Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe most intriguing news with regard to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the apparent effort by the Bush-Cheney administration to punish former Ambassador Joe Wilson for revealing how the White House deceived the American people about the threat posed by Iraq is not the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.
Make no mistake, it is exceptionally significant that Cheney's closest aide and political confidante over the past two decades, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, has been charged with two counts of making false statements to federal agents, two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice for misleading and deceiving the grand jury about how he learned that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a Central Intelligence Agency operative.
Of course, it matters that Fitzgerald's office says Libby lied "about how and when in 2003 he learned and subsequently disclosed to reporters then-classified information concerning the employment of Valerie (Plame) by the Central Intelligence Agency." Of course it matters that, in response to these indictments, one of the most powerful players in Washington -- the right-hand man of the vice president, a pioneering champion of the neo-conservative worldview and a principal architect of the war with Iraq -- has resigned from his positions with the administration.
But what matters most are the questions that the Libby indictment has raised with regard to Cheney's actions?
Let's be clear: If the Libby indictment and resignation is all that comes of Fitzgerald's two-year-long investigation into a case that touches on fundamental questions of government accountability, abuse of power and the dubious "case" that was made for going to war in Iraq, then this whole matter will be no more that a footnote to the sorry history of the Bush-Cheney era.
But Libby indictment is not necessarily all that will come of this investigation.
As Fitzgerald said during his press conference Friday, "It's not over."
Fitzgerald was extremely cautious about what he meant by that statement. But he did confirm that he will be keeping the "(grand) jury open to consider other matters."
But, while Fitzgerald made the predictable announcement that that the "substantial work" of the investigation was done, the fact that the grand jury remains empaneled makes it reasonable to suggest, or at the very least to hope, that we have reached the Churchillian moment when it can be said: "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
There will be those who are excited by the prospect that an extended investigation might actually "get" White House political czar Karl Rove, who has long been a subject of the inquiry but was spared indictment Friday. That's very possible, as Fitzgerald has reportedly informed Rove's lawyers that he is still under investigation.
But this will never be the inquiry that it can and should be if it merely tags Libby and Rove for wrongdoing.
The fundamental responsibility of the special prosecutor, and the one that he now has an opportunity to pursue, is to determine whether the Bush-Cheney administration set out to punish Wilson for exposing the fact that the president and the vice president had deliberately and dramatically inflated claims regarding Iraqi programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. Even David Gergen, the former adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton who is as cautious as the come in these matters, says that the indictments that have now been obtained in the case "raise questions about whether criminal acts were perpetrated to help get the country into war."
The Congress and the media, which should have served as watchdogs on the administration before and after the start of the war, failed in their duty. And, while it is now commonly accepted that the president and the vice president stretched the truth to the breaking point in their feverish campaign to win support for action against Iraq, the specific details of the administration's abuse of intelligence materials have yet to be adequately established. It is in the establishment of those details, and the facts surrounding them, that it becomes possible to understand why so many powerful people were so determined to destroy Wilson's reputation and that of his wife. It is, as well, where questions about the precise roles of the president and the vice president in this whole sordid affair can, and must, be clarified.
Some details with regard to the vice president's role have been revealed. The indictment indicates that Cheney was one of the first federal official who spoke with Libby about the identity of Joe Wilson's wife. "On or about June 12, 2003, Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division," it explains. "Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."
The document goes on to point out that several of Libby's most controversial calls to reporters appear to have taken place following conversations with Cheney. "On or about July 12, 2003," the indictment says, "Libby flew with the Vice President and others to and from Norfolk, Virginia, on Air Force Two. On his return trip, Libby discussed with other officials aboard the plane what Libby should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper."
The indictment does not detail what was discussed in those conversations, and it does not get into who said exactly what. But it does note that Libby called both Cooper and Judith Miller of the New York Times, and that the Wilson's wife was discussed during both those conversations.
Fitzgerald is careful to say, "We make no allegation that the vice president committed any criminal act." But, as he explained, that is the "standard" response to questions regarding individuals who have not been indicted.
A review of the documents surrounding the Libby indictment leaves little doubt that there are still many questions to be answered, and that at least some of those questions should relate to the actions of the highest-ranking officials in the administration.
This is why 40 members of the U.S. House have urged Fitzgerald to expand the inquiry to examine whether Bush, Cheney and members of the White House's Iraq War Group conspired to deceive Congress into authorizing the war – thus committing the federal crime of lying to Congress. Of course, there will be those who argue that such an investigation would be too broad an extension of the special prosecutor's brief. But that's just the latest line from those who have always wanted to close down this inquiry.
The simple fact is that, if Patrick Fitzgerald wants to get to the truth about who was behind the attempt to discredit Wilson and Plame, he has to examine the reason why the White House cared so very much about what was said regarding the use and misuse of intelligence. That is the examination that Fitzgerald can and should now begin.
John Nichols' biography of Vice President Cheney, Dick: The Man Who Is President (The New Press, 2004) is currently available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. An expanded paperback version of the book, which Publisher's Weekly describes as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says "reveals the inner Cheney," will be available this fall under the title, The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press).
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"the apparent effort by the Bush-Cheney administration to punish former Ambassador Joe Wilson for revealing how the White House deceived the American people about the threat posed by Iraq is not the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. "
Is this what this was about?
To me It looks like the person who id Plame has not been indicted and who knows who that is, and that no real crime was been commited, as there is only obstruction and perjury charges, that if Libby told the truth to the grand jury, then would this not fold up and go away?
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 3:43pm
You Libs are just shooting blanks again. This is much ado about nothing. A big yawn...wanna troll out cindy sheehan again for kicks???
Posted by bushrules at 10/28/2005 @ 3:44pm
BR: "You Libs are just shooting blanks again. This is much ado about nothing. A big yawn...wanna troll out cindy sheehan again for kicks???"
Why is lying about a non-criminal act (adultery, however low it may have been) enough to shake the foundations of the US fed gov't, but covering up potential lies about taking the country to war are 'yawn?' Am I wrong, or all this past week were not the conservatives round these parts saying things to the affect, if there's an indictment I'll back it to the fullest extent of blah blah blah . . ." And now?
Oh, and cindy Sheehan, come on. You too are going to pick on the mother of a dead soldier, a war protester exercising her rights? Wow, almost as tough as your man Bush (who, ohhh, Rules! kind of like Eddie van Halen or something?). If Bush had had the cojones to meet with her way back when she would have disappeared a long time ago . . . . . . like the fallout from this indictment isn't going to do.
Posted by Rintrah at 10/28/2005 @ 3:58pm
Remember, there is no indictment for what Mr. Libby said to Mr. Russert, only that he did not recall it in the same way as Mr. Russert. I understand the problem with lying about a crime, but lying about a non-crime? How is that an indictable offense?
As for the comparison with Clinton, keep in mind he was actively trying to influence others' testimony in an investigation through bribes, etc. Subborning perjury, in my eyes, is much worse than perjury.
Posted by lburwell at 10/28/2005 @ 4:05pm
Rin,
" but covering up potential lies about taking the country to war.."
You must have missed the press conference..as this is not what the investigation was about, in case you forgot, it was about outing a CIA covert officer, which apparently did not happen. What happened was an insider was stupid enough to lie to a grand jury and FBI.
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 4:09pm
Maasch, second prediction proved wrong. how's the rest of your predictions coming along? the investigation continues. how is this good for this mendacious adminitration? watch for new poll numbers
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/28/2005 @ 4:13pm
I guess nobody gives a toss about Georgie huh?
If you did you'd have to feel at least a bit sorry for the poor bastard since in one week he's had the public humiliation of 5 counts against a staff member, that member resigning in disgrace, and also not being able to get his own SCOTUS nominee past his own party controlled Senate.
Yet nobody cares about poor Georgie.....what an unpopular unliked President we have chosen!
Posted by colmes at 10/28/2005 @ 4:14pm
Maasch,
If no one outed a CIA officer, then how did Valerie Plame (Wilson)'s name end up in the news?
Posted by christiandem at 10/28/2005 @ 4:16pm
lburwell, these things you allege about Clinton, are they true? he was not indicted on any of that as far as I can remember.
I think context is important here. Clinton's perjury was about a matter that was not criminal. Libby's lying came in a criminal investigation. Libby's lies are part and parcel of major lying by all members of this administration.
watch for Powelll to turn. he has a conscience, and he knows the secrets. if he does the right thing tey all will be cooked.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/28/2005 @ 4:18pm
"no real crime was been commited, as there is only obstruction and perjury charges" . . .
So obstruction of justice and perjury are not real crimes?? You right wing creeps make me sick with your hypocrisy. The way you hounded Clinton virtually for the duration of his presidency was so representative of how vindictive and nasty you people are. Now that your own man is caught in criminal acts you downplay their importance and will no doubt try to discredit his prosecutor. No wonder America's reputation is in the gutter with low lives like you forming the backbone of support for a vile and corrupt administration. Now the lid is being peeled off the can of worms that is the Black house, the ignominious spectacle of the remainder of the eyeless crawlers who inhabit that cesspit will soon be seen wriggling to avoid the light.
Posted by inveresk at 10/28/2005 @ 4:20pm
The black and white of this is that Libby lied to cover up the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson. He lied to the FBI.. he lied to the Grand Jury (under oath). If Libby had decided to tell the truth, the investigation probably would have got to charging someone of the actual outing. It took so long (2 years) to even get to this point, because of zero cooperation in a dispicable crime. I am truly appalled that the neo-cons don't seem to comprehend the the significance of this entire situation. A situation that goes alot further than the outing of a CIA classified employee, but the reasons why she was outed. How dare her husband call the bush administration on the carpet about their deceitfullness regarding invading Iraq.
But, it's not over. A new Grand Jury will be convened and I feel sure that more even more indictments will be handed down.
Posted by Jeana at 10/28/2005 @ 4:24pm
JM: "You must have missed the press conference..as this is not what the investigation was about, in case you forgot, it was about outing a CIA covert officer, which apparently did not happen. What happened was an insider was stupid enough to lie to a grand jury and FBI."
I realize that is not what TODAY is about. But why the leak? Why the cover up? Why the smearing of Wilson? Is it just because the administration doesn't like the guy and wanted to give him a hard time? Seems like that would have to be an awfully big personality conflict to risk careers over. Even the careers of 'stupid' people.
Posted by Rintrah at 10/28/2005 @ 4:25pm
LBURWELL: "I understand the problem with lying about a crime, but lying about a non-crime? How is that an indictable offense?"
Isn't this what Martha Stewart did? I could be wrong because I did not follow her case with much zeal, but my understanding was that her crime was lying, but nothing else.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/28/2005 @ 4:30pm
Johanne, yes they are true, and I believe subornation of perjury was one of the counts against him. And yes, context is very important. The context for Clinton is this: in the Whitewater investigation, Starr knew that Vernon Jordan had paid off Web Hubbell to keep him quiet, so he looked to see who else Vernon Jordan was paying off, and he came across this intern who for some strange reason, was suddenly getting referrals to Revlon and other companies by Jordan. On top of that was a White House whistleblower who revealed that she was being pressured to lie if asked to tesify. That is the context.
For Libby, the investigation was not about part and parcel lying of an administration. It was about whether the 1982 law about revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative was broken. It wasn't, as evidenced by no charges being brought for them, but yet, lying about a crime that wasn't committed became a crime. The difference between Libby and Clinton is this: Clinton lied about a crime that was indeed committed (sexual harassment and subornation of perjury), Libby lied about something that was not a crime.
Posted by lburwell at 10/28/2005 @ 4:34pm
Rin,
I was hoping to get info as to why the leak at all, as it seems the investigation was about the leak..somebody told Novak and that is the person who might be guilty of something..but as it stands, the Libby indictments seem to fall short of what I thought would be possible..
If he is found guilty, Hang him..
It just seems to be kind of flat footed..Libby seems like a moron, why lie ? There should be nothing to lie about.
INVERESK,
Yes it is a crime, but not the one everyone was looking for and it seems to be a smaller problem than what many here had hoped for..
Christiandem,
I am wondering the same question and it seems like after the investigation so far that her outing might not be an outing after all...I think it is now a fishing contest and they hope to squeeze somebody to get something...that is why I hate these opened investigations ...
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 4:35pm
TJ,
What non-crime? Last time I looked, perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes. If only politicians REALLY knew how to be truthful. Oh but that would have meant we wouldn't have had an argument to go to war against Saddam. Drat!!!! Oh well. Next time we'll tell the truth (with our fingers crossed behind our backs, hehehehe).
Posted by christiandem at 10/28/2005 @ 4:36pm
Yes and Martha is back and richer than ever. You see this is nothing but a lot of hot air being spewed by desperate liberals
Posted by bushrules at 10/28/2005 @ 4:36pm
Johannes,
There you are!!
By the way, you lost a bet last nite and Hman and I are coming over to fire up that hub cap of yours...
Yes, looks like I am buying some ales...that is 2 out of 3 I lost..what is the 3rd..Rove? or was it collapse of GOP? Remind me..
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 4:37pm
Boy this is really rich. Reading the right-wing nuts on this post today is an object lesson in the extent to which human beings are capable of total, unadulterated delusion. A five-count indictment handed down by a federal grand jury, and still these Moonies cling to the defense of Dear Leader. I can't imagine what it must be like to be capable of such utter, willful blindness. What will it take, you freaks? Does Bush or one of his top henchmen have to club a toddler to a bloody death on live, prime-time TV, wearing a baseball jersey and a loincloth and shouting, "Allah Akbar!" before you will admit what kind of criminal crazies these odious people are????
GAWD. Wake up, for the love of Christ.
Posted by mewsician at 10/28/2005 @ 4:38pm
INVERESK,
Who are you people?
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 4:38pm
So, I guess MEWS....we throw out "innocent until proven guilty"?
Seems you guys had a problem with that for guys in Gitmo a while back...change of heart or just hypocrisy?
Posted by Mask at 10/28/2005 @ 4:40pm
MEWSICIAN,
Libby? my leader?
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 4:42pm
Does anyone else find it interesting that there are fewer Repugs posting here now that indictments have been handed down? Guess everyone's running for cover. After all the investigation has only just begun. More indictments to follow.....
Posted by christiandem at 10/28/2005 @ 4:47pm
Mewsician,
Nah, these folks wouldn't care about that they'd say the "baby deserved it since it donated to Moveon.org"....but if Bush got head from an overwight intern.....he'd be out faster than you can say "Cigar anyone?"
Posted by colmes at 10/28/2005 @ 4:52pm
CHRISTIANDEM,
We are still in the office keeping the economy going.. I for one think a major bullet was doged today as it could have been disasterous for GOP, but as I see it, this too will pass as much ado about nothing...except in MSM and with H Dean, Most here wanted this to be a bell weather about "lies and war", which it seems to have not materialized.
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 4:52pm
JM,
"Most here wanted this to be a bell weather about "lies and war", which it seems to have not materialized."
Don't be too quick to make this assumption. The ball is still rolling...
Posted by christiandem at 10/28/2005 @ 4:55pm
Rintrah - I can help you as to why. Look at the testimony of Matt Cooper. He said that in his conversation with Rove, he brought up the Joe Wilson article, and Rove warned him not to get too far out on this one. Cooper's own account suggests that they weren't trying to get "back" at Wilson as much as they were warning journalists that much of what he said in his article was not true (which was backed up by the Senate Intelligence Hearings). So, according to Cooper, they weren't trying for revenge as much as warning journalists not to believe Wilson and that he was not sent by the White House on his mission.
TJBEHRENS1 - yes, it is exactly the same as what Martha Stewart was charged with. Being convicted of lying about a non-crime.
JEANA - you are wrong when you say "If Libby had decided to tell the truth, the investigation probably would have got to charging someone of the actual outing." Whether he tells the truth or lies about it does not change whether the crime was actually committed or not. No crime was committed. She was not a covert operative (in the sense that the law dictates), she had not been out of the country in the last 5 years, the outing was not done in order to cause her harm, and many other threshholds which must be met were not met. These threshholds have nothing to do with Libby's testimony or cooperation. And you are not understanding the reason behind the outing, it wasn't to get back at Wilson, it was to explain that the White House didn't send him, and they didn't know who sent him, but they think his wife did, and that much of what he is saying is not true.
Posted by lburwell at 10/28/2005 @ 4:55pm
Everyone is focusing on these indictments. The focus should shift to more indictments and the impending trial. Having a trial is where its going to get ugly, and the dirty laundry is going to be hauled out for all to see. The possiblity of Cheney having to testify at trial is very likely. We don't know what was said in the grand jury, but we'll learn more at the trial. By trial time, Rove could be indicted, Cheney maybe? So today's announcements are not the end by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by BlueTexan at 10/28/2005 @ 5:00pm
A big yawn...wanna troll out cindy sheehan again for kicks???
Wanna roll out Pat Tillman again in a psuedo pro-war rant, even with the knowledge that the goverment unconscionably lied to his family and this country that he didn't die due to "friendly fire" for kicks?
Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/28/2005 @ 5:08pm
Blue: Just curious, do you think Libby goes anywhere near a trial if these guys are still in office? Maybe a lot depends on what happens with the rest of the investigation, but seems like he would be under a LOT of pressure to cop a plea.
Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2005 @ 5:16pm
The righties are all pointing out that Libby is innocent until proven guilty.
Perhaps Fitzgerald should have Libby declared an enemy combatant, and have him held without charges for the next four years.
Posted by didjman at 10/28/2005 @ 5:20pm
If you believe that the United States should control the Middle East and that the entire world should be Christian, then the actions of the Bush Administration seem perfectly reasonable. Politics is a dirty business, after all. If you can't stand the heat...
J Maasch - You are still in the office keeping the economy going? I wouldn't want to take responsibility for the economy right now. It may be looking fine for the "have mores", but most of us are hurting. I feel like Alice - running faster and faster just to keep from falling behind.
The neoconservatives have had the power to pursue their agenda, and they are blowing it. If they had been successful, they would be forgiven their deceptions.
They are losers. Losers aren't forgiven, they are ignored.
Posted by tmag at 10/28/2005 @ 5:24pm
Tmag,
Check this out.. "Oct 28, 9:19 AM (ET)
By JEANNINE AVERSA
WASHINGTON (AP) - Economic activity expanded at an energetic 3.8 percent annual rate in the third quarter, providing vivid evidence of the economy's stamina even as it coped with the destructive forces of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The latest snapshot of the country's economic performance, released by the Commerce Department on Friday, even marked an improvement from the solid 3.3 percent pace of growth registered in the second quarter.
Growth in the third quarter was broad-based, reflecting brisk spending by consumers, businesses and government.
"Holy Katrina! The economy weathered two major hurricanes and in spite of that showed accelerated growth," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "I think what this shows is that fundamentally the economy was and is in really good shape."
I hope you present condition improves.
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 5:28pm
Didjman said,
"The righties are all pointing out that Libby is innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps Fitzgerald should have Libby declared an enemy combatant, and have him held without charges for the next four years."
Ditto.... Could NOT have said it better myself. And wouldn't it be wonderful to put an exclamation point on this case by continuing up the chain of command with the same declaration of EVERYONE involved in the lie of this war in Iraq (not the war in Afghanistan).
Posted by christiandem at 10/28/2005 @ 5:30pm
Tmag,
No they aren't,I wish they could be ignored but the MSM won't stop dragging them up as news.
H Dean got a promotion, Kerry and Edwards are a front runner for 08, supposidlty (sp)and Gore, well, we can't seem to be rid of him.
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 5:31pm
Maybe Libby will roll over on Darth Cheney.
Posted by philbq at 10/28/2005 @ 5:36pm
John, I am no economist, but how much of that growth is due to the record Q3 profits of the oil and energy companies? I suspect TMAG isn't seeing to much of a benefit for that considering he was paying 3 bucks a gallon in Q3.
Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2005 @ 5:37pm
I agree with TMAG about running to catch up and I'm making more money now than I ever have in my life and I still can barely make ends meet. Must be nice to be one of the "Have Mores" JM... I work hard but for who? The rich oilman who needs more money to fuel his 2nd yacht? Or his 3rd private jet? Or his Hummer? Seems to me those at the top are definitely doing good.
Posted by christiandem at 10/28/2005 @ 5:38pm
TMAG - you said "If you believe that the United States should control the Middle East and that the entire world should be Christian, then the actions of the Bush Administration seem perfectly reasonable."
No, I don't believe those things. But what I do believe is that in the past we let an entire generation of middle eastern men grow up being taught that only radical Islam matters, and killing innocent people, especially US and Israeli innocent people, is not only not wrong, but so wonderful that they will die and have 72 virgins. I believe that this had to be nipped in the bud before another generation is allowed to grow up under tyrranical rule being taught the same things. That is the number one reason I supported the Iraq war, and still do.
As for the economy, it grew at a 3.8% rate last quarter, which is phenomenal growth. You say you are running faster just to keep from falling behind, that should not be happening. Perhaps you should seek a financial advisor - it sounds as though you are making fundamental mistakes with your finances. I'd be glad to help if you live here in Ohio.
Posted by lburwell at 10/28/2005 @ 5:38pm
John, in short, I do not think GDP numbers tell the whole story, especially if you have not gotten a raise in 5 years or need to keep working two jobs to get by, or cannot find a job.
Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2005 @ 5:39pm
Sorry to post and duck John, gotta run. We will settle up with Johannes later tonight!
Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2005 @ 5:40pm
LBURWELL,
There are those of us who don't have the nice cushy jobs. The only problem is, when we can no longer afford to get to work, the economy will tank. In the meantime, the money I had earmarked to go torwards savings and retirement will instead be paid to companies that just posted a 10 BILLION dollar profit in the 3rd Qtr (Exxon) so I can earn a living wage (yeah right!).
Posted by christiandem at 10/28/2005 @ 5:43pm
so I can go out and earn a living wage (yeah right!).
Posted by christiandem at 10/28/2005 @ 5:45pm
HMAN23 - no raise in 5 years? And you still work there? I think that is your problem right there! I have averaged at least 6% raises per year over the past 5 years, and most people I work with have averaged at least 4% or 5% each year. If you are a good employee, and you help the company make money (and yes, help the CEO get his yacht or whatever), the company will reward you and want to keep you around so you can make them more money. If you have that attitude and approach with a job, you will get good raises every year. I wish they taught this stuff in high school, so many people would be better off right now.
Posted by lburwell at 10/28/2005 @ 5:46pm
Hman,
"John, I am no economist, but how much of that growth is due to the record Q3 profits of the oil and energy companies? I suspect TMAG isn't seeing to much of a benefit for that considering he was paying 3 bucks a gallon in Q3."
I don't think all the oil prices maybe relected as of yet, but the fact remains, not ALL the increases cmae from yacht shoppers, no new refineries,China, India, Katrina, Rita all had effect...also, adjusted for inflation ,ect, gas is still cheaper than compared to the early 80's on a real dollars basis.
It is just that it hir us quickly instead of gradualy. It will go down again in Feb or Mar. Maybe around $50 a barrel..
I just pointing out that the economy is better than what many people believe. Each of us can relate personally.. I understand this.. but remember how it was when oil shortage, 21% inflation and 20% interest rates hit us?
Get my email address?
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 5:47pm
"reflected as of yet"
sorry, can't type.
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 5:49pm
LBurwell,
Come on down out of your ivory tower my friend.... the real world beckons you. Come see how the majority of people live (i.e. hand to mouth) from day to day. And yes I work my @$$ off. The economy is draining my savings. What does the Fed say about the amount of money people are saving?
Posted by christiandem at 10/28/2005 @ 5:51pm
We digress here once more. This thread was about indictments NOT the economy. You Repugs sure have a funny way of deflecting bad news by shouting any tidbit of OTHER news that you think makes the Bushites look good. Sorry but today you look bad....
Posted by christiandem at 10/28/2005 @ 5:55pm
CHRISTIANDEM - I do not have a cushy job. In fact, my company just got bought out, and I will be out of a job soon. But I am not worried at all, because I had the attitude I described above. I have a great reputation both within my company and in the industry, and many opportunities are starting to come my way. But one thing none of us should forget is that in this new economy, you should not count on your paycheck as your sole source of income, if you can help it. Never have we had so many opportunities to be our own bosses than we do today. I am not trying to sound like a know-it-all, I'm not, I am just passing on something that took me years to learn, and once I learned it, I never worried anymore when the companies I worked for folded (as all of them have).
Posted by lburwell at 10/28/2005 @ 5:57pm
John Maasch wrote:
Economic activity expanded at an energetic 3.8 percent annual rate in the third quarter, providing vivid evidence of the economy's stamina even as it coped with the destructive forces of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The unemployment rate is still higher than it ever was in the last four years of Clinton's Presidency.
That's the thing with Republican Presidents--you can have lots of economic activity, while still having high unemployment. In Reagan's third year, the GDP grew 4.5% (that's real growth), yet unemployment was 9.6%. The only year with higher unemployment since the depression was the year before, at 9.7%,
The following year the GDP grew 7.2%, the highest since Truman, yet unemployment was still 7.5%. Unemployment didn't fall below 7% until Reagan's next-to-last year in office.
Posted by didjman at 10/28/2005 @ 6:06pm
John,
Kerry and Edwards are a front runner for 08
(stifles laughter)
Kerry? I don't know where you read that at, but I'd love to see a poll indicative of this.
Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/28/2005 @ 6:20pm
What are you smoking? Did you bother to read the transcript of Fitzgerald's news conference? This isn't about the war he said. Sorry about that. You were born too late; you should have been a Viet Nam protestor; an original, rather than a blank lsate copy.
Posted by jksq at 10/28/2005 @ 6:35pm
My point is that it doesn't matter what the numbers say when people are having a hard time getting health care, heating their homes, even buying food.
Just like it doesn't matter what the legal technicalities are when the clan running the country is focused on an agenda which the American people don't support.
As far as stopping the radicalization of the youth in the Middle East, it is counterintuitive to think that bombing their homes and exploiting their resources are going to produce positive results.
Posted by tmag at 10/28/2005 @ 6:43pm
JKSQ - The legal issues may not be about the war (the FBI is supposed to be investigating the use of intelligence to justify war). But that doesn't mean the big picture is not about the war. Of course it is. And as citizens we have an obligation to use this information in our political decisions.
Posted by tmag at 10/28/2005 @ 6:55pm
you should have been a Viet Nam protestor
Better than a hypocritical chickenhawk-warmonger like Bush, who voiced support for that war yet got into the Air National Guard to avoid serving in it.
Posted by Kevin Collins at 10/28/2005 @ 7:02pm
so much depends on how much of a bulldog mr. Fitzgerald is. i may well be wrong, but i think he suspects darn good and well that this could be the beginning of something big.
side note on economics.... what about 45 year old factory workers whose jobs are moved overseas? maybe if they worked harder and had a better attitude...yeah, right.
economy doing good DESPITE 2 big hurricanes? what about BECAUSE of the same? lots of federal money has been doled out recently for relief and rebuilding efforts - sounds like good old fashioned keynesian demand side economics at work (marxist heresy!!!). lets wait a quarter or two and see whats happening then.
heck, lets see what next hurricane season wil be like too, for that matter. i've never been an end-of-the-worlder type, despite a general faith in the opinions of the majority of scientific opinion, but i have a bad feeling we may see some coastal cities submerged within a decade or two, if not sooner. wont be good for anyone's economy.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/28/2005 @ 7:16pm
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 she 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 @ 7:25pm
Ibble,
You can see by the MSMs disappointment that this is pretty much it, you can see it in their faces as they struggle to rehash what ifs,..listen to Matthews, NPR, et al, even Fox, all speculation all the time and nothing solid.
Asd far as the 45 year old factory worker, he may be facing the reality of changing forces. It is no fault of his but he may have to try something new. The guarentees of our fathers jobs no longer exists.
Most of the money for hurricanes not spent yet.
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 7:29pm
didj,
I won't argue Reagan, as the world knows he was great and change our lives for the better..considering where the economy and all measures of our lives and power as Americans were by the time Carter left.. He alone almost killed off economy and defeatist attitude. Sweaters ring a bell, speaking of heating trouble.. No contest.
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 7:34pm
mag,
"think that bombing their homes and exploiting their resources are going to produce positive results.
".. so car bombs at employment centers, police stations, electric grids and schools and hotels are a better altenative to what we are helping them to achieve? Voting,...
I don't know but it seems to me if I were a bomber or alQueda member I would be heartened by what I mostly read here...
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 7:38pm
John Maasch, your last statement is a disgusting, low-down, unAmerican attempt to deligitimize critical politcal speech. It is the last bastion of a scoundrel and a sign that you have nothing to offer in the way of a cogent political argument. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by BBatten at 10/28/2005 @ 7:44pm
Do you think all the "Bush lies, we are bombing everybody, we want to keep their oil, all Goper should be jailed, you should know, you read all the vitriolic statements here and many could come right from Al Jazeera... Am I lumping all libs..of course not and people here who have read me for a while know this, but some of the statements here are very destructive..
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 7:48pm
Besides I am reacting to another ridiculous statement
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 7:49pm
Maasch, you and your type were willing to bring down an entire administration over one count of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. The fact that it was all based on a "perjury trap" set by a renegade partisan prosecutor who had never prosecuted a case in his life and relating to a sexual harassment suit having nothing to do with the running of state didn't deter you. Now, you and your sick friends sit around in a circle jerk trying to convince yourselves and anyone who will listen that nothing happened here. National security is secondary to politics for you, but a bj is worth an impeachment. That's why you are pure bullshit and your movement is an empty package of bait-and-switch hoaxes which will not fool the American public forever.
Posted by BBatten at 10/28/2005 @ 7:49pm
JZim, no serious defender of Clinton ever tried to say that perjury or obstruction of justice was "no big deal." What we argued was that this particular form of it did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemenors." We argued that it was wrong to try to remove an elected President on a personal issue unrelated to his duties as president. Clinton lied about a sexual affair. In this case, the prosecutor tried to find out how a CIA agent was outed and who did it. Libby lied and obstructed hard, over and over, and the prosecutor found it hard to get to the truth. This was about public policy. This was about national security and the intelligence community. This was about possibly illegal acts committed as political retribution. Your attempt to find equivalence is simply sophomoric and uninformed.
Posted by BBatten at 10/28/2005 @ 7:56pm
bbatten,
YOU do not know me or anything about me or my beliefs, and your post makes you a fool.
Posted by john maasch at 10/28/2005 @ 7:59pm
Thanks for proving my point bbatten. obstructing justice, multiple acts of perjury, conspiracy and contempt are okay For a Liberal President and for your up and comming hopeful. What about the rape charges that Clinto Paid Off...That is okay too.
You're pathetic and simple..
At least I have the balls to say if Lubby did something wrong he should pay no matter how trivial, and no matter if it was to expose Wilson as the Liar he is.
you and your "morality" are a joke
Posted by jzimm at 10/28/2005 @ 8:06pm
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
errr... what about the cum stains Bill...
Posted by jzimm at 10/28/2005 @ 8:08pm
Clinton, keep in mind he was actively trying to influence others' testimony in an investigation through bribes, etc. Subborning perjury, in my eyes, is much worse than perjury.
excellently put Lburwell!!!
Posted by jzimm at 10/28/2005 @ 8:12pm
i dont know, john, bush looked rather concerned to me when he gave his brief farewell this afternoon before boarding his - i mean the - helicopter.
yeah, i understand the realities of a changing economy, but this sort of unavoidable unfairness is one reason i want a proactive government that is involved in cushioning such economic blows for the economically vulnerable. this "shield for the weak" view of government is precisely what the amoral ayn rand economic nihilists known as the neocons detest and have spent so many buzillions of dollars to destroy. i wish to be niether the ward of an omnipresent government nor a corporate serf, but the big lie spouted out of right wing funded ideological think tanks for the last 30+ years is that any role of government in the economy (other than supporting massive campaign donating corporations) is some form of commernism.
you know, i understand the importance of wealth and money. despite any desire to be free of such concerns, wealth is equivelant to power in this world. however, despite the gordon gecko "greed is good" mentality of certain segments of our populace, amazingly enough large segments remain for whom the accumulation of massive personal wealth is not their primary concern. sometimes it seems the most rabid of the neocons consider such folks unpatriotic and perhaps even treasonous, a sad commentary on self serving modern american inversion of morality and ethics. yet these same folks, for whom family, knowledge, spiritual growth, and or service may hold a higher importance than constant accumulation of wealth, need to protect themselves (a form of enlightened self interest, i would argue) against the more rapacious of the big-capitol investing classes for whom the accumulation of massive wealth is more important than any of the aforementioned goals and values. sure, call it socialism or "liberalism" or any other emotion evoking slur, but the truth is that those who possess the most wealth and therefore power do not always also possess the most virtue nor compassion for their less economically fortunate fellows. in fact, often quite the opposite.
30+ years of subtle and not so subtle propaganda from these less enlightened and compassionate segments of the upper classes have infected the thought process and voting habits of many of the less economically fortunate with an intelectual and ideological trojan horse. by discrediting all forms of government and governmental roles in the economy, the economic nihilists have created a situation in which many middle and lower class voters either eschew voting in their own best interest or eschew politics in general out of confusion, disillusionment and alienation. the result is the current creping corporate feaudalism in which government is no longer the tool by which the economically weak protect themselves from the economically powerful.
oh well, got a hot date, got to go. blessings to all, even the economic nihilists.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/28/2005 @ 8:31pm
"to punish former Ambassador Joe Wilson for revealing how the White House deceived the American people about the threat posed by Iraq"
"Revealing"? Wilson didn't "reveal" anything of the sort. He recounted his adventure in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and talking with dozens of people" and concluding, in his opinion that Iraq wasn't seeking yellowcake from Niger. As the Senate Intelligence Committee found, Wilson mischaracterized his CIA superiors' response to his report (they discounted his conclusion, observing that some of the facts he found actually supported an inference that Iraq was looking for uranium), and denied (falsely) that his wife was the prime mover in sending him to Niger.
This whole affair is about journalists questioning (reasonably) why Wilson, who appeared to oppose the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, would have been selected for such a sensitive mission. The answer, as the journalists found and revealed (exposing Mr. Wilson's deceitful denial) was that his wife arranged for him to go -- in what was either an act of old-fashioned nepotism, or a play by a cabal of career CIA functionaries to sabotage an administration policy with which they disagreed.
Posted by TheProudDuck at 10/28/2005 @ 8:45pm
"I don't know but it seems to me if I were a bomber or alQueda member I would be heartened by what I mostly read here..."
(response)
"John Maasch, your last statement is a disgusting, low-down, unAmerican attempt to deligitimize critical politcal speech. It is the last bastion of a scoundrel and a sign that you have nothing to offer in the way of a cogent political argument. You should be ashamed of yourself."
Guerilla war presents democracy with an interesting puzzle: Since guerillas can't defeat their enemy's armed forces or (generally) eliminate the enemy leadership, the only way they can prevail is to convince the enemy's public that the war is no longer worth fighting. So, objectively, anti-war efforts by the opposition within a democracy does help the guerillas obtain their goals.
On the other hand, open political discussion is what democracy lives or dies on. So even if the opposition finds itself objectively helping the enemy, sometimes that's a price that has to be paid -- especially when the opposition is truly convinced that their country is wrong and the guerillas are right.
As a supporter of the Iraq campaign, I have to accept the possibility that I'm wrong in my reasons for supporting it, and that my support is causing people to suffer. Opponents of the war have to accept a similarly grave responsibility -- the possibility that they are helping the wrong side obtain its objectives, also potentially causing suffering.
Sometimes to be a true patriot means you have to be called disloyal. Just don't minimize the gravity of such a moment by lambasting those who point out that if you get your way, so do your country's enemies. That's part of the price of conscience.
Posted by TheProudDuck at 10/28/2005 @ 8:56pm
John - The insurgents in Iraq don't need my opinion to feel heartened. They can see the mighty American Empire flailing in desperation. We're only the latest in a long line of [countries, conquerers, occupiers, reformers, liberator, take your pick] who have tried to hold sway in the middle east. I imagine it will all work out eventually - maybe China will get it right.
And I neglected to address your underlying assumption - that the entire generation is radicalized. Entire? Come on.
Posted by tmag at 10/28/2005 @ 8:59pm
Information junkies, am I way behind in just getting Sibel Edmonds on my radar?
Posted by tmag at 10/28/2005 @ 9:01pm
Lawrence O'Donnell made a good observation moments ago: He talked about the no win situation in which the Libby indictment leaves other WH officials. Either Libby goes through a prolonged trial with witnesses including Rove and Cheney--embarrassing the WH at every turn--or he plea bargains. But of course Fitzgerald won't bargain unless he gets information he currently does not have, information that will probably lead to additional indictments.
So it's just one today. But the administration is not looking at a very pleasant 2006.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/28/2005 @ 9:02pm
PROUDDUCK wrote: "As a supporter of the Iraq campaign, I have to accept the possibility that I'm wrong in my reasons for supporting it, and that my support is causing people to suffer. Opponents of the war have to accept a similarly grave responsibility -- the possibility that they are helping the wrong side obtain its objectives, also potentially causing suffering."
There was no "wrong side" until those you support made their decision. Those you support have converted a country under a tyrant into a country in civil war. Congratulations on that. Let those of us who opposed this little project know what we should do to correct our errors. That is, when you are able to determine what those errors are. The accusation that we are supporting the terrorists is just wrong. Ask the terrorist leaders how things are going? I'm just guessing that your "side" has helped them tremendously by setting up camp in what many of them consider to be an Islamic holy land.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/28/2005 @ 9:09pm
Excellent points Duck.
Posted by jzimm at 10/28/2005 @ 9:10pm
Back to the facts.
There is no civil war in Iraq.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 9:13pm
One group of Iraqis supported by outsiders against another group of Iraqis supported by outsiders. Please, USAPRIDE, define this for me.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/28/2005 @ 9:27pm
The key word is WAR.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 9:32pm
But what I do believe is that in the past we let an entire generation of middle eastern men grow up being taught that only radical Islam matters, and killing innocent people, especially US and Israeli innocent people, is not only not wrong, but so wonderful that they will die and have 72 virgins. I believe that this had to be nipped in the bud before another generation is allowed to grow up under tyrranical rule being taught the same things. That is the number one reason I supported the Iraq war, and still do.
How is attacking the most secular country in the Middle East supposed to stop radical Islam? One consequence of this war is that Iraq will now become an Islamic state allied with Iran, whose leader just days ago called for wiping Israel off the map.
Posted by bluelaser at 10/28/2005 @ 9:43pm
C'mon USAPRIDE, tell me why I was wrong to call it civil war.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/28/2005 @ 9:52pm
JZIMM, LBURWELL & PROUDDUCK:
You are characters. That you all could spout off the way you are tonight after the Chief of Staff of the VP is indicted while on the job is pathetic. If Scooter was charged with animal necrophilia, you guys would say, "Yeah sure, but Fitzgerald didn't show that Scooter KNEW the dog was dead when he was screwing it!"
Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2005 @ 9:57pm
TJBEHRENS1,
My response to USAPride would be the same as my response to the jurors of the O.J. Simpson trial: look at the evidence.
Posted by bluelaser at 10/28/2005 @ 9:57pm
Please define your idea of civil war.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 9:58pm
O.J.?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 10:00pm
Two factions. One country. Fighting. Bang Bang. Boom Boom. This is civil war.
Et tu?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/28/2005 @ 10:17pm
If that is civil war, we are in the midst of our 2nd.
The first resulted in 690,000 dead Americans.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/28/2005 @ 10:24pm
John Maasch,
I saw your email address. I'll give you a shout at some point. Enjoy your ales and happy weekend to you.
Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2005 @ 11:04pm
Please "thenation" watch the typos
Posted by james_1108 at 10/29/2005 @ 08:43am
If that is civil war, we are in the midst of our 2nd. The first resulted in 690,000 dead Americans. Posted by USAPRIDE 10/28/2005 @ 10:24pm | ignore this person
Say what?
Posted by seattlescribe at 10/29/2005 @ 08:50am
The key word is WAR.
Posted by USAPRIDE 10/28/2005 @ 9:32pm
Yeah folks...remmember a couple years back...Dubya and the infamous aircraft landing speech. Hell the war is over. The fact that we are still there with artillery and planes and bombs...and that people are getting blown up on a daily basis and we have an expanding military presence in a nation not our own (well, not yet perhaps) is clearly not a war. It's a...ummmmm, uh. Oh wait...maybe it IS after all.....
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/29/2005 @ 09:11am
SEATTLESCRIBE,
I'm glad someone else was confused. I simply had no response and no more patience.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 10/29/2005 @ 09:48am
LBURWELL said... "As for the comparison with Clinton, keep in mind he was actively trying to influence others' testimony in an investigation through bribes, etc. Subborning perjury, in my eyes, is much worse than perjury."
Oh yeah? What was the date he was convicted of that?
And your crap about "lying about a non-crime" being no big deal is just idiocy. WE KNOW FOR A FACT THERE AS A CRIME. Valerie Plame WAS an undercover (NOC) CIA agent and a specialist in WMD to boot. She WAS outed publicly by Robert Novak, who didn't just DREAM that CLASSIFIED information. Here's what HE WROTE IN HIS COLUMN, "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger."
Anyone in the CIA associated with Plame OR her ficticious FIRM, Brewster Jennings & Associates (created to infiltrate ties between groups involved in smuggling nuclear weapons), was immediately rendered USELESS as an intelligence source and there may very well have been many CIA operatives murdered as a result (nuclear weapons smugglers play fairly rough). We will never know.
Now, how is it, exactly, you can claim a crime wasn't committed? Say you find a body in the street with it's throat slit. There's a man, let's call him I. "Pooter" Liddy, who's standing over the body and claims to have just arrived. You later find out that several witnesses saw him at that location, apparently waiting for someone, for at least an hour.
Acccording to your logic: So what? So the guy lied about when he got there. Maybe you can convict him of that, but so what? Waiting for someone isn't a crime! What's the big deal? Its a non-crime!
It BAFFLES me how you people can argue the things you do with a straight face. Then again, maybe that's why Bush is always smirking.
Posted by hankchinaski at 10/29/2005 @ 10:17am
"Let's be clear: If the Libby indictment and resignation is all that comes of Fitzgerald's two-year-long investigation into a case that touches on fundamental questions of government accountability, abuse of power and the dubious "case" that was made for going to war in Iraq, then this whole matter will be no more that a footnote to the sorry history of the Bush-Cheney era.
But Libby indictment is not necessarily all that will come of this investigation"---John Nichols
hence Mr Nichols sums up what this is all about....not the outing of Plame, or the vast "smear" of Wilson by it....but objections to the Iraq War and finding ANY excuse to criminalize it.
Posted by Mask at 10/29/2005 @ 10:42am
There needs to be a Congressional investigation of Treasongate.
Can we depend upon the Republican House and Senate to do the right thing and get to the bottom of this miserable scandal?
That should be our next step. Demand an independent Congressional investigation, like in the Clinton, Reagan and Nixon administrations when there were scandals then.
Posted by jkrogman at 10/29/2005 @ 11:08am
Mask chooses to ignore many facts, including the lies that the Bushniks told to justify their attack on Iraq.
Mask apparently chooses to carry on this tradition of lying and attacking.
It doesn't work anymore!
Posted by jkrogman at 10/29/2005 @ 11:10am
Hank,
Lying and attacking is what the Repubs are all about.
They have nothing more to offer.
Posted by jkrogman at 10/29/2005 @ 11:11am
MASK says, "Mr Nichols sums up what this is all about....not the outing of Plame, or the vast "smear" of Wilson by it....but objections to the Iraq War and finding ANY excuse to criminalize it."
Glad to see that you're starting to understand what this is all about. You're exactly right, this is about a lot more than the Plame outing alone. It IS about how the administration LIED to the American public and went to DISPICABLE lengths (like Valerie Plame's exposure) to keep Americans from learning the truth. There WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ! The Bush administration is the group that is guilty of "criminalizing" politics by COMMITING CRIMES IN THE NAME OF POLITICS, in order to start a war that has been EXTREMELY PROFITABLE for their financial backers. This investigation and the upcoming trial, on the other hand, are about bringing those who have criminalized politics to JUSTICE!
No one needs an "excuse" to prosecute criminals. They just need evidence. Patrick Fitzgerald is doing a good job of beginning to compile that evidence, starting with just SOME of the lies that have been told to cover up the Bush administration's un-American and treasonous tactics.
Posted by hankchinaski at 10/29/2005 @ 12:38pm
JKROGMAN said, "Can we depend upon the Republican House and Senate to do the right thing and get to the bottom of this miserable scandal?"
Sorry, pal, but I doubt it. HOWEVER, 2006 is right around the corner and congress's approval ratings are even lower than Bush's!
Posted by hankchinaski at 10/29/2005 @ 12:47pm
HankChinaski;
Don't bet on the democrats. Bukowski wouldn't have.
Posted by Stellarsjay at 10/29/2005 @ 1:55pm
Cheney knew that Libby was not telling the truth to the grand jury when Libby testified that he had gotten Wilson's wife's identity from a reporter. Why didn't Cheney say anything to correct the record?
Why were Cheney and the "inner circle" so concerned about what Wilson was saying about the "16 words" that they attacked him? Why did they attack him? Were they trying to hide something?
Would Libby had revealed Plame's identity without his boss Cheney knowing and approving? What's Bush's role in all off this; was he involved and on top of this, or was he out riding his bike?
Posted by wgilwood at 10/29/2005 @ 2:50pm
Yawn. Let's get on with life. Big things to be accomplished. Pointing fingers never solved anything.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 10/29/2005 @ 3:51pm
Anyone read the Hersh/Ritter interview on this site? It's worth checking out. I particularly like this answer that Ritter gave when asked by Hersh about the "well at least we got rid of Saddam" argument:
"That invokes the notion of the ends justify the means. I mean, that's basically what we're saying here is that who cares about the lie, who cares about the WMD. You know, we got rid of a bad guy. The ends justify the means. And I have to be frank. If there's anybody here who calls themselves a citizen of the United States of America and you endorse the notion of the ends justify the means, submit your passport for destruction and get the hell out of my country. Because this is a country that is founded on the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution that the men and women who serve us swore an oath of allegiance to, the Constitution that our government, every government official swears an oath of allegiance to, and it's about due process. Democracy is ugly. Sometimes it doesn't work as smoothly as we want it to. But if you're sitting here and saying that when it comes to Saddam, that the ends justify the means, where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line?"
I know it's a step or two away from the Libby indictment, but those are baby steps we're talking about.
Posted by Rintrah at 10/29/2005 @ 3:58pm
USANOPRIDE- You are welcome to resume your so-called life, in the spin zone. Have you genuflected in front of a picture of Beloved Leader your requisite three times today?
Posted by Fishbite at 10/29/2005 @ 4:05pm
To those who still adhere to the fiction that Valerie Plame was responsible for her husband being sent to Niger, you might want to peruse this [nytimes.com] NYT article. It reads, in part, based on a Senate Intelligence Committee report, that "the C.I.A.'s counterproliferation division decided to contact Mr. Wilson, who was posted early in his career in Niger. His wife, Valerie Wilson, also known as Valerie Plame, was an undercover officer in that division. The Senate report says that when the division decided to send Mr. Wilson to Niger, she approached him on behalf of the agency and told him "there's this crazy report" on a possible deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.
One of the low points I experienced while watching the Libby indicments being spun yesterday was the proffered excuse by some political hack (don't remember his name) that tarnishing the reputation of a critic of any White House administration is still considiered "business as usual" or "a Washington power game". The efforts by the Clinton WH to attempt to discredit Monica Lewinski to absolve himself of his misdeeds, illegal or not, was abhorrent. It is even more so in this case; Americans are dying as a consequence of this administrations deceptions and prevarications.
I remember feeling conflicted when the case was being made by Bush and Cheney to invade Iraq. On the one hand, if what they were alledging was true (about WMD), then it seemed appropriate to remove Hussein. On the other hand, it seemed that too much effort was being expended to demonize someone to whom the US had previously given WMD in Iraq's war against Iran. Such demonization nearly always is a dead giveaway that the demonizers are on shakey ground, evidence-wise.
That Cheney (who had conversations with Libby before he talked to reporters) would take the opportunity to, one might easily imagine, use the information that the CIA had given him about Wilson's wife to attempt to discredit Wilson's Niger findings tells me two things: 1) Contrary to Cheeney's assertion, he was in detailed contact with the CIA in cherry-picking intelligence that seemed to support a war that the neocons had wanted, even before 9/11, and 2) any consideration of detrimental effects on CIA operatives, the Agency's morale or their counterproliferation operations took a back seat to their desire to unseat Hussein.
While some Republicans seem to be celebrating the fact that no one else was indicted yesterday, the effect of Libby's indictment and resignation will be far reaching. As to the supposed innocuousness of the charges, even the stalwart Republican, David Brooks said, "If anybody makes that argument after Fitzgerald's presentation at his press conference, the person is an idiot. I think Fitzgerald did a fantastic job of saying why this is an important thing, and the argument was, this is not something at the end of the judicial process."
Whether or not the president or VP are found to have engaged in illegal activities, George Bush's campign claim of the moral superiority that his administraion would bring were he to be elected president lies in tatters.
Posted by Sojourner at 10/29/2005 @ 4:49pm
It lay in tatters from the very first day in which he concocted evidence to justify a war against a nation of innocents in the name of liberating them from a tyrant his own nation had helped into power.
Posted by Stellarsjay at 10/29/2005 @ 5:23pm
STELLARSJAY (nice name, by the way),
I know what you're saying, but I'm not really betting on the Democrats. Definitely not the Democrats we've seen over the last 20 or 30 years. I'm not really betting on anybody, but parties do evolve, social change does happen, and there's no way in hell the Greens or Socialists are going to get a majority of anything in congress. I think the Democratic party is getting better as people get more pissed (both way too slow), but Howard Dean is a step in the right direction and nothing happens overnight.
Also, as much as I loved him and his writing, it'll be a sad day for me when I start patterning my life after Bukowski.
Posted by hankchinaski at 10/29/2005 @ 5:33pm
David Brooks explains "The Nation", its writers, and most of its bloggers--
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 @ 6:14pm
MASK,
Do you know what a conspiracy is? It's when people conspire to do something together. My friend and I conspired to have a drink together last night. Sometimes, people conspire to do illegal things. This is called a "criminal conspiracy" and if you ever even skimmed a history book, you'll see that they've been going on for years. The Roman senate conspired to murder Julius Caesar. The Founding Fathers conspired to break away from King George. The Nazi party conspired to gain political control of Germany then conspired to dominate the world. Tom DeLay conspired to launder money and they have the check that practically proves it just by it's very existence stapled on the indictment. Nixon and his administration conspired to break into the Democrats headquarters and do whatever they were going to do there, then they conspired to cover it up. Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky conspired to get together and fool around.
If you want to try and point out some facts that prove that this administration didn't conspire to lead the country into an unnecessary war for reasons they knew to be shaky at best, then do so. There are more facts coming out every day that they did.
If you want to say that no one has ever conspired to do something for personal gain, then you're either incredibly misinformed about reality or engaging in an sad attempt to discredit rational people with valid points to make by basically calling them nutjobs. That's a pretty pathetic way to try and make a point, isn't it?
Posted by hankchinaski at 10/29/2005 @ 6:46pm
I just want to point out that both USAPRIDE and BUSHRULES have yawned during their comments on this article, which compels me to ask: Why are the Republicans so damn tired?
Posted by hankchinaski at 10/29/2005 @ 7:03pm
watch for Powelll to turn. he has a conscience, and he knows the secrets. if he does the right thing tey all will be cooked. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/28/2005 @ 4:18pm | ignore this person
Johannes, I hope you are right about Powell. I used to think highly of him too. Then I watched his UN performance. I wanted to be convinced. I wasn't. The quick response of weapons inspectors refuting Powell's case along with their evidence supported my doubts. Now, more than two and one-half years later, more than 2000 American casualties later, and no WMD and et al of Bush/Powell's reasons for the invasion have steeled my revulsion for all who played a role in this fiasco. Maybe Powell can redeem himself by revealing the facts behind this blight on our history.
Posted by seattlescribe at 10/29/2005 @ 7:07pm
Powel's former chief of staff,Wilkerson,I believe his name is has come out with the truth.Read his article in either Op Ed News or PDA.I watched Powel at his big U.N. speech and he looked like he really didn't like what he was doing.He never wanted to go to Iraq and warned king George about it.Maybe at the time of the U.N. he was not aware of the whole truth.The cabel between Rummy and Cheney and Wolfowitz did not include Powel or even Bush.I'm sure someone took the time to explain things to Bush later but he was not in on the major planning according to many articles I've read about it.Let's face,if you were going to plan something that big would you want him in the room?I hope Powel will come forth but as long as Rove is around and Powel still wants to work in government I don't think he will.Maybe once Bush and Rove are gone.
Posted by BusyHands at 11/01/2005 @ 02:52am
What is the reason for staying in Iraq? There are 3 very different groups in that land who have been fighting with each other for centuries.Saddam's dictatorship kept them all down and under his thumb but that didn't stop the century old hatred of each other.We can't change that and it looks like we've made it worse or brought it to the surface.If we leave they'll have their war,the winner or winners will take the spoils and the loosers will either live under the winners rule,all be killed,or migrate to a neighboring country.WHY IS THAT OUR BUSINESS???? There are in-justices all over the world.We have in-justices RIGHT HERE that we should be taking care of.
Posted by BusyHands at 11/01/2005 @ 03:42am
Maasch,:"I don't know but it seems to me if I were a bomber or alQueda member I would be heartened by what I mostly read here..."
and the american people better watch what they say, Herr Gauleiter Maasch, nicht wahr?
Posted by johannesrolf at 11/01/2005 @ 10:36am
Johannes,
Nein.. it is all the Bush lied ,lets throw them in jail..and based on a group willing to kill us just for being us,why they would enjoy seeing what they might call cannibalization or our own by our own. You have to admit, there is alot of America sucks here right now and all focused on Bush..I am not infering anyone is less American than anyone else here, verstehst?(sp)
Posted by john maasch at 11/02/2005 @ 02:03am