. When an assistant asked if information on Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the charge that Cheney had sent Wilson to Niger (an allegation never made by Wilson, who had said that his trip was a response to a request that had come to the CIA from Cheney's office), Libby told his aide that he could not talk about this topic on a nonsecure telephone line.

Yet days later--on June 23, 2003--Libby met with Judy Miller and told her that Wilson's wife might work at the CIA. And the day after Joseph Wilson's op-ed piece appeared, Libby had lunch with White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and informed him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, adding that this was not widely known. That week, Libby twice more discussed Valerie Wilson with Miller. And on July 10 or 11, 2003, Libby, according to the indictment, spoke to a senior White House official--identified as "Official A" and possibly White House aide Karl Rove--who told Libby that earlier in the week he (Official A) had discussed Wilson's wife and her CIA employment with Novak, who would be writing a column about her.

If the indictment is correct, Libby was not only in the loop regarding Valerie Wilson and her connection to the CIA; he had helped to create it. Yet Fitzgerald's indictment quotes Libby declaring over and over he only had heard--and passed along--scuttlebutt received from other reporters. To prop up this cover story, Libby told the FBI agents that it had been NBC News' Tim Russert who had said to him that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA and that "all the reporters knew it." Russert told the grand jury that he had not discussed Wilson's wife with Libby and that in this particular conversation Libby had complained to him about an MSNBC reporter (who goes unnamed in the indictment).

Libby appears to have concocted a rather clumsy cover story, especially in that he pointed to a specific reporter as his source--Russert--for the information on Valerie Wilson that he shared with Miller and Cooper. A reasonable assumption is that even if Libby was not a source for the Novak column that identified Valerie Wilson, he was attempting to distance himself--and perhaps Cheney--from the administration's effort to find and leak information on Wilson and his wife (even if it might be classified) to undercut Wilson's criticism. During the press conference, Fitzgerald noted that Libby was the first official who talked to a reporter about Valerie Wilson when he discussed her with Miller on June 23, 2003.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on the CIA leak affair and other in-the-news matters.

*******

Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby seems rather tight. Libby said he knew nothing about Wilson's wife except what he had heard from reporters. Fitzgerald has compiled what looks like solid evidence that Libby was actively collecting information on Joseph Wilson and his wife. And if this case goes to trial, possible witnesses for the prosecution include Russert, Fleischer, Grossman, Libby's principle deputy, a CIA briefer, Official A, and Cheney. Libby could be sentenced up to 30 years if found guilty of all counts. Libby, the first senior White House official to be indicted since the Ulysses Grant administration, is in serious legal trouble.

Is anyone else? Fitzgerald's grand jury expired on Friday. But he has asked the presiding judge to keep a grand jury available for him because he has not completed his investigation. His probe, he said at the press conference, is "not quite done." Then he quickly added, "But I don't want to add to a feverish pitch. It's very, very routine that you keep a grand jury available for what you might need." He noted that the "substantial bulk of the work" has been completed. But he said, "Let's let the process take place."

How to read this? Not over, but mostly finished. Fitzgerald seemed a man who was rather close to the end of a long and tough endeavor, and he yielded no hint of any indictments to come. He certainly did not signal or say, "Stay tuned."

Does that mean this leak investigation could end only with Libby indicted--not for participating in the leak but for lying about his pre-leak actions? That's possible. And Fitzgerald, sticking to the rules of grand jury investigations, refused to reveal any information about the case that was not included in the indictment. Who were Novak's sources for the leak? Fitzgerald wouldn't say. Is Official A a new name for Mr. X--the term used by reporters to refer to Novak's original source? Fitzgerald didn't say. Might Rove be Official A? Fitzgerald didn't say. Why did the leak refer to Valerie Wilson by her maiden name of Plame? Fitzgerald didn't say. What sort of cooperation did Fitzgerald receive from Novak (who presumably spilled all to Fitzgerald, otherwise he would have landed in the slammer like Miller)? Fitzgerald didn't say. Was Cheney in cahoots with Libby regarding the latter's false testimony? Fitzgerald didn't say. How much damage was done to the CIA and its operations by the leak? Fitzgerald didn't say. What about George W. Bush? What did he know about Rove's involvement in the leak and when did he know it? No reporter at the press conference even asked about this.

Fitzgerald did not share much beyond the information he had to disclose in order to indict Libby. He did declare that "the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified...but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community" and that "her cover was blown" by the Novak column. (So much for the goofy rightwing conspiracy theory that I colluded with Joseph Wilson after the Novak column to out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA operative. If you don't know about that, don't ask.) And he passionately countered the pre-indictment criticism from Republicans and others who argued that bringing perjury and obstruction of justice charges--rather than accusing anyone of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or other laws that apply to leaking classified information--would be a cheap shot or an act of prosecutorial overreaching. He explained that he and his investigators were assigned the job of investigating the unauthorized disclosure of classified information and determining if any laws--not one particular statute, such as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act--were violated. In such an inquiry, he said, "fine distinctions" are critical, and consequently, it is "important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth." In this probe, that included Libby.

Fitzgerald indicated he had considered the possibility of charging leakers with violating the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime for government officials to disseminate classified information--to unauthorized individuals. Using the Espionage Act in this manner, some media and legal experts have claimed, would lead to an Official Secrets Act, but Fitzgerald said he didn't accept that analysis. Still, he called this act "a difficult statue to interpret." And he chose not to indict anyone--yet--for violating it. He also defended his choice to pursue Miller and Cooper and to seek Miller's imprisonment, citing a special need for their testimony. ("I do not think that a reporter should be subpoenaed anything close to routinely," he said.) When asked about detractors who have accused him of being partisan, he replied, "for which party?"

Fitzgerald knows far more than what is in the Libby indictment. But the American public may never learn what he has uncovered. There might be no further indictments, and Fitzgerald dismissed the idea of writing a final report. He said that he does not have the authority to issue such a document--and that he does not believe a special counsel should have that authority. Independent counsels used to have the obligation to craft a final report that detailed their investigation and findings and explained decisions to prosecute and not prosecute. But the independent counsel law expired, and Fitzgerald is operating as a special counsel pursuant to Justice Department rules that do not provide for the production of a final report and that do compel prosecutors to keep grand jury material that is not used for an indictment or trial confidential. Feeling the reporter's pain, Fitzgerald remarked, "I know that people want to know whatever it is we know....We just can't do that....We either charge someone or we don't talk about them."

Which means that after the government has paid for a two-year investigation, the public may be left in the dark about much of what happened in the leak case. The leakers may never be held accountable. Rove's role, Bush's knowledge, Cheney's potential involvement--all of that could remain a secret, even though Fitzgerald has apparently dug deep and unearthed much of the tale. When a reporter asked Fitzgerald if he had learned how Washington works, he replied, "Yes," and said no more.

The Libby indictment does stand as a significant development. Libby was an influential aide for an influential veep in an administration that has often been accused of lying to get its way--such as during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. And he has been charged with putting himself above the law and undermining an investigation initiated by his administration's Justice Department. On January 22, 2001, Bush, while swearing in the new White House staff, said, "We must remember the high standards that come with high office. This begins with careful adherence to the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct. This means avoiding even the appearance of problems. This means checking and, if need be, double-checking that the rules have been obeyed. This means never compromising those rules....We are all accountable to one another. And above all, we are all accountable to the law and to the American people."

Libby, who quickly resigned after the indictment was released, has fallen. But Rove, who also leaked classified information by passing information on Wilson's wife to Cooper and Novak, has violated White House rules and Bush's self-proclaimed standards, if not the law itself. He has not been held accountable yet, and that task may be beyond Fitzgerald's reach. Nor have Bush and Rove explained why the White House misled the public when it denied Rove and Libby were involved in the leak. Neither have accepted responsibility for that. As for Libby, Bush, in a brief statement, said he was "saddened" by the news of his indictment. He said nothing about the ethical standards of his White House.

In politics and policy, lying is not always illegal. And it's easy to see why officials in this White House might think they can escape being held accountable for prevaricating. But Libby seems to have lied to the wrong guy in the wrong forum. "Truth is the engine of our judicial system," Fitzgerald declared while explaining the gravity of the Libby indictment. And this is a grave indictment. It just doesn't answer many grave questions that still remain in the CIA leak affair.

Comments (268)

1. Funny how you libs suddenly think that Perjury and Obstruction of Justice is serious. Only this time it was'nt from the President himself as it was in Clintons case. Your Hypocrisy is crystal clear, and I am note defending Libby or lying or perjury but lets look back shall we...

   Bill Clinton should have been indicted, and not over an e-mail,like Scooter Libby has been but rather for preparing a false affidavit, having his lawyer introduce it into evidence, testifying to its truthfulness etc... He did all of that obstructing justice, multiple acts of perjury, conspiracy and contempt. Bill Clinton conducted an entire attempt to obstruct justice and lie, and he did lie under oath. That was the president of the United States, and he was not indicted. These were premeditated. They were central to the sex harassment case and Clinton never disputed.

   In this case the underlying issue was whether Plame was covert, whether she was outed, thereby endangering her and national security. This Libby indictment doesn't even deal with what this special counsel's investigation was about. Robert Ray concluded that Hillary Clinton lied repeatedly about her role in the travel office firings, not the Rose Law Firm billing records, but he decided not to charge, even though he concluded she lied under oath. Now, Hillary is said to be a terrific senator. She's going to run for her party's presidential nomination, all is well.

   Is anything wrong with this picture to you Libs? And Hillary did conceal those Rose Law Firm billing records for two years in the private residence of the White House and didn't know how they got there. Libby didn't do any of this.

   Whatever.

   By the way did anyone see Cindy Sheehan at the National Press Club. It was pathetic. There were like 4 people in an audience of 200 empty seats. It was classic

   Posted by jzimm at 10/28/2005 @ 8:14pm

2. By the way did anyone see Cindy Sheehan at the National Press Club. It was pathetic. There were like 4 people in an audience of 200 empty seats. It was classic

   Sorry, pal. You're grasping at straws.

   What in the hell does Cindy Sheehan (or the Clintons, for that matter) have to do with this situation? A deliberate outing of an agent is somehow tantamount to...what??

   I'm sure that the Free Republic would appreciate your warped logic better than most rational, sane people.

   Posted by simplefolk at 10/28/2005 @ 8:24pm

3. What in the hell does Cindy Sheehan (or the Clintons, for that matter) have to do with this situation? A deliberate outing of an agent is somehow tantamount to...what?? Read the poster's comment from the top. I clearly see the relevancy of the comparison being made. There's a huge deal being made about this, but somehow the same rules that were violated now were taken so lightly then.

   Posted by anonymous1234 at 10/28/2005 @ 8:58pm

4. Q: Since when does any demo care about anyone in the CIA?

   A: Only when there is a possible route to destroy GWB.

   Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 9:10pm

5. Hey "Jism", You guys are a bunch of arrogant, amoral, criminal losers. I drink a toast your collective idiocy.

   HaHaHa. It ain't over yet, trashbag!

   My best always,

   Bloppy

   Posted by bloppy at 10/28/2005 @ 9:12pm

6. What Fitzgerald has done is hold one person accontable for what is probably the doings of many. He's a professional and won't go where people like Starr went, and that's to his credit. I find it interesting that those who frequently critizise Bill Clinton at every opportunity appear not to notice how free they always were to voice those criticisms: to launch similiar rhetoric against the Bush regime comes with a price tag, and Valerie Plame paid for it.

   Posted by observer5 at 10/28/2005 @ 9:14pm

7. In this case the underlying issue was whether Plame was covert, whether she was outed, thereby endangering her and national security. This Libby indictment doesn't even deal with what this special counsel's investigation was about.

   JZIMM the indictment states..."At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003 Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA and her employment was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community".

   Posted by jmhn at 10/28/2005 @ 9:22pm

8. The last two administrations have had so many people whom the press repeatedly referred to as very bright. And yet these people have made so many foolish decisions. Is it simple arrogance or is it that these are people of mediocre intelligence trying to handle jobs beyond their reach? Lying is what stupid people do when they are unable to deal otherwise with the facts as they are. Libby is not a smart man. The next few weeks and months will let us know how many more geniuses in this administration are more than a little duller than they have appeared.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/28/2005 @ 9:25pm

9. Mr. Corn wrote:

   (So much for the goofy rightwing conspiracy theory that I colluded with Joseph Wilson after the Novak column to out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA operative. If you don't know about that, don't ask.)

   Aw, c'mon, David! Don't you know that if Limbaugh or Hannity or Coulter spews it, toe-the-line Bushies obediently lick it up like it were maple syrup?

   And he passionately countered the pre-indictment criticism from Republicans and others who argued that bringing perjury and obstruction of justice charges--rather than accusing anyone of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or other laws that apply to leaking classified information--would be a cheap shot or an act of prosecutorial overreaching.

   Hmmmm, yet these two charges were apparently A-OK with them in regard to the Whitewater investigation. Again, hypocrisy and double standards reign with this flip-flopping administration.

   USAPride,

   Regarding your baseless CIA comment, I saw the film "The Recruit" at the theatre, which was released right after Bush & Co. unleashed their lies-based, terrorism-fueling war, and there was this shot where Colin Farrel drives to the CIA and the sign at the turn-in read, "The George Bush Center for Intelligence", and 3/4s of the audience -- including myself -- howled with laughter.

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/28/2005 @ 9:35pm

10. Two years of wasting my money and nothing to prove.

    Doesn't this piss any of you lefters off?

    I know it did when it was about BJ on the same sort of charges.

    Why the change of heart?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 9:35pm

11. So Clinton got a knob job big deal i believe that was his business. but when you start a war on lies and know your lying you should be punished. i am just joe schmoe average american, and the rest of us americans know the war was based on lies and we traded over 2000 young lives for what? oil of course.Follow the money its that simple. i believe with the indictment of libby its only the beginning. i believe alot of neocons heads are gonna roll. you dont think ol scooter is gonna shoulder the blame. From the 2000 election. to the fleecing of the american people this corrupt administration needs to pay the piper. Its a shame we know they lie, the senate knows they lie, and the represenatives know it, but nobody in either party will stand up for the people and stop it.I say grow some balls and start impeachment proceedings.

    Posted by snuffy47 at 10/28/2005 @ 9:37pm

12. KC: That was a movie. Need I say more.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 9:38pm

13. TJBEHRENS1

    I've encountered some very intelligent that have lied to my face.

    Posted by jmhn at 10/28/2005 @ 9:38pm

14. SNUFFY: You are living in 2000.

    If the war was started based on lies, make sure you include BJ and all those who said the same thing in the past.

    Lefters. Gotta luv 'em.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 9:42pm

15. Regarding the Clinton accusations - it's history. They impeached him, they embarassed him and his wife and his daughter. And they did it because, in the Newt's words, "we can." The exposure of Valerie Wilson has placed at risk every person she's had contact with in the performance of her duties at the CIA. This was done for the pettiest of reasons by someone imbued with the arrogance of power. And for what?

    Posted by TimCLS at 10/28/2005 @ 9:46pm

16. No - "they" didn't embarrass him and his family.

    He did!

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 9:48pm

17. Two years of wasting my money and nothing to prove.

    Doesn't this piss any of you lefters off?

    Yes, it indeed does.

    I know it did when it was about BJ on the same sort of charges.

    And I know it didn't with people like yourself.

    Oh, and the movie and your previous comment do indeed have something in common: fiction.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/28/2005 @ 9:50pm

18. TICMLS,

    Don't waste your time trying to reacquaint our visitors from the right about recent history. Their protective bubble is impervious to facts.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/28/2005 @ 9:50pm

19. Mr. Corn, I very rarely watch Fox "news," but happened to be in a tavern one day and saw you talking about the Plame case, Beneath the screen was a scroll that said something to the effect that you were (maybe) behind the leak. I was stunned, but I really shouldn't have been. Those lying jackasses will try anything . . . though it is kind of thrilling, in a frightening way, to watch our American Pravda operate. Keep up the good work!

    Posted by Timnich at 10/28/2005 @ 9:51pm

20. David Corn's overview of remaining issues and questions seems accurate, if attenuated. One question today's indictment did answer however, definitively I think, was What was the Judy Wilson case all about?

    She was asking Libby to put her release to testify in writing because she knew he knew what she said would send him to jail.

    Which is what happened. Libby writes the letter, with the strange ending a clumsy-sounding, methinketh almost too-blatant, appeal not to poison the roots of the aspen clump and make the leaves all go brown, wink, wink … as if to confirm the name of the game was "help us out if you can, bitch". Which she couldn't. So, contradictory testimony she gives. Indictment of Libby's immediately ensues. It's what Fitzgerald needed, which is why he had her imprisoned, a serious thing to do.

    Does this not wrap that up? It clarifies other's roles at the New York Times (Keller didn't know all), but raises this further grave question. What included her in the loop of those leaked to? -- if it wasn't her links to the OSP Pentagon people, pro-war neocon Safire-Brooks-/editorial factions, who could be counted on to cover up for each other in hyping the case for war.

    Posted by jones at 10/28/2005 @ 9:52pm

21. TIMCLS,

    I hate to agree with USAPride on anything, but he is indeed right: Clinton did himself in. He should have just admitted the sex, and said to the public, "Hey, I'm a Washington politician who had an extramarital affair. It was a mistake, it was wrong, and I admit it.", and nary a thing would have come of it. (Actually, I've read where Clinton did indeed want to just admit to it, but he listened to his dumb-ass advisors -- just like Al Gore asininely did when he wanted to request a recount of the whole state of Florida but settled only on specific counties. I say: Screw the advisors.)

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/28/2005 @ 9:55pm

22. KC: Please, it did matter to me when it was about BJ.

    I remember watching that damned thing day after day and being so pissed off. This was the POTUS and he's forced into this circus.

    His conduct was wrong, but he had more important things to tend to.

    This is the same way I feel about the bs that is going on with GWB.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 10:10pm

23. "Which means that after the government has paid for a two-year investigation, the public may be left in the dark about much of what happened in the leak case. The leakers may never be held accountable. Rove's role, Bush's knowledge, Cheney's potential involvement--all of that could remain a secret, even though Fitzgerald has apparently dug deep and unearthed much of the tale. When a reporter asked Fitzgerald if he had learned how Washington works, he replied, "Yes," and said no more. "---David Corn

    I know how much this must have pained Mr Corn. He really hoped that this would be the start of Rove's fall, followed quickly by Cheney and Bush.

    And of course "questions remain"...will be the title or atleast subject of his next book, where no possibility of Rove or Cheney or possibly Bush's innocence in the matter will be raised.

    Naive to think that?....yet again, isn't "innocent until PROVEN guilty" one of the things that "The Nation" demanded for those at Gitmo?

    Or is the stereotype of the "hypocritical liberal"...not a stereotype?

    Posted by Mask at 10/28/2005 @ 10:11pm

24. The Bushies do indeed see the irony, Frank; they just choose to ignore this as an "inconvenient fact" -- just like they do flip-flopping Bush lying this country into war. Keep them deficit-contributing tax cuts and don't-let-'dem-gays-marry policy agendas a'comin', though, and dead and maimed soliders don't seem too much of a big thing in light of this.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/28/2005 @ 10:12pm

25. The point ins't Clinton's misconduct vs' Libby's. Clinton lied, yes...at least that's what the House of Representatives determined when it indicted him (and I guess when the prosecutor laid down the charge). But there exists such a gulf bewteen these two instances of "lying" that it amazes me when conservatives and administration supporters say there isn't and say..."What about Bill Clinton...he commited perjury." It's one thing to be baited into a lie, to be asked repeatedly to answer a question when the "questioners" know they have finally arrived at the singluar question -- or the general topic -- about which most people would lie...somewhat like the old "do-you-still-beat-your-wife" question. In Clinton's case, he had arrived at point where his questioners had obsesively sought to "make" him lie (not literally, of course, the lie is his and his alone and it was wrong). Clinton's questioners -- basically his political opponents -- spent years backing him into that particular corner and they did so, not because they cared about an alleged vistim of sexual harassment or because they cared about justice for the victim (and this is true also as regards Monica Lewinsky). Those who pushed the Jones "case" cared only about getting to Clinton or gettng him to lie, which they did (and wow, I bet they're proud of themselves..what a shining moment!) Libby, on the other hand, appears to have lied as part of a political strategy in support of a military action and, as Corn rightly contends, to "...to undermine a critic of the administration..." This is a lie of a very different breed. It is a lie that portends a almost unpatriotic disrespect for our American and Constitutional principles. Namely, that if you believe our gov't is acting wrongly, your duty -- yes, duty -- as an American is to challenge the gov't. To the as yet unproven extent that this is why Libby lied -- to protect those improper gov't attempts to undermine a critic and deflect discovery of those "un-American" actions, the lies of Clinton and the lies of Libby are not and never will be equivilent. We need to fight a war against terrorism, yes, but if one of the strategies of fighting that war is to attack those fellow citizens (no matter what their motive) who disagree with you and to use gov't office to do it, then terrorism will, in the long run be the least of our problems. Terrorism, like Communism, cannot and will not win out. People, even religous zealtots (be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other religon), will only tolerate being cannon fodder for so long. But if, in winning the war on terrorism, we let slide even some of the bedrock principles of our Republic, in the end we will have spent far too much to win. What should be said here is that poor Lewis Libby -- who I guess under all this is probably a decent guy and a commited public servant -- missed an important lesson of history. If you are playing a role in taking the American nation to war, being truthful to the American people is the single most important rule. Johnson, among others, forgot this, Nixon did too and Bush and his surrogates seem, in this instance, to also also be missing that point. It's not about whether we should be fighting a war -- 9/11 demands a response -- but this Iraq war, right or wrong, was not sold to the American people with the degree of truth it should have been. So Sheehan does play into this if only as a "player" in the Shakespearean sense. But she's only a symbol -- albeit maybe a poor one -- of a frustration over not being told the whole truth or being told only enough of the truth as defined by people who, as public servants, really don't get to decide how much truth we deserve...the whole truth is the only acceptable answer. So, Clinton lied, yes. But what was the cost to America. Libby -- and to date he's the only one we know about -- lied too. However, the cost of his lies in defense of other lesser truths about why we needed to go to war (Niger) will likely have a very measurable cost. I feel sorry for Libby...he was just "doing his job" but somebody was directing him -- even if only by setting expections -- about what that job was and therein lies the problem.

    Posted by Paine at 10/28/2005 @ 10:18pm

26. FRANK: Very good post.

    I don't agree with the reach: BJ vs TROOPS DEAD.

    Be honest; it is a reach to compare. Doesn't this cheapen all those lost lives?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 10:20pm

27. Wow great site-lots of peeps from both sides. OK. IMHO both the Clinton and Bush administratin have blood on their hands for different things. And both have, now, justice proceedings and perjury charges. Clinton lied about blow-jobs and no one died from that as I recall. Scooter- and whoever else may end up snared in the net- lied about outing a NOC, and as a result a whole operation ( which was tracing oil money used to procure WMD- a good thing) was rolled up and all the contacts made over years- the people/contacts/sources in those other countries were immediately at risk for their very lives- my source on this is the interview on the radio with a lawyer and CIA analyist who says a "post mortem" (that's what they call it) was done on the Bruster Jennings affair and people died.

    So I'm think it's kinda two different things. Like apples and hand-grenades.

    Posted by Aesop at 10/28/2005 @ 10:27pm

28. I don't agree with the reach: BJ vs TROOPS DEAD.

    Be honest; it is a reach to compare. Doesn't this cheapen all those lost lives?

    (rolls eyes)

    Excuse me. Clinton lied about sex, and no one died because of it; Bush lied the country into a war, and thousands of our troops are maimed and killed. A "reach to compare"? Well, you'd like to think so since the consequences are so drastically different, but a lie's consequences, regardless, are still consequences of a lie.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/28/2005 @ 10:31pm

29. FRANK: It is critical to not ignore that every intel in the world was on the same page regarding wmd.

    Yes, this was BJ, GORE, KERRY, CONGRESS, BRITIAN, FRANCE, GERMANY, THE UN, THE BOY SCOUTS AND BART SIMPSON.

    But for some reason, when GWB joined the bandwagon - everything changed. Get the point...

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 10:36pm

30. USAPRIDE et al - You guys are outdoing yourselves, in full deflection mode. Bringing up Clinton's shenanigans is a patently obvious attempt to change the subject. What does his blow job and lies about same have to do with the current situation? Your beloved administration just took a gigantic kick in the balls. Yes, it could have been worse - but it's still pretty bad. Whatever you think about it, how unjust it was, how petty, how unthinkable, how silly - it happened. Your beloved leader has crapped his pants and the smell is becoming obvious.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/28/2005 @ 10:36pm

31. To all those who say: two years of investigation and all that Fitzgerald found was perjury and obstruction of justice; I say perhaps if Libby hadn't been so busy committing perjury and obstructing justice, this case would have been wrapped up a long time ago.

    Posted by bluelaser at 10/28/2005 @ 10:40pm

32. USAPRIDE - Take of your blinders man! Have you read 'The March of Folly' by Barbara Tuchman? She highlights several historical events in which the authorities made terrible decisions, despite ample contemporaneous information that indicated a different course of action was advisable. There is significant evidence that the Bush administration consistently went with an extreme interpretation of intel and ignored the caveats, the "on the other hands". Bush and his staff wanted to invade Iraq well before 9/11 handed them a pretext. Why is it so important for you to keep your head in the sand? Bush is a man, he is not God, he is not the second coming of Christ. Why must you insist on not admitting even a single blemish?

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/28/2005 @ 10:42pm

33. UsaPride,

    Thanks for giving me another opportunity to post this regarding WMDs. It's in the form of a questioning I'd use on Bush if I had him on the stand. Again, thanks.

    "Why did you state that Iraq possessed UAVS that could launch a chemical attack on the U.S. when the leading experts in this field, the Air Force (and that's our Air Force), concluded before the war that the compartments weren't big enough to hold the necessary amount of chemicals and the UAVs' maximum range was only 300 miles? What intel did you possess that apparently outweighed that of the Air Force -- who, mind you, turned out to be right? Why did you say that a '98 IAEA report stated that Iraq could be 6 months away from acquiring a nuclear bomb, when the '98 report stated no such thing? An IAEA report before the first Gulf War did state "6 to 24 months". You didn't conveniently leave out "...to 24 months" and pre-Gulf War I so people would get the impression of "6 months away" in '98 when it was actually "6 to 24 months away" before the first Gulf War?"

    "Why did you say that Hussein acquiring aluminum tubes was proof of their rebuilding their nuclear program when the IAEA and others concluded -- again, before the war -- that the tubes weren't thick enough to serve as nuclear centrifuges. What intel did you possess that bettered this other intel from experts -- that, again turned out to be right? (And, uh, Georgie boy, this wasn't exactly a covert acquisition: the order for the tubes was available over the Internet.)"

    "Why did you say that British intelligence had learned that Hussein was acquired yellowcake from Niger without including that Joseph Wilson -- who was sent by the CIA to look into a matter that Dick Cheney wanted investigated -- concluded that no such acquisition took place? Why was the British intelligence given more weight than the CIA's? Oh, and while we're at it, why would Hussein have wanted to acquire uranium when his facility for enriching it, according to ex-U.N. inspector/Republican Scott Ritter, was destroyed in the mid-'90s? After all, non-fully-enriched uranium is about as harmful as baking flour, don't you know."

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/28/2005 @ 10:44pm

34. Mr. Corn,

    What about the possibility that Mr. Fitzgerald held off on indicting Rove, hoping to leverage Libby to testify against him? 30 years is a pretty strong stick. And as much as people like to make of Libby's loyalty, like most conservative traits, it is applicable only when convenient. Of course, the presidential pardon is only a few years away...

    Posted by cbrown at 10/28/2005 @ 10:46pm

35. Bush either lied or was criminally incompetent. I'm not sure that the distinction interests me all that much. In fact, it could really be that he believed (and still believes) all this horseshit he hears from his staff. After all, some of you folks here believe in the tooth fairy, oh, I'm sorry, I meant Orloff the Redeemer or whatever you call Him these days.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/28/2005 @ 10:46pm

36. FISH: Let's be clear. The only reason I am bringing up BJ is to say how i thought it was bullshit to drag the POTUS thru that.

    My point is that there are far greater important issues to address then and now.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 10:46pm

37. FREIHEIT,

    It's probably not possible to connect the dots into a perfect picture. But the statements that were tossed out by W's people were so random and so outlandish, that we on the left have to view them as something beyond just goofs. Rumsfeld blustered that he knew where the weapons were. Powell turned almost everything picked up by spy planes into the makings of WWIII. And the nuke stuff, repeated ad infinitum. All the while the people who were actually on the ground, looking for what Rumsfeld knew was there and Powell envisioned was there, found no evidence of mushroom cloud making material.

    Were you not offended by their consistently erroneous bluster? Do you have faith that they will continue to make good decisions in stressful international situations? Can you trust their recommendations on which countries threaten us?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/28/2005 @ 10:48pm

38. Freiheit - There was proof on Agnew too, should the left wingers bring that up every time there's a lull! I know you miss all the fun you had, beating up on Clinton and saving the republic. It's over now, so please deal with the present.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/28/2005 @ 10:49pm

39. Last night on a "Law and Order" rerun, the episode concerned a man who had manufactured a saline solution and sold it on the black market as a flue vaccine. The product was bought by distributers and administered by doctors to patients who believed they were getting flueshots. Several people died. True they were already weakened and vulnerable to the flue, but that is why they went to their doctors for the shots, and had they gotten real vaccine they would most likely be alive.

    The man who manufactured and sold the saline solution as flue vaccine was charged with 17 counts of manslaughter. The argument was that he should have forseen the consequences of what he was doing. He was convicted, the sentences to be served sequentially.

    Has anyone in a foreign country died because Valerie Plame was outed? People who work with CIA agents take serious risks to work with CIA agents. The risk is forseeable and it is to be expected that those who outed Valerie Plame checked that they were not putting lives at risk by their actions. Even if the law concerning outing CIA agents was not broken, there is the question of how close to manslaughter was the action of outing Valerie Plame.

    Posted by Randy Boehm at 10/28/2005 @ 10:50pm

40. I'm out of here - bye for now.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/28/2005 @ 10:50pm

41. I think most Americans are baffled by the coverage this is getting. "Scooter" Libby? An "outed" CIA agent? It just doesn't pack much dramatic punch. I find it fascinating that there seems to be absolutely no mention on your website of the revelations concerning the Oil-for-food scandal, or the Iranian President's astounding statement that he wishes Israel to be wiped off the earth. The subtext to those omissions is revealing, and disturbing.

    Posted by Damiens at 10/28/2005 @ 10:54pm

42. I am still trying to absorb everything from the indictment and press conference, but I have to say that this is a very good piece by David Corn. There are certainly a lot of unanswered questions, and unfortunately this is the way things usually play out in Washington. Whatever happens, I tend to agree with one point my father (a fiscal conservative and Reagan Republican) takes from this: In 2000, Bush ran on a platform based on bringing honesty to the White House. These events show that deception, lies and dirty politics are not confined to Democrats, and that the Bush Administration has, at a minimum, neutralized the issue. This does not make the Democrats any more honest in his mind, but shows that Republicans can be rats too.

    I think any objective mind can look at Libby's involvement (set forth in the indictment and fleshed out nicely by Corn) and see that there is no way that he was "not involved" in the leak, as initially claimed by the WH. Whether a prosecutor is ever able to show a violation of national security laws in a court of law is irrelevant in the court of public opinion. Sure it is largely circumstantial evidence that requires inferences to determine actual intent, but I suspect most objective people viewing this chronology have a good idea of exactly what was going on.

    As for Rove's fate, as well as anybody else's, the saga continues. If proof of intent is never determined with the legal exactness required, at a minimum, it nonetheless shows that Libby, Rove, Cheney, and other WH officials chose politics over at least using caution in protecting our security interests. Some might say these guys would have been better suited to attack Wilson's opinions on the merits, and to bring his wife's status in was just a terrible miscalculation. But these people are not stupid. Evidence sufficient in a court of law or not, they had to have known that they were dealing with sensitive information (and anybody still claiming Plame was not covert, read the indictment), but they used it for their advantage anyway.

    One final thing thing I did find interesting is why Fitzgerald devoted any time to discuss the Espionage Act and how it was "a difficult statue to interpret." It is reading tea leaves (which he warned us not to do), but why would he talk about the statute and his feelings on its proper interpretation at all? Perhaps he is leaving himself an out for any future criticism he may get if no more indictments come. Or maybe he is laying the groundwork for using the statute in a broader way than some commentators believe is appropriate. Again, who knows?

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2005 @ 11:00pm

43. Frank: Sorry to make you yell. Good thing I've got Zeppy on in the background to drown you out.

    Here's a thought - not an excuse - a thought.

    After 9/11 everybody was asking, why didn't GWB connect the dots. after all, there were so many signs of danger.

    Are you left-outs saying ther wasn't any "signs" from the insane one in Iraq that we should, well, connect the dots.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 11:02pm

44. I just finished reading the linked article on The Nation homepage to tomdispatch.com, "A Former Prosecutor Reacts...". It doesn't answer some of the questions we might have about the status of the investigation (how can anyone know), but it does lay out a logical series of things to expect.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/28/2005 @ 11:05pm

45. Night all.

    Thanks for your time.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 11:23pm

46. Damiens, so as far as you're concerned this is just a piddling little "perjury technicality" or whatever idiotic alibi du jour Republicans and Bush Bootlickers would like to provide for an individual who may have jeopardized national security and then lied to a grand jury?

    The Oil-for-food scandal is really that important to you? I'm sure the Republicans would like anything at this point to distract from the deluge of lies and deception they've been feeding the American public and the world for the last several years.

    Tell you what, you go ahead and investigate the politicians and the 2,200 foreign and U.S. companies that Paul Volcker has identified with this scandal. That ought to keep you busy for a long time. And don't forget to include Tom DeLay's oil company political campaign contributors, Coastal Corp. and Bayoil, just two of the U.S companies that no doubt are just as crooked and corrupt as the entire Republican Party.

    And just so you need a reminder, the "Scooter" Libby indictment is about a high ranking Bush operative who lied and lied and lied some more because he thought, like the rest of the Republican leadership who are under investigation, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Karl Rove, Stephen Hadley and others, they were above the law for which they have shown nothing but contempt.

    I can see why you're baffled about the Libby indictment when you stated, "I think most Americans are baffled by the coverage this is getting." No, it's not the majority of Americans who are baffled, it's the entire corrupt, corrosive anti-American, anti-U.S. Constitution Republican Party who are not only baffled but they're just as clueless if they think this investigation will end with Libby. The truth is, both Bush and Cheney knew of this coverup from the get-go and the reason they stonewalled it for the last two years is that they believed they could break the law with impunity.

    But baffled isn't the word that I would use to describe Bush today as he walked up to the microphone to give a brief statement on Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby before he took his sorry, cowardly ass away. He disappeared just as quickly today as he did after 9/11 when at that time he disappeared for three days, afraid to answer any questions in front of the American citizens. The best way to describe the look on his face was that he looked more like a deer caught in the headlights and one who was about to crap in his pants.

    Posted by richard38 at 10/28/2005 @ 11:35pm

47. Yeah....leaking confidential information, lying about bogus intel, using that to inflame the nation and start a war, connecting unconnected events [Sadaam, 9/11], hidden "secret" energy meetings (that involved Iraq & Afghanistan oil fields per FOIA docs released)

    Jeez, good thing no one got a blow-job. They might have really gotten into trouble then!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 10/29/2005 @ 12:18am

48. Well, FREIHEIT, American success in Iraq will be defined differently by the left and the right. The right found success after two months in Iraq, then it went away. Then they found it again when the first constitution was drawn up and then it went away again. Then there was success when Bremer left, then not. Then the vote, then not. Then the new constitution.

    For the left, so many dead, so much added to the deficit, so much lost diplomatic "capital" means that success is going to have to be pulled from an enormous dung pile. We'll see.

    As for the evilness of the administration, I allow myself to think they are not bright enough to think of such things as planting evidence. It's simplistic on my part, but my assumption is correct more often than not.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/29/2005 @ 12:23am

49. MBB,

    Were it possible for an entire administration to be impeached, I think there is ample evidence. Bush spoke in bland generalities for the most part, which is why the yellowcake remark stood out in the 2003 SOTU address. I know my bias, but I also found it more rational to listen to a cautious Hans Blix then a loudmouth Donald Rumsfeld.

    Not to mention: impeachment? with these democrats? What a safety net to have such incompetent adversaries.

    Nighty-night. Have a good weekend, all.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/29/2005 @ 12:39am

50. Clinton was impeached for saying, "I did not have sex with this woman." It had more to do with a semantic disagreement over the definition of "sex" and what "is" is. He seemed to believe that anything short of intercourse didn't qualify as sex. Of course, he was wrong for what he did, but we were more appalled by the "Shock and Awe" of a sitting President being grilled on National TV, before our children, before the World, over the details of a consensual affair between a sitting President and a floozy intern, than by his trying to wheedle his way out of it. The World was laughing at us for being so Puritanical. Many presidents have had their little affairs. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy … All Great Men … Nixon certainly wasn't one of them and we all know that Dubya doesn't have a brain to use even if he wanted to use it.

    We're talking "Big Time" here. In the run-up to the "Shock and Awe" War in Iraq, this Administration was fixing the facts around the evidence to justify the goal of invading a sovereign nation which we virtually installed. It's history that Rummy shook Saddam's hand and provided him weapons during the war between Iraq and Iran. It's been stated time and again that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because they were angle drilling into Iraqi oil fields and we gave him the go-ahead. None of these people are any good. They're all SOBs who are on your side today and stab you in the back tomorrow.

    But, the people who suffer are the little guys. Our proud military are losing their lives, they are so very brave, and some believe the lies. I support them, but want them to come home. Iraqis don't want occupation and America needs to protect its borders.

    How can this little digit of a draft dodger president control the Middle East and the World when he can't secure his own country or help his own people in the aftermath of a predicted hurricane … who would diddle on a guitar and go biking while people were drowning in their own homes or corralled in filthy quarters without food or water?

    I've voted for Republicans as well as Democrats, but am basically American and will vote for anyone who will bring America back to the Vision of the Framers of our Constitution. Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Now we have Cheney and Halliburton, and the no-bid contracts, and the war without end, and the torture, and the humiliation of America. This is not the America that I take pride in. Let's kick these Alien Invaders out and be the Great Nation that America was meant to be.

    Posted by cdifrances at 10/29/2005 @ 12:42am

51. So Libby will take the hit. He has to walk the plank to protect Darth Cheney. Rove somehow skated...he hired Clinton's lawyer, a damn good one. The law about exposing intelligence operatives is very narrow, and hard to prove. But it should be obvious to all that the Bush White House is a bunch of thugs, liars, and criminals.

    Posted by philbq at 10/29/2005 @ 01:18am

52. Until we get this ugly cancer of lies out of our White House, America will continue to sink.

    Posted by cdifrances at 10/29/2005 @ 01:58am

53. perhaps i'm assuming too much. but is scooter libby the son of a plumber?

    Posted by wordweaver5 at 10/29/2005 @ 02:43am

54. SNUFFY: You are living in 2000.

    If the war was started based on lies, make sure you include BJ and all those who said the same thing in the past.

    Lefters. Gotta luv 'em.

    Posted by USAPRIDE 10/28/2005 @ 9:42pm

    Somebody started a war with a BJ? I don't remember that War. And am I including all those who said that someone started a war with a BJ or am I including all those who said a war was started based on lies.

    Apparently you didn't K-Y the big head before you went sphincter diving this morning. Them high velocity rectal cheek burns are fierce.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/29/2005 @ 03:40am

55. I think pretty soon Liberals will start to see Bush's lies in grilled cheese sandwiches. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/29/2005 @ 12:20am

    Mary Mary

    That's Ham Sandwiches Dummy. You can indict a Ham Sandwich. What are we going to do with you people?

    Did I hear someone mention thorazine shuffle?

    Posted by Will C. at 10/29/2005 @ 03:46am

56. See....RESE is right....Neither Rove OR Libby is behind this...

    It's the "Cigarette Smoking Man" (William B. Davis)!

    Posted by Mask at 10/29/2005 @ 07:31am

57. These war and oil loving Neo-cons have had total control of government for 5 years. They have killed thousands, and have bankrupted America ,money and morals. There is no oversite or investigations and it finally took a honest Republican (appointed by Bush) to say no more lies. Nixon and his boys were bad and got caught.But honestly Folks, admit it The Bushies make the Nixon group look like a group of Cub Scouts and just think Nixon Had FBI Director Hoover.... Bush has the PATRIOT ACT Ya know what I mean? LOVE THE NATION !!!

    Posted by arprihoda at 10/29/2005 @ 08:18am

58. Despite all the excitement yesterday here and listening to most of the pundits and seeing the faces of the MSM(big disappointment),the sense remains that nothing has been solved here.

    1. Nobody knows whp outed Plame or even if it was a crime since it appears many new where she worked. no one charged.

    2, The charges for which the grand jury was empanneled are not addressed. Libby lied about who and when he discussed Wilson..not that he did.

    3. This has nothing to do with the huge buggaboo for for which most here exist,"BUSH LIED"or the war,... he didn't as far as conservatives maintain.This indictment supports the issue right from Fritz mouth.

    4. Rove is back at his office...working...

    5. If Libby had told the truth to the grand jury, he too, would be back at his office...working..

    6. Where does this leave the situation? The press will lead each and everyday with stories,"Indicted Bush Administration figure, Libby is being squeezed to turn on Bush, sources say,...in an attempt to move the country towards having all Gopers dragged to impeachment hearings because they are conservative.

    7. The public will pass this off as nothing really more than politics as usual.

    8. Libby will get his day in court, but he has already been found guilty by the circus outside court room. THe verdict will be only news if he is found not guilty..

    9. Fitzgerald is a straight shooter and I think he is now going to focus on Libby trial and the rest will fade away as there is nothing there.

    10. While a PR nightmare for Bush the storm has been weathered, a new SC pick will be here next week and the filibuster issue will begin.

    11. Uber left will continue to froth at the mouth and Sheehan will maybe shift into full gear with Libby as well, when her handlers at Moveon send more money.

    12. Bush will start to focus on 06 elections as base returns to fold...speaking of fold, Where are the gleeful Dems ? They are not gleeful, you will hear their talking points adnauseum on talk shows no matter what is asked, but that is business as usual.

    I will allow this..if the war in Iraq does not improve by election 08, by this I mean Iraqi carrying most of their own water, the Gop is dead at the polls..Bush has 3 years to finish this or gop is finished. If war goes well, them we may never see a real democratic party again. It will split.

    Sorry for long post but at least it is not Rese.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 09:56am

59. There is my 12 point prgram for today and I am off to football game and bloody marys....

    Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 09:58am

60. Fitz looked at Libby, Rove, et al, found nothing prosecutable except Libby lying and can't figure out why...that is where it sits. So Libby should pay the price for lying.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 10:01am

61. JOHN,

    First of all, excellent choice on your day. October Saturdays should be reserved for college football at booze.

    I think that the situation has, in some respect, reversed. Most of the right's representation here has been urging patience and avoiding jumps to conclusions. Now it seems the right wants to jump to the final conclusion: there's Libby, he lied, that's all, farewell. There is much to suggest that this will not go away quickly, even if Fitzgerald brings no further indictments. As you indicate, Libby will be pressed to wheel 'n deal. Either this leads to additional problems for the administration or, if no dealing is done, we watch even more important fellers being put under oath in a courtroom. This does not sound good, especially since the trial will probably not start until next year and will not be especially quick.

    The PR nightmare for Bush might not be the constant storm of recent weeks, but it will continue in an episodic fashion for months to come.

    If, and it's a big if, something comes of DeLay's indictment, this coupled with Libby, Iraq, and the continued stagnation of wages (awful numbers out this week for the last quarter) wil not make for a pleasant election season in '06. Throw in another bad storm season and it could be really yucky. On the plus side for the republicans, their opponents are incapable of being properly opportunistic.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/29/2005 @ 10:21am

62. Oops. I swear I haven't started drinking, but I meant "college football AND booze."

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/29/2005 @ 10:22am

63. all this talk of impeachment misses the point. it is a political process. with control of both houses of congress there is no chance that Bush will be impeached. no, the day of reckoning for Bush will come on electionday 2006. should control of the house change then, impeachment will become a possibility.

    there is another possibility, should Bush's standing go very very low, the repubs may decide they've had it with the incompetent bumbler, and in order to create distance between themselves and the loser could serve up an impeachment.

    in another, perhaps more democratic country, england, they fired the prime minister Churchill right after the end of the war, go figure

    Posted by johannesrolf at 10/29/2005 @ 11:52am

64. Where to start? So many misconceptions, twisting of facts, deliberate distortions, and seemingly hallucinogenic produced illusions of left wing victories.

    1. As Fitzgerald stated himself, no one should look to this investigation or the indictments as proving their view on the Iraq war, pro or con. It has nothing to do with it!

    2. Libby has been indicted principally because his notes he voluntarily turned over to investigators conflicted with his sworn testimony and his statements to investigators.

    3. Based upon number 2 above, Libby stands a reasonable chance of being acquitted of the charges, if he can show he did not intentionally mislead the Grand Jury or investigators.

    4. The smoking gun hallucinogenic dreams spouted here and even by some in the MSM about future indictments and the crumbling of the Bush Admin are so far removed from reality as to have a different galactic address. Some of you might want to at least read up on the constitution and some basics of criminal law.

    5. This is a very important point-Fitzgerald has declared that Valerie Plame/Wilson was not a covert agent. She had classified status which is applicable to many in the CIA. I had classified status for many years and was not allowed to discuss it, but it would not endanger me (well, except during those years we had so many Russian KGB agents in the country) or the nation. Likewise with Ms Plame.

    6. This last point has nothing to do with the investigation (although not to the libs), however, all this constant regurgitation about the Italian forged documents on Niger yellow-cake have nothing to do with our decision to go to war or the President's famous "16 words". This constant revisiting of a non-issue is a typical leftist canard. The president did not use that information in the SOTUS address. He used the British information which has been validated by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the British Butler Report. See if petty minds can absorb this: Bush spoke the truth!

    Posted by love liberty at 10/29/2005 @ 11:53am

65. You Can Kill, Just Don't Lie

    The impeachment articles in the case of Richard Nixon charged him with lying about the bombing of Cambodia but did not charge him with war crimes for the actual bombing. The bombing resulted in 600,000 dead and the destruction of much of the farmland in Cambodia driving the peasants into the open arms of the Khmer Rouge. We are witnessing the same phenomenom today as the Fitzgerald enquiry has charged Libby with perjury and obstruction of justice. He lied so he is a bad boy but not because he was a major player in all the decisions about Iraq which resulted in a multitude of war crimes.

    The discourse about the wrongdoing of President Bush focuses on his lies about his reasons for going to war against Iraq but not about the horrendous war crimes for which he is ultimately responsible. The polls, now showing that the people want him impeached, reveal that people are disgusted by the lying of President Bush but not by his war crimes.

    All of this is a reflection of a political culture in the United States that supports aggression, intervention and militarism to protect American interests. The voices of dissent are muffled by a press that supports the imperialistic rulers of the empire. The so-called opposition party, the Democrats, is of the same mind and part of a consensus that was struck very early in the history of this imperialisic republic. The explanation for the lack of critique of the President's defense and foreign policy is that Democratic presidents have embraced the same imperialistic policies.

    With the media and the opposition on board, there is virtually no prospect that there will even be a discussion about war crimes. The danger in this vacuum of any real dissent is that Americans will not demand that their presidents respect international law and institutions. Until that day, the world is not safe.

    AUTHOR OF "LYING FOR EMPIRE: HOW TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES WITH A STRAIGHT FACE"

    Posted by David Model at 10/29/2005 @ 11:58am

66. johannes,

    Impeachment is meant for high crimes and not political vendettas for a party that can not win at ballot box. Clinton soborned(sp) perjury, and lied repeatedly and he WAS the man at the top, so he was responsible.

    When liberalism is explained to voters, they reject it cold these days. Why else would Clinton run to the right and "grab" conservative issyes and points9ie., balanced budget? he never heard of one until Gop took Congress). See anybody on the Dem side jump up and down yell "progressive" slogans publicly?

    Johannes, the English were fools to dump Churchill, he saved them from learning German..

    The Repubs will do the opposite as you predict, they will RALLY to Bush, especially if he redeems himself on the SC pick. The "Bush lies" only plays in your side of the court..and the MSM. Sheehan will be linked to your side, by the way, as that is where she stands and it will kill off Dems hopes for House control..Not even Big Dems will stand next to her..

    You have had posted better posts , my friend.

    Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 12:18pm

67. Here's a great article decimating the blowhard argument that this indictment is flimsy-flamsy:

    http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/10/libbys-indictment-does-not-de pend-upon.html

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/29/2005 @ 12:50pm

68. I found Patrick Fitzgerald's public debut most impressive. But before discussing that I wish to thank David Corn, whom I believe was the first person in D.C. to point out that what happened to Valerie Plame was a crime.

    I respect Fitzgerald's professionalism and while it would be nice to know what he knows, I take him at his word for the requirement for secrecy. I know that if my name had come up indirectly in the course of his investigation, I surely wouldn't want that discussed publicly, particularly if I hadn't done anything criminal. I find it heartening to know there are public servants like Fitzgerald still around in the system.

    I also delight in this wound which the Bush administration will be carrying for some time. The trial may not start for six months and speculation will build up to and throughout it. Hopefully, if the Democrats manage to find their cojones, they should be able to choke the republicans in their own corruption.

    At any rate, David, keep up the good fight. This was your victory too!

    Posted by alec at 10/29/2005 @ 12:50pm

69. If Bush lied us into war, why isn't the left having him impeached? Please, you'll have me believe with all the fringe left hatred of Bush (not to mention ALL of Europe hating him), do you contend that it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the he knowingly and intentionally lied us into a war in Iraq, yet he's not being impeached?!

    You simply state as fact he "lied us into war." Until you can prove it, it is shelved with Area 51.

    Thanks, Freheit, for providing me the opportunity to re-post my fictional questioning of Bush that points out that he intentionally lied this country into war. Everytime people like you post the "he didn't lie", it's another time I can post this for more people to see. Thanks, man.

    "Why did you state that Iraq possessed UAVS that could launch a chemical attack on the U.S. when the leading experts in this field, the Air Force (and that's our Air Force), concluded before the war that the compartments weren't big enough to hold the necessary amount of chemicals and the UAVs' maximum range was only 300 miles? What intel did you possess that apparently outweighed that of the Air Force -- who, mind you, turned out to be right? Why did you say that a '98 IAEA report stated that Iraq could be 6 months away from acquiring a nuclear bomb, when the '98 report stated no such thing? An IAEA report before the first Gulf War did state "6 to 24 months". You didn't conveniently leave out "...to 24 months" and pre-Gulf War I so people would get the impression of "6 months away" in '98 when it was actually "6 to 24 months away" before the first Gulf War?"

    "Why did you say that Hussein acquiring aluminum tubes was proof of their rebuilding their nuclear program when the IAEA and others concluded -- again, before the war -- that the tubes weren't thick enough to serve as nuclear centrifuges. What intel did you possess that bettered this other intel from experts -- that, again turned out to be right? (And, uh, Georgie boy, this wasn't exactly a covert acquisition: the order for the tubes was available over the Internet.)"

    "Why did you say that British intelligence had learned that Hussein was acquired yellowcake from Niger without including that Joseph Wilson -- who was sent by the CIA to look into a matter that Dick Cheney wanted investigated -- concluded that no such acquisition took place? Why was the British intelligence given more weight than the CIA's? Oh, and while we're at it, why would Hussein have wanted to acquire uranium when his facility for enriching it, according to ex-U.N. inspector/Republican Scott Ritter, was destroyed in the mid-'90s? After all, non-fully-enriched uranium is about as harmful as baking flour, don't you know."

    "What you and your administration have failed to provide is the intel that apparently overrode the intel that contradicted your claims. Coincidental, isn't it, that the intel you chose to ignore is the very same intel that turned out to be right? About as believable as "compassionate conservatism", no?

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/29/2005 @ 12:59pm

70. Differences:

    One committed perjury in regards to his sex life, and the destruction one a blue dress.

    ANother committed perjury to launch an illegal war which has killed over 100k people.

    Oh.. they are the same afterall.

    Posted by Kaya at 10/29/2005 @ 1:14pm

71. Nothing is going to come of this for years. The white house and its friends will blindside any investigation with tons of documents, none of which will be conclusive.

    The issue is the criminal nature of the war. This will not be addressed by either leading party, for two reasons:

    1. Both are in it up to their necks

    2. All too many of our citizens confuse intent with actual effects. The war is criminal. Until we understand that, there will be no resolution of any of these other mini issues.

    Don't bother responding to this, I've no time for leather lunged diatribes or point by point explanations of the blatantly obvious.

    Posted by Stellarsjay at 10/29/2005 @ 1:51pm

72. With apologies to all here for the length of this post, I've posted links to this article, but am not convinced anyone has taken a look. Given all the comments from wingers that Bush didn't lie, etc., here's some extracts from an article which debunks the various pro-war arguments made by the administration. Enjoy!

    [extracted from They Knew by David Sirota and Christy Harvey August 4, 2004]

    In his first major address on the "Iraqi threat" in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, "Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." Yet, before that speech, the White House had intelligence calling this assertion into question. A 1997 report by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)--the agency whose purpose is to prevent nuclear proliferation--stated there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future. In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs." The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a subsequent press conference, Saddam Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction." Ten months before the president's speech, an intelligence review by CIA Director George Tenet contained not a single mention of an imminent nuclear threat--or capability--from Iraq. The CIA was backed up by Bush's own State Department: Around the time Bush gave his speech, the department's intelligence bureau said that evidence did not "add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what [we] consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons."

    In March 2003, Cheney went on national television days before the war and claimed Iraq "has reconstituted nuclear weapons." He was echoed by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, who told reporters of supposedly grave "concerns about Iraq's potential nuclear programs." In July 2003, Condoleezza Rice told PBS's Gwen Ifill that the administration's nuclear assertions were "absolutely supportable." That same month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted: "There's a lot of evidence showing that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

    In December 2002, Powell said, "Iraq has tried to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes which can be used to enrich uranium in centrifuges for a nuclear weapons program." Similarly, in his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush said Iraq "has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." But, in October 2002, well before these and other administration officials made this claim, two key agencies told the White House exactly the opposite. The State Department affirmed reports from Energy Department experts who concluded those tubes were ill-suited for any kind of uranium enrichment. And according to memos released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the State Department also warned Powell not to use the aluminum tubes hypothesis in the days before his February 2003 U.N. speech. He refused and used the aluminum tubes claim anyway. The State Department's warnings were soon validated by the IAEA. In March 2003, the agency's director stated, "Iraq's efforts to import these aluminum tubes were not likely to be related" to nuclear weapons deployment. Yet, this evidence did not stop the White House either. Pretending the administration never received any warnings at all, Rice claimed in July 2003 that "the consensus view" in the intelligence community was that the tubes "were suitable for use in centrifuges to spin material for nuclear weapons." Today, experts agree the administration's aluminum tube claims were wholly without merit.

    In September 2002, President Bush said Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." The next month, he delivered a major speech to "outline the Iraqi threat," just two days before a critical U.N. vote. In his address, he claimed without doubt that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons." He said that "Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons" and that the government was "concerned Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." What he did not say was that the White House had been explicitly warned that these assertions were unproved. As the Washington Post later reported, Bush "ignored the fact that U.S. intelligence mistrusted the source" of the 45-minute claim and, therefore, omitted it from its intelligence estimates. And Bush ignored the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency previously submitted a report to the administration finding "no reliable information" to prove Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons. According to Newsweek, the conclusion was similar to the findings of a 1998 government commission on WMD chaired by Rumsfeld.

    Bush also neglected to point out that in early October 2002, the administration's top military experts told the White House they "sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's Unmanned Aerial Vehicles were being designed as attack weapons." Specifically, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center correctly showed the drones in question were too heavy to be used to deploy chemical/biological-weapons spray devices. Regardless, the chemical/biological weapons claims from the administration continued to escalate. Powell told the United Nations on February 5, 2003, "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." As proof, he cited aerial images of a supposed decontamination vehicle circling a suspected weapons site. According to newly released documents in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Powell's own top intelligence experts told him not to make such claims about the photographs. They said the vehicles were likely water trucks. He ignored their warnings.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/29/2005 @ 2:40pm

73. It is interesting.

    The conclusion is that there is no underlying crime- that no violation of the law occured, except possibly as a direct result of the investigation of the non-crime.

    And it is hard to make a perjury indictment stick when there is no underlying crime.

    And since Joe Wilson "outed" his wife in 2000, in a book, no less, there is clearly no underlying crime.

    A fact which is crystal clear, since Libbey is clearly accused of being the person responsible for making this information public, by fitzgerald himself, and yet he is charged with no crime related to his actions, but only with misrepresenting them.

    It is also not clear that the alleged perjury occured. That will be decided by the courts, if this goes to trial.

    Though I wouldn't be surprised to see the matter dismissed, due to the absence of an underlying crime.

    Somewhat different from the other case, where the person accused of perjury clearly perjured himself as a means to avoid civil liability, and further the physical evidence demonstrating that he dissembled was uncontrovertable. (that blue dress thing)

    Posted by jonb at 10/29/2005 @ 2:42pm

74. I know, you rabid bush haters think the war was the underlying crime. But that wasn't in view during these proceedings.

    Posted by jonb at 10/29/2005 @ 2:43pm

75. Keep working to control the spin in the mainstream press. Maybe people will be fooled into thinking this is a big deal.

    Posted by jonb at 10/29/2005 @ 2:44pm

76. I actually heard a guy on NPR saying that the war was the underlying crime in this case. It slid out, and he didn't even correct himself.

    As Samuel Johnson said, "Incompetence is undeniably light, since arrogance can carry it all day long without distress."

    Posted by jonb at 10/29/2005 @ 2:48pm

77. JonB - Your quote from Samuel Johnson is just perfect for the Bush administration "Incompetence is undeniably light, since arrogance can carry it all day long without distress." Oh... maybe you didn't mean to apply it to Beloved Leader?

    No, Jon, how could it be a big deal when a member of the WH is indicted and resigns in disgrace? No problemo.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/29/2005 @ 2:53pm

78. It does seem to me that libbey will likely prevail in court.

    We will see.

    Expect a vigorous defense and probably some delaying tactics as well.

    Nothing to happen until after the midterm elections, while the administration spinmasters just keep pointin to the 800 piound gorilla. The total absence of any underlying crime.

    And if making news out of things which harm america is a crime, the entire MSM, and the left and rightwing press as well, should be charged, or at least unidighted co-conspirators.

    Posted by jonb at 10/29/2005 @ 2:53pm

79. Get used to hearing the words "NO EVIDENCE OF ANY UNDERLYING CRIME"

    Posted by jonb at 10/29/2005 @ 2:54pm

80. JonB - You said "if making news out of things which harm america is a crime, the entire MSM, and the left and rightwing press as well, should be charged, or at least unidighted co-conspirators"

    What are you suggesting - that publishing items that are critical of america (or whatever it might be that "harms" america) should be a crime?

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/29/2005 @ 2:56pm

81. It will actually work in the favor of the republicans. This SO LOOKS like a partisan witch hunt.

    NO EVIDENCE OF AN UNDERLYING CRIME.

    Makes the left, and the dems in particular, look like partisan hacks, trying to cripple the administration over trivialities.

    People had enough of that with Whitewater.

    Posted by jonb at 10/29/2005 @ 2:56pm

82. I tuned in some of the right wing radio programs. They were practically crowing.

    Libbey will be annointed as the martyr to America Hating Left Wing Fascists.

    Posted by jonb at 10/29/2005 @ 2:58pm

83. NO EVIDENCE THAT THE LAW WAS BROKEN

    WILSON PUBLISHED THE FACT HIS WIFE WAS CIA IN 2000.

    NOTHING BUT A WITCH HUNT.

    Posted by jonb at 10/29/2005 @ 2:59pm

84. Not saying it should be a crime.

    But all the posturing about "we have all been harmed" is just that. And so obviously so.

    The Far right has a poster boy, and they will love this.

    Posted by jonb at 10/29/2005 @ 3:00pm

85. The stuff in caps isn't my opinion, it is what will be the talking point of the right wing for the next two years.

    Posted by jonb at 10/29/2005 @ 3:01pm

86. gotta run, kiddos.

    later.

    Posted by jonb at 10/29/2005 @ 3:02pm

87. KC,

    I promised some responses and I will address at least a couple that have carried over to this thread.

    1. You constantly use a your lead "gotcha" this supposed lie because the Air Force disagreed on the UAV's and chemical weapons.

    This is a serious distortion by using only a portion of the Air Force statement.

    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/ serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec6.pdf

    The Air Force disagreed that the primary function of the UAV's was for Chemical and/or Biological Weapons. They added that "CBW delivery is an inherent capability"

    I can add expert testimony to that fact, though not in these pages because of the classified nature. I was at one time, the Program Director for production of one of the US Chemical Weapons programs. The Iraqi UAV's were entirely appropriate for CW. Unless you have a secret clearance and we can meet together in classified Congressional hearings, you are just going to have to take my word and the word of both the Air Force and the Intelligence Community as indicated in their report.

    The disagreement noted in the Congressional Intel Committee review was over the word "probably" vs could. I suggest you read the actual report.

    This same report does verify that Saddam was converting Czech built fighter jets into UAV's. There was disagreement only about how serious he was about using them for CBW.

    As late as 2002, Saddam was still trying to obtain mapping software of the US. This analysts agreed could be used to program missles and or UAV's for delivery onto the United States (again shown in the Congressional Report)

    2. The Aluminum Tubes- Here the is a mixed analysis. The tubes were indeed of a construction as to be dual use. There is no hard intelligence analysis that disputes that fact. The conclusions will rest with the conclusion one reaches as to Saddam's intentions. I agreed with the President that Saddam could not be trusted.

    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/ serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec3.pdf

    The area that I consider of dispute goes to the Aluminum itself. The 7075-T6 is not rare but as noted in the report, Iraq was willing to pay far higher than normal prices for the Tubes.

    There is legitimate disagreement on the construct and therefore the usage of the Tubes; however, the disagreements do not either negate the Presidents use of that information, nor prove him to have lied.

    As noted in the Congressional Report, a number of Intel Analysts reported that the Tubes were usable for either Zippe or Bearns Centrifuge methods. Of special note was the information that Tubes were bought from China who uses such a method. Furthermore, Iraq was taking delivery of these tubes through intermediary countries to hide their procurement and because they were specifically banned by the UN from procurring such tubes.

    The US performed centrifuge tests using tubes to the Iraqi specifications and proved that they could be used as a centrifuge rotor.

    The conclusions reached when evaluating the IAEA report centers primarily around their conclusion that the tubes were inconsistent with the previous Iraqi centrifuges. That assumes Iraq would not reconstitute their nuclear program using an entirely different approach so as to fool groups like the IAEA.

    3. The speech regarding the IAEA and the "6 months away" verbage. You know fully well that the White House issued a clarification shortly after that speech. That clarification was restated in the 2003 SOTUS, prior to the war. It was not used to ask Congress for the resolution authorizing force against Iraq. In other words, your gotcha on this is meaningless. The verbage was retracted.

    4. "Why did you say that British intelligence had learned that Hussein was acquired yellowcake from Niger without including that Joseph Wilson -- who was sent by the CIA to look into a matter that Dick Cheney wanted investigated -- concluded that no such acquisition took place? Why was the British intelligence given more weight than the CIA's

    Here you really step outside of the truth. Bush said that the British have learned that Iraq sought to purchase not did purchase. Secondly, if the president had been briefed on Wilson's trip (which the Senate Intel Committee report showed that neither Bush nor Cheney had been briefed on Wilson's visit), he would have been reinforcing the British intel. That was the CIA conclusion to Wilson's report to the CIA as noted in the Senate report.

    So, there we have it. KC, your accusations are filled with distortions, lies, and half-truths. Personally I would love for you to have the opportunity to ask those questions. It would only embarrass the left and show their aim is not the truth, but lies and deceptions.

    Your are simply too intelligent to have let yourself be hoodwinked by leftwing cites that perpetuate this nonsense. You are an able critic, but do so from facts.

    Posted by love liberty at 10/29/2005 @ 3:33pm

88. LL: Good post.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/29/2005 @ 3:46pm

89. The grilled cheese with the Virgin Mary on it was big news for the true beleivers. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/29/2005 @ 08:52am

    Mary Mary

    Now can anyone honestly call her the "virgin" Mary after they've eaten the sandwich. Oh please, not in the oval office!

    Posted by Will C. at 10/29/2005 @ 3:48pm

90. David Model wrote The impeachment articles in the case of Richard Nixon charged him with lying about the bombing of Cambodia but did not charge him with war crimes for the actual bombing. The bombing resulted in 600,000 dead and the destruction of much of the farmland in Cambodia driving the peasants into the open arms of the Khmer Rouge. We are witnessing the same phenomenom today as the Fitzgerald enquiry has charged Libby with perjury and obstruction of justice. He lied so he is a bad boy but not because he was a major player in all the decisions about Iraq which resulted in a multitude of war crimes.

    Well, Mr. Model we can now dismiss you from any serious dialogue on this site, since you can't even tell the truth about something as famous as the Nixon articles of impeachment.

    There is NO mention of Cambodia or even the subject of Southeast Asia in the articles of impeachment. The three articles of impeachment all go to events and actions associated with the Watergate break-in.

    http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

    You will have to find a different conspiracy audience that cannot even Google in order to push your agenda.

    Posted by love liberty at 10/29/2005 @ 3:51pm

91. Thanks USA

    Posted by love liberty at 10/29/2005 @ 3:52pm

92. Nothing to happen until after the midterm elections, while the administration spinmasters just keep pointin to the 800 piound gorilla. The total absence of any underlying crime.

    Jonb

    Cool! We're gonna talk about this until after the midterm elections. This is going to be so much fun.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/29/2005 @ 3:59pm

93. Well, Mr. Model we can now dismiss you from any serious dialogue on this site, since you can't even tell the truth about something as famous as the Nixon articles of impeachment.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 10/29/2005 @ 3:51pm

    Yes Mr. Model. We are through with you. To have any further credibility on this web site or any other web site you must now join the Republican Party and swear to only eat grilled cheese sandwiches. And as your penance, you must limit yourself to cutting and pasting only the lies of our currant administration. Sir, are we clear!

    Posted by Will C. at 10/29/2005 @ 4:08pm

94. That is right Will C.

    Conservatives would love to make Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terrorism the number one topic for the next 3 years. That will undoubtedly ensure that conservatives retain control of the White House, Congress, and the Fed Courts.

    "I love it when a plan comes together" Colonel Hannibal Smith - The A Team

    Bush's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan may well go in the history books as the high points of this period. Certainly for me, they rank with the greatest achievements in our foreign policy in the last 50 years, right along side the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of Communism (except the die hards in Cuba, Venezuela, China, and here in the US).

    War on Terrorism, cutting taxes, and promoting sound family values will always be winning themes with most Americans (except the left).

    Posted by love liberty at 10/29/2005 @ 4:11pm

95. LL - The fundamental problem with arguments that Bush didn't lie, didn't exagerate or misuse intel, etc. is that we did not in fact find a nuclear program, WMD, etc. in Iraq. So, how could we have been faced with the threat of a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes of the attack order, for example? How could Iraq have reconstituted its nuclear weapons?

    Blow away all the smoke, and what do you have? We found no evidence of these various capabilities, threats, etc. So, what went wrong? Was someone lying or incompetent? Or, is there really absolutely no blame to parcel out here? Please explain finding nothing in Iraq to substantiate the arguments for going to war without determining that there was at least some kind of problem with pre-war intel or the interpretation of the intel.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/29/2005 @ 4:15pm

96. LL- When you write Bush's efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan may well go in the history books as the high points of this period I assume the period you're talking about must be the 8 year Bush reign!

    You are in a complete dream world. The fact that you are not writhing in shame over the actions taken by your hero and his cronies indicates the depth of your denial, complete absence of critical thinking and loss of connection to everything our country stands for.

    Posted by Fishbite at 10/29/2005 @ 4:20pm

97. Conservatives would love to make Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terrorism the number one topic for the next 3 years. That will undoubtedly ensure that conservatives retain control of the White House, Congress, and the Fed Courts.

    Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 10/29/2005 @ 4:11pm

    My Friends! I beg you all. Let us stand side by side with our friend Love Liberty. Let us all staunchly support the Global War on Evangelic Terror. Let us stand firm as a people as this foul war moves from the poppy fields of Afghanistan, to the terror training centers of Iraq, to the command and control centers here in Hamsterland. Let us fight together as brothers and sisters. Feel free to bring your companion animals. And, if we are not victorious, let no man come back alive.

    Posted by Will C. at 10/29/2005 @ 4:26pm

98. All you lefters getting excited about the mid-terms are going to be disappointed. The mighty GWB will lend his support and the result will be trouble for demos.

    Just like '02.

    Remember those exit polls in '04. The GWB camp didn't even flinch.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/29/2005 @ 5:05pm

99. Fishbite,

    As noted in David Kay's report, the problem lay primarily with our Intel Community and that of the rest of the world. Everyone was sure Saddam still had WMD. UN Resolution 1441 (passed unanimously by the Security Council) stated that Saddam was in Breach of the previous UN resolutions. The report of the UN Inspection team and the analysis of the report submitted by Iraq said that Saddam and Iraq had failed to provide material evidence of what they had done with their WMD.

    What has come out in the aftermath of our invasion was that Saddam's scientists and others in his government were busy giving him a false sense that his programs were back on. Instead we find high levels of corruption (what a shock) and misleading information to Saddam from his people which was an attempt to keep him happy. So, in one ironic sense, even Saddam got fooled. There was no fooling though in Iraq's failure to show what they did with their WMD. That is why there are still those in the intelligence community who suspect that Iraq's WMD may well be in Syria or buried in the sands of Iraq.

    The bottom line to that is that after 9/11 no US president or the Intel Community here were going to be caught explaining to the American people why another attack ocurred on US soil. That is the heart of the pre-emptive doctrine. You anger those who feel there is no justification; yet the greater anger would be another attack.

    Posted by love liberty at 10/29/2005 @ 5:10pm

100. Well, as others have said here, I dearly hope that the conservatives do retain control of the country. There's nothing like one party dictatorship in a time of declining economy and growing infrastructural disarray to persuade people that something different has to come into being.

     Posted by Stellarsjay at 10/29/2005 @ 5:16pm

101. Gotta say it.

     All you libs always bitching about the "oil hungry neo-cons."

     Do you self-rightous, finger pointing drubs live your lives without using oil?

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/29/2005 @ 5:55pm

102. for an explanation of "RESE"....David Brooks--

     Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not find evidence to prove that there was a "broad conspiracy to out a covert agent for political gain. He did not find evidence of wide-ranging criminal behavior. He did not even indict the media's ordained villain, Karl Rove," writes David Brooks in Sunday's NY TIMES.

     "Leading Democratic politicians filled the air with grand conspiracy theories that would be at home in the John Birch Society."

     "Why are these people so compulsively overheated?.. Why do they have to slather on wild, unsupported charges that do little more than make them look unhinged?

     Brooks quotes from an essay written 40 years ago by Richard Hofstadter called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."

     Hofstadter argued that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious and conspiratorial frame of mind. It is never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes; they insist on believing in malicious conspiracies.

     "The paranoid spokesman," Hofstadter wrote, "sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms -- he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization." Because his opponents are so evil, the conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction."

     Brooks summarizes: "So some Democrats were not content with Libby's indictment, but had to stretch, distort and exaggerate. The tragic thing is that at the exact moment when the Republican Party is staggering under the weight of its own mistakes, the Democratic Party's loudest voices are in the grip of passions that render them untrustworthy."

     Posted by Mask at 10/29/2005 @ 6:11pm

103. Wllc.

     "And, if we are not victorious, let no man come back alive. "

     I loved Patton..he had the right attitude and thankful for the free world he didn't have an opposing group in the press and at home once things really got hot. He did for a while but in the words old Evangelical Spiritual.."He(WE) shall Overcome!"

     Nice to hear from you again...why are you up at night and sleep by day...Do you know Bram Stocker, by chance?...:)hmmm maybe the horned one himself??!!

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 6:27pm

104. Stellar,

     "There's nothing like one party dictatorship in a time of declining economy and growing infrastructural disarray to persuade people that something different has to come into being."

     What economy are you participating in or maybe you are unemployed? 3.8% growth, sorry but those are numbers anyone after 9/11 and all the storms , would love to run on..if fact the only way Dems can lose is if economy tanks and war tanks, so it looks like you will have to wish the American economic collapse and defeat in Iraq to beat Gop?...Hmmm

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 6:34pm

105. JOHN,

     Here's the part of the news you ignore.

     http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp? artsec=16&issue=20051028

     There is growth, which has virtually no impact on our daily lives. And there are wages, which we are all quite well aware of. Fact is, prices going up with growth; wages going up not so much. You can tout "growth" all you want, but when workers in this country start going farther into debt, they will tell you where to put your growth--and if it's all that big...

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/29/2005 @ 7:18pm

106. There is no space in address--if you copy/paste, you will have to delete the space. Sorry for that.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/29/2005 @ 7:19pm

107. Apparently many of the respondents work for the Bush Administration, as they are employing standard "shrub" tactics in changing the subject . . . in this case to Clinton troubles and hence the tired joke: what's the difference between Clinton and the Titanic? Answer-less women went down on the Titanic. So he had a hormone problem, but it is comparing apples and oranges. Nobody died as a result of his actions. Plamegate is the "tip of the iceberg" regarding the bigger issue of why we went into Iraq, and, the way that this administration has dealt with dissent. At this point it looks like they have received a relative "slap on the hand" with the Libby indictment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the retribution against Wilson's speaking out came directly from the top, and that the method was SOP/modus operandi for this White House. With Libby being the fall guy, it's a small price to pay for an administration that has pulled off "clean skies", "healthy forests", tax cuts for the wealthy, record deficits to "starve the beast", rejection of Kyoto, no-bid windfalls for Halliburton, NCLB, unwarranted preemptive attacks, outsourcing of prisoner abuse, etc. Of course, I could be wrong. This indictment could just be the tip of an iceberg wherein the republican party is about to experience, politically speaking, a perfect storm.

     Posted by skeptiq1 at 10/29/2005 @ 7:35pm

108. John!

     Hey Bud. I've been working late the last couple weeks. The down side of retail.

     Patton! The ultimate non-chick flick. My favorite. A textbook example of how you wage war when liberals are running the show. There was nothing to bitch about because, well, let's be honest with ourselves, we had you conservative boys back in the rear with the gear. It just works better for everyone that way.

     Posted by Will C. at 10/29/2005 @ 9:45pm

109. Tj,

     Perhaps not on an everytday life , I promise you, that you would be in a world of shit if we had say, an oil embargo, 20% interest rates and 21% inflation...The actual gallon price for gas is lower than the time in the lates 70's and early 80's in real dollars..I think those where the progressive years? :)Carter?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 9:46pm

110. Wllc,

     :)

     Roosevelt was an average kind of liberal..it took a world totally on fire before he moved..

     Hey, What kind of retail...did that myself for a few years...

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 9:48pm

111. Yeah, but when he inspired conservatives he really inspiried us..look,we took over the place!! Haven't packed the court tho....yet...

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 9:50pm

112. BTW how is the back of the bus these ddays? At least we turned it into a coach and now serve drinks!..LOL

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 9:51pm

113. Since SkeptiQ1 included the usual usual lib attack on Halliburton and the numerous references lately on Cheney, I thought I might through out a few facts:

     1. More than 40% of all Pentagon Contracts are on a No-Bid or less than "full and open".

     2. Halliburton ranked 16th in terms of Contract dollars awarded by No Bid.

     http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/report.aspx?aid=385

     3. Having been a recipient of No-Bid contract awards, there are usually very sound reasons why the government does so, and cronyism is not on the list. Sole source capability, availability of resources to the schedule requirements, and extension of existing contracts to reduce costs, are the three primary reasons. The last while it may seem phony to those who have never been involved in Govt contracts, actually is good business for the government. If a competitor is not currently ramped up for the potential service or product, their is a cost imposed to the government that is allowed in the bidding process. Government purchasing personnel must weigh those startup costs if their bid is lower against the advantage of continuing with an existing contractor. Sometimes it works to the advantage of the one with the existing contract and sometimes it doesn't.

     I know that no one will convince some of you on how the process actually works and the overall lack of ability to influence the contract award process. I don't say it never occurs, there are just too many obstacles given the huge chain of steps in the process for bribery or other influences to change the rules of the game.

     Posted by love liberty at 10/29/2005 @ 9:51pm

114. I love how conservatives NOW say "we had enough of that with Whitewater," and opine NOW on the inappropriateness of the independent counsel statute. What convenient timing. Funny, I do not remember too many conservatives carrying those signs in 1998.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/29/2005 @ 9:54pm

115. LL,

     Why are you bothering to explain this, as most people here are convinced Bush lies all the time and Haliburton and Cheney are part of it.. it is the only thing keeping these guys going..

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 9:54pm

116. JONB:

     You need to stick to politics, because you obviously know little about criminal law.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/29/2005 @ 9:55pm

117. hman,

     Why aren't you out eating lobsters?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 9:58pm

118. Hman,

     I hated the special prosecutor back then...wasted time and money..achieved nothing but digging in peoples lives. I thought Clinton should have been put out by the curb, seeing how in both elections 6 out of 10 voted for someone else, but oh well....

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 10:07pm

119. hman,

     you out there?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 10:07pm

120. I think lobster season is officially over, John. It actually snowed here today. This weather is for the birds.

     You seem pretty happy today. I guess a night and day of Fox News, and writers like Brooks have convinced you everything is roses from here on out. I noticed that you even posted 12 predictions - I might have to sift through and see if we can have another wager. :)

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/29/2005 @ 10:13pm

121. wllc,

     What happened to you?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 10:13pm

122. Hman,

     Yeah, a bit long winded...I didn't watch much news today as after bus news drops like yesterday, it all is rehash and boring.I do watch cnn, fox ,Hardball, c-span, I listen to Rush sometimes, npr,... I try them all, hey, there is a guy called Savage..unbelievable!! I can't figure his shtick, but my god, he is really different..never heard him before and I laughed out loud in the car..are you familiar with him? I think he is nuts.

     Worked in the yard as the weather here was great..should have played golf but I am a hack these days and the football team( Nebraska) lost..semms whereever I move the football team die..I wonder what it is I am doing. Saturday nite and I am on a computer with the libs..:) see if you can findd a bet in the post, as I am sure there are a few...

     Johannes has been missing and his last posts seem a little owly.. wllc is his usual self, tho I get a kick out of him..

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 10:19pm

123. sorry.."big news drops.."

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 10:29pm

124. John, there is not much to say tonight in response to what I am seeing from some of the wingers. I do think it is pretty amusing that the VP's sitting Chief of Staff gets indicted on five felony counts, the investigation is still open and continuing, but from some people's mood here, you'd think it was election night 2004 all over again. I know some here from the right are putting up the good fight and all, but from the repubs in my family and my friends, none I have spoken to see yesterday as much of a victory, and feel this is only the beginning (whether it is in this investigation or something else).

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/29/2005 @ 10:33pm

125. Hman,

     I am not all that into it, as politics is more of a hobby..I do like the blogs tho..it really is too early to tell but I just feel(there's a one for ya) that this will not be all that big..I could be wrong..I am amazed how many people have not followed it at all or don't care.

     Personaly, I think it is a sad day for our government when this behavior takes up the head lines. Hang if he is found guilty.

     I for one am concerned about Iran..that place it going to cause the next world war..it will start I think, by them bombing Israel with a nuke. They seem like fanatics and nothing is said on our news here. Or the black professor who was talking about whiping out white people and the cheers in the crowd he was addressing..I can think of many more important and pressing problems than advisors lying to grand jurys about reporters... I donno..

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 10:42pm

126. LL: guess Cheney being the former CEO of Halliburton had nothing to do with it. Hey, if you believe that, I have some property in New Orleans that you might be interested in buying. This administration is cronyism with a capital "C", from the most recent examples, Miers and Brown (who, by the way, had been fired from his horse racing job . . . bummer, fired twice)all the way back to the Bush insider trading scam with Harken energy (kind of sounds like Frist's current insider trading situation . . . selling blind stocks he didn't know he had). I think what you're asking for is called "suspension of disbelief". Looking at the current Bush ratings, it seems like less and less of the public are buying it.

     Posted by skeptiq1 at 10/29/2005 @ 10:43pm

127. I never heard of Brooks article until I read the link here..it is how alot of conservatives believe the libs are..fyi

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 10:43pm

128. SKEPTIQ1,

     Actually I would love to buy some land in NO..that place is going to be worth a fortune as they will build everything new from the ground up..

     by the way, there was a second no bid contract given to the head of the Democratic party in Louisana, who resigned his post 1 day after he got the bid..biggest contract offered and I think another went to Dianne Finsteins husband...and yes, acording to the mayors complaints many mexicans are flocking to NO for the new jobs being offerd. My freinds had to pay $ 10,000 to remove trees from their yard and they had no water and no trees on the house. funny thing, no local people responded to job calls...they are desparate for workers there..paying high wages.. why is that?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 10:49pm

129. it took a world totally on fire before he moved..

     John!

     Sorry dude. Just got back from eating Sushi. I'm so glad the Japanese gave up before we had to incinerate all their cities.

     So when you say "moved" are you talking about lend-lease or are you talking about 07 Dec 41 (the day that will live in infamy)

     Posted by Will C. at 10/29/2005 @ 11:01pm

130. John re: Iran, I remember that Nostradamus special and he did predict it would be some guy in a blue tunic from the Middle East - so I think we are in the clear b/c I saw a picture the other day and the pres. doesn't wear one. Seriously though - not that "wiping them off the map" is a great thing to hear anytime, but many Mid East leaders have been saying that shit for decades. If some country like Iran can start WWIII, then God help us all.

     Remember, just because Fitgereald has not indicted anyone (yet) on the meaty stuff does not mean the underlying facts are not important. These crimes have intent elements that are difficult to prove when everyone is telling the truth, throw in obstruction and perjury, it is even harder. There is the court of law and the court of public opinion. For me, the investigation is gravy, b/c I recognize that indictments and convictions in the criminal setting requiring such a higher burden of proof. I talked to my conservative (God bless him) father last night, and we both discussed he facts and I asked him if he though Libby intended to leak the information and if Cheney knew it. He said, "Of course, it was, who is this asshole, his wife does what, wink, wink kind of stuff." Being his son, he already knew what I thought (ha-ha), but asked if I would convict Cheney and Libby on what we knew. I said no. He agreed. See, indictments, convictions to me are gravy - this has always been about publicizing the Bush Administration's knowing deceptions, omissions and misrepresentations (notice I do not say lies) in the lead-up to war.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/29/2005 @ 11:08pm

131. I wonder what percentage of New Orleans residents as of July 2005 are living there now. This might explain the lack of a response.

     Halliburton is an easy target because of Cheney and their occasional overcharging. But graft is abundant for anyone in the game. LL is just a delight in his starchy denial of cronyism. Gotta think that at almost any time in our nation's history, someone has profited through inside government connections.

     I know there are good conservatives, but are any of them actually in office? Once in office they seem to want the money to flow just like liberals and with less public oversight than even an average, crooked Democrat.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/29/2005 @ 11:09pm

132. Sorry for the slopiness of thought and typos John - hit submit when I meant preview. Given that I have been enjoying this particular red zin a bit too much tonight, it would be way to much effort to go back and reformulate my thoughts.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/29/2005 @ 11:17pm

133. IMO it's hard to make a bad Red Zin.

     In the back of my head during all of this has been the wish that no matter what ends up happening, it does not happen around Thanksgiving. I just don't want my time with my family to be spent arguing about politics. Please, Mr. Fitzgerald, wait until January for additional announcements.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/29/2005 @ 11:21pm

134. If anybody has not read Elizabeth de la Vega's piece in the latest issue, you should. I wish she had posted this to a blog, because I think it lays out some very interesting ideas. She fashions it as a persuasive argument as to laying a conspircay charge against Bush, but I think the facts she lays out are persuasive in the court of public opinion, whether or not they would actualy convict Bush. Given the poll numbers on what people think of what we were told in advance of the war, I think the public is beginning to agree.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/29/2005 @ 11:25pm

135. TJ

     The crazy thing about no-bid contracts is that we are simply creating a middleman. Instead of the appropriate government agency contracting with the guys who actually do the work, we contract with Halliburton and they sub contract out to the guys doing the work, for a nice hefty fee of course.

     Our evangelic conservative friends complain that government of the people is wasteful but the waste they talk about is defined simply as projects or programs they disagree with. The money that is spent on those projects and programs is spent with greater efficiency then the private sector.

     Then we created no bid contracting. And now we pay for the same service twice. Talk about "Schtoopid"! Why do I get the feeling this no-bid thing was a conservative scheme?

     Posted by Will C. at 10/29/2005 @ 11:31pm

136. TJB:

     Whether it is Thanksgiving, Christmas or next Easter, there is much more to come for this administration.

     Posted by Hman23 at 10/29/2005 @ 11:32pm

137. wllc,

     Love sushi, crave actually..

     By moved, I mean it took us too long to act while our neighbors house was burning and it wasn't until our house caught fire that we acted, but by that time we were the only fire department left..

     How is that for a mediforically benigh post..

     Horrible..but you get my point..pearl harbor

     Posted by john maasch at 10/29/2005 @ 11:59pm

138. Tj,

     Good repubs and Dems have the good sense to stay away from government and don't want the pay cut. I think those government (politicians)jobs should be unpaid and meet for 2 months...then you will only get the people who actually care about the job.

     And, please. leave my holidays alone too, but the damned press will be haranging us everyday with the same drum beat..get Bush.get Bush..They do it to every president..

     Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2005 @ 12:03am

139. hman, All reds are good in my opinion, and sounds as if you have been blessed with a fine father..:) I had one of those ,too and he sounded like yours. I miss him terribly.

     I think all politicians get Potomic fever once they arrive.All that cash and power and money...

     I read that before air conditioning Congress met for only a couple of months as the heat, humidity, mosquitoes,and malaria drove them out. If I were the president I would sneak in a line on every bill that the air conditioning be pulled out and not replaced for 100 years. By the bills these guys pass it seems no one reads them any way so it should sale(sail) through.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2005 @ 12:11am

140. Hman,

     As Americans we have a short attention span, so I wouldn't get my hopes up..I remember reading somewhere that most people(not sure how many)make up their mind 2 weeks before the elections...

     Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2005 @ 12:13am

141. wllc,

     What type of retail store do you work?

     Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2005 @ 12:14am

142. By moved, I mean it took us too long to act while our neighbors house was burning and it wasn't until our house caught fire that we acted, but by that time we were the only fire department left..

     John!

     Interesting metaphor but inconsistant with history. Lend lease act (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq59-23.htm)

     "The United States should loan what articles were needed, as a man would loan his garden hose to help his neighbor put out a fire without reference to payment, but with the expectation that the hose itself would be returned." -- FDR 17Dec41.

     US naval support for lend lease: http://www.ww2pacific.com/lendlease.html

     My friend, there is only one reality and it is confused by our 5.5 billion different perceptions of it. Stick with the evangelic abomination and you will only find darkness.

     Posted by Will C. at 10/30/2005 @ 12:32am

143. What type of retail store do you work?

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/30/2005 @ 12:14am

     John!

     Classified information. Sorry

     Posted by Will C. at 10/30/2005 @ 12:33am

144. wllc,

     well, I was right then with my fire department anaolgy. eureka..say did we ever get at least the hose back?

     "My friend, there is only one reality and it is confused by our 5.5 billion different perceptions of it." You mean this IS reality? Which one of the 5.5 billion is mine as I want it back..

     Gotta match..my fire went out, kinda hot in here sort of sulfury, say, that wouldn't be the biforcated(sp)tailed one would it? The one with the hay fork? kinda sunburnt lookin?

     Too many secrets, maybe we need to know what you are doing it and why..we needan ivestigation...2 years should do it..:)

     Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2005 @ 12:46am

145. Wllc,

     great job with the lend lease response tho..I liked it.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2005 @ 12:48am

146. Seattle,

     1. I wouldn't work for a government project. Too much red tape.Purely private sector.The amount of compliance bull shit that comes with Gov contracts are not worth the effort in my opinion..ie., quotas so guys like Jesse Jasckson stay away so you don't have to bribe him, so many union bribes...all very complicated and takes an army of lawyers...all government contracts cost more BECAUSE of government.

     2. I would hire anyone who qualified for the job. The wages would be good enough to keep the best workers I can find as I want to keep the best. Same goes for my wages.. I want as much as I can get but I don't want to be noticed as over paid..you are the first one gone if there is trouble.

     3. Companies (Haliburton for example) received more no contract bids form the Clinton adm than Bush so far, but Clinton had 8 years. This is common practice. Next president will hand out even more as government enters more and more of our lives.

     4. I am not defending it. By the way, in some countries, you have to pay about 6 levels of officials just to get a shot at a contract.. and then you may not get it at all.

     5. I never give $ to campaigns. Especially my $. Waste of money. Politicians NEVER work for free.

     6. Free enterprise is not free. Always some shit head unassociated with your efforts who wants to tell to how to run your business and wants a "fair share" while contributing nothing but increases your costs EVERY time..

     7. Outsourcing is another word for foriegn trade. Been going on since dawn of man. YOU better wake up and smell the coffee or you will the one carrying the tin cup trying to sell pencils. No offense, as I tell my kids the same thing.

     8. I respect the high qualified computer programmers as they are genius in my opinion. I know many of them got burn by dot com bust. This happens.. you should have seen the oil bust in Colorado in the late 80's..geologists every where working in retail shoe depts... Sorry, it is late and I am being hit by red fever(wine) and I an ranting...sorry.

     Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2005 @ 12:51am

147. sorry, wrong page to post..please ignore..

     Posted by john maasch at 10/30/2005 @ 12:51am

148. Thank goodness the press has given us all a break from the sense that our administration was collapsing from lies and corruption. Now we can get down to the business of putting another tried and true conservative onto the supreme bench. I saw a headline earlier today reporting that a conservative had been proposed for placement on a liberal court. No bias there. Here's hoping the Prez gets what he wants (at least what he wants this week) to bring the court back to its proper balance: the balance between the corporations on one side and the investors in those corporations on the other side.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/01/2005 @ 12:33am

149. It's not about whether we should be fighting a war -- 9/11 demands a response -- but this Iraq war, right or wrong, was not sold to the American people with the degree of truth it should have been. Posted by PAINE 10/28/2005 @ 10:18pm | ignore this person

     Paine,

     I enjoyed your post. The phrase above covers two topics: one is objective and one is fundamental; both are vital to our nation.

     Objectively, you are right that the attack of 9/11/01 demanded a response. However, the Iraq invasion had to be "sold" to the American people, which violated the way we practice democracy.

     I applauded Bush's leadership in response to the 9/11 attack. The civilized world did too. Countries from "old Europe" to Asia stood with us and offered support to combat OBL and al Qaeda. Even the UN Charter recognizes that all nations have an objective right to defend themselves. It was appropriate to use our military forces to destroy our enemy's capability to attack us again.

     But something happened between commencing hostilities upon that den of vipers in Afghanistan and March 2003 that troubles me deeply. I didn't have to be sold on attacking al Qaeda's home base and infrastructure; I did have to be sold – and still have not bought into – the need to invade Iraq. The dots didn't connect. I wasn't the only skeptic. However, Congress did not ask the tough questions. Neither did the press. The President wanted to invade a country unconnected with the 9/11 attack on America. His enablers in Congress and in the press rubber-stamped his request. The principle of checks and balances envisioned by the founders as protection from executive or legislative tyranny failed us. We experienced a fundamental failure of our nation's institutions to uphold democracy as we practice it here.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 11/01/2005 @ 12:57am

150. David,

     There is a certain dynamic that enters into and aides any purposeful pursuit. It opens doors and leads to success. I know this isn't Watergate, but that event is illustrative of this concept. If it weren't for a couple of doggedly determined reporters pursuing leads in quest of the truth back then, no "Deep Throat" would have materialized to point out the hidden trails. Cheney knows this too and undoubtedly fears a current day "Woodstein" will not be dissuaded from the trail. Keep punchin', dude.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 11/01/2005 @ 01:49am

151. SNUFFY47 Someone HAS started a petition to impeach.In fact there are 4 of them out there that I've heard of so far.I was just looking for the http of them but can't find them.Just do a search on impeach Bush and you'll probably come up with more then 4. Rep.Kucinich has a resolution he's trying to get through the House #505.It's to form an investigation into the White House Iraq Group,more commonly known as WHIG.That's Cheney's and Rummy's cabal.Their secret meetings planning out the lies to get us into Iraq.Write your reps and ask them to support Kucinich's H.R.505 and 55. 55 is named Homeward Bound,no need to explain that one.

     Posted by BusyHands at 11/01/2005 @ 03:24am

152. Just did a search on impeach Bush and found numerous sites.OpEdNews has a lot going on in the way of petitions.So does the Progressive Democrats of America and TruthOut.org. All 3 are very informative.I wish some of our Republican visitors to this publication would read some of these.They always give verifiable information,quotes,places and dates when the things they are writing about took place.Easily checked information.Maybe if our visitors,who get so upset when we display dissent,would read more they would know why we are so disgusted with the Bush administration.

     Posted by BusyHands at 11/01/2005 @ 04:08am

153. ZHIMM since you were so worried about Cindy not drawing a crowd I just had to zip back here and tell you she did FINE in Boston with a crowd of 2000.Just read it on truthout.Pictures and all.Sure looked like a big turn out.Perhaps if you'd read some of the material we read you would understand how we come to the conclusions we come to.If you have some publications with verifiable facts of good things your president has done for the American people please share them.But I have to tell you the war is NOT something we consider to be good for the American people so don't waste your time on that.There must be something else he's done besides invade a foreign country.

     Posted by BusyHands at 11/01/2005 @ 04:29am

154. Heres a good link on the Italians forging the Niger documents.

     http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html

     and heres one about forklifts of crony cash in iraq

     http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/01/2005 @ 08:00am

155. good article on inflation being much higher than the official tally http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5025953

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/01/2005 @ 08:58am

156. Numbers at an anti-war rally is an insignificant matter. Quality counts over quantity. Better two thousand of those committed to the long run than twenty thousand people who will flake away as soon as the first democratic pretender comes along.

     Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/01/2005 @ 11:20am

157. I still want to know what you Bush lovers propose for Pakistan. Unlike all the ifs of Saddam, if hes still has chem/bio weapons, if he might try to get uranium and a few tubes, he still never attacked us. The "base" did, and the base is funded by paki intel. so is the the "students", and they are all having a big tailgate party in pakistan, Osama and Mullah one eyed Omar. Oh, and pakistan HAS nukes, not maybe bought tubes that possibly could have been used. Oh and the base, remember they attacked us. Oh and Iran, and Libya, and North Korea, they got nuke know-how and parts from pakistan, no ifs ands or buts about it. and that one eyed, close head injury fucker Omar heard Allah tell him those wonderful Buddhas in Bamiyan were evil and he blew them up. I wonder why all the buddhists arent calling for his head. Anyhow, DOES back the base, DOES have nukes, DOES throw them around like the corner pusher "Islamic Bomb, come get your islamic bomb" - AQ Khan. Im fine with him just apologizing on tv though.

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/01/2005 @ 11:37am

158. oh, and AQ Khan tried selling nuke know how to Saddam. Also, some in India think Saddams nukes are in Pakistan.

     http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17420 &prog=zgp&proj=znpp

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/01/2005 @ 12:03pm

159. typical cops, always bust the dime bag dealer when the king pin is in plain site

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/01/2005 @ 12:03pm

160. HVMiller, quite right. I'm so tired of people who carry on about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, coming as it does from people who speculate and invest in armaments manufacturing. There's not a dime's worth of difference between Hussein and them, he's just a renegade junior executive. The deepest tragedy is that we can't create a situation where all they can do is shoot each other, instead of hauling everyone else's family out into their disputes. Fucking gangsters all.

     Posted by bkarloff at 11/01/2005 @ 12:47pm

161. oh, and Khan visited Sudan and Niger frequently. But Osama was never in Sudan, so who cares. Seems Khan was babysitting Osamas mining operations in africa. uranium mines? either way, Khan and Osama are the players here, with Khan running a nuclear black market to Iran, N. korea. libya, attempts at iraq and maybe sudan, saudi arabia, etc etc.. like walmart for terrorists desiring nukes. http://www.saag.org/papers10/paper960.html

     Posted by hvmiller at 11/01/2005 @ 1:05pm

162. stellarsjay, I'm not sure what numbers you are referring to but the last antiwar demonstration was the largest such event in a generation. these folks, me included, went through a lot of trouble at a time when the anti war movement has been abandoned by the press and by elected representatives of both parties. I believe they showed both quantity and quality that saturday in Washington

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/01/2005 @ 1:36pm

163. "If it weren't for a couple of doggedly determined reporters pursuing leads in quest of the truth back then, no "Deep Throat" would have materialized to point out the hidden trails. Cheney knows this too and undoubtedly fears a current day "Woodstein" will not be dissuaded from the trail. Keep punchin', dude"

     I thought Deep Throat went to the reporters and not the other way around.

     Anyway, thank goodnees for disgrundled employees. After finding out about whatever bothered Deep Throat, I wondered wny he did go thru normal channels.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/01/2005 @ 3:22pm

164. Johannes,

     So, you went to Washington , eh? Tell us about it as there was no coverage. Didn't even know there was a protest.

     When ever I go there , it seems there are some many various protesting groups that they actually become part of the tourists attraction.

     How big was yours and did anybodsy of "substance" show up in support?

     Posted by john maasch at 11/01/2005 @ 3:25pm

165. Stellar, "two thousand of those committed to the long run than twenty thousand people who will flake away as soon as the first democratic pretender comes along."

     I remember when instead of democratic pretender, it was democratic bartender..and many showed up at rallies to meet babes..

     The protest where Sheehan has become the focal have become nothing more than props for photo ops and therefore have help kill off real protests. When cameras show up and pan away the publics sees no one there so they have lost their influence. It turns most people off also, is that the only protesters at rallies are the same crowd that show up for every other protest out there including free dinner at the church on week ends. Professional unemployeed protesters.

     The G-7 type protesters who trash the place in the name of world fairness and economic equality, while being totally unemployable themselves.. Completely turns off all with a brain.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/01/2005 @ 3:35pm

166. The revolution will not be televised.

     Posted by bkarloff at 11/01/2005 @ 3:47pm

167. Bkarloff,

     What revolution? What is you want and believe is coming?

     Posted by john maasch at 11/01/2005 @ 4:16pm

168. The MSM televises everything, absolutely everything that is anti GOP and pro DEM, so if you try to sneak a national revolution by, I think you will be trampled by the press rather than supporters..

     Posted by john maasch at 11/01/2005 @ 4:18pm

169. Johannes,

     So, you went to Washington , eh? Tell us about it as there was no coverage. Didn't even know there was a protest.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/01/2005 @ 3:25pm

     The MSM televises everything, absolutely everything that is anti GOP and pro DEM, so if you try to sneak a national revolution by, I think you will be trampled by the press rather than supporters..

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/01/2005 @ 4:18pm

     Does anyone else see these 2 posts as contradictory viewpoints of MSM coverage?

     Posted by dlg at 11/01/2005 @ 4:27pm

170. DLG,

     Not that simple I am afraid.. but nice line, tho..:_)

     That is because the MSN considers the protesters as left fringe and not in thier the central DEms( in MSM view)interests, as Hillary. If Hillary, Kerry, et al were there, then that is all we would see and hear..MSN knows ther are flakes on the left as well as the right. We see exposure of right flakes, but they are learning their lesson with Sheehan to a degree on showing too much on the far left. They know it will not play well....

     Posted by john maasch at 11/01/2005 @ 4:42pm

171. JOHN MAASCH,

     On the "Sheehan" effect, you are absolutely right. The "Rolling Stone" last month had an excellent article about how "self-cannibalizing" the anti-war movement was. Between poor Ms Sheehan who was told she would be "Harriet Tubman" or "Rosa Parks" calling Hurrican Rita "some wind and rain"....to those who wanted to discuss everything from AIDS funding to Wal-mart (ahem!)...they drowned out the veterans and families against the war crowd and made them all look foolish.

     Fortunately or unfortunately, most of the activist Left is so caught up in their own self-righteousness and (as a Slate writer said) "palsied by hatred of Bush", that they cannot see this and so go stumbling along, when truly organized they COULD put a sizeable dent in the Republican majority in Congress and totally cripple Bush.

     Sadly for them, they'd also have to convince a LOT of Democrats, who see that silliness and want no part of it...and remain in the "stay the course" camp with Bush and the Administration....and that's not likely to change in 12 months.

     Posted by Mask at 11/01/2005 @ 4:47pm

172. mask, the stay the course camp is in the minority and diminishing

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/01/2005 @ 4:51pm

173. rio:"hypocracise"

     watch it, buddy that's my english language you're trampling

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/01/2005 @ 5:10pm

174. skeptic:"in this case to Clinton troubles and hence the tired joke: what's the difference between Clinton and the Titanic? Answer-less women went down on the Titanic."

     again with the faulty english, it should be "fewer women"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/01/2005 @ 5:16pm

175. DLG,

     Not that simple I am afraid.. but nice line, tho..:_)

     That is because the MSN considers the protesters as left fringe and not in thier the central DEms( in MSM view)interests, as Hillary. If Hillary, Kerry, et al were there, then that is all we would see and hear..MSN knows ther are flakes on the left as well as the right. We see exposure of right flakes, but they are learning their lesson with Sheehan to a degree on showing too much on the far left. They know it will not play well....

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/01/2005 @ 4:42pm

     Just to make sure I understand what you're saying...You apparently consider Sheehan to be a "flake on the left". I remember seeing MSM coverage of her protests. By the way, who would you consider to be a "right flake"? I would think that pretty much defines all of the remaining bushies... ;)

     Posted by dlg at 11/01/2005 @ 5:17pm

176. Ann Coulter is definitely a "right flake" IMO.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/01/2005 @ 7:05pm

177. JOHN, I stronly disagree with you about the MSM. Did you ever hear a report on FOX about rBGH? Nope, and you never will. That is just one example. Also, the MSM won't have people like Noam Chomsky on their little round-table shows. They (MSM) are just cheerleaders for the dominant societal paradigms, which are conservative in nature for the most part.

     Have you seen the documentary, "The Corporation"? Check it out if you want to learn about rBGH. Then you will understand why Ben&Jerry's icecream has the disclaimer - they don't want to get sued by the manufacturer of rBGH. And then it will make sense when I tell you I try to avoid non-organic dairy products.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/01/2005 @ 7:11pm

178. John, Another good documentary on the topic is "Manufacturing Consent".

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/01/2005 @ 7:12pm

179. Dlg,

     Coulter,Robertson,Savage ( Hannidy I find irritating but not a flake)for starters.

     Who is on your list?

     Posted by john maasch at 11/02/2005 @ 01:32am

180. JOHN, Good one. Robertson is indeed a flake.

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/02/2005 @ 01:43am

181. Totally without credibility. stay in the pupit and out of the government. At least pick one or the other.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/02/2005 @ 01:49am

182. How about corrupt businessman? According to the Virginia Pilot he abuses his tax-exempt status to rake in million$.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 11/02/2005 @ 02:42am

183. SS,

     If you are refering to Robertson,if he has comitted a crime with his tax exepmt ststus, then I am sure the IRS is on it and we will hear about it, I wonder how the NAACP is doing with their IRS trouble, as I can think of any organization that is more political and left leaning thah that group. They should lose the tax exempt status, as should all groups that abuse the laws.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/02/2005 @ 02:51am

184. The idea that any progressive politics will "play well" on television is what is tripping the "left" up, because as long as the left wants to play to what the media hacks on the right call acceptable, they will never make any inroads, not employing such a means by itself. Sheehan isn't the best on the ground, but she's better than most of her critics give her credit for. Her problem is that she hasn't made a decisive break with the democrats, and hence appears "flakey". Organizing is a pedagogical task, and that begins in neighborhoods. Public perception is framed by real life events, not just impressions generated on media. That's where Sheehan was right on point, before her political advisors started dragging her off to court the democratic flavor of the week, ever eager to outlive it's day. The right attacks Sheehan the way they do, because they know she's onto something vital. I wonder when the left will stop idolizing Sheehan, and doing as she does, only better, less emotionally, and more focused? Time burns.

     Posted by Stellarsjay at 11/02/2005 @ 11:26am

185. JOHANNES

     mask, the stay the course camp is in the minority and diminishing

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/01/2005 @ 4:51pm????

     Sorry, but who is the presumptive nominee for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination...and what is HER position on "stay the course" in Iraq?

     Posted by Mask at 11/02/2005 @ 11:33am

186. I've seen no polls on this topic recently, though I am certain some exist. I can't imagine that the Republicans are still gaining much politcal traction from the national security issue. Obviously the Democrats gain nothing if the only accomplishment is a procedural movement. But if something actually comes of Phase II, then they get to claim more credit for that then if the Republicans had simply done what they should have.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/02/2005 @ 12:18pm

187. National security is weak on national security. If FEMA isn't about rescuing people whose lives have been destroyed by killer storms, what's it worth? Both parties are weak on national security. Both are lining their pockets behind the issue. Both should go down the tubes.

     Posted by bkarloff at 11/02/2005 @ 12:54pm

188. Polls consistently show that the USA is pro choice (latest Gallop done in late August was 54 to 38).

     Despite the overwhelming voice of democracy the religious right fanatics in a few months will have successfully hijacked our Supreme Court.

     Gee thanks king George for once again giving us what we don't want.

     Posted by colmes at 11/02/2005 @ 1:05pm

189. Freiheit,

     What do you mean "if" this is true? I am sure you are aware that it "is" true, but on the off chance there is still someone in America that does not know that abortion rights are the majority choice of the country then heres one of many links that can show you:

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

     A national referendum based on Roe V Wade would easily pass for the right of choice on a national basis. However, we don't have national referendums in this country because we're a federation of states! State Law is superseded on a federal level by the US Constitution.....hence Roe V Wade!

     Posted by colmes at 11/02/2005 @ 2:28pm

190. Dlg,

     Coulter,Robertson,Savage ( Hannidy I find irritating but not a flake)for starters.

     Who is on your list?

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 11/02/2005 @ 01:32am

     John, sorry for the late reply. Work keeps getting in the way...Definitely Coulter, Robertson and Savage. I would consider Hannity a flake, also O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

     Posted by dlg at 11/02/2005 @ 6:02pm

191. Oh, and one of my favorite flakes: Tucker Carlson.

     Posted by dlg at 11/02/2005 @ 6:04pm

192. Personaly, I think it is a sad day for our government when this behavior takes up the head lines. Hang if he is found guilty.

     I for one am concerned about Iran..that place it going to cause the next world war..it will start I think, by them bombing Israel with a nuke. They seem like fanatics and nothing is said on our news here. Or the black professor who was talking about whiping out white people and the cheers in the crowd he was addressing..I can think of many more important and pressing problems than advisors lying to grand jurys about reporters... I donno..

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH

     Amen to that John.

     Posted by jzimm at 11/02/2005 @ 7:14pm

193. .

     Some Indictment

     "If a senior White House official leaks classified information that identifies an undercover CIA officer to reporters in order to undermine a critic of the administration, he is not entitled to lie about it ..." David Corn

     Libby is NOT accused of leaking classified information or of identifying an undercover agent. The indictment does not levy such a charge. Nor is he suspected of such a crime.

     Corn has some nerve waxing indignant while indulging in such conscious and malicious lying. How does he think he can get away with it?

     Maybe he supposes nobody reads, much less worries about what a pipsqueak like him says in the matter.

     There he might be right.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 11/02/2005 @ 9:09pm

194. "Maybe he supposes nobody reads, much less worries about what a pipsqueak like him says in the matter.

     "There he might be right."

     So says NACL about David Corn. Ahhh, the unwitting irony of the witless rightwing again serving to brighten my day.

     A day in which I attended a banquet to honor the best places to work in my most republican of towns, only to hear unions repeatedly disparaged and employers who offer the extraordinary benefits of monthly staff meetings and opportunities to eat lunch with the president of the company extolled as virtual Mother Theresas. A day in which we paved the Iraqi road to success with a number of additional American corpses. A day in which we learned that the Fed is worried about prices even as no one in power seems to give two shits about the fact that wages in this country are so stagnant they are beginning to be paid in algae and mosquitoes. A day in which unknown things were done to unknown people in secret places around the world in our name and supposedly for our benefit.

     So thank you NACL for your tidbit of ka-ka. Cheers!

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/02/2005 @ 10:51pm

195. TJ,

     "A day in which we learned that the Fed is worried about prices even as no one in power seems to give two shits about the fact that wages in this country are so stagnant they are beginning to be paid in algae and mosquitoes. "

     I heard the economic numbers came out today and that the wage increase was % 1.00( maybe 1.6)(MONTHLY) plus. This is after a decline due to the storms. I can't find the exact number to quote as I heard it on the radio, but it was a hefty increase not seen in years.

     I also heard that they are paying $ 22.00 hr for clean up(starting) in New Orleans and many jobs are begging for workers. The is a great opportunity inspite of the disasters nature delivered for those who are willing to seek.

     The point, TJ, is that most people see the glass as totally empty here with no redeeming value because of Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, Rove, anything GOP,Iraq, et al and I see it as half full or better, and I am going looking for the spigot or the pump..

     Posted by john maasch at 11/02/2005 @ 11:08pm

196. Hey "Jism", re: your Iran comment, My god, you are more than a little stupid. Where is your cohort NACL the "Impotent" to defend your moronic commentary?

     Go home you fools.

     Love to all, bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 11/02/2005 @ 11:16pm

197. I have not seen the numbers you recall hearing, John. I wonder what those numbers measure: the overall amount earned by workers or the average wage of those workers. I'm truly ignorant here and haven't been able to find information on the internet. If the number measure the former then we should expect a decline with the storms and a substantial increase would be a pleasant surprise. If it is the second, then an increase might actually make sense without adding any water to your glass. If most of those who lost their jobs due to Katrina were low wage workers to begin with, then their elimination from the payrolls would brighten a wage report.

     $22 an hour? Is housing included? Where do these workers live unless they are put up in hotels? I had lunch today with a man who had just visited New Orleans, primarily to shop at his favorite haunts in the French Quarter which are open and operating. He said that with the exception of FEMA people, the bulk of the French Quarter and the more touristy spots of NO are desolate (he is a monumental Republican, I should add). The parishes beyond the tourist spots, he believes, should be bulldozed entirely. So who is getting the $22/hr jobs? How many are there? And, while I'm all for people making $22/hr for cleaning up after a storm (heck, it's more than I make), why would we pay that much? Where is a republican when you need one?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/02/2005 @ 11:31pm

198. Bloppy,

     Thanks,

     Say,isn't bloppy spelled backwards the sound shit makes when it hits a shallow toilet?

     Kinda like all your posts from what I have seen here.

     ;-)

     Posted by john maasch at 11/02/2005 @ 11:34pm

199. John, hope you are doing well. Did you get a chance to digest any of the links I provided you re: Bush's manipulation of pre-war intelligence? Pretty good stuff, no?

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/02/2005 @ 11:40pm

200. Tj,

     I spoke with my friends this morning in New Orleans and they are having hard time finding people to fill the jobs of a wide variety of skills. The $ 22 hr are for basic clean up, as the had to pay $ 10,000 just to get the treEs removed from their yards. They told me that almost any labor jobs are paying double what normally wqas the rate. I am not a labor expert but I can smell an opportunity , which is my point. All the negativity here I thought we could use some good news for a change, but perhaps I am wrong. Someone can always find something wrong..

     The wage report came from the radio news story on economic figures released by labor department was all I noticed, hell, it could have been NPR, as I was getting out of my car to work. Again, just trying to point out not everything is as bad as most here feel

     Housing in trailers was provided in some cases.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/02/2005 @ 11:42pm

201. Hman,

     I am well, thank you. Not yet, as I am catching up on my books I have ignored and almost finished. I have the list from you and I will examine it soon.

     Tell me, given I haven't read any of them yet, if Bush lies are so agregious(sp) and obvious, why isn't anyone up for investigation by Fitz? Something this big would have been front page news and even Repubs would be on board.

     Also, are they going to fine or charge Wilson? Didn't the Senate comitee find his testimony mostly lies? Is that not lying to congress? Really am interested in this.

     In my travels I don't find any popular uprising over Libby and Bush, mostly blank looks and comments like," ah, politics, all crapp"

     Posted by john maasch at 11/02/2005 @ 11:47pm

202. Have you ever read Carl Hiaasen, John? I'm thinking in particular of his book Stormy Weather, a fictitious but not completely fictitious story about the multiple levels of corruption that took place after a hurricane in Miami. I could just be a downer type of guy, but it just seems that bad situations like New Orleans don't become good situations for good people.

     Good night.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/02/2005 @ 11:53pm

203. Hey NACL - nothing in the Nichols quote is inaccurate.

     "If a senior White House official (that's Libby)

     leaks (Libby spoke to Miller and Cooper)

     classified information (the indictment alleges it was; a State Dept. memo identified Plame's status as classified and not be be shared with even foreign friendlies)

     that identifies an undercover CIA officer (Plame was undercover; the indictment alleges the info was not known to those outside the intel commmunity; Jim Marcenkowski (CIA) gave an interview claiming that she had been covert for 18 years; Larry Johnson (CIA) has said the same thing; none of her neighbors seemed to know)

     to reporters (Miller and Cooper)

     and in order to undermine a critic of the administration (only a fool would not think this was at least true)

     he is not entitled to lie about it ..." (Libby took an oath to tell the truth)

     Sure, at this stage, the prosecutor seems to not have evidence of Libby's state of mind necessary to indict under the relevant criminal statutes, but Nichols never claims he does.

     But, hey thanks for the effort!

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/02/2005 @ 11:55pm

204. Hman or anybody,

     I also heard the CIA has supposidly set up camps in various countries for prisoners, so, by printing this story, are we not outing cia agents that are actually undercover and endangering their lives?

     Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 12:05am

205. TJ,

     I will get this book first. And no it is not a good time for people in NO and others, but there are opportunitys available,..this is always my life view..

     Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 12:06am

206. John, "lies" and "lied" are words that I do not throw around lightly - whether it is Bush or Wilson. A lie would be to say something clearly false on its own terms, like I played baseball for the Yankees. I think with Bush, there are a few things that I would call direct lies, but most fall into the category of misrepresentations (which can either be direct or by omission of material facts). I am generalizing to be brief, but Bush basically misrepresented the scope of the Iraqi threat. The links I gave you set forth that his administration knowingly omitted material facts, manipulated the intelligence beyond mere puffing, and misled the public. They took information that was sketchy and represented it as solid, and in some circumstances, kept up with assertions they knew lacked credibility or had been refuted by the intelligence aparatus.

     As for Wilson, what were his lies actually? That Cheney sent him? He never claimed that. That his wife did not send him to Niger? She did not do that, nor did she have the authority to do so. That Hussein did not buy yellowcake from Niger? He never did. Be careful relying too heavily on the Senate report - you will see if you read the information I sent you. In any event, there is nothing in the Senate report that makes it clear he lied to the committee - I thought the whole Wilson lied angle related to his writings and appearances in the press. Did he say some things that were not true regarding the Niger forgeries - yes, and he retracted those. Look, I am not saying that Wilson did not "overstate" his case in certain limited respects, it is just not on par with Bush.

     As for an investigation, Rockefeller and Reid, in addition to Conyers and others have been trying to get answers on this for years. The administration has refused, and Roberts has blocked any meaningful inquiry in the Senate. To boot, Cheney and Libby withheld documents from the Seante bearing on the issue. Re: Bush lied, there is obviously not a smoking gun e-mail saying, "I know he is not a threat, but let's go in anyway." Given that we are dealing with classified intelligence information and a complicated set of circumstances and facts, it is not a cut and dried case with fingerprints galore.

     As for people caring, I guess from poll numbers (which you may snarf at) I disagree.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 12:22am

207. John. I did not see any CIA names or lists of cover companies regarding the CIA camps, so I guess I would say no. Apples to oranges anyway.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 12:26am

208. Hman,

     The locations(camps) might have same effect.

     If I point to the house in which you live and say the Cia guy lives there and the papers report that indeed a cia officer lives there and is torturing people..is this not the same as placing you in danger? Apples to Oranges,no, oranges to nectarines maybe...just a thought.

     I have spend more time reading this week than blogging, as johannes seems to think by his posts, that I should continue to read and not blog...

     Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 01:26am

209. I don't snarf at polls, I just don't trust them.

     Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 01:27am

210. The BIG LIE is the devious media campaign that sold this war to the public and Congress. Judy Miller of the N.Y. Times was pumped full of "inside information" by Bush mob operatives(Libby< etc.), and Miller gets the alarmist headlines on the front page of the Times: "Saddam is building a nuclear weapon,etc." Then Cheney, Rummy, Condi, and the whole team go on all the news-talk shows with dire warnings about Saddam's WMD, and mushroom clouds- a big load of bullshit. But the propaganda machine works, and the corporate media echo chamber reverberates with scary conjecture about "Saddam's WMD!" Thus the BIG LIE is used succesfully to push the nation into an illegal attack on a sovereign nation who posed no threat to the U.S. But now the BIG LIE is obvious to all thinking people (minus the Bush Republican brainwashed crowd).

     Posted by philbq at 11/03/2005 @ 07:48am

211. Maasch:"I also heard the CIA has supposidly set up camps in various countries for prisoners, so, by printing this story, are we not outing cia agents that are actually undercover and endangering their lives?"

     yes, if this is the level of your discourse, I for one would prefer silence.

     this is dumb beyond belief. no one is outing anyone by reporting on super secret prisons the CIA has set up around the world. no undercover agant is named. that CIA agent in Bulgaria or Thailand can go on torturing under whatever cover the agency has provided.

     would you prefer not to know about these things? that's what your whining attacks on the press suggest. simple, don't read any newspapers, watch no TV and just follow the marching orders of your right wing handlers.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 07:58am

212. JOHANNESROLF: Don't get worked up about John Maach: you must see by now he is just a loveable clown. Although he is a nice man, he is not a serious person. And so of course his opinions are a joke.

     Posted by philbq at 11/03/2005 @ 08:20am

213. Phil, thanks, you are of course correct

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 09:18am

214. Is David Corn on vacation?

     Seems like this article has been up for an awfully long time???

     Posted by Mask at 11/03/2005 @ 09:34am

215. John, I do not know enough about the camps, but I doubt they were set up under a cover like a McDonald's with torture chambers in the kitchen. I suspect they were just not known at all to the surrounding public, sealed off at a distance. Admittedly, I do not know enough about it, but my sense is that Plame was acting covertly, disguising her true role, while these camps, while hidden, were not operating under any deceptive cover. Again, I did not hear that any particular agents or organizations were named. I could be wrong.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 09:48am

216. Mary, you are bringing a knife to a gun fight, but nice try.

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 10:03am

217. Listen, bottom line is valerie plame was a rouge CIA agent who was called out by the administration. Not all CIA agents are "clean", which is the real question of why they never made Wilson sign the MANDATORY non disclosure for what he found in Niger. Instead, he was allowed to publish his OPINION in the NY Times, with the NT Times fully backing their ploy to stop Bush.

     Corn is made because Bush, nor Cheney, will be tied to Libby. Libby will go down, that is if they find "ill intent to do harm", and that is that.

     The closed door senate session is a joke and is a ploy that the Dems are trying to go after Bush. How is it they only want to look at Republican records with no Dem records and no previous adminstration records. They are not after the best interest of the country. Has anyone read that the Rep Council that was running the second part of the investigation wanted to meet with the Dem leadership 6 months ago on this topic and they stalled and said they didn't want to meet. All they had to do is walk down the hall and ask what is going on. They are the ones that blew off the previous attempts to meet and then use block head Media not to tell that side of the story and have all of us in a frenzy...step back and take a look.

     Libby will fall, but sorry guys, Bush will not go down on this...

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 10:34am

218. HMAN, nice line, but what happened to the man who used that line in the movie...He was blown away by a gun he didn't see. Nice try!

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 10:36am

219. One other comment about the Wilson findings...Both Dems, Reps and CIA ops said his work was messy and did not follow CIA standards.

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 10:39am

220. MBB,

     Hi. You're reaching and when you're not reaching you're just making stuff up.

     "The Democrats claimed that we shouldn't go to war because we'd be fighting the regular Iraq army for years. If fact, they lasted less than a couple of month. LIARS!"

     Who? When? I can't speak for Democrats, who were almost as stupid as Republicans during the lead-up to the war. But as for liberals, we believed that the first war, the sanctions, the flyovers, and the inspectors had pretty well cleared out most of Saddam's military capabilities.

     "The Democrats claimed that we shouldn't go to war because Saddam Hussein would use chemical and biological weapons against our troops. In fact, they did not. LIARS!"

     Actually this is what the Republicans claimed, so watch that Liar stuff. But, it did make sense that if the Administration was correct that Saddam had these weapons, he would use them on the US military. What your little ditty here shows is not the lying of the democrats, but the lying on the part of Republicans who faked intelligence on Saddam's weapons.

     "Democrats claimed that the Iraq war was illegal when in fact it was authorized by a UN resolution and also by and act of Congress. The UN has taken no action in the subsequent two years to promote the idea that the war was illegal. LIARS!"

     Again who is claiming this? The democrats signed that ridiculous order in the fall of 2002 handing Bush a virtual blank check for war. Liberals maintained that Congress's action was insane and that going to war for the hell of it was unethical. But who is talking about illegality? And what does the UN have to do with laws?

     "Democrats claim that, somehow, Libby's statements to the grand jury, stemming from conversations with journalists occurring months after the end of the regular Iraq Army are evidence of manipulations of intelligence that occurred prior to the war, eight months before the conversations were held. LIARS!"

     It's difficult for some to analyze situations. His lies were produced in an effort to cover up conversations he had with reporters regarding Joe Wilson. Joe Wilson's assertions were a nuisance to the Administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities. Manipulations is a good word.

     "Democrats claim that even though the famous sixteen words say "sought uranium" and even though the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence committee concluded that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger confirmed that Iraq "sought uranium", they claim Joe Wilson's trip to Niger debunked Bush's SOTU claim that Iraq purchased uranium. LIARS!"

     First, reread the blasted SOTU: "recently sought" not "purchased"--you're undermining your own argument. Confirmed? No. Wilson's statements to the CIA and to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inconsistent, but neither they nor other evidence confirms that Saddam "recently sought" uranium from Africa. And if the evidence for this seeking was evident, why would the Administration simply present the proof to show that Wilson was wrong?

     "Democrats claim that because some people believe the aluminum tubes were not suitable for uranium enrichment, President Bush was obligated to ignore the fact that Iraq purchased the tubes surreptitiously and also obligated to ignore the fact that other analysts believed the tubes did have dual use capabilities. LIARS!"

     You're hung up on aluminum tubes? Would we have gone to war with Iraq over aluminum tubes? Dual use capabilities sounds like a phrase concocted by Intelliegent Design proponents.

     "Democrats claim that the UN inspection regime was an effective means of containing Saddam when in fact the subsequent disclosures from journalists investigating the UN Oil for Food Scam provide incontrovertible evidence that UN officials from France, Germany, and Russia were actively seeking to undermine the UN sanctions because they were being bribed with Oil for Food Scam money. LIARS!"

     You forgot the US in your little list, a country that was well aware of the scamming and allowed its allows to take advantage of it. What does this have to do with the invasion? Saddam was contained militarily. The left (not the democrats) had been against sanctions since the Clinton administration, recognizing that the people were suffering while Saddam was not.

     How else would you interpret Condi's statement other than Saddam has nukes? I'll give you a different interpretation. "Saddam has nukes and he intends to blow up the United States of America." You're right, no exaggeration there.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 10:50am

221. I love the fact that liberals liked John Edwards and thought he was so honest, mean while he is in the court room saying that he is hearing a dead baby talk to him. That was in a case that 99.99% of the babies die in and 99.99% of the doctors agree that they will die and is not the Dr's fault. Yet, it was settled and John Edwards walks away with millions of dollars in his pocket. That is great for our health care system...

     Please start looking into the leadership that you are all trying to protect. John Kerry is worth ten times what the Bush family is worth. Yet, that never came up...that family could not only feed the US at a much lower cost, but could potentially take a huge chunck out of world hunger.

     Can anyone say that a third party MUST come out of this mess? Both parties are corrupt. The thing that tweaks me is that we all know that Reps are for Big Biz, yet most Dems ignore the fact that they are controlled and are loyal to those same big biz operators!

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 10:51am

222. "valerie plame was a rouge CIA agent"

     Actually, I think her make-up is quite tasteful.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 11/03/2005 @ 10:52am

223. TJ, the majority of the Dem leaders agreed with the Republicans and if you look at the previous adminstration, they blasted the same rhetoric. That is why the Dem session is trying to lock of Dem statements and only go after the rep statements...is that fair? What are they hidding? Why did they not want to meet the first time to discuss the findings or get a time table set up? Why not walk down the hall and ask when they could meet instead of greandstanding and having the MSM only telling half the story?

     Wake up dude! The dems keep digging a deeper and deeper canyon for themselves. Why don't we take a look at what Hillary has said about Iraq and Sadaam? She is staying out of it and may not be the happiest camper this just happened. The Dems have too many fly by night leaders who want the power. Or maybe they are trying to stop her from getting there themselves! Think about it...some of the Dem leaders are from conversative states that DO NOT LIKE Hillary! If she gets in, there jobs are in jeopardy!

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 10:57am

224. Mary, let's play your game and call it "bunk"

     The Democrats claimed that we shouldn't go to war because we'd be fighting the regular Iraq army for years. If fact, they lasted less than a couple of month. bunk

     we ARE fighting remnants of that army,

     The Democrats claimed that we shouldn't go to war because Saddam Hussein would use chemical and biological weapons against our troops. In fact, they did not.bunk

     everyone was lied to about the weapons, including dems

     Democrats claimed that the Iraq war was illegal when in fact it was authorized by a UN resolution and also by and act of Congress. The UN has taken no action in the subsequent two years to promote the idea that the war was illegal. bunk

     there was no UN resolution sanctioning the war

     Democrats claim that, somehow, Libby's statements to the grand jury, stemming from conversations with journalists occurring months after the end of the regular Iraq Army are evidence of manipulations of intelligence that occurred prior to the war, eight months before the conversations were held.bunk

     the manipulations of the intelligence before during and after the war are well documented and well known

     Democrats claim that even though the famous sixteen words say "sought uranium" and even though the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence committee concluded that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger confirmed that Iraq "sought uranium", they claim Joe Wilson's trip to Niger debunked Bush's SOTU claim that Iraq purchased uranium. bunk

     same as above, the administrations lies are well documented

     Democrats claim that because some people believe the aluminum tubes were not suitable for uranium enrichment, President Bush was obligated to ignore the fact that Iraq purchased the tubes surreptitiously and also obligated to ignore the fact that other analysts believed the tubes did have dual use capabilities.bunk

     that the tubers were unsuited for nuclear weapons was clear then as now

     Democrats claim that the UN inspection regime was an effective means of containing Saddam when in fact the subsequent disclosures from journalists investigating the UN Oil for Food Scam provide incontrovertible evidence that UN officials from France, Germany, and Russia were actively seeking to undermine the UN sanctions because they were being bribed with Oil for Food Scam money. bunk

     you left out american participation in the oil for food corruption.

     nice try but short on facts and proof, d-

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 10:57am

225. Is that the picture her and Wilson took in front of the white house in a convertable? Or is that the spread she did for vanity fair?

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 10:58am

226. Johan...the main american that was involved with the oil for food scandal was an enemy to the Bush family. Now put on your thinking cap and start putting the pieces together...oil men know where the oil is coming from and who is supplying it.

     BTW, I thought France is the best run country taht accepts ALL peoples and cultures. France is ready to implode!

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:01am

227. The EU is going to fall which is why Britian has not changed over the pound yet. would you trust Germany and france?

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:02am

228. Tj, I got a good chuckle out of that one.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 11:03am

229. Why does Chirac want an EU Army? You guys been following this one?

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:03am

230. Get the chuckles...sign of nervousness!

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:04am

231. Why hasn't anyone, like Corn, started a blog about the Iranian president saying that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet? Why is the UN now starting to play hard ball with Syria? ANYONE HAVE A CLUE besides Bush lied?

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:06am

232. a quick google leading to wikipedia reveals:

     "On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan the Secretary General of the United Nations called the invasion of Iraq illegal. He cited the lack of a Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing the war. [1]

     see how much fun this is, to debunk

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 11:07am

233. That is because he is countering the OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL! Iraq also broke how many sanctions during the 90's and NOTHIBNG was done about it and the oil for food scandal happened under his watch?

     Nice try! By the way we look at it, the war actually followed international law and the UN was at fault for not doing anything about the sanctions that sadaam was breaking.

     He is a good article for you to read: "How Saddam tried to bribe the world and break UN sanctions" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1300129_2,00.html

     piece of it:

     The moment the new scheme started, Iraq's revenues from it shot up from $250million in 1996 to $2.76billion in 2001. The programme became the largest humanitarian project in UN history, handling $64.2billion in Iraqi oil sales and delivering $39billion of aid to 22 million people. Saddam then conceived an ambitious plan to subvert the scheme. From the isolation of his palace he set out to buy influence with politicians who might argue Iraq's case within the UN, and help him to overturn sanctions.

     Within Iraq, he was becoming increasingly secluded for fear of detection and assassination by the US, and dealing with a tiny band of allies. But as Duelfer puts it, Saddam found the Oil-for-Food scheme "a splendid opportunity to develop influence" beyond Iraq. He played on the split in the UN between the US and UK on one side, and France and Russia on the other. By 2000, his success was visible. Banned goods and weapons "were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem", Mr Duelfer said. The US was unable to block a deal between Iraq and Syria to reopen the cross-border pipeline.

     Get it now people?

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:17am

234. re read and then ask yourself, why are the dems scared about looking back into the Clinton Administartion? That all happened under his watch!

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:19am

235. Please re read the piece that said "$39 Billion to 22 million people" that would mean that 22 million Iraqi's would have at least $1 billion in the bank. I know liberals are emotional, but lets do simple math people and take a look at the poverty in iraq!!!

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:23am

236. Keep justifying keeping Sadaam in power and turing a blind eye to the UN Oil for Food Scandal...you guys are awesome!!!

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:27am

237. more on the secret gulags, the EU is investigating, those eastern european countries may be in violation of EU treaties.

     c'mon can we have some outrage here?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 11:27am

238. You mean France and Germany Rules? Why is it that France and Germany can break every EU Financial rule, yet nothing is done about it?

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:29am

239. mary, your last post does nothing to address the shortcomings of your apologist posting, get real or get out

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 11:32am

240. mary:"JOHANNESROLF, C'mon man. Get with the program! You don't need actual facts to claim someone is a liar. The whole point is calling them a liar. It doesn't make any difference if it is true.

     that describes your modus operandi better than I could have

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 11:34am

241. Mary, I think Johan is from Europe, so he/she is only getting CNN and other US liberal based media. Did you know that even Canada bans Foxnews, yet they claim they are an open thinking society? Even if you don't like Fox, should you not have the right to watch it and not have the govt tell you what you can and can't read or watch?

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:34am

242. Johan, it is called sarcasim...obviosuly a european who doesn't get it. I bet you are german

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:35am

243. By the way...closed door session...elections in the US in the immediate two weeks...connection?

     Posted by dancall at 11/03/2005 @ 11:38am

244. re read and then ask yourself, why are the dems scared about looking back into the Clinton Administartion? That all happened under his watch! Posted by DANCALL 11/03/2005 @ 11:19am | ignore this person

     Here we go again. Whenever there is an attempt to reveal the paper trail of BushCo lies that have resulted, so far, in the deaths of 2000 of our fine young soldiers and marines, some partisan hack pops-up and cries "blame Clinton."

     Always looking backward, obfuscating, and filled with misguided moral self-righteousness, this unholy alliance of partisan hacks and theocratic-Republicans all too willingly look the other way as the values and honor of the United States of America are tarnished by the servants of the oil industry. Bush and Cheney never sacrificed a day of their lives for this country. They are takers. Their allegiance to the multi-national corporations that enrich their families' wealth is supra to their oaths of office to defend our Constitution and serve all the people of this great land.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 11/03/2005 @ 11:55am

245. mary, this is changing the subject. you claimed that there was a UN resolution, the head of the UN says there wasn't, and I looked it up. why not address the question with some facts? because you can't you phony

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 11:56am

246. Dancall,Mary, CPT,

     You are wasting your typing fingers..with a few exceptions here, the main point is that Bush and GOP are a threat to the world and peace. If the Bush and company would only be led away in chains, executed, then put on trial, the world would then start to heal. It would even help if the US would close down the oil companies, all companies, disban the army and turn the keys over to progressives.

     Al wars would end, the UN could run the land fairly, and all rich (whatever that is defined as) would have their ill gotten property redistributed.

     And we could all get along. Oh, and let the Mideast, Iraq, Iran, Israel fix their own problems.

     All you hear about here are problems, but never solutions..ever.It is tiring.

     And to think many people believe the Democratic party has been taken over by the far left...please run on the posts points displayed here and the GOP will run the place for another 50 years.

     Johannes,

     auf wiedersehen

     Posted by john maasch at 11/03/2005 @ 12:05pm

247. Maasch, why be facetious? I have never been anything less than sincere. I apologize for any bruised feelings resulting from any tactlessness on my part.

     now can we return to discussing, the secret CIA camps for instance. the shining city on a hill has been turned into the shining gulag on the hill, and the statue of liberty has been changed to: give us your wretched refuse and we'll send them to prions all over the world

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 12:16pm

248. Maasch, I haven't heard any solutions coming from you, so heed your own advice

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 12:17pm

249. It is amazing when one spends just a few days away from this site and participates in the real world, objectivity returns to your mind.

     If I were to isolate myself to this site and surround my life with the representative liberal participants, I would actually believe that the US is comprised of angry people ready to kick George Bush out and even maybe throw him in prison.

     So what happened when these folks were given their chance to muster a rally of protest by Americans against George Bush and demand he resign from office as was the case with the infamous "The World Can't Wait" effort on 11/2/05?

     Generous estimates place the total number of protesters from around the country at around 10,000. Los Angeles which indeed is a liberals dream socialist republik, could only get 700 protesters to show up. San Francisco (who never fails to show it's hatred for all things American), did manage to get 2000 protesters out (but one suspects they promised a homosexual bath-house party afterwards).

     So, if you listen to Nation writers and the bloggers here, a millions should have poured out into the streets yesterday; instead as I mentioned, the sum total was around 10,000. This represents approximately 3.5 1000th's of a percent of the US population.

     The dirty little secret is exposed; the far left is nonexistent except in forums like this. Even those dogmatic Bush hating Democrats couldn't find the energy or enthusiasm to support this effort.

     It's great to find that this simply reinforces what we conservatives maintain; the left is dead, they just don't realize it.

     Posted by love liberty at 11/03/2005 @ 12:19pm

250. I guess SEATTLESCRIBE believes the reign of BJ had nothing to do with any of these world events we speak of. No bearing at all.

     Typical lib.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/03/2005 @ 12:23pm

251. LL: Yes, it is amazing, the perspective that is gained by engaging in the real world. Which, by the way, is not what is generally represented on these lib blogs.

     But it is amusing to come around from time to time and get a dose of the fanatical left fringe.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 11/03/2005 @ 12:34pm

252. Touche' Dancall! lol

     Posted by Hman23 at 11/03/2005 @ 12:38pm

253. Nice try, LoveLiberty. But there are no monoliths, and much of what you call solid support for Bush washes away with every crisis, and there are more to come.

     While I agree that much of what the democrats say about the republicans is "grandstanding", as Mr. Frist puts it, and that many people are taken in by both sides, it does not follow that the left is dead. In fact, if you look outside the borders of this country, you will observe a world in which the left, where it is quiet enough politically, is moving from strength to strength.

     Viewing the world as a whole, it is the right in the United States that is blind, certainly as blind as the left in that it does not see how pressures are actually building, and what momentum they have. And if it does see them, it seeks to kill it off, as it is attempting to do in the Americas right now, in Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia. But it's all for naught, really it is.

     Posted by bkarloff at 11/03/2005 @ 12:49pm

254. .

     HMAN23 11/02 @ 11:55pm

     "Hey NACL - nothing in the Nichols quote [you mean Corn] is inaccurate."

     Let's see, you truthspeaker.

     I had said (in NACL 11/02 @ 9:09pm): "Libby is NOT accused of leaking classified information, or of identifying an undercover agent," as Corn alleges.

     Read the indictment here and then try to confute me.

     For your information, the CIA has tens of thousands of employees. Almost none of them are spies. Ninety plus percent perform some form of desk job, be it translating, collating, analyzing, etc. The employment of all of them is as non-secret and as open as that of govt workers in the Post office, Patent office, Pentagon or IRS. That a few of these CIA employees are covert agents, and that that fact is secret, is another matter, one not compromised by Libby. (But it was compromised by someone. That that issue is being ignored, including by Fitzgerald, is the real, and still smoldering scandal.)

     You say, "the indictment alleges it (what Libby leaked) was; a State Dept. memo identified Plame's status as classified and not be be shared with even foreign friendlies..."

     That is a falsehood. There is no such allegation. Libby is not charged with leaking any memo. He is not charged with leaking any classified information. Nor is he charged with talking to reporters about Plame and her job at the CIA. He did that, but that was not illegal.

     He is charged with misleading the grand jury when it asked him who it was, in his conversations with reporters about Wilson's mission to Niger, who first mentioned that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and that her position there may have allowed her to suggest her husband for the job. It appears Libby made it seem that a reporter rather than he had first made that point. The information itself was not a secret and was not disclosed illegally. Illegal was his fudging that conversation under oath.

     Corn knows that. He is not very smart, but this story has been his bread and butter for many months, and by now he knows the issue. Which is why he lies about it. Because this entire storm is about a trifle. It is too small to merit a fuss, and so Corn pretends it's about disclosing secrets and endangering our spies. It isn't. It is about a technicality.

     One can argue that twisting the truth before a grand jury is perjury and a serious matter regardless of what lies behind the lie. As Fitzgerald said, our legal system depends on courts being able to access the truth. It must punish willful lies on principle.

     That is true. But who is punishing Corn and the legion of jerks screaming abject falsehoods from morning to night?

     .

     Posted by nacl at 11/03/2005 @ 12:52pm

255. LL, USAPride, AllDank, Mary et al - It's so patently obvious that you all have such a deep emotional connection to Bush and Co that you've lost any capacity for independent thought or analysis. As with all fundamentalists, you passionately stick to the creed, vehemently reject any criticism and even more vehemently attack any apostates. Clearly, if you were to admit to any fault in your heroes, you'd then have to notice the cracks and soon the whole thing would come crashing down.

     I truly pity those of you who's world view has become so perverted, so twisted that you cannot see the immense damage that this administration has done - in your name! You see everything in terms of whose "team" is winning. Guess what? It's really not about winning or losing. It should be about doing the right thing, taking actions that remind us of what makes us proud to be americans. How can you take pleasure in justifying unilateral war, justifying torture?

     Posted by Fishbite at 11/03/2005 @ 12:57pm

256. The war itself is based upon a falsehood, the lie that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Your own president, caught on video making a huge joke out of his own blindness, or complete duplicity in this fairy tale, is confirmation of the falsehood.

     Where you are correct, NACL, is that the democrats won't pursue this thing to the bone. They're too caught up in the lie themselves. But for now, it makes good grist for the offyear elections, so far as they are concerned. Their actions are completely cynical and phony, and a lot of people who post here are going to be terribly disappointed. But who knows? Maybe the reality of what politics in this country is will catch on.

     Posted by bkarloff at 11/03/2005 @ 12:58pm

257. I take some solace in the fact that the wind has shifted in this country. we are discussing what went undiscussed before. and Bush approval ratings are still going down, 35% now. the warmongers Bush, Cheney are not the ones to make peace, they are incapable of it.

     what they could be capable of is to tell the truth and admit mistakes, (don't hold your breath), and it will be for others to bring moderation and reason and above all integrity to american foreign and domestic policy

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 1:04pm

258. I had occasion to interact with some pesky furriners recently on a visit to Canada. The quick-witted among you will immediately surmise that these were indeed Canadians. Anyway, one view that came through very clearly was that the "intelligent design" discussion had made the US a complete laughing stock in the intellegentsia and scientific communities around the world. There was complete bafflement and amusement that an educated society would seriously be engaged in such a debate. Anecdotal evidence, and off-topic, but there you are.

     Posted by Fishbite at 11/03/2005 @ 1:04pm

259. Fishy, yes indeed

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 1:05pm

260. USAPride,

     Your fixation on Clinton's genital organ says a lot about you and your priorities. Meanwhile, fast forward to the present, we lost 90 of our finest last month. We still don't know why. It is sad that anyone objects to unearthing facts that will either prove wrong those of us who believe Bush lied or validate his apologists.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 11/03/2005 @ 1:13pm

261. There we have it America; the posts subsequent to my post noting the complete separation from reality that the far left lives in, amply demonstrates my point.

     They ignore the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't turn out in support of their misadventures. They ignore the fact that in crunch time, Americans rally to the office of the President (they even did that with Clinton), that Americans do believe we are a force for good and not evil in the world; that we don't care if the whole world loses it's collective mind and adopts socialist governments as long as we don't have to end up supporting them; we are intelligent enough to know that their dream government/world has and continues to fail everywhere it is tried. Look at Europe they have insisted over the past 5 years. Yes, look at dead, decayed, fragmented, lack of work, racially, ethnically, and religiously exploding Europe. The Neo-Nazi movement is alive and well in Germany due to the policies of the past 20 years. France is near death throes or at least an explosive anarchy movement. Italy is a joke. Spain fell off the map after they let the far left come in out of fear.

     As to the growing socialist countries-which one has a higher immigration rate than the US? Which one has more world investment? I never hear anyone discuss Venezuela, Brazil, or Cuba as the best opportunity to realize your dreams, it is still the U.S.

     One small point of education for those who constantly proclaim the "sinking" poll numbers for Bush. These polls are not based upon likely voters, nor will you see the MSM do so except in the weeks leading up to elections in 2006 and 2008. The MSM knows that the likely voters polls are much more conservative than the general population polls. That is one reason why Bush and most thinking conservatives could care less about poll numbers. They don't reflect the reality of those who count most, voters.

     I hate to typecast, but I have noticed that the majority of the leftwing posters live in places like NY, Seattle, and Boston. No wonder these people have no link to reality, they live in Socialist havens. Maybe if they got out to the real world, their eyes could be opened. Maybe, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

     Posted by love liberty at 11/03/2005 @ 1:54pm

262. mary, I did not call Bush a liar in connection with UN resolutions, that is a straw man you set up. you claimed that there was a UN war resolution and there wasn't one.you are another who is incapable of admitting a mistake.

     Bush's lies were and are many and varied. here's an example: "we have found the WMD", yes he actually said that, and it's actually not true. your move

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 3:02pm

263. Mary:" In the US, competitive sports teams are one of the facets universities use to attract intellectual talent."

     whaat? sports teams attract intellectual talent? you must be kidding

     the fact is that US students rank extremely low in math and sciences, and that is germane to Fishbite's post, and your anecdote is not. also he was talking about creationism and you didn't address that point either, instead again changing the subject. there are a few more talking points where you were challenged, perhaps you could enlighten us on those subjects, as your similes are impenetrable

     it is my perogative and my privilege to call Bush a liar, I share these with a great many americans and others

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 3:10pm

264. Mary, nice try, but I said Bush lied and I cited an instance where he lied,"we have found the WMD" and you have not addressed that. it is your facts that are illusionary.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 3:22pm

265. your sophistry knows no bounds, Mary take this quote:"… Mr. Fitzgerald: "This indictment's not about the propriety of the war,

     very selective quoting, he did not, repeat NOT look into the question of the war and that's what he said.

     aND THIS:" His wife, who worked at the CIA, had suggested his name for the trip,

     It has been stated repeatedly that she did not suggest her husband

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 3:28pm

266. Mary contrary, perhaps you don't read the papers but the 35% is a fact, of that poll. I did not make it up, but they'll go far lower, jes' wait

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 8:28pm

267. you can take it up with ABC and the wash post. I'm sure the white house is well aware of those polls, and Bush will sleep a little less well;.

     here is something for all you Bush lovers to chew on:

     we are in the middle of an election, with tuesday election day. there are races all over the country for Senator, governor etc, yet Bush is not appearing with any one of them on the stump. I wonder why?

     nobody wants to be seen with him. he only appears in front of military audiences. Poor Geaorge

     also the word is that he's cracking up,shouting at staff, berating his friends, perhaps hitting the sauce.

     the thing is this, no matter how inept the dems are, the administration is self destructing and events take on their momentum, and it is not necessary for him to be impeached, if he loses the confidence of the people he will not merely be a lame duck, he will be a dead duck

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 8:35pm

268. apropos secret gulags in eastern european countries, the EU should kick them out of the EU if they are new members. other states that participate in this monstrocity should be shunned, no tourism in Thailand.

     I myself am giving up thaisticks in protest.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2005 @ 8:39pm