LIBBY VERDICT IN; TO BE ANNOUNCED WITHIN MINUTES
GUILTY ON OBSTRUCTION, PERJURY, LYING TO INVESTIGATORS
Those sound a bit repetitive, but it's what the article says.
... Guilty on at least one count is my guess. Although much of this can be chalked up to misremembering, the one thing that's hard to buy as a the product of a poor memory is his insistence that he thought he heard this first from Russert, because the Russert conversation occurred two weeks after he heard it from Dick Cheney. He squares this circle by saying he first heard it from Cheney, but forgot it, so when he heard it two weeks later from Russert (supposedly), he honestly believed he was hearing it for the first time. He may have claimed that because he realized he'd made a mistake as to the timing, and didn't want to change his story, because he knew he was dealing with a prosecutor looking to convict him. But whatever his reasons -- I'm sorry, that's just not plausible. And yes, I still think there was no pretext for Fitzgerald's investigation, that he knew there was no possible crime to be investigated here from day one (forcing him to invent the crime of "conspiracy to violate the Wilsons' civil rights," though he couldn't quite say which rights had been violated), which makes this all a travesty and Libby's lies immaterial as a matter of law. But the jury will almost certainly hang him on that one implausible statement. They're inclined to convict him, being liberal DC Democrats and all, and I don't see why they'd avoid doing so when even *I* can't explain that one away. Actually... I guess it is easily explained -- when trying to remember what people told you a year or two ago, it's hard to pin the order down when they're separated by a couple of weeks. I keep having people mention posts I've written that I have no recollection of, for example. Archaelogist/slut? I had no idea I'd ever written anything like that. Joy McCann of Little Miss Atilla mentioned the photo of "me" naked with a cat that I posted last time I begged people for money; I kept thinking she must be thinking of someone else, as I had never, ever posted such a picture. But I had. So: first the appeal, I guess, fighting over whether or not Fitzgerald had the right to impanel a grand jury to investigate a non-crime in the first place; and when that fails (which it will), the sentencing. As others have suggested; Sandy Berger lied to investigators and destroyed national security documents to prevent them from being seen by the 9/11 Commission. He paid a $50,000 fine, had to do 100 hours of community service or thereabouts, and lost his security clearance for two years or so. I'd say that should be the maximum sentence for Libby. Maybe about half that.From The Comments: Figured I'd just paste this into the post.
>>>Libby's crime wasn't in outing Plame, it was in lying to the grand jury. True. But here Libby was put under oath and forced to testify when NO CRIME HAD CONCEIVABLY BEEN COMMITTED. Look at it this way: It sure would be nice to put Hillary Clinton under oath, or Dan Rather, or any other figure on the left, and compel them to answer politically embarrassing questions honestly or else face jail time, but prosecutors aren't allowed to just put someone under oath and question them for shits and grins. there has to be an actual crime being investigated. There was none here, and Fitzgerald knew that from the start. Hence, his claim that he was investigating "a possible conspiracy to violate civil rights," which rights, again, he could not name specifically, because all of the specific laws that could possibly imply a violated civil right were inapplicable. Whistlelblower law? Doesn't apply. Espionage Act? Doesn't apply. Covert agent protection act? Doesn't apply. So WHICH civil rights? Apparently none named in the constitution or any statute. There's no such thing as a general, nonspecific catch-all "civil right." You either have the right from the constittuion, from previous court opinions, or from statutes (either explicitly giving you a civil rights cause of action or, more frequently, "implied" by such a law). Fitzie couldn't name what law gave Wilson and Plame created this "civil right" to be named later whose violation he was supposedly investigating -- because no such law existed. Not that this reasoning will persuade an appeals court. But I think it's accurate.
Comments
Posted by: TXMarko at March 06, 2007 01:10 PM (NKgBG)
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at March 06, 2007 01:10 PM (QVrg1)
Posted by: TXMarko at March 06, 2007 01:11 PM (NKgBG)
Ace -- get your banning wand out.
Posted by: Xenu at March 06, 2007 01:14 PM (8Pv/P)
Posted by: Lefty at March 06, 2007 01:16 PM (yVDz3)
They got Scooter.
We might as well pack it in, since Scooter was such a vital part of what we do, who we are and what we believe.
All is lost.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 01:19 PM (R8+nJ)
Posted by: 3rd_Bird at March 06, 2007 01:19 PM (+6NGM)
Posted by: wiserbud at March 06, 2007 01:19 PM (1tlBF)
Posted by: wiserbud at March 06, 2007 01:20 PM (1tlBF)
If you go into a grand jury room, take an oath, and lie, it doesn't really matter to me whether what the grand jury was initially investigating amounted to a crime. If Libby lied to the grand jury when it was investigating whether Plame was illegally outed, he ought to be convicted, even if outing Plame was not a crime. Libby's crime wasn't in outing Plame, it was in lying to the grand jury.
Posted by: angler at March 06, 2007 01:20 PM (kSuu1)
Posted by: trey at March 06, 2007 01:21 PM (Hu0f0)
Posted by: 3rd_Bird at March 06, 2007 01:21 PM (+6NGM)
Posted by: zetetic at March 06, 2007 01:22 PM (qsP3H)
So, 'shark teeth' Novak gets off scot - free for printing the leak? The Wash Post gets off? Scoota is the patsy?
Posted by: fugazi at March 06, 2007 01:22 PM (8dWL0)
It's time to raise the stakes y'all, press the lefties into committing themselves to a course that will only lead to their ultimate destruction. Let us feast upon their carcasses!!!!
Meanwhile, lets lay off our own (Ann) when they commit peccadilloes; our enemies feel no compunction about leveraging the court system as it suits their purposes.
Posted by: Lord Elzkior at March 06, 2007 01:23 PM (8Pv/P)
Posted by: Red at March 06, 2007 01:23 PM (a76la)
Posted by: Scooter Libby at March 06, 2007 01:24 PM (Pkdqo)
My emphasis. I know this has been pointed, oh, maybe 6 or 7 billion times, but the CIA referral, FBI investigation, and DOJ position by Ashcroft can only mean there was evidence of a crime. The phrase "obstruction of justice", a charge of which Scooty-scoot was found GUILTY, means that justice was obstructed in the investigation of a CRIME. Now is that so hard?
Whereas in the Clinton deal, everyone knows blowjobs are a crime. So of course the crime angle wasn't even worth a mention.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 01:27 PM (vSuHN)
Accountability,
When Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky", he was either telling the truth or was wilfully lying. Nobody forgets whether he got a BJ from someone. For example, I remember vividly that I never got a BJ from Natalie Portman.
The supposed Libby lying was not so clear cut. There are grounds to believe that he misremembered the sequence of events.
Posted by: Tushar D at March 06, 2007 01:32 PM (h76y6)
Now that Cheney's key supporting witness is a convicted perjurer, and with so much evidence in the public record, Fitz can now go on to charge the Big Dick with the crime. And Dick will have a VERY VERY fine needle to thread in providing testimony that doesn't contradict what is already in the public record. Which may put him in the history books with other famous traitors.
I bet he pleads no contest, like Spiro Agnew, with a pardon already fixed.
The real fun now will be watching all the "conservatives" justifying the pardon of a traitor who compromised national security for partisan gain. Get on it, boys!
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 01:32 PM (vSuHN)
As has been pointed out, oh, maybe 6 or 7 billion times, Justice knew the identity of the leaker, Armitage, before Firzgerald came on board to investigate.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 01:33 PM (ATbKm)
>>The real fun now will be watching all the "conservatives" justifying the pardon of a traitor who compromised national security for partisan gain.
Accountability, can you pinpoint the exact way in which national security was compromised, and who is a traitor and why?
Posted by: Tushar D at March 06, 2007 01:34 PM (h76y6)
That doesn't contradict the fact that Richard Armitage has already copped to being the leaker? How can Libby be Cheney's "key supporting witness" is he is not on trial, or even charged?
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 01:34 PM (R8+nJ)
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 01:34 PM (9qfVD)
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 01:35 PM (R8+nJ)
In the Libby case, the perjury case was strong if you actually read through the testimony, and was still perjury with or without a crime.
The proven obstruction of justice charge though, and the whole basis for the appointment of a prosecutor in the first place, show that Ace is misinformed at best with the whole NO CRIME angle. But that's a standard talking point now, truth be damned.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 01:35 PM (vSuHN)
Posted by: angler at March 06, 2007 01:37 PM (kSuu1)
There was no crime. Accept it. Usually not charging someone is pretty good evidence there was no crime.
Angler,
>>>Libby's crime wasn't in outing Plame, it was in lying to the grand jury.
True. But here Libby was put under oath and forced to testify when NO CRIME HAD CONCEIVABLY BEEN COMMITTED.
Look at it this way: It sure would be nice to put Hillary Clinton under oath, or Dan Rather, or any other figure on the left, and compel them to answer politically embarrassing questions honestly or else face jail time, but prosecutors aren't allowed to just put someone under oath and question them for shits and grins. there has to be an actual crime being investigated. There was none here, and Fitzgerald knew that from the start.
Hence, his claim that he was investigating "a possible conspiracy to violate civil rights," rights, again, he could name specifically, because all of the specific laws that imply a POSSIBLE civil right were inapplicable.
Whistlelblower law? Doesn't apply. Espionage Act? Doesn't apply. Covert agent protection act? Doesn't apply.
So WHICH civil rights? Apparently none named in the constitution or any statute.
There's no such thing as a general, nonspecific catch-all "civil right." You either have the right from the constittuion, from previous court opinions, or from statutes (either explicitly giving you a civil rights cause of action or, more frequently, "implied" by such a law).
Fitzie couldn't name what fucking law gave Wilson and Plame this "civil right" whose violation he was supposedly investigating -- because no such law existed.
Not that this reasoning will persuade an appeals court. But I think it's accurate.
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2007 01:37 PM (+u1X0)
It's unfortunate we won't be able to witness the lefties going nuts over a "not-guilty" verdict; all we have now is having to listen to their insane fantasy-world ravings how this is somehow going to lead to Cheney being convicted of something. Then they just need to get Bush impeached for whatever imaginary reasons they have and Nancy gets to be President!
Of course it doesn't work that way, but an attachment to reality isn't exactly their strong suit.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 06, 2007 01:37 PM (plsiE)
Obviously.
This is why we have have jury trials.
And the jury has spoken.
Posted by: honest cloud at March 06, 2007 01:37 PM (a6vlD)
Christ. I guess you can look at it that way. Or you can look at it like if they can get Scooter on practically nothing, they can get me too.
Posted by: rho at March 06, 2007 01:40 PM (aLDBr)
IMO, the appeal ought to focus on Fitz's unbelievable closing. No way a judge sits and watches that without begging to be slapped by the appellate.
Posted by: spongeworthy at March 06, 2007 01:42 PM (uSomN)
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 01:43 PM (9qfVD)
i love it! did ace even read the libby indictment?
Posted by: upyernoz at March 06, 2007 01:43 PM (CVdJ+)
I agree with you that this was a bogus investigation that should have never been initiated, and at least should have been shut down before Libby was ever summoned to testify to the grand jury.
That being said, the remedy for that situation is to challenge the grand jury subpoena before you testify. The remedy can't be to say, "Man, this whole investigation is bullshit. It's so groundless that when I go into the grand jury room I am at liberty to lie if I choose, without consequences."
Posted by: angler at March 06, 2007 01:44 PM (kSuu1)
It was a joke, rho.
Maybe it would help if I changed the wording a bit: "We might as well pack it in (like those filthy faggots), since Scooter was such a vital part of what we do, who we are and what we believe."
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 01:45 PM (R8+nJ)
He said all of this with a straight face. But I believe this whole thng was an elaborate practical joke to be entered on America's Funniest Bloopers.
Posted by: Bart at March 06, 2007 01:49 PM (yuXUP)
Posted by: Bart at March 06, 2007 01:50 PM (yuXUP)
I know this has been pointed, oh, maybe 6 or 7 billion times, but the CIA referral, FBI investigation, and DOJ position by Ashcroft can only mean there was evidence of a crime.
Actually, all it means was that a possible crime was suspected.
But go on insisting otherwise.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 01:51 PM (VZ0Yh)
The proven obstruction of justice charge though, and the whole basis for the appointment of a prosecutor in the first place, show that Ace is misinformed at best with the whole NO CRIME angle.
Quick question, where did you go to law school?
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 01:52 PM (VZ0Yh)
Posted by: john pointdexter at March 06, 2007 01:52 PM (BU7DK)
I wouldnt. Unless i was rich ad/or famous.
I dont want my fate to rest in the hands of people who are either too stupid to get out of jury duty or are complete losers who have an ax to grind.
Posted by: ghjghjkhk at March 06, 2007 01:53 PM (OEbrS)
Seems odd she would do this if no crime was committed.
Posted by: honest cloud at March 06, 2007 01:53 PM (a6vlD)
I'm inclined to believe that Berger didn't get any punishment whatsoever until I'm shown otherwise. Cancelled checks, picture of his clearance documents with a big red X stamped on them, and yes, photos of him in the jumpsuit picking up trash. If his crime was ignored, why not his punishment?
Posted by: The Colossus at March 06, 2007 01:53 PM (7aAt8)
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at March 06, 2007 01:54 PM (w4Bx4)
So, can anybody be forced to testify under oath? Without any crime being committed?
This opens so many doors.
Posted by: Dogstar at March 06, 2007 01:54 PM (dpudc)
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 01:54 PM (k7SeR)
Posted by: Bart at March 06, 2007 01:55 PM (yuXUP)
Having worked in DC I know that not only is it hard to remember, the only way you do remember who you met with, for how long and what topics you talked about is your logs. But who's to say what was said by whom and when?
As for the crime, she was not an agent, only a person who was employed by them and had a spere of influence and oppty for intelligence gathering, and frankly she didn't do much of that either, so no crime was committed.
Posted by: michele at March 06, 2007 01:55 PM (FJ2Bh)
Seems odd she would do this if no crime was committed.
It does, doesn't it?
Unless, of course, she was acting on the principle that a reporter would rather go to jail than reveal a source.
Then it really isn't that odd.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 01:56 PM (R8+nJ)
Posted by: michele at March 06, 2007 01:58 PM (0cwiO)
Posted by: spongeworthy at March 06, 2007 01:59 PM (uSomN)
Does anyone remember why Judith Miller sat in jail for 3 months?
Seems odd she would do this if no crime was committed.
You must be joking.
Now Miller is complicit in this "crime"
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:01 PM (VZ0Yh)
Posted by: OregonMuse at March 06, 2007 02:02 PM (CkYzD)
>>The real fun now will be watching all the "conservatives" justifying the pardon of a traitor who compromised national security for partisan gain.
This is such a disgusting and disingenuous load of bullshit.....where were you when the NYT was leaking damaging NSA info, leaks that actually made a difference in our ability to fight the GWOT?
You people are so transparently dishonest, and malignant.
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 02:03 PM (i7vTG)
Posted by: rho at March 06, 2007 02:04 PM (aLDBr)
And thanks for reminding me.
Still I don't see why she had to protect her sources when there was no wrongdoing.
Posted by: honest cloud at March 06, 2007 02:05 PM (a6vlD)
Had he just pleaded the 5th and kept his mouth shut he'd not have fallen into the perjury trap that was the purpose of the grand jury in the first place. That he didn't suggests that he was trying to avoid accusations he was covering for the White House.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 06, 2007 02:06 PM (plsiE)
Heh. It's like a proxy argument.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 02:07 PM (R8+nJ)
It doesn't matter whether there is wrongdoing or not. Protecting a source is the principle regardless of what the story is.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 02:08 PM (R8+nJ)
Stupid logic. If some guy somewhere reveals a secret to someone else, then that doesn't mean that everyone else who reveals it is innocent. Armitage telling Novak or Woodward doesn't magically make it legal for everyone else to reveal classified information.
But the timeline doesn't seem to support the Armitage claim as first anyway, by a good number of weeks. So it's double-stupid.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 02:08 PM (vSuHN)
Posted by: roc ingersol at March 06, 2007 02:09 PM (m2CN7)
You mean Fitzgerald's closing where he strongly urged the jury to convict Libby of a crime in order to, in effect, convict Cheney?
Yeahhhhhhh... that would seem appeals bait, wouldn't it?
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2007 02:11 PM (+u1X0)
Posted by: huck at March 06, 2007 02:12 PM (X2Sr4)
Posted by: Tom at March 06, 2007 02:13 PM (02oyd)
Man, what a moron.
Posted by: seattle slough at March 06, 2007 02:14 PM (H5l9d)
FITZGERALD: 'I DO NOT EXPECT TO FILE ANY FURTHER CHARGES... THE INVESTIGATION IS INACTIVE'
Opertive word being: EXPECT
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 02:14 PM (AaG/D)
Wow. "Double-stupid."
Are you now going to "double dog dare me" to come up with a rejoinder? Maybe if I "pinky swear" not to laugh?
Tell you what...if you write my name on your Trapper Keeper, I'll do the same on mine.
BFF!!!
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 02:15 PM (R8+nJ)
Armitage telling Novak or Woodward doesn't magically make it legal for everyone else to reveal classified information.
Um ok.
But then you state this:
But the timeline doesn't seem to support the Armitage claim as first anyway
Mind you, after prattling on about this "crime" being committed because of a referral which was precipitated by the Novak column.
Logic much?
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:17 PM (VZ0Yh)
Posted by: Dogstar at March 06, 2007 02:17 PM (dpudc)
Then what does this say about Scooter?
He let Judith Miller to go to jail instead of allowing her to tell the truth. This all happening when there was no wrongdoing?
Posted by: honest cloud at March 06, 2007 02:17 PM (a6vlD)
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 02:18 PM (AaG/D)
Okay, you're the lawyer. But the point is the same: if no crime was suspected, Ashcroft would never have let it go forward.
Cue the rightwingers to point to Ashcroft as an activist leftist judge out of habit, before a little shred of reason kicks in.
Now Miller is complicit in this "crime"
Is there ANY ONE here who actually READ the publicly-available testimony, and/or looked at the PDFs of evidence???
Miller knew what Libby told her, and sat on it, to protect her source -- but in this case her source was the leaker. She was, by definition, complicit in the coverup. I'm basically an advocate of journalists protecting sources, as part of a free press, but I don't lie to myself and pretend that knowing about a crime and concealing it is innocent. And the goofy thing is that Miller NEVER WROTE about the story, so really, she was simply protecting the administration, not a source for a story in which she revealed anything.
So Judy was very much complicit in the coverup. So was Russert, who kept reporting on the story while never revealing his involvement. So was Woodward, and even Pincus to some extent.
You guys just can't figure out how to interpret the story, because it's all about journalists refusing to write stories about a hot hot story of administration treason. Instead they protected the administration, until Libby said it was okay or they were compelled under oath.
So hell yeah, journalists were complicit!
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 02:19 PM (vSuHN)
That was crap, but it may turn out that the stronger basis was
Fuck it, here's what MacGuire posted on the appeal thing.
Posted by: spongeworthy at March 06, 2007 02:19 PM (uSomN)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 06, 2007 02:20 PM (W5xJB)
Both Novak & Woodward have categorically stated that they were not given Plames' name by the VP or Libby.
Posted by: michele at March 06, 2007 02:20 PM (etwyR)
Let me try again: Miller chose to go to jail on her own volition rather than reveal her source. This was not a case of Scooter letting her go to jail - Miller was jailed for refusing to answer a question about her source under oath.
It was her actions, not Scooter's nefariousness, that landed her in jail.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 02:21 PM (R8+nJ)
Mind you, after prattling on about this "crime" being committed because of a referral which was precipitated by the Novak column.
Novak's column was preceded by Wilson's op-ed, which was preceded (May) by Libby's frantic outing of Plame, which was preceded by Kristof's column about a former ambassador.
So only the rightwingers are prattling on about this crime being precipitated by the much-later Novak column, because it helps them obscure the truth.
Try a f**king TIMELINE, bozo.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 02:22 PM (vSuHN)
if no crime was suspected, Ashcroft would never have let it go forward.
Actually, you don't know this.
By the way, you're aware of the distinction between suspected and committed, right?
So Judy was very much complicit in the coverup
Coverup of what?
You keep typing here some crime was committed.
One was not.
it's all about journalists refusing to write stories about a hot hot story of administration treason
Er, I suggest you look up the definition of "treason"
As you are simply comically deluded.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:22 PM (VZ0Yh)
So only the rightwingers are prattling on about this crime being precipitated by the much-later Novak column
As I said you illiterate jackass, logic much?
which was preceded (May) by Libby's frantic outing of Plame
Except you have no proof of this and nobody, let alone Libby, was charged with this.
How about this simpleton, why not just type "this is what I feel happened because I'm a deranged liberal" and save us all the time, ok?
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:24 PM (VZ0Yh)
Except that Miller never wrote up the story (and if she had, it would have been more steno for White House propaganda). So Libby was never a SOURCE for a story.
If Miller had be an investigative journalist instead of a shill, she would have written a story about the White House using classified info for revenge, or something. Instead she sat on that info.
I wrote about this above.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 02:25 PM (vSuHN)
Posted by: benrand at March 06, 2007 02:25 PM (sf4Oe)
Miller never wrote about the story because it was killed by the NY Times. It was a decision made by the legal team as a whole and not Miller.
Although that is not a matter of public record it is known by journalists in NY.
Posted by: michele at March 06, 2007 02:26 PM (etwyR)
and/or looked at the PDFs of evidence
Another term you can't grasp.
"Evidence" is not allegations which you wish were true.
Sort of like this moronic statement:
The proven obstruction of justice charge though, and the whole basis for the appointment of a prosecutor in the first place, show that Ace is misinformed at best with the whole NO CRIME angle.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:26 PM (VZ0Yh)
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:27 PM (VZ0Yh)
Is your investigation over now? Fitzgerald says that he does not expect to file any further charges. If information comes to light or if new information comes forward that warrants further investigation, we will do that. The case is now inactive. We are going back to our day jobs.
Let the door wide open to the Libby family, is my read on that statement.
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 02:28 PM (AaG/D)
You never know when you're going to need them later.
Was Miller even the NYT reporter assigned to this particular story?
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 02:28 PM (R8+nJ)
which was preceded (May) by Libby's frantic outing of Plame
Except you have no proof of this and nobody, let alone Libby, was charged with this.
-------------------------Holy f**king Christ, can you PLEASE go look at a timeline! Do you understand what is publicly available? Do you understand the record of conversations Libby had with reporters in late May, and what he already knew about Plame's status from Cheney, according to the public record?
Why don't you just describe the sequence of events, just for laughs.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 02:28 PM (vSuHN)
Except that Miller never wrote up the story (and if she had, it would have been more steno for White House propaganda). So Libby was never a SOURCE for a story.
Really?
Then why did you say this?
So Judy was very much complicit in the coverup
If he wasn't a source, what was she "covering up"?
OH, it doesn't really matter. You're just typing nonsense.
Nevermind.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:29 PM (VZ0Yh)
Do you understand the record of conversations Libby had with reporters in late May, and what he already knew about Plame's status from Cheney, according to the public record?
Um, and again, this doesn't mean he "outed" her. As noted, Libby disputes the account of the conversations. But to you they are "true" because, well, you wish to believe them.
Why don't we consult Coopers' notes?
Oops, he doesn't have any.
Read
Repeat
Until you grasp.
To say you are stupid is really a pretty fantastic understatement.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:31 PM (VZ0Yh)
You're joking, right? WHAT STORY, no one was going to do any investigative journalism here! At most they would write a pro-WH story about Wilson, implying something improper about how he was sent, based on Libby's versions.
You think Miller would go to her editor, and try to convince her to allow her to publish something about WH revealing classified info? You're deluded.
Again, like Jay, you shoudl actually read the court testimony. Read Miller's.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 02:32 PM (vSuHN)
Wilson in his op-ed and his testimony in front of Congress. It was and is a partisan game trying to use anything to discredit the admin. Joe and Val are total partisan hacks and their plan worked. They play the poor victim when they were the instigators and the guilty ones.
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 02:33 PM (9qfVD)
What evidence do you have that Miller was acting in defense of the administration?
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 02:33 PM (R8+nJ)
There was immense pressure from the left for the investigation to go forward - there had to be an investigation regardless of the merits of the case.
Miller NEVER WROTE about the story, so really, she was simply protecting the administration, not a source for a story in which she revealed anything.
This is a stupid definition of a source. A source is a source regardless of whether a story is written, and they have to be protected regardless of whether a story is written.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 02:34 PM (GJTEc)
Libby was unaware that Armitage had already copped to the leaking, a fact which he claims the FBI asked him to keep quiet. Armitage is a real turd in this whole affair. He let the executive branch twist in the wind just to shield himself and, by extension, Powell.
I think that the open ended grant of unsupervised AG powers to the Special Prosecutor is what would win on appeal.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 02:34 PM (ATbKm)
Jay: If he wasn't a source, what was she "covering up"?
OH, it doesn't really matter. You're just typing nonsense.
Uh, Jay, newsflash. Obstruction of justice.
Judy. Covered. Up. Her. Conversations. With. Libby. Where. She. Wrote. Down. Plame. In. Her. Notebook.
You must be the stupidest person on the planet.
Even when the guy is convicted, you still don't understand the charges. You might try READING the TESTIMONY etc.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 02:36 PM (vSuHN)
WTFFFFF?
Posted by: Phinn at March 06, 2007 02:36 PM (DiZv6)
you talk about no crime being committed. However, maybe you guys should take your own advice and go to law school.
Go check out what Larry Johnson has to say:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/victorias_secre.html#more
Of course, Larry might know a little more than you, seeing as he is former CIA officer and analyst. But don't let that stand in the way of your echo-chamber logic.
Posted by: Tits McGee at March 06, 2007 02:38 PM (fC2pg)
Except she wrote "Victoria Wilson." That's what she told the grand jury.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 02:38 PM (R8+nJ)
Judy. Covered. Up. Her. Conversations. With. Libby. Where. She. Wrote. Down. Plame. In. Her. Notebook.
Um, so this means you have proof that a CIA agent was "outed"
Why wasn't he charged with that?
Gee, I wonder...
Further, how does this mean Libby obstructed justice?
Oh, you're conflating a bunch of events together.
Even when the guy is convicted, you still don't understand the charges.
Actually this is projection.
You're using terms you don't even understand.
Which is another shocking development.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:39 PM (VZ0Yh)
There was immense pressure from the left for the investigation to go forward - there had to be an investigation regardless of the merits of the case.
Evidence? Or convenient baseless assertion? Can you show anything from that time period to support that?
And that also explains the referral from the CIA, right? And of course the FBI, we all know, makes its determinations based on popular opinion.
Too too stoopid....
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 02:39 PM (vSuHN)
What the FUCK is going on when a man, sent by the CI fucking A to investigate the proliferation of nuclear material, writes about his trip in an Op-Ed in the New York fucking Times?
It says the Bush clowns were lying to the American people about Iraq's real threat to this nation. WTF don't you understand about that?
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 02:40 PM (AaG/D)
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 02:42 PM (GJTEc)
Judy Miller went to jail for contempt of court-- for refusing to answer a prosecutor's questions before a grand jury.
This doesn't prove a crime committed. This proves that a prosecutor had a grand jury.
Please note this for your records.
Thank you.
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2007 02:43 PM (+u1X0)
Are you brain dead, diamond? Its a strange thing to have to drag up at this late date but which part of Bush's statement was a lie and which part did Wilson refute?
“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 02:44 PM (ATbKm)
Of course, Larry might know a little more than you, seeing as he is former CIA officer and analyst
Um, so is this guy:
Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame’s boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s — say, as a U.S. embassy attache — before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a “nice European city.” Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. “[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, ‘Yeah, he works for us,’” says Rustmann. “The degree of backstopping to a NOC’s cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is.”
Wasn't that fun, moron?
Again, if she was "outed" why wasn't anyone charged?
Facts are funny things, aren't they?
“We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent.”
–Patrick Fitzgerald, 10/28/05
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:45 PM (VZ0Yh)
CIA officers, and people acting at the behest of CIA officers, don't get to discuss their disagreements with the administration by writing op-eds in newspapers.
If their job were so distasteful to them, Plame and Wilson should have resigned.
WTF don't you understand about that?
Posted by: Phinn at March 06, 2007 02:45 PM (DiZv6)
It says that the intelligence sources were fed up with the Bush administration peddling lies, even when told the truth for months and months prior. It was one of the first of many indications that our military and intelligence forces are finding themselves having to avail themselves of public forums to keep the administration honest. That's almost a last resort, but look at recent controversial comments by NON-retired military (e.g. threatening to resign in the event of an attack on Iran), and you'll see that's what's happening. They are pushing back. And that's a desperate situation.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 02:46 PM (vSuHN)
It says the Bush clowns were lying to the American people about Iraq's real threat to this nation. WTF don't you understand about that?
Could you please name 1 "lie" President Bush allegedly told.
Just one.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:46 PM (VZ0Yh)
It says that the intelligence sources were fed up with the Bush administration peddling lies, even when told the truth for months and months prior
Another silly statement with no basis in fact.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:47 PM (VZ0Yh)
>>>Man, what a moron.
I seem to remember Bill Clinton doing so. And he wasn't even involved in a criminal proceding -- just a straight up civil proceding, where the only penalty he'd have to face, if any, was a civil verdict compelling him to pay some money in damages.
Sometimes people lie to avoid embarrassment, exposure of infidelities, and political embarrassment but noncriminal activities.
The reality based community really ought to start acting like one. You're fucking childish. The "proof" of crime being offered here must look childish to you even as you're typing it out.
Christ, I HOPE that's the case. Or else you're simply stupider than I'd imagined possible.
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2007 02:47 PM (+u1X0)
So Wilson lied, but it was for a good cause. Is that how we should understand it AiG?
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 02:47 PM (ATbKm)
I love how you silly leftists pretend to be concerned with national security when a soccer mom is "outed" as if it threatens the existence of Western civilization.
Then again, that's about what national security means to you.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:48 PM (VZ0Yh)
It says the Bush clowns were lying to the American people about Iraq's real threat to this nation. WTF don't you understand about that?
Clinton, Albright, UN, France, Russia etc., they are all implicit in the "rush to war" as well? Uh, Diamond?
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 02:48 PM (9qfVD)
1) Why was it so important to leak Plame's name if she wasn't a covert agent?
2) Why is it that the only place I can confirm that Plame was not a covert agent is on right-wing blogs and newsmax.com?
3) Can you respond to this?:
The test of a 'covert agent' as defined by 50 USC Section 246 is:
(4) The term ''covert agent'' means -
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States ...
Since she did do those things, including ii, how can you say she wasn't covert?
4) Why did Libby lie at all? Can you with a full conscience say, "he just forgot, then remembered"? Why didn't he say, "I don't recall" from the very beginning. It would have been a legitimate answer (if it were true), and it would have ended this.
5) Conservatives freaked out when Clinton pardoned Rich (and rightly so). So why would you rejoice if Libby gets a pardon, when he is now a convicted felon?
Posted by: happywash at March 06, 2007 02:49 PM (W0GoV)
Judy Miller went to jail for contempt of court-- for refusing to answer a prosecutor's questions before a grand jury.
Yes,but she went to jail when Judge Hogan agreed with Fitzgerald that a grave national security breech had occured. The contempt had more to do with the gravity of the case then it did with protecting sources.
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 02:49 PM (AaG/D)
Please provide the latest date on which Valerie Plame served outside the United States, and your source for this date.
Posted by: Phinn at March 06, 2007 02:53 PM (DiZv6)
Why was it so important to leak Plame's name if she wasn't a covert agent?
Because she played a role in sending her husband to Niger to "debunk" claims which were true and he lied about to the press.
Since she did do those things, including ii, how can you say she wasn't covert?
Um, I suggest you read the "and" part and the "within 5 years" part.
It isn't that difficult to explain.
Again, if she was "covert" why was nobody charged?
Funny how you won't answer that question, huh?
We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent.”
–Patrick Fitzgerald, 10/28/05
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:54 PM (VZ0Yh)
If their job were so distasteful to them, Plame and Wilson should have resigned.
WTF don't you understand about that?
LOL..
Oh? So the CIA should have to resign because the POTUS wants to gin up a war in Iraq and sends his attack dogs out to every sunday politico show to scare the American people with images of mushroom clouds going off in American cities? Are you people the last people on the face of the planet to understand that this POTUS LIED this nation into a war, and did so without a winnable mission? How far can you bend over for these people?
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 02:55 PM (AaG/D)
Are you people the last people on the face of the planet to understand that this POTUS LIED this nation into a war,
3rd request:
Please name 1 lie President Bush allegedly told.
Just one.
Thanks.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 02:56 PM (VZ0Yh)
Actually, the "gravity" of the case had nothing to do with the contempt of court charge against Miller. It was a pretty routine reporter jailing - angry judge, stubborn reporter. From the New York Times, July 7, 2005:
"REPORTER JAILED AFTER REFUSING TO NAME SOURCE"
By ADAM LIPTAK; David Johnston contributed reporting for this article.
Judge Hogan held the two reporters in civil contempt in October for refusing to cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. The prosecutor's efforts produced the most serious confrontation between the government and the press since the Pentagon Papers case in 1971. The Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from the reporters last week.
On hearing Mr. Cooper's statement, Judge Hogan indicated he would lift the contempt sanction against Mr. Cooper after he testified.
After listening to Ms. Miller, the judge ordered her sent to ''a suitable jail within the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia'' until she decided to talk or until the term of the grand jury expired in October.
''I have a person in front of me,'' Judge Hogan said, ''who is defying the law.''
Ms. Miller appeared shaken and scared as she left the courtroom. In a telephone interview later in the evening, she said she had been taken to the Alexandria Detention Center in Virginia.
Ms. Miller, who conducted interviews but never wrote an article about the C.I.A. operative, joins a line of journalists who have accepted jail time rather than betray their sources' confidences. That tradition, according to Judge Hogan, does not deserve respect.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 02:57 PM (R8+nJ)
I will laugh my ass off.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at March 06, 2007 02:57 PM (/2xR+)
This doesn't prove a crime committed. This proves that a prosecutor had a grand jury.
Conservative morons: That is correct. However, no one is claiming that proves a crime was committed. However, I brought up Miller to make the point Jay didn't grasp, namely that May precedes June, which comes before July. I suggested he consult a timeline. I don't believe he found one, or his ass for that matter.
I also brought up Miller because some conservative morons assume that NYT reporter means someone who is going to attempt to publish any embarrassing info about the administration. Miller's testimony made it clear that if she had published anything, it would have been the White House version of Wilson. She was NEVER going to publish information about WH use of classified info for political purposes. Libby trusted her with information because of her long-established history of publishing pro-WH stories.
This simple point remains beyond the grasp of most readers here.
Jay pulls this out from a LONG TIME AGO: “We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent.”
Jay, read Fitz's closing argument. Combined with the testimony and evidence, it sums up the case that the OVP directed a nasty game, and may well have broken the law (but knowingly and intentionally are hard to prove). They quite possibly endangered key intel sources.
And Fitz got it all in the public record. The civil suit -- if that's next -- will be very interesting.
I just had a yak with a hardline conservative. We do agree on the importance of protecting our human intel sources. I would hope that all but the real nutcases here would agree to that too.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 02:57 PM (vSuHN)
Show us this lie. Put it in simple terms, with facts and easily accessible references. I'm a moron, bear with me.
Posted by: JosephD at March 06, 2007 02:58 PM (q1iOs)
Could you please name 1 "lie" President Bush allegedly told.
Just one.
Thanks in advance.
I guess you missed those gems Bush was giving in Ohio about nuclear bombs coming from the general direction of Iraq? The SOTU? The multiple talk shows on sunday morning when the clowns were set out to scare up the support for a war that was a lie?
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 02:59 PM (AaG/D)
Again, please site the "lie" that led us into war, please! Do you have the guts? Uh? Diamond, hello?
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 02:59 PM (9qfVD)
Posted by: forged rite. at March 06, 2007 02:59 PM (j/z7n)
1. It was important to identify the fact that Wilson's wife sent him to Niger to directly refute the false allegation that the VP's office had sent him.
2. I don't know that "right wing blogs" are exclusively claiming Wilson was not covert. But it sure seems that left wing blogs are claiming she was, without evidence to support such a charge.
3. No evidence that Plame worked overseas within the five years immediately preceding her "outing."
4. I have no idea why Libby lied, if he did.
5. I'd be enthusiastic about a pardon depending on the sentence Libby gets. If it's more than a year, I think the punishment is disproportionate and a pardon would be warranted.
Posted by: angler at March 06, 2007 03:00 PM (kSuu1)
Because -- isn't it obvious? -- we should all have access to classified information that would endanger intel sources. And if we don't have access to it, it must not exist.
Wait for the civil suit.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 03:00 PM (vSuHN)
Posted by: Chris Matthews at March 06, 2007 03:00 PM (pzen5)
Posted by: ulost_again at March 06, 2007 03:01 PM (56UMe)
You're not just uninformed, you're fucking nuts, too. Slu, you're whistling down a well. A crazy, crazy well.
Posted by: spongeworthy at March 06, 2007 03:01 PM (uSomN)
I guess you missed those gems Bush was giving in Ohio about nuclear bombs coming from the general direction of Iraq? The SOTU? The multiple talk shows on sunday morning when the clowns were set out to scare up the support for a war that was a lie?
Huh?
Are you even familiar with the definition of the word "lie"?
Again, can you name one.
Just one.
Not a crappy paragraph like that.
Name a specific lie.
Thanks.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 03:01 PM (VZ0Yh)
Yep, that's another good appeal point. Directly violating the judges orders, making reference to aledged evidence not entered in the trial.
Tob.
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 03:02 PM (ATbKm)
She was covert. I love Jay who quoted without a link some CIA dude who said that Plame wasn't as deep of a covert agent as others. Whoa. What a revelation. She was in a "nice European city." Does that make her less of an agent? And calling the corporation is not like calling the CIA. It's calling a phony corporation! Which is cover. She didn't need to have a full back story because she wasn't running around with a gun in her purse, shadowing evildoers. Many of you on the right have repeated this bogus notion that she wasn't covert for so long, that I know you believe it's true.
And oh, to that Fitzgerald quote from Jay? all it means is that Libby may or may not have known if Plame was covert. He said nothing about the rest of the administration. All Libby did was throw sand in the umpire's eyes. When someone lies, all it does is make them and the people they work for look more guilty.
But I guess you can't see that. Bush has thrown sand in all of your eyes.
By the way, Sandy Berger should go to jail longer than Libby.
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 03:02 PM (W0GoV)
She was covert. I love Jay who quoted without a link some CIA dude who said that Plame wasn't as deep of a covert agent as others. Whoa. What a revelation. She was in a "nice European city." Does that make her less of an agent? And calling the corporation is not like calling the CIA. It's calling a phony corporation! Which is cover. She didn't need to have a full back story because she wasn't running around with a gun in her purse, shadowing evildoers. Many of you on the right have repeated this bogus notion that she wasn't covert for so long, that I know you believe it's true.
And oh, to that Fitzgerald quote from Jay? all it means is that Libby may or may not have known if Plame was covert. He said nothing about the rest of the administration. All Libby did was throw sand in the umpire's eyes. When someone lies, all it does is make them and the people they work for look more guilty.
But I guess you can't see that. Bush has thrown sand in all of your eyes.
By the way, Sandy Berger should go to jail longer than Libby.
Posted by: happywash at March 06, 2007 03:02 PM (W0GoV)
Jay, read Fitz's closing argument. Combined with the testimony and evidence, it sums up the case that the OVP directed a nasty game, and may well have broken the law (but knowingly and intentionally are hard to prove). They quite possibly endangered key intel sources.
Facts and what you wish were true are two different things.
This is hilarious to read though.
Note how you have an excuse for lack of proof.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 03:02 PM (VZ0Yh)
Diamond, ask Hillary Clinton as she has yet to disavow her vote to enter this "unwinnable mission."
See post 125..
Judd?
How do you wind up with Hillary Clinton? LOL.. I can not staaaaand that B***H. You get no defense from me about Clinton.Mr or Mrs.
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 03:04 PM (AaG/D)
Posted by: ulost_again at March 06, 2007 03:04 PM (56UMe)
When you can't debate facts, just shoot the messenger.
We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent.
That wasn't the purpose of the trial. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, jackass.
Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame’s boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s — say, as a U.S. embassy attache — before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes...
Congrats, she was not a NOC. That doesn't mean she was working abroad with a big "CIA EMPLOYEE" badge around her neck, fucknuts. She was undercover - official cover. Nice selection of facts.
Also - please Google "Brewster Jennings" and take a look at what you neo-cons did: destroyed a CIA company working to find more info on Iranian WMD programs.
Jeez, you'd figure neo-cons would be smart enough to let something like Brewster do its thing.
I thought Iran was part of the axis of evil?
What happened?
Posted by: Tits McGee at March 06, 2007 03:05 PM (fC2pg)
Uh, huh:
THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE INSPECTOR;
Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War
The New York Times, January 31, 2003
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: THE WEAPONS;
DRAFT REPORT SAID TO CITE NO SUCCESS IN IRAQ ARMS HUNT
The New York Times, September 25, 2003
Ex-Bush Aide, Finding Fault, Sets Off Debate
The New York Times, March 23, 2004
A NATION AT WAR: ARMS INSPECTION;
U.S. Inspectors Find No Forbidden Weapons at Iraqi Arms Plant
The New York Times, April 16, 2003
AFTEREFFECTS: GERM WEAPONS;
Leading Iraqi Scientist Says He Lied to U.N. Inspectors
The New York Times, April 27, 2003
Some Analysts Of Iraq Trailers Reject Germ Use
The New York Times, June 7, 2003
What do these stories have in common?
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 03:05 PM (R8+nJ)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 03:05 PM (ATbKm)
Montreal with R. J a m e s W o o l s e y as a WMD specialist before the Wilson Niger mission was used to attack the US government.
Posted by: m e y at March 06, 2007 03:06 PM (LdD6+)
Yeah, right.
1, a "nasty game" is not a crime.
2, "may well have broken the law" is not actually breaking the law. Fitz knew there had been no lawbreaking from the start.
3, if his "conspiracy to violate civil rights" claim holds water, well, he's got Libby admitting he fed Plame's name to the press -- ergo, he "violated her civil rights," if any such rights existed. Ergo, with that admission, he should be able to prosecute Libby for the crime he supposedly was investigating.
But even with Libby's "confession" to that "crime," no charges are filed. Why?
Because there NEVER WAS A CRIME POSSIBLE FROM THE GET-GO, WHETHER LIBBY CONFESSED TO THE ACTIONS HE WAS ACCUSED OF OR NOT.
Libby! Admits! To doing! All the actions! Fitzgerald claimed! Could give rise! To a civil rights! Prosecution!
And yet! There is no! Civil rights! Prosecution!
Because none! Was ever possible! By the letter! of the law!
And he knew! all that! From the beginning!
You can't just put someone under oath without having a real crime to investigate. Fitzie kept saying he couldn't say any specific laws were broken -- but he dishonestly withheld his real conclusion, not that he "coudn't say" if laws were broken or not, but that he knew for a legal fact from the opening days of the investigation whether laws were broken or not -- and the answer was "not."
But he pretended to be unable to find the answers to this none-too-troubling legal question, because answering them definitively would have shut down his sham investigation.
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2007 03:08 PM (+u1X0)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 03:08 PM (ATbKm)
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 03:09 PM (9qfVD)
Are you even familiar with the definition of the word "lie"? Again, can you name one.Just one.Not a crappy paragraph like that.
Name a specific lie.
JAY
Here is a whole page of lies.. but I would like you sink your teeth in this one very juicy whopper before you read my link( if you read my link)
BUSH SAID THIS: LOOOOOL
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
How is that you guys in the Bush camp forget so easy?
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 03:10 PM (AaG/D)
Better yet, with Armitage confessing, he still brought no charges on the leaking.
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 03:10 PM (ATbKm)
Fitz was investigating the start of this leak, and what did he run into? Lies from Libby. Which looked to him like he was covering up something. Now that Libby's convicted, and will spend years in prison, he might flip on those above him who indeed were manufacturing evidence. The leak is part of a much larger fish -WMD intel.
And, oh yeah...the Niger debunked claim that Wilson wrote about? Was true. There was no yellowcake incident. Wilson exposed it, the Bushies leaked the name. You keep saying that people like me don't answer questions. So answer this. If the Wilson article was a lie, why didn't they pound the talk shows waving evidence that proved people like Cheney were right? Why did they have to do the childish thing? You have to stop quoting right-wing blogs as proof that
1) Plame was not covert
2) there was no crime
3) Wilsons article was a lie.
Posted by: happywash at March 06, 2007 03:12 PM (W0GoV)
Everything will be just like it was 4 years ago.
Maybe Joe, altermann, moore, gore and everyone else who is completely insane can write a new book.
If so, I'm so in for the insane portion.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 03:12 PM (QTv8u)
What part is the lie Diamond?
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 03:12 PM (ATbKm)
That's easy. Most were published a few pages AFTER the main stories by Judy Miller on the front page, pushing the existence of WMD, based on WH disinfo.
NEXT!
Bush lies? Look up his statement of lifeling support for Rumsfeld, just before he was cut loose. Look up his statement about Saddam kicking out inspectors. "We were NEVER 'stay the course'." Bush has contradicted himself more times than I can count.
Jeez. Where have you BEEN?
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 03:13 PM (vSuHN)
Posted by: e y at March 06, 2007 03:13 PM (LdD6+)
False statement vs. lie.
False statement=statement that is not factually correct.
Lie=false statement made by someone who knows that the statement is false when made.
The list of governments, intelligence services, politicians, DEMOCRATS, and others who believed that Iraq possessed WMDs when that statement was made (2002) is too long to list.
Posted by: angler at March 06, 2007 03:14 PM (kSuu1)
Diamond, she is your leading pres candidate, will you vote for a knowing liar for President? LOL
Judd:
LOL.. No way! I would never vote for that shrill B***H ..I swing both ways when it comes to voting. When are you guys going to get it together and draft a decent canidate who is not a flip-flopper, or a suck up to the nuttery christian zealot wing of the party? I am waiting. Otherwise, it may be Obama.
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 03:15 PM (AaG/D)
Posted by: ulost_again at March 06, 2007 03:15 PM (56UMe)
But you have no problem with intelligence officers, or the family members of intelligence officers and/or people acting at the behest of intelligence officers discussing their work in the op-ed pages of newspapers?
You are a hypocrite, AIG.
Posted by: Phinn at March 06, 2007 03:15 PM (DiZv6)
Drunk driving without a car.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 03:15 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 03:16 PM (ATbKm)
Nope. Most were on the front page.
Nice try, liar.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 03:17 PM (R8+nJ)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at March 06, 2007 03:17 PM (/2xR+)
Slander upon a fictional character.
Assault for shadow boxing.
Suicide by Cancer.
Help me out guys.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 03:18 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 03:20 PM (9qfVD)
Cowbell for everybody!
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 03:20 PM (ATbKm)
Your whole rant (this! one! you! know!) contains nothing to respond to the 7 billionth time that the investigation could not have begun without suspicion of a possible crime. You just ignore the CIA referral, the FBI, and the DOJ.
Then call others childish? Please. Pull your head out of the sand.
Because there NEVER WAS A CRIME POSSIBLE FROM THE GET-GO, WHETHER LIBBY CONFESSED TO THE ACTIONS HE WAS ACCUSED OF OR NOT.
You forgot to explain how. Just calm down, and try to explain it to us. Be sure to point out that everyone should have access to the info of a covert agent's status, and if we can't produce it, then she must be a witch!!!! I'm sorry, I meant she must not be covert.
Your buds at firedoglake have the post-trial presser. "The judge made a ruling that the case would not be tried based on Valerie Plame Wilson's status. her relationship with the CIA was classified — I have 100% confidence in this information."
I'm sure you're more credible.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 03:20 PM (vSuHN)
False statement vs. lie.
False statement=statement that is not factually correct.
Lie=false statement made by someone who knows that the statement is false when made.
The list of governments, intelligence services, politicians, DEMOCRATS, and others who believed that Iraq possessed WMDs when that statement was made (2002) is too long to list.
Angler:
Ugh! You are reminding of the "what is IS"
As for the DEMOCRATS beleiving it, they were idiots! I don't just hold the Bush clowns accountable for this you see. I hold everyone who voted for it accountable for it, They were weak and more afraid of being painted as a Anti-American traitor then they were concerned about the grave decision of preemtive war. The media too were complicit bastids in the march to war.
Our goverment failed us, our media allowed it.
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 03:21 PM (AaG/D)
It seems to be forgotten that Wilson exposed the big lie.
He is an American hero.
How can the big lie be defended? Regardless of where this has since gone.
Posted by: honest cloud at March 06, 2007 03:21 PM (a6vlD)
Oh no, not Hitchens. He is an absolutely sodden inebriated drunken right wing hack. Entertaining, though. I saw him give a talk a few months ago.
Completely over the top loony, though. Claims LOTS of WMDs found in Iraq. Lots.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 03:22 PM (vSuHN)
This "controversy," manufactured by illiterate libs, should have been laughed out of the blogosphere immediately by both sides. When Bush said "stay the course," he obviously meant that we should remain in Iraq until our mission was complete. Somehow libs twisted this into, "we should stay with unsuccessful tactics," which has never been our policy, since our tactics have changed many times since the invasion.
That one is an obvious liberal lie, so you can chalk that one up against AiG's integrity.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 03:22 PM (GJTEc)
Not that anything is wrong with that. Dick Nixon, Leaving out context are you ?
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 03:23 PM (AaG/D)
Typo, I'm sure you meant that Wilson is the big lie. Tighten up there cloud.
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 03:23 PM (ATbKm)
Diamond: The contempt had more to do with the gravity of the case then it did with protecting sources.
This is the level of lefty we're dealing with here. So I'm going to move on.
You know, with the appeals and such, by the time the Feds get to the bottom of this nefarious scheme, Bush and Cheney will be fishing for tarpon in the DR, laughing about raping the country and how much money they made on their HAL stock.
And the lefties are whooping it up over Scooters 90 days of minimum security golf and leisure time. Oooooh, poor Scooter! Hit his tee shot into the water!
Dipshit lefties.
Posted by: spongeworthy at March 06, 2007 03:24 PM (uSomN)
Not seeing any quotes. Not seeing any references. This wouldn't cut it at a high school level, and I'm certainly not going to accept it.
I'm looking for something Bush stated as fact that he KNEW was demonstrably false at the time. As soon as you can produce that I'll be right on board with the whole, "Bush lied, people died" meme. You suspect that he knew there were no weapons and that Iraq posed no threat (forgetting the broad bi-partisan support for the intelligence and the wildly varying differences of opinion on that latter point). This is not the same thing as it being true.
For example, I happen to think that despite his flaws, Bush isn't much more than a normal man, whereas you, on the other hand, are a raving lunatic paranoid nutcase. I suspect these things, but you might actually be an idiotic groupthink generating bot created by conservative hackers to discredit the more rational left. But again, I don't _know_ that. That's why I'm not making giant paper mache puppet heads and marching on liberal demonstrations 24/7.
But then, I guess "Bush might have lied, theoretically leading to many innocent deaths, even if we did depose a dangerous dictator so I guess they're not innocent... OH FUCK IT. HATE BUSH HATE" doesn't make for a handy bumpersticker or protest sign.
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 03:25 PM (q1iOs)
It seems to be forgotten that Wilson exposed the big lie.
And where did the administration ever say that a yellowcake sale from Niger to Iraq ever occurred?
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 03:25 PM (GJTEc)
Actually hitchens is still a socialist. Or rather an opportunist who is willing to use his own moral maleability to pursue the goal of his own ideology. He never chose a candidate for the elections, he simply pointed out how he disagree'd with every candidate. He actually said it might not be a bad idea to put kerrey into office so that the country can realize that being president isn't easy.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 03:25 PM (QTv8u)
I'm sorry that you cannot distinguish between a false statement and a lie. They are two very different concepts. Recognizing the distinction is not like parsing the meaning of the word "is."
You used the term "lie" to describe Bush's 2002 WMD statement. You have not proven that when he made the statement he knew it to be incorrect.
Posted by: angler at March 06, 2007 03:26 PM (kSuu1)
There is obviously a vast left-wing conspiracy againt the U.S. right wingers, those paragons of virtue, morality, honesty, probity, compassion, and selflessness.
Want some cheese with that whine?
Posted by: Evil Progressive at March 06, 2007 03:26 PM (+jr1W)
Michael York at NRO outlines Isikoff's gross overstatement here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200602060919.asp
Valerie Plame did not work overseas in the five years preceding the leak.
Neither you, nor even Fitzie himself, can prove otherwise.
Posted by: Phinn at March 06, 2007 03:28 PM (DiZv6)
1) Why was it so important to leak Plame's name if she wasn't a covert agent?
She'd been a desk jockey for over 5 years; they had little reason to suspect her as being "covert". It was in the context of countering Lyin' Joe Wilson's dishonest characterization of his trip to Niger- particularly his insinuation that he was sent on behalf of Cheney, when in fact his wife played a primary role in his being sent to Niger.
2) Why is it that the only place I can confirm that Plame was not a covert agent is on right-wing blogs and newsmax.com?
Not exactly the first time the liberal MSM has ignored an aspect of the story dipshit. See Rathergate and Newsweek's burying of the Monica story till Drudge broke it.
Remember it was the MSM (and lefty bloggers) that endlessly parroted Lyin' Joe's contention that his wife was "outed" as some kind of intimidation tactic when evidence suggests that it was a bureaucratic screwup in not specifically checking to see what her status was. They knew her as a technocrat investigating Iraq's WMD programs from the comfort of a stateside desk chair.
3) Can you respond to this?:
The test of a 'covert agent' as defined by 50 USC Section 246 is:
There's no evidence she served overseas in the past 5 years, and it's unlikely that a day trip would count as "serving outside the United States"... no doubt a major factor in the lack of prosecution on that count.
4) Why did Libby lie at all? Can you with a full conscience say, "he just forgot, then remembered"? Why didn't he say, "I don't recall" from the very beginning. It would have been a legitimate answer (if it were true), and it would have ended this.
It's entirely plausible that he misremembered the sequence of events given the time that elapsed since the events in question and the grand jury. Also, Bush instructed his subordinates to cooperate with the investigation, and had he repeatedly said "I don't recall" in response to questions, you and your fellow nutroots would be caterwauling about a cover-up.
5) Conservatives freaked out when Clinton pardoned Rich (and rightly so). So why would you rejoice if Libby gets a pardon, when he is now a convicted felon?
Clinton's campaign contribution motivated pardon of a billionare who fled the country to avoid prosecution on tax evasion charges was right?!? I don't care if Libby gets pardoned or not, but considering his conviction was for perjury regarding testimony of a potential crime he wasn't actually being tried for, wouldn't have a problem with it. Given that Libby voluntarily testified rather than, say, flee the country as did Rich makes the two cases incomparible. That and the fact that there's no actual indication that Libby will be pardoned as was Rich.
Wow, I'm bored with this story already. Can we get some cat spanking or dead animal humping stories up?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 06, 2007 03:28 PM (plsiE)
WAS a Socialist. He is now to the right of Attila-the-Hun. He is also drunk 24/7, which goes a long way towards explaining his ideological turnabout...
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at March 06, 2007 03:29 PM (+jr1W)
You're right, Sponge - I'm outa here.
And the 2nd line in my previous comment should have been italicized as well - it was from HC.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 03:29 PM (GJTEc)
And the lefties are whooping it up over Scooters 90 days of minimum security golf and leisure time. Oooooh, poor Scooter! Hit his tee shot into the water!
Blah blah with your "leftie" stich
The above statment shows how big of a hypocrit you are. I bet you were screaming over the Marc Rich pardon, Which was engieered by no other then Libby.
At least you are honest about your contempt of our judical system. Delay taught you well eh?
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 03:29 PM (AaG/D)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 03:33 PM (QTv8u)
And the science is settled on this.
Posted by: benrand at March 06, 2007 03:33 PM (sf4Oe)
Since libby admitted to all the actions requred to prove a "violation of civil rights," why wasn't he charged dear?
Incidentally, you seem to need the glaringly obvious explained to you, so here goes:
The suspicion of a nonlawyer in an agency like the CIA that a crime MAY have been committed is not dispositive, as 1, they don't make that determination themselves, and 2, they have an organizational interest in deterring noncriminal behavior that they nevertheless disapprove of as well.
Whatever the CIA or FBI thought may have been the case, apparently Fitzgerald believed otherwise.
Because, again, Libby confessed to all conceivable actions that would be necessary to prosecute whatever amorphous "crime" Fitzgerald claimed to be investigating. Even with the STIPULATION to all actions necessary to prove a crime-- still no crime.
If I'm investigating a crime and I just need evidence of a, b, c, and d, and then suspect admits to a, b, c, and d, and yet I STILL can prove no crime, guess what? That's because there wasn't a crime possible, even with all facts stipulated in your favor.
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2007 03:34 PM (+u1X0)
Actually, Wilson conjectured that the information passed on by the Italian Secret Service to the British Intelligence and then to our CIA was false because he was unable to prove or find any shred of evidence of such a sale. Of course when you're not deep cover talking to people in the open, such as politicians, while sipping latte and eating fancy dinners makes it really difficult to uncover information.
Posted by: michele at March 06, 2007 03:36 PM (FRjNx)
Valerie Plame did not work overseas in the five years preceding the leak."
And the science is settled on this.
So that makes it okay to end her career ? If a Democrat did this , you people would be screaming and you know it.
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 03:36 PM (AaG/D)
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=169875
People like geoff, who can only fixate on details and legalisms, are in special need:
And where did the administration ever say that a yellowcake sale from Niger to Iraq ever occurred?
All you have is "gotcha" on details.
Your guys obstructed justice. Told a lie in the SOTU address, and had to retract it. Have lied so much about such important matters that even the military brass is now calling them on it in public. Wilson called them on it early, and was right to do it. It was brave to stand up to the smears you and this admin pile on, but Wilson did it. Whether through incompetence or evil, this admin rewarded that heroism by revealing classified information, and damaging intel sources. If more heroes like Wilson had stepped forward, we would have been saved some of the disastrous policy of this administration, which has weakened the US militarily and politically -- and the kicker is that this administration intends to keep pursuing this policies, doing damage to the US, till driven from office.
But hey, you can always play gotcha on details. And really, without any principles or care for the future of the nation over your party, what else have you got?
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 03:36 PM (vSuHN)
Of course, the investigation has closed up shop and Cheney and Bush are laughing at you right now, but hey, Scooters going to Allenwood. You can suck on that as you fall asleep tonight.
Posted by: spongeworthy at March 06, 2007 03:37 PM (uSomN)
Libby was charged with obstruction of justice and perjury for lying under oath to a grand jury. Lying under oath is a criminal offense per se. Whether the person is lying about a crime that may or not have been committed is irrelevant. The underlying reason for the lie is irrrelevant.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at March 06, 2007 03:39 PM (+jr1W)
Delay? What has he been convicted of?
crickets chirping/
Posted by: Dick Nixon at March 06, 2007 03:39 PM (/2xR+)
Wait'll it bites THEM in the ass.
They'll be laughing, out the other side of their mouths.
Posted by: franksalterego at March 06, 2007 03:41 PM (bMsDT)
Posted by: joe buz at March 06, 2007 03:41 PM (0SlSL)
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 03:42 PM (R8+nJ)
Posted by: george samek at March 06, 2007 03:42 PM (/0eFo)
But prosecutors can't just put any old Jack in the dock and put them under oath. There has to be a crime they're investigating -- and Fitzgerald wasn't investigating one.
Perhaps a local DA in New York should subpeona Hillary Clinton and begin compelling her to answer questions under oath-- not investigating any crime, mind you, just to find "the truth" about her.
Sound good?
Because that's precisely what Fitzgerald did.
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2007 03:43 PM (+u1X0)
Your "argument" holds no water at all. Fitz said there was obstruction of justice, then proved it in court.
Justice was obstructed. We still don't know what crimes Fitz believes were committed, that he may not be able to prove. The guy is a very successful but conservative prosecutor, who does not file charges without a solid case.
That he didn't (yet) file charges doesn't prove what you think it proves. What he appears to THINK, judging from the final arguments, is that the OVP is guilty as hell, and the evidence appears to support that -- but might not convince a jury. Because... yes, you guessed it... justice was obstructed, as proven in court.
It's not that hard, if you want to understand it.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 03:44 PM (vSuHN)
Heh. That's what I thought. You've got nothing but the typical mantra to play, with the typical lies to accompany it. It's so ironic that you're worried about the truthfulness of the administration when you shrug off your own lies as "part of a larger truth."
That's one of the problems with libs: they build their argumentation framework from the top down, rather than the bottom up. They start with the conclusion and then twist the supporting evidence to fit it.
Like our hapless lying visitor here.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 03:44 PM (GJTEc)
Diamond, my man, cheer the fuck up! You guys got Scooter, man. This is a big day for you guys. Most likely there will even be pudding later!
Sponge: I'm not happy that Libby is going down. It's a bummer. The whole bloody Iraq crap is a nightmare for this nation. I take no pleasure whatsoever in this. Libby seems like a decent guy that took one for the team. Too bad it came to that, but they wanted this war in the worse way, therefore defending it became dangerous.
Posted by: diamond at March 06, 2007 03:44 PM (AaG/D)
Let's apply AIG's logic to another special prosecutor. Even though Ken Starr never filed any charges against Bill Clinton, the Whitewater investigation was totally justified. Since there was a referral, there must have been a suspicion of a crime. As such, the investigation was fully and completely warranted.
And as for Valerie Plame's status,, it's kinda hard to claim you wer tying to hide her identitty as working for the CIA when she goes to work at CIA Headquarters EVERY FUCKING DAY.
Posted by: Steve L. at March 06, 2007 03:45 PM (hpZf2)
Perhaps a local DA in New York should subpeona Hillary Clinton and begin compelling her to answer questions under oath-- not investigating any crime, mind you, just to find "the truth" about her.
,,,
Because that's precisely what Fitzgerald did.
Wow. That's the biggest whopper I ever read from you.
You're gonna regret that one in the morning.
I think you need to review some basics about how cases are assigned. Fitzgerald didn't just get some wild idea about issuing a subpoena. I'm embarrassed for you.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 03:46 PM (vSuHN)
Posted by: The Black Republican at March 06, 2007 03:48 PM (vgyJ5)
Wow, you all are going totally unhinged. Geoff, you didn't point to a single lie from me. You are just throwing feces like rabid monkey.
In fact, you didn't respond in any way, to anything. It's like you're orbiting your own mind... Hallooooo out there......
Why don't you just explain how perjury and obstruction of justice are really not so bad, under certain obscure conditions. I always enjoy those.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 03:50 PM (vSuHN)
All I see is the subjective memory of the witnesses and interpretation of the agents 'notes'. In every perjury trial with a conviction I've seen or read about, there is an objective piece of evidence that is not ambiguous in its content and not in need of interpretation.
Posted by: roc ingersol at March 06, 2007 03:50 PM (m2CN7)
Buffalo, NY April 20, 2004 from whitehouse.gov
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Anxious to hear your response.
Posted by: honest cloud at March 06, 2007 03:55 PM (a6vlD)
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 03:36 PM (vSuHN) "
AiG,
Wilson lied, pure and simple. It's been proven by tesitmony in front of Congress. This is not partisan politics, it is pure and simple fact. You just can't claim that Wilson told the truth in his NYT article at this point with all the facts out there. At least not if you want to have any credibilty any ways.
Posted by: Brad at March 06, 2007 03:56 PM (zYbEr)
Man, that was kind of pathetic.
Does that count as a thread-jack?
Posted by: BANHAMMER at March 06, 2007 03:59 PM (R8+nJ)
You didn't write this immediately after noting that it wasn't strictly true?
Told a lie in the SOTU address, and had to retract it.
That's a lie, my friend. A lie propagated by loons on the left for 4 years. And you are a liar for continuing to spout it.
Why don't you just explain how perjury and obstruction of justice are really not so bad, under certain obscure conditions.
Why don't you go play with your own strawman? I've made it clear for years that I'll abide by the determination of the court, so you won't find me arguing with the deliberations or the verdict.
But I don't expect you to be able to avoid lying about my position.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 04:00 PM (GJTEc)
Now, of course, if you want to argue that there was never a crime committed by leaking Plame's name to the press, that is your prerogative, and there is nothing to discuss.
Pray tell, why should Hillary be put under oath? Have I missed something? Are there any charges against her that would justify the convening of a grand jury where she would have to testify under oath? Or are you throwing this out there out of your usual blind and visceral hatred of anything and anyone who is not a member of the hard right?
It is always amazing to me that totalitarians and authoritarians like yourself go ballistic and lose all reason at the slighest hint that someone might disagree with your opinions and positions. How do you manage to live in a democracy with that kind of mindset?
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at March 06, 2007 04:01 PM (+jr1W)
Posted by at March 6, 2007 03:25 PM
Not trying to threadjack.
Just responding to a post.
Posted by: honest cloud at March 06, 2007 04:04 PM (a6vlD)
What's always amazing to me is that you can use the terms "totalitarians" and "authoritarians" without irony.
If ace were truly what you accuse him to be, do you think your comment would have been published?
Get a grip, nancy.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 04:04 PM (R8+nJ)
Just responding to a post.
Sorry, was just having some fun re: the troll thread below.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 04:05 PM (R8+nJ)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2007 04:05 PM (wmgz8)
Posted by: Robert at March 06, 2007 04:05 PM (VTtVl)
Told a lie in the SOTU address, and had to retract it.
That's a lie, my friend. A lie propagated by loons on the left for 4 years. And you are a liar for continuing to spout it.
...
But I don't expect you to be able to avoid lying about my position.
________________________
What the heck IS your position? How would I know? Let's keep it simple, and just tell me your position on the SOTU retraction. Seems pretty clear that they put in an intentionally misleading scare bit, then had to take it back. It was intentional, misleading, and was reworded to within an inch of the technical truth, so it was the nastiest of lies: engineered for plausible deniability, while being as misleading as possible. SOP for this admin, repeated lots of places (see Powell, UN; Cheney on Iraq+9-11, etc). That's my view. Let's hear yours.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 04:07 PM (vSuHN)
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 04:09 PM (k7SeR)
You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working class...
Posted by: The Black Republican at March 06, 2007 04:09 PM (vgyJ5)
Ummm, you're the one talking about mistakes in chronology?
The obstruction of justice occurred DURING THE INVESTIGATION, not preceeding it. Usually, when we investigate a crime, we insist that there's actuallly a, you know, crime preceeding the investigation, rather than an investigation preceeding a crime.
On Plame's "confidential" or "classified" status:
A lot of things are "classified." The Covert agent identiy protection act does NOT protect "classified" status, as that would be overbroad. It specifically defines its own term -- a new term for purposes of that law -- and that term is "covert," and that term is given specific definitions which Plame's circumstances do not meet. It's laughable, as a matter of fact, how far away from "covert" plame was.
So you can keep saying "classified, classified, classified." The law, which has been quoted for you numerous times, says "covert, covert, cover."
See, in law, words have specific meanings, defined in great detail. I love pretend lawyers arguing on blogs who think, "Gee, classified kind of means covert, so, in the law, they must mean the same thing!"
Yeah. Um, they don't.
Posted by: ace at March 06, 2007 04:09 PM (+u1X0)
That's a good example of a Bush lie. A very good example, on a substantive topic.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 04:09 PM (vSuHN)
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 04:09 PM (9qfVD)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 04:09 PM (ATbKm)
I can only add:
1) Lying to investigators is a crime in and of itself, as is especially obstructing justice and lying in court under oath.
This is the same no matter what else is going on with the criminal investigation, that the lying and obstruction is attempting to derail.
So if you believe in justice, and unless you can find very specific flaws in Libby's case on these 5 charges, you should logically support this verdict.
I think we can all agree, that lying to investigators and committing perjury are not good things we should encourage?
2) A NOC does not have to be stationed overseas in the past 5 years, to remain an NOC. All he/she has to do is travel overseas as an NOC. Plame did this in 2000, 2001, and 2003.
Therefore she was a NOC.
Therefore it was a bad thing and a big deal when her cover was blown.
3) Even if the Bush administration *didn't* know she was still a NOC, they still with the most *cursory* examination would know of her work with the CIA front company Brewster Jennings, and her important continuing work with WMD's.
And they would have known that to reveal her identity would be to risk Brewster Jennings and the ongoing investigation into WMD's.
So, why reveal her identity? What was at risk, by NOT revealing her identity?
All that would have happened would be that Wilson would keep saying mean things about the Bush Administration.
4) An investigation into these facts is needed, to understand what happened and why.
If the Bush administration is truly innocent of any wrongdoing, what do they have to be afraid of?
5) Related to #4, why *would* Libby lie, if everything was above board and there was nothign to be afraid of?
Posted by: jim at March 06, 2007 04:12 PM (QAh+h)
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 04:14 PM (VZ0Yh)
NOC does not have to be stationed overseas in the past 5 years, to remain an NOC. All he/she has to do is travel overseas as an NOC. Plame did this in 2000, 2001, and 2003.
Comical. I'd like to see your proof of this.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 04:15 PM (VZ0Yh)
Per Juror Collins on the case: the reason Libby was convicted of perjury was that in a conversation that Libby had that involved Cooper, Miller and a third individual, 2 of the people made statements pointing to Libby using the same wording. Whereas Libby couldn't say exactly what he had said.
That is conversation, more he said she said not concrete evidence. As the juror said their voting was based on who was more credible AND NOT on the essence of the conversation or WHAT was said.
Posted by: Michele at March 06, 2007 04:15 PM (FRjNx)
Your guys obstructed justice. Told a lie in the SOTU address, and had to retract it.
Funny how you can't name a "lie" told though, huh?
Pre-war assessments that Iraq sought uranium from Niger were "well-founded on intelligence", the Butler report has concluded.
Yeah, some "lie" there, huh?
This is what I love about you idiots, you're so emotionally invested in this that even in the face of facts you will repeat your lies.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 04:17 PM (VZ0Yh)
Place the Grand Jury in Scott GA and then trial in Oates SC and the DA would be in jail.
Posted by: Vic Smith at March 06, 2007 04:17 PM (KSrE6)
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Yes, some "lie" there too.
You obviously don't know the difference between roving wiretaps, handled by the FBI and what the NSA does.
But hey, it's a "lie" to you as your ignorant of the topics and you have your ignorant leftist fellow commentor cheering you on.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 04:19 PM (VZ0Yh)
Wilson lied. How many times do we have to go over this? I'm gonna go see if I can find some Anna Nicole news.
Posted by: stace at March 06, 2007 04:20 PM (A56/D)
So if you believe in justice, and unless you can find very specific flaws in Libby's case on these 5 charges, you should logically support this verdict.
You mean other than the fact that he was convicted on the memory of someone else's recollection of a conversation, right?
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 04:20 PM (VZ0Yh)
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 04:21 PM (02oyd)
I am been accused of having no sense of humor several times but I'll have to tell you that you've really got me laughing now.
Posted by: honest cloud at March 06, 2007 04:22 PM (a6vlD)
I am been accused of having no sense of humor several times but I'll have to tell you that you've really got me laughing now.
Is this supposed to be a rebuttal to the facts I'm posting?
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 04:23 PM (VZ0Yh)
Posted by: The Black Republican at March 06, 2007 04:23 PM (vgyJ5)
I agree. Apparently Joe Wilson told several lies in his expose' to the press. Why has Fitz not started on Joe yet?
Posted by: Dick Nixon at March 06, 2007 04:24 PM (/2xR+)
And yes, I do think that, after all the time and money spent on this case, the jury was presented with pretty good cases for both sides. No one has pointed to any specific missteps on the part of Libby's lawyers, or any specific actions of the judge.
So the jury was presented with reasons for and against Libby's version of events, and decided that other people's recollections were more reliable and/or truthful than Libby's.
And the important part IMHO is 'truthful'. After a certain point, I expect they were finding Libby's inability to exactly remember, as more convenient than honest.
Posted by: jim at March 06, 2007 04:26 PM (QAh+h)
It was brave to stand up to the smears you and this admin pile on, but Wilson did it.
And you can't name one "smear" that was said about Wilson.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 04:26 PM (VZ0Yh)
Wilson lied. How many times do we have to go over this? I'm gonna go see if I can find some Anna Nicole news.
Posted by: stace on March 6, 2007 04:20 PM
Prove it. Link to the sources that prove it. Please refer only to non-partisan, i.e. --- unbiased --- sources. You know, the kind of sources that lay out the facts as they are, and let people judge for themselves.
Posted by: Evil Progressive at March 06, 2007 04:26 PM (+jr1W)
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 04:27 PM (VZ0Yh)
This is fun. And what we have like 25 other congressmen under investigations, subpenoes are raining down from congress and investigations are going full tilt into all the corrupt crap the administration and the last congress has laid on the American public.
Can anyone imagine the righties outrage if the Clinton Administration had outed a CIA agent responsible for following Irans nuke program???
I mean they were outraged when the Clintons fired people in the Travel office. LOL goofy neocons.
Posted by: muirgeo at March 06, 2007 04:27 PM (Hbrqi)
Posted by: roc ingersol at March 06, 2007 04:27 PM (m2CN7)
Well, what convictable crime might Joe Wilson be guilty of?
Posted by: jim at March 06, 2007 04:28 PM (QAh+h)
Posted by: Libby at March 06, 2007 04:28 PM (BN/Fu)
Prove it. Link to the sources that prove it. Please refer only to non-partisan, i.e. --- unbiased --- sources. You know, the kind of sources that lay out the facts as they are, and let people judge for themselves.
Um, the fact that you haven't heard of this is a testimony to your ignorance.
Further, then what?
You won't believe it anyway.
So why bother?
Anyway, here you go:
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 04:29 PM (VZ0Yh)
Sandy Berger (yeah yeah yeah, the "but they do it too thing is bullshit, and I agree, but theres a difference) got a soft touch for something that is proveably espionage activities to preserve the office of the president.
But libby goes through 4 years and more years of shit for forgetting what he said to which reporter when, when libby explained already that he talked to reporters, he just didn't have the precise details correct?
Thats just bullshit
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 04:30 PM (QTv8u)
Can anyone imagine the righties outrage if the Clinton Administration had outed a CIA agent responsible for following Irans nuke program???
Oh dear God.
Why not just say she's just like the lead character in the "Bourne Identity" and get it over with.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 04:30 PM (VZ0Yh)
It is *testimony*. Not simply he said/she said evidence.
IANAL, but it looks to me like this:
Let's say you were mugged, and you and your mother and 4 strangers saw who did it. And you went to court, and you and your five witnesses said it was him, and he said it was not him - but his story contradicted the statements of the other 5 witnesses.
I think it's reasonable that he would be convicted.
This is a similar situation.
Posted by: jim at March 06, 2007 04:33 PM (QAh+h)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 04:33 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 04:34 PM (ATbKm)
It's a joy to see the left suddenly so worried about telling the truth under oath. I guess it's okay to lie about sex but not to be one of a dozen or so people each with differing recollections of years old events.
Enjoy your moment leftards.
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 04:34 PM (gNyUT)
Posted by: Short Bus Driver at March 06, 2007 04:35 PM (WTn2v)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 04:36 PM (QTv8u)
What does this mean?
I mean, any actions by the judge like denying testimony, demonstrably undue favoritism towards the prosecution, almost all of Fitz's objections accepted, almost all of Libby's lawyers objections denied without reasons given, prejudicing the jury, etc. etc.
Posted by: jim at March 06, 2007 04:36 PM (QAh+h)
Except Jim, each of the other 'witnesses' in this case each had trouble remembering pertinent facts and dates themselves, some of which contradicted others. Why is Libby the only expected to have a perfect memory?
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 04:37 PM (gNyUT)
Posted by: Short Bus Driver at March 06, 2007 04:39 PM (WTn2v)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 04:41 PM (QTv8u)
scooter didn't deserve this.
he was only protecting his bosses.
they should be thrown in jail...not poor scooter.
Posted by: jay k. at March 06, 2007 04:42 PM (yu9pS)
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at March 06, 2007 04:44 PM (WTn2v)
Your ilk went hysterical because Clinton lied under oath about an extra-marital affair -- and cost the taxpayer millions of dollars in a special prosecution... Of course, when it comes to one of your own lying under oath, the standard is quite different, is it not?
Perjury is perjury, whether it is committed by a Democrat or a Republican. What's good for the goose etc...
If a Democrat is convicted of perjury about a B.J., the right screams, rants, and cries treason. If a Republican is convicted of perjury about a cover-up of the outing of a CIA agent, the right screams miscarriage of justice and left-wing conspiracy.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at March 06, 2007 04:48 PM (+jr1W)
"I. Don't. Recall." Repeat 50 times or more and get out of jail free.
Easy peasy.
Posted by: Hillary Clinton at March 06, 2007 04:48 PM (1tlBF)
Anyway, I recount this just to give you all a shot of nostalgia for the days when Question Authority meant just that, not "Question Authority Unless It Does Something Awful to People We Don't Like, and Then It's Cool."
Posted by: Andrea Harris at March 06, 2007 04:48 PM (2z740)
Evil Progressive,
I'll make it even easier for you than the other 2 posters did.
From the SSCI
On February 4, 2003, the U.S. government provided copies of the Niger uranium documents to the IAEA with talking points which stated, "two streams of reporting suggest Iraq has attempted to acquire uranium from Niger. We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding specific claims. Nonetheless, we are concerned that these reports may indicate Baghdad has attempted to secure an unreported source of uranium yellowcake for a nuclear weapons program." The two streams of reporting refer to the intelligence reports from the foreign intelligence service and a CIA intelligence report reflecting the findings of a former Ambassador's visit to Niger.
and from the SSCI
[Wilson's] intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(REDACTED) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."
Again, Wilson lied, plain and simple. There is just no getting around those facts.
Posted by: Brad at March 06, 2007 04:48 PM (zYbEr)
They don't care if he lied or not. They don't care what the truth is. They only know they hate President Bush and are desperate to find something to justify this. For them, President Bush is the creepy kid everyone knew in school and no story about them was unreasonable - he was just bad and everyone knew it.
Bush probably has lied in his life, we all have. The problem is these guys act like every word he speaks is a lie and always about deep, meaningful, important issues. But when pressed they can't ever manage to find one.
Not one.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2007 04:51 PM (wmgz8)
ace... try to get this. The most stubborn bonehead kneejerk lie from the right during this whole trial is exactly to conflate classified with covert. I caught Tom McGuire doing it in the response to Larry Johnson, but it's a MAJOR talking point from those defending traitors WHOOPS convicted perjurers.
Plame's status with the CIA was classified. Revealing classified info is against the law.
Then there's another law for covert agents. It's harder to prove that, it's more specific, and we have hack Toensing to telll us it's almost impossible to convict under that. Whatever. So now the right can only wail that THAT wasn't broken, because of course they all have access to secret CIA info etc etc etc.
But maybe... maybe it's still a crime to reveal classified info, whether it's about agents or agnostics or that thing you do with your poodle.
Was that so hard to understand? Pretty ironic that you think WE are the ones confusing the issue.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 04:52 PM (vSuHN)
Evil Progressive,
One more for you........
July 11, 2003: DCI Tenet Statement: "He [Wilson] reported back to us that one of the former Nigerian officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."
Posted by: Brad at March 06, 2007 04:52 PM (zYbEr)
The most stubborn bonehead kneejerk lie from the right during this whole trial is exactly to conflate classified with covert.
Actually idiot, covert is defined by the IIPA.
Classified is not.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 04:53 PM (VZ0Yh)
Posted by: Brad at March 06, 2007 04:53 PM (zYbEr)
"I. Don't. Recall." Repeat 50 times or more and get out of jail free.
Easy peasy.
Worked for Reagan after he supplied Islamic fundamentalists with weapons.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 04:54 PM (vSuHN)
Further, then what?
You won't believe it anyway.
So why bother?
Anyway, here you go:
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report"
I have heard of this "Wilson lied" ad nauseam.
If I were presented with facts -- including a precise timeline of the events -- from unbiased, well-researched, and well-documented sources, I would take the time to form an opinion. I may very well conclude that you were correct or partially so.
A 2004 article in WaPo does not count. I want links to original documents and government reports that are available to the public.
Posted by: Evil Progressive at March 06, 2007 04:55 PM (+jr1W)
Not to re-fight the Clinton years but my objection was lying under oath about anything, especially when you are the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Besides, the left gleefully admits that Clinton lied, you just don't care. I personally don't think Libby lied. If he did (and he's been found to) he will be punished.
There's a difference between disagreeing with a verdict (as I do in this case) and admitting lying under oath but not thinking it's a big deal (as you do in Clinton's case).
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 04:57 PM (gNyUT)
Evil Progressive,
I just posted the excerpts frome the SSCI or isn't the Senate committee good enough for you.
Posted by: Brad at March 06, 2007 04:58 PM (zYbEr)
Chapter II: Niger in Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessment on Iraq.
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 04:59 PM (ATbKm)
Jay decided he had to demonstrate stunning stupidity like this:
The most stubborn bonehead kneejerk lie from the right during this whole trial is exactly to conflate classified with covert.
Actually idiot, covert is defined by the IIPA.
Classified is not.
-----------
Yes, idiot, that is my POINT.
Jeezing FUCKING Christ, that is MY POINT!!!So tell me, Jay, when did it become legal to disclose classified information? If it's against the law to disclose classified info, then why does the IIPA become the only crime to be considered?
Stupidest fucking guy on the planet.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 05:00 PM (vSuHN)
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 05:01 PM (ATbKm)
I haven't seen the word used here yet, but couldn't this be considered "entrapment".
Posted by: lmg at March 06, 2007 05:01 PM (h1Ft7)
Your beloved Libby won't do a single day in jail. He is free on bail pendsing appeal. His lawyers will also try to get him a new trial. If that fails -- or if Libby is convicted a second time -- they'll drag on the appeals process until Bush leaves office in January 2009, at which point Bush will pardon Libby. Cheney is probably already warming up a lucrative seat at Haliburton to reward Libby for taking the heat.
It runs in the family anyway. Both Poindexter and Abrams were convicted of lying under oath to Congress during the Iran/Contra affair and were pardoned by Bush pere. Abrams is part of the current Bush Administration. Poindexter was part of it until he became (again) an embarrassment. Crime pays if you are a Republican.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate at March 06, 2007 05:01 PM (+jr1W)
Posted by: roc ingersol at March 06, 2007 05:02 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Accountability is Good
Could you point me to the count in the indictment that charged Libby with that crime? Thanks.
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 05:03 PM (gNyUT)
"Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
"The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
Even his own book admits that Iraqis were seeking yellowcake Uranium in Nigeria - the kind that 200 tons of which were found in Iraq.
The President didn't lie. Even if his statement - proven true several times by the British intel services - was false, he didn't lie. He was just passing on information that others said. But Wilson did. He lied and the hilarious thing is the frothing left keeps screaming that Bush lied and Wilson is a paragon of honesty and honor.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2007 05:04 PM (wmgz8)
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 05:08 PM (gNyUT)
Yes, your misreading of that was a particularly embarrassing moment for you. The fact was that Johnson was doing the baiting and switching and Maguire was sorting the two out.
Plame's status with the CIA was classified. Revealing classified info is against the law.
Not for the POTUS or VPOTUS, although if done intentionally without forewarning to the CIA it would be reprehensible.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 05:10 PM (GJTEc)
Actually what would be good reading is the never-delivered but long-promised report into how the Admin cooked intel etc. prior to invasion. Isn't it interesting that they never found time to do that one. That was Roberts, wasn't it.
The report you cite shows some major whitewash editing, BTW. Like so much from this admin, you just can't trust it. Lots of CYA, and misleading.
I hate this whole lying, obstructing bunch.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 05:10 PM (vSuHN)
Then either you don't understand the conservative position or you don't understand what "conflate" means.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 05:11 PM (GJTEc)
Or when a newspaper prints selective excerpts from an intelligence report, and then the Pres can declassify that report and release it to correct the record.
I think your classified vs covert is an argument that does not support your theory.
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 05:13 PM (9qfVD)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 05:13 PM (ATbKm)
The report you cite shows some major whitewash editing, BTW. Like so much from this admin, you just can't trust it. Lots of CYA, and misleading.
So a bipartisan report is just a whitewash.
Christopher Taylor, you called this one magnificently.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 05:14 PM (R8+nJ)
There you go again - framing the answer before the evidence is in.
The report you cite shows some major whitewash editing, BTW. Like so much from this admin, you just can't trust it. Lots of CYA, and misleading.
Yawn. What in particular did you feel was missing?
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 05:16 PM (GJTEc)
Ladies and gentlemen, that metallic scraping noise you're hearing is merely the sound of lefty trolls moving the goalposts again.
Posted by: OregonMuse at March 06, 2007 05:17 PM (CkYzD)
Finally, we get a completely honest statement from batmagic Stike up the Banned Accountability is Good.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 05:18 PM (R8+nJ)
Except of course, that Maguire focused entirely on the details to avoid stating the obvious point, that outing Plame could be illegal simply by revealing classified info, thus keeping the lie alive.
-----------------
Plame's status with the CIA was classified. Revealing classified info is against the law.
Not for the POTUS or VPOTUS, although if done intentionally without forewarning to the CIA it would be reprehensible.
--------------
And now we're into the mystical territory beloved by the rightwingers, in which a very very obscure portion of the Constitution, virtually invisible, allows the POTUS or VPOTUS (where is that VPOTUS clause, anyway?) to magically declassify, simply by leaking the information.
This is one part of the power grab that is going to be REALLY hard for future historians to understand how anyone could defend.
geoff, did you address the SOTU-yellowcake issue? I kinda got lost in the jungle up there.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 05:19 PM (vSuHN)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 06, 2007 05:21 PM (pzen5)
Handpicked whitewash committee.
Ah the incredible ENDLESS trust you conservatives have in government. geoff and the rest just live to love those honest upright politicians.
But seriously, the lying down submission by some Dems on these committees is reprehensible.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 05:22 PM (vSuHN)
The report you cite shows some major whitewash editing, BTW. Like so much from this admin, you just can't trust it. Lots of CYA, and misleading.
I hate this whole lying, obstructing bunch.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 05:10 PM (vSuHN) "
Would that include the 8 Senator's with a D after their name that were on the committee? Are you saying they were involved in the whitewash?
Posted by: Brad at March 06, 2007 05:22 PM (zYbEr)
I want links to original documents and government reports that are available to the public.
Is there any actual source that would penetrate your bubble? Seriously.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 05:24 PM (ATbKm)
Weren't there supposed to be bannings today? Triumphal, loud, vindictive bannings of stifling dissent fury?
Oh, well.
Posted by: Some Guy at March 06, 2007 05:24 PM (lPxkl)
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 05:24 PM (R8+nJ)
Since you pasted your response to my comment in your post, I thought I'd reply.
I am probably to the political right of you and most of your commenters. I agree that Fitzgerald exercised poor prosecutorial discretion (and indeed, may have crossed the line into prosecutorial misconduct) in pursuing and continuing his investigation when he knew that no crime had been committed in the disclosure of Plame's identity. Fitgerald was wrong.
I know it's cliche', but two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Fitzgerald was wrong to continue his investigation and wrong to summon Libby to testify before the grand jury does not excuse Libby if he chose to lie under oath to the grand jury.
Yes, the investigation was unnecessary. Yes, there was no underlying crime. But if Libby indeed lied (and in following the trial I don't think that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt), he deserves to be convicted. Are witnesses before grand juries free to decide whether or not to abide by their oath because they feel the underlying investigation is bogus - even if they are right? That does not strike me as a particularly conservative position.
Posted by: angler at March 06, 2007 05:24 PM (kSuu1)
Let's go with the former. How is it that leaking classified info is okay, as long as it doesn't violate the IIPA?
Isn't it bad enough to leak classified info?
The conservative position all along, AFAICT, is to pretend that the only possible applicable law is IIPA, then show how hard it is to prove without access to classified info, then pretend that means no crime was committed. Examples abound just in this thread.
Perhaps you can clarify.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 05:25 PM (vSuHN)
And now we're into the mystical territory beloved by the rightwingers, in which a very very obscure portion of the Constitution, virtually invisible, allows the POTUS or VPOTUS (where is that VPOTUS clause, anyway?) to magically declassify, simply by leaking the information.
Actually, it's called Executive Order 13292.
Just curious but if the President can't declassify something or delegate that power to whomever he choses, who the fuck can? Joe Wilson?
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 05:25 PM (gNyUT)
Posted by: spongeworthy at March 06, 2007 05:26 PM (uSomN)
Don't understand much about classification, do you? Almost all classification authority is derived from the Executive Branch. The CIA's power to classify information based solely on the authority of the POTUS. The POTUS can classify or declassify at will. It is logically impossible for the POTUS to leak classified information, though it may be harmful.
"geoff, did you address the SOTU-yellowcake issue? I kinda got lost in the jungle up there."
Why bother? I've had the conversation hundreds of times over the past 4 years. I don't particularly feel like having it again, nor do I feel any urge to share my thoughts with you.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 05:27 PM (GJTEc)
Sorry about that. This is one hell of a long thread.
Good call.
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 05:27 PM (R8+nJ)
Posted by: Brad at March 06, 2007 05:30 PM (zYbEr)
AIG-
I am sure Geoff will be back in a minute to smack you around but could you point out which of the magical 16 words are wrong?
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
BTW- 'yellow cake' isn't the same as uranium and the term "yellow cake" wasn't in the SOTU. It's a good thing you weren't under oath when you wrote that, Fitzgerald might have hauled you ass off to jail.
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 05:32 PM (gNyUT)
From Wikipedia:
The following eight Democrats made up the rest of the Committee: Vice-Chairman John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Carl Levin (D-MI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ronald L. Wyden (D-OR), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), B. Evans "Evan" Bayh III (D-IN), Johnny R. "John" Edwards (D-NC), and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD).
Pretty silly assertion.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 05:32 PM (GJTEc)
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 05:32 PM (R8+nJ)
Except that only the real wackos think this can be done magically and mystically without any paper trail. Simply AT WILL. If the President does it, it's not illegal.
You're in the club, geoff.
Why bother? I've had the conversation hundreds of times over the past 4 years. I don't particularly feel like having it again, nor do I feel any urge to share my thoughts with you.
Cheap lazy copout. Anyway, the one I'd really like to hear is why the IIPA is the only applicable law? You've read the whole Maguire blog, you can probably explain it easily.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 05:32 PM (vSuHN)
I believe you have stated above that Wilson was a hero for revealing the "lie" about the administrations claims re: yellowcake.
You have also said "Isn't it bad enough to leak classified info?"
Finally, you have accused the administration in general and Libby in particular of leaking classified information.
Yet Wilson's op-ed itself was a very public and widely-read disclosure of classified information: his trip to Niger, why he went, who sent him and what he found.
So tell me, is it your position that Wilson's disclosure of classified information was justified/honorable/heroic? If so, why?
Posted by: angler at March 06, 2007 05:33 PM (kSuu1)
Liberal Derangement: It's not just for breakfast anymore.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at March 06, 2007 05:34 PM (/2xR+)
You're in the club, geoff.
Except that I, unlike you, have actually classified and declassified information before. I know what it takes to classify and declassify information. You apparently don't.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 05:34 PM (GJTEc)
I don't know or think that either Libby or the other witnesses were expected to have perfect memories.
I do know that the other witnesses weren't on trial for perjury.
So I expect that the jury compared all the imperfect memories with the evidence of times and dates and meetings, and found that Libby lied and obstructed justice.
Posted by: jim at March 06, 2007 05:36 PM (QAh+h)
Posted by: trey at March 06, 2007 05:36 PM (Hu0f0)
Lefty trolls said, we want proof.
They were given links to MSM newspaper articles
Lefty trolls said, no good, we want original documents
They were given links to congressional reports
Lefty trolls said, "handpicked whitewash committee."
It should be obvious by now that the lefty trolls' ignorance is unassailable.
Posted by: OregonMuse at March 06, 2007 05:39 PM (CkYzD)
Tomorrow it will be, to them, as if the whole thing was a bad dream. And they'll believe the same things they woke up believing today. I'm fascinated by this.
Posted by: spongeworthy at March 06, 2007 05:39 PM (uSomN)
Irrelevant, and dodging with a show-off flourish.
How can you justify the legal position that the POTUS can declassify info WITHOUT ANY TRAIL, any actual review?
Are you suggesting that in your experience, that is how it is done? Magic wand, no actual trail of when and who declassified? I doubt that. You're ducking.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 05:40 PM (vSuHN)
No, darling, it is the noise made by someone who knows that real research needs to be extensive to be able to form an educated opinion. One article does not cut it.
That concept evidently escapes you, since you people first form an opinion based on your gut feelings and biases, then look for "evidence"' that will sanction that opinion, no matter how dubious the evidence is.
And by the way, you guys from the hard right, should be aware that there are people who are to the right (but not hard right), that there are people moderately to the right, that there are people who are true centrists, people left of center, and people who are hard-left. Guess where the majority stands? In the interval comprised of moderately to the right to left of center.
In other words, the world is not black and white. So, you sound like imbeciles when you attack anyone who questions your opinions as a "'leftie". Only morons have a manichean view of the world. That is why you are now a minority in this country. It is no wonder that you are referred to as the "lunatic fringe". You are evidently mentally disturbed and intellectually deficient. The same can be said of the hard-left.
Posted by: Evil Progressive at March 06, 2007 05:41 PM (+jr1W)
So is the analogy similar or isn't it? Make up your mind.
Seems it's not similar when it helps my point, but it is similar if it can help yours...funny how that is.
Oh, and the evidence in this case is that Valerie Plame's identity clearly was discussed and revealed by someone in the Bush administration to reporters.
Whether or not that was a crime is a whole separate discussion...the point is that this incident occurred, and Libby either did or did not obstruct the investigation of this incident.
Posted by: jim at March 06, 2007 05:41 PM (QAh+h)
You know what guys? There's nothing you can say....no source deemed credible enough, for the moonbat mind. You're wasting your time.
They've got a storyline in their head, and don't you dare go messin' with it with your inconvenient facts.
They are right because because Kos says it's so and Gaia wills it so.
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 05:42 PM (i7vTG)
The answer is that you got nothing but a cooked report.
Still waiting for geoff on the IIPA vs classified position, cuz honest to god, I don't see how that works for ya.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 05:42 PM (vSuHN)
Did you read the Executive Order I posted that covers declassifying material or are you just as stupid as you seem?
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 05:42 PM (gNyUT)
If this was a little more interesting, I might be inspired to put in a little more energy.
Anyway, the one I'd really like to hear is why the IIPA is the only applicable law?
If Libby can claim that Cheney told him to release classified information, then classification law will not apply. Fitzgerald probably figured that approach would be a dead end and so he stuck with the perjury/obstruction indictments. I doubt that authorized a release of known classified information without first informing the CIA. My supposition is that the administration thought she was a desk jockey, and it didn't occur to them that her position might be classified.
Reporters have tried to make much of the memo in which the paragraph with her mention was classified, but that is not a valid indicator that they were informed of her status.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 05:43 PM (GJTEc)
Jury convicted, 4 out of 5 counts. Heh. That's why we're right.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 05:43 PM (vSuHN)
no matter who lied and who didn't, no matter who knew what and when,
The Intel was all wrong
Too much time is being spent on this crap instead of A) analyzing what went wrong and B) fixing the process so it doesn't happen again.
You'd think someone, somewhere in DC would realize this. It may be a little important when trying to convince the public we need to take down a dictator/bad guy/country trying to make WMDs.
Posted by: Tits McGee at March 06, 2007 05:44 PM (fC2pg)
Posted by: Robert at March 06, 2007 05:45 PM (VTtVl)
I'd go with the latter, or just being willfully obtuse.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 06, 2007 05:46 PM (pzen5)
Posted by: hfghgfhghgfh at March 06, 2007 05:48 PM (OEbrS)
the term "lefty" doesn't encompass everyone on the left, moron. the term is an easy label. But your probably right, I suppose we can all substitute "lefty" with "person-on-the-lunatic-frindge-that-is-even-farther-left-of-the-majority-which-is-left-of-center"
Posted by: trey at March 06, 2007 05:49 PM (Hu0f0)
Yeah, you never go wrong thinking the worst of a troll. Even then, they always manage to find away to plumb a new depth. They tend to be resourceful that way.
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 05:49 PM (gNyUT)
Nothing more need be said.
Posted by: Evil Projection at March 06, 2007 05:50 PM (1tlBF)
It's really very simple. The lowest ranking classification authority and above can make an on the spot determination that information is or is not classified. Period. It's usually followed up with a memo so that everybody knows, but it's declassified the instant the boss says that it is. Period. And your view of classified information is backwards: information can only be classified because the President says that it can be. Without his authority, no agency is permitted to classify information. He doesn't need to declassify anything - all he needs to do is to remove his approval for classification.
a show-off flourish.
Actual knowledge and experience bother you that much? An actual understanding of the system is that threatening to you?
Well, wait. I guess it would be.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 05:50 PM (GJTEc)
Wow, who's campaing do you work for, because you are wicked smart when it comes to political demographics of the country. Did you go to some kind of school or is there an online class I can take or something. Idiot.
What's jacked up is that you think that anybody to the right of you is a far right extremist.
And all you are is a fool.
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 05:51 PM (9qfVD)
Capitalist-fellating Mencheviks, all of them!
Posted by: Trotsky at March 06, 2007 05:51 PM (02oyd)
let's just ignore the fact that hussein broke the 1991 armistice for years and violated something like 14 un resolutions along with gaming the oil for food system and commiting genocide against iraqi citizens
just because the gutted us intelligence agencies got some information wrong, doesn't mean we weren't justified in doing what we had to do to depose hussein
Posted by: charles at March 06, 2007 05:52 PM (VuJCG)
Okay, thanks for the effort. I think emptywheel or someone else at Firedoglake figured the classified info dodge could mean no conviction. But if it was sloppiness rather than evil (I can believe that),
I want to review the timeline for when Scooter got legal advice about revealing classified info. It seems he had an ah-hah moment.
OTOH, the testimony showed very convincingly that these guys thought revealing classified info, even parts of the Nat Intel Est, was just a political game. They just had a very cavalier attitude about their responsibilities with info, and knew how to play reporters to get it out there. If nothing else, this trial put all that out there.
But again, the civil suit is probably where Cheney will have to testify.
Still annoys me that so many on the right pretended the IIPA was the only possible crime committed...
But hey have a Merry Fitzmas, and may our CIA assets remain covered.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 05:52 PM (vSuHN)
I actually agree with this, and I think Bush deserves criticism for not reforming our intelligence system.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 05:53 PM (GJTEc)
Hmmmm.
It looks like AiG agrees -- for writing that infamous NY Times op-ed, Joe Wilson should be prosecuted until he loses voluntary control over his bowels.
Posted by: Phinn at March 06, 2007 05:53 PM (DiZv6)
A 2004 article in WaPo does not count. I want links to original documents and government reports that are available to the public.
Those goal posts have wheels.
Thank you for proving me correct though.
Um, you could say google the report, dumbass.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 05:53 PM (VZ0Yh)
So tell me, Jay, when did it become legal to disclose classified information? If it's against the law to disclose classified info, then why does the IIPA become the only crime to be considered?
Because that is the governing statute, and the referall was in regard to a possible IIPA violation.
You ignorant buffoon.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 05:56 PM (VZ0Yh)
Well, wait. I guess it would be.
Awful big talk from a guy who was 180 degrees wrong about ... training Iraqis, suicide bombers in Afghanistan, and the level of corruption in the contracting process in Iraq. How's that actual understanding of yours coming along? I remember you claiming knowledge of federal contracting, then demonstrating no knowledge at all. Got any recent Stuart Bowen quotes for me?
If I had said the things you said last spring about Iraq (race against success) I'd be mighty embarrassed. Could you have been any more wrong?
Just one little hole: Cheney is the first VP to claim the POTUS declass. powers, right?
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 05:57 PM (vSuHN)
yub.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 05:59 PM (QTv8u)
Just one little hole: Cheney is the first VP to claim the POTUS declass. powers, right?
He didn't "claim" anything.
That power was delegated to him, idiot.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 05:59 PM (VZ0Yh)
I believe it was a "bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee" which completely exonerated the Clintons with any WhiteWater wrongdoing in 1994.
Read that sentence again: 1994.
Drew at 5:08,
"celebrated the most recent 'grim milestone' in Iraq".
NEWSFLASH: Americans love a winner!!
Posted by: Robert at March 06, 2007 06:00 PM (VTtVl)
Should Wilson be prosecuted for revealing classified information by writing an op-ed in the NYT about his classified trip to Niger, or should he be lauded as a hero? This thread is awfully long, but I don't think I've seen you answer this.
Posted by: angler at March 06, 2007 06:01 PM (kSuu1)
Violated UN resolutions? Then maybe the UN should invade. Not the US.
Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck if Hussein violated any UN resolutions. The UN has no authority over any sovereign nation - whether that nation is Iraq, Israel, or the US.
Posted by: Tits McGee at March 06, 2007 06:03 PM (fC2pg)
Executive orders in the written form are only necessary (I believe, and I'm possitive I'm right) if the order allocates executive authority to a lower executive, rather than an executive acting on their own volition.
Example. This could have all been fixed on day one, if cheney (an executive ennumerated the authority of declassification by another written order offered by the more senior executive) had said "yeah I said he could talk about it, there was no crime."
BAM! No crime, validated by executive authority, and BAM! no investigation.
The president CAN! at any time declassify any status PERIOD! OH! he might have to deal with impeachment (which is a politcal process) but he cannot be held accountable for a crime, it is his right as executive.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 06:03 PM (QTv8u)
You are slowly beginning to comprehend the Presidential authority arguments, aren't you?
Soon you will start to embrace the concept of lawful delegation of that (newly recognized by you!) Presidential authority.
That is a little progress. Good for you!
Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 06, 2007 06:04 PM (pzen5)
Only 29% of Americans approve of Bush, according to the majority of polls. Of course, you probably do not have a clue how polls are contructed, nor would you know a mean, median, or a standard deviation if they hit you in the face. Never mind higher moments of a statistical distribution. But I digress...
29% is a statistical minority, you, illiterate twerp. In other words, you belong to a "'fringe".
Yeah, there are courses in line. But you'll never pass them. I bet you cannot even solve a simple linear equation.
Posted by: Evil Progressive at March 06, 2007 06:05 PM (+jr1W)
Welcome to the age of the Staff General.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 06:06 PM (QTv8u)
From this perspective, the President and Vice-President are considered to be the same - they are considered to occupy the same office in the command structure.
Awful big talk from a guy who was 180 degrees wrong about ... training Iraqis, suicide bombers in Afghanistan, and the level of corruption in the contracting process in Iraq.
Nice change of subject. Those goalposts keep on moving, don't they? I don't recall being wrong about training Iraqis - that seems to have worked and is continuing to work. In face, that's all the Dems want us to do, now. I don't remember ever saying anything about suicide bombers in Afghanistan, and I think you're inventing "the level of corruption in the contracting process in Iraq." Does that about cover it?
I remember you claiming knowledge of federal contracting, then demonstrating no knowledge at all.
I certainly recall the first part, but I'm fuzzy on the second. I do recall that you were completely lost on that subject as well, with no understanding of sole source contracting, audits, rates, or the actual infractions of the accused parties.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 06:06 PM (GJTEc)
Where is this "referall"? This is an important one, Jay. It's not going away.
Where is this "referall"?
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 06:07 PM (vSuHN)
Don't you lefties ever get tired of repeating the same tired old shit that's met with the same answers, over and over again? Here's a tip: you're not winning any converts with your ASSumptions, rhetoric, or paranoid ranting.
Posted by: Beth at March 06, 2007 06:08 PM (yqiXY)
Just one little hole: Cheney is the first VP to claim the POTUS declass. powers, right?
He didn't "claim" anything.
That power was delegated to him, idiot.-----------
You forgot to say where.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 06:08 PM (vSuHN)
Actually the running average at Real Clear Politics is just over 34%.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 06:09 PM (GJTEc)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 06:09 PM (QTv8u)
If there was no wrongdoing in the first place, that is, outing Plame was not a crime - then why did the CIA refer the matter to DOJ for investigation?
Why did the DOJ authorize the FBI to investigate the matter further?
Why did Libby lie when questioned by the FBI?
Just wondering.
Posted by: Habby at March 06, 2007 06:10 PM (fC2pg)
I just took an opinion poll (never mind it was a classroom full of 3rd graders) and 82% of them said that you're an idiot.
I enjoy polls.
Posted by: Smith at March 06, 2007 06:10 PM (Gpfe0)
Too much time is being spent on this crap instead of A) analyzing what went wrong and B) fixing the process so it doesn't happen again.
Well, there were hearings and a report ... I think. Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessment on Iraq. Its really gripping stuff. Pretty much anyone, having the info that that investigation reported would have made the same mistake, as did every allied government and the previous president and opposition party congressmen. I think what happened and why is fairly well understood. Its really the imputing of motives that still drives the left. No way this could have been a simple case of solid info being hard to come by in a totalitarian state. Nope, it has to have been some clever and dishonorable ruse.
Annoying.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 06:12 PM (ATbKm)
Still waiting for you to answer the question of whether you think Wilson should be prosecuted for revealing classified information in his op-ed.
Your failure to answer indicates to me that you are as phony as Hillary Clinton's southern drawl.
Posted by: angler at March 06, 2007 06:13 PM (kSuu1)
The illegality depended on who did it, what they knew, what authorization they had, and what their motivations were.
Why did the DOJ authorize the FBI to investigate the matter further?
The DOJ had no choice. Public pressure for an investigation was immense.
Why did Libby lie when questioned by the FBI?
Hellifino. Ask Libby if he thinks he lied and why he did it.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 06:14 PM (GJTEc)
No one can make billions of dollars sound so trivial as geoff. Have you been following the contracting indictments, or is that kind of corrosion of the war effort beneath you?
On the Iraqi training, I pointed out a year ago that the military itself was reporting infiltration, and you pooh-poohed it. "race against success" was your phrase. But since you declare, like Dick Cheney, that the current situation of civil war etc. is evidence of our progress, I'm not surprised.
If success is merely redefined as chaos, 1.8 million displaced, 3000 refugees per day and a greatly weakened US military with generals threatening to resign, then heck it's a ROARING success.
I'm sure you can define 4 guilty verdicts as success for republicans too.
Nice to chat with you again.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 06:14 PM (vSuHN)
Goof.
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 06:16 PM (9qfVD)
Sure, if the CIA refers the case etc. as with Plame's outing. But since they vetted it, that seems less likely than you boning my dog.
Posted by: Accountability is Good at March 06, 2007 06:16 PM (vSuHN)
Thats the question I hoped would be answered but the CIA refused to give up the actual referral. Bummer. And amazingly, those brave intelligence sources ...fed up with the Bush administration peddling lies, have not leaked that to the press. Must not help their case.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 06:18 PM (ATbKm)
Leading ME to believe, they believe there was some underlying conspiracy not in evidence.
If that's the case, why convict the "fall guy" ?
What's that smell?
Posted by: franksalterego at March 06, 2007 06:18 PM (bMsDT)
Looks like no third term for him.
Posted by: Tom at March 06, 2007 06:18 PM (02oyd)
The sane lefties, for the most part, straightened up on 9/11. Almost all of the remaining ones are the lunatics, the extremists, and the punks too young to know anything.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2007 06:19 PM (wmgz8)
Just curious, but how did you get yourself a personal lefty troll? Did you order it online or did it just stick to your shoe one day and you just can't shake it off?
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 06:19 PM (gNyUT)
If the people who should have handled this matter had handled this matter, they would have been accountable.
The would have been accountable for an overlong investigation.
They would have been accountable for imprisoning "martyrs" for the first ammendment.
They would have been accountable for making a "martyr" of a sock puppet (as the press has expressed it since she was released)
They would have been accountable for an endless trial that should have consisted of a my cousin vinny sort of exposition "this guy is full of shit."
They would have been accountable for the political hay that everyone would make out of it.
They would have been accountable for doing. . . . . .
Well, Their own fucking jobs.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 06:20 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 06:20 PM (GJTEc)
Posted by: charles at March 06, 2007 06:21 PM (VuJCG)
Sssshhhhh. Pretty soon everybody will want one.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 06:22 PM (GJTEc)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2007 06:23 PM (wmgz8)
Dude seriously. I know that your main objective is criticizing people with opinions that are different than yours, but talking out of your ass isn't a prerequisite for debate. I also understand that anything an opposing party's elected official does is wrong, but empty fallacies are over the top. Get some facts dude.
Posted by: Smith at March 06, 2007 06:24 PM (Gpfe0)
are evidently mentally disturbed and intellectually deficient.
Nothing more need be said.
Posted by: Evil Projection on March 6, 2007 05:50 PM
Here is a perfect example of selective quoting and total intellectual dishonesty. Evil Projection conveniently omits the next sentence of my post: "The same can be said of the hard-left." to make his point.
He just cannot stand it that I qualify fanatics from the right AND the left as mentally disturbed and intellectually deficient.
Nothing more needs to be to said, indeed. The egregious dishonesty of the responses to my posts , along with the usual insults -- idiot, moron, etc... -- confirm my opinion that fanatics are illeterate, weak, creatures, easily pushed into a cultist mode (in this case, the Bush cult) that obliterates whatever thinking faculties they ever had.
Your kind, the lunatic hard right -- along with the lunatic hard left --- are terrified of your own shadows, and are so unable to deal with your lives like adults that you need to follow a leader that you think is your savior.
You exhibit the same psychological psychoses that the followers of Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Stalin, or any other vile dictator in history, suffered from. You need to blindly follow a father figure who will "protect" you because you are weak, and have no self-esteem. In other words, you are a bunch of losers and social misfits who need to be part of a lunatic mob to feel they have any kind of personal worth.
Posted by: Evil Progressive at March 06, 2007 06:24 PM (+jr1W)
Republicans don't support the troops. That's just a lie they use to squash dissent.
Related, the Walter Reed Hospital fiasco is not because of a "bug" in conservatism, it's a "feature".
Thanks for letting me clear those up.
Carry on.
Posted by: Robert at March 06, 2007 06:25 PM (VTtVl)
Better not veer too far off the thread, there. Why don't you stick to Libby in this thread?
If you can't wait to talk about the other stuff, you can pester me at my blog.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 06:25 PM (GJTEc)
Oh that? It will air out after a while, it's just the Michael Moore brigades.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2007 06:26 PM (wmgz8)
Looks like no third term for him.
Posted by Tom
Good point tom.
Bush is the couch with a bad backbrace that needs to be replaced, because you aren't gonna use it anymore, so noone is gonna bother supporting him.
Also, While the majority of people don't like the way the war is being handled (leading to the 29%) the war in Iraq/terror, that isn't because only 29% think that victory is not only possible but inevitable, but rather that 71% have been told each day that they are losing.
When you ask a question in the negative, you are cajoling a negative response. If you ask a question in the positive you are promoting a positive response.
The method of solicitation changes the response of the respondant.
I was asked one time to do off-time (when I wasn't fixing shit) to tag along with various salesmen.
Rather than the salesman knowing a fucking thing about what they were selling I was lectured about smiling and nodding whenever we had to admit a failing in the equipment, and to rub your chin and look serious about service, when a feature was definate.
Basicaly, the goal was to sell the maintenance service. My job was to be the "young whizkid" for the salesman while he asked me questions. My job was to act like everything impossible was possible, and everything that was standard was impossible, but BY GOSH!!! we can make it work!
FUCKING PATHETIC!
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 06:26 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 06:27 PM (ATbKm)
Though it's *really* time for me to get some work done, so I'm going to have to turn off the network for awhile so that I'm not tempted to keep wasting time here.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 06:29 PM (GJTEc)
I call Godwin.
Can we close this frickin' thread now?
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 06:31 PM (CRSWl)
So, it's ok for the CIA to unilaterally (or as you put it, "magically") authorize through vetting the disclosure of classified information, but when the POTUS or VPOTUS, who are authorized to do so does it, it is scandalous.
As of the likelihood of me boning your dog, that would be impossible, even were I so inclined, due to the fact that you apparently already have your head up its canine ass.
Posted by: angler at March 06, 2007 06:31 PM (kSuu1)
One suggestion, look in the mirror and evaluate your own life before you try to "fix" everybody else.
You are a classic projectionist.
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 06:32 PM (9qfVD)
WHY THE FUCK! are transit barracks made with fucking drywall?
Transient customers cannot be trusted to maintain an environment, and leave it as good if not better than it was when you entered (it was also an outpatient facility, meaning these people were either regularly assisted, or can act on their own) it?
You are never trusted, NEVER FUCKING TRUSTED with the maintenance of something so fickle as fucking drywall while in the service.
Mansonry walls. ALL barracks are built from masonry. Woult it be expensive? YES! but it's easy to maintain. Those transit barracks were built by a cheep swindly congress who excercised too many requirements, and too many controls over a financial institution that didn't have the cash to live up to the LEGISLATIVE requirements.
So rather than the standard masonry structure that exists in EVERY FUCKING BARRACKS! You get wood frame and drywall. It was a QUICK FIX, that served only the ego's of people who "care about the troops"
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 06:32 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at March 06, 2007 06:33 PM (JefgB)
I enjoy polls.
Posted by: Smith on March 6, 2007 06:10 PM
I did not realize that special education resulted in adults being left behind in 3rd grade... You must be quite tall compared to your classmates.
Also, I am a bit concerned that 3rd graders would use the word "idiot". Don't their parents teach them civility? Or is it that you are a nefarious influence on these young minds?
Posted by: Evil Progressive at March 06, 2007 06:34 PM (+jr1W)
I had not heard that, the vetting part, not you boning your dog.
You wouldn't happen to have a link to help out poor old Tob would you. Seriously.Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 06:35 PM (ATbKm)
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 06:36 PM (9qfVD)
Was that EP, meant to be a WP?
If so, then well, I guess there is some truth to your statement.
I get disgusted at people trying to make a tree out of a seed.
I look at the simple, the obvious and the miniscule. Sometimes I go over the top, especially when I start to internalize/personalize an statement. (the anecdotal shit) but it is generaly the best way to own information.
I don't mind the slam, just wanna make sure of the target.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 06:36 PM (QTv8u)
"I'm a compassionate conservative."
Gotta give troll this one. Bush isn't a conservative.
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 06:36 PM (f7A+e)
DID I JUST EQUATE MYSELF TO EP?
I need a bath. Or two, and then a full body dermal scrub, then I need to be dipped in non-hydrogenated oil until I am over 165 degree's F, then bath again.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 06:38 PM (QTv8u)
If I'm dipped in oil to that temperature, I'm totally gonna be salted.
now that will suck.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 06:40 PM (QTv8u)
No. I wrote that, not a troll.
But I proved your Bush lied pretty easily, didn't I?
Now I'll keep you busy the rest of the week: When was Cheney right about Iraq?
Posted by: Robert at March 06, 2007 06:41 PM (VTtVl)
Posted by: Judd at March 06, 2007 06:43 PM (9qfVD)
Posted by: Some Guy at March 06, 2007 06:43 PM (lPxkl)
Nope. Bush thought that he was a conservative, as did the previous president and opposition congressmen, as well as the intelligence services of all allied governments. They're just all wrong. We should have hearings.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 06:44 PM (ATbKm)
ooooooooh, and then maybe a parafin treatment now that I think of it.
DiT? Your girly tub big enough to give me a good skin cleansing?
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 06:48 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by Wickedpinto
I totaly need a proofreader.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 06:50 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Sobek at March 06, 2007 06:56 PM (6GK9U)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 06:57 PM (ATbKm)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 06:57 PM (QTv8u)
Judd, made me laugh!
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at March 06, 2007 06:58 PM (DVQOE)
Posted by: corn at March 06, 2007 07:00 PM (yHvEo)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 07:01 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 07:01 PM (gNyUT)
Don't knock the paraffin thing until you try it.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 06, 2007 07:05 PM (pzen5)
You um. . . uh. . .you are a guy I know this, but I'm just wondering, cuz I know I would probably consider giving it a try. . . . .
You um. . . .
try it on your junk yet?
You know you thought about it.
"If my HANDS feel like this? How would my JUNK FEEL?!?!"
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 07:07 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 07:10 PM (OEbrS)
Time to connect some threads.
What are you? Some sorta metrosexual?
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 07:10 PM (CRSWl)
why did I ask a question that would make me feel dirty?
I totaly need a parafin treatment, and a pedicure.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 07:11 PM (QTv8u)
OH! MY GOD!!! What am I Saying!!!
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 07:13 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Lawnguylander at March 06, 2007 07:13 PM (00ME/)
NO! Conditioner is BETTER!! I make the hair Silky and Smooth.
What are you looking at penguin!!!
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 07:14 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2007 07:23 PM (wmgz8)
Amazing. Democarts, will one of you at least try to prove Bush lied? Could one of you please diagram the logic of your belief? Please explain how you could base so much on the statement that 'Bush Lied', when you don't know the difference between a false statement and a lie? Or maybe you do. Please define Lie and False. And proof. Now prove Bush lied.
Please give me the best argument the left has. Anybody. It's been awhile and the story changes, and i want to hear the latest version of "Proof Bush Lied"
Posted by: perc at March 06, 2007 07:25 PM (rFdp/)
Posted by: OregonMuse at March 06, 2007 07:25 PM (CkYzD)
Amen to that!
Posted by: Beth at March 06, 2007 07:26 PM (yqiXY)
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 07:27 PM (QTv8u)
Well, I get around ya know, but I don't have any calluses there.
Yet.
I think my larger problem would be convincing Mrs. Dave in Texas to let me get the massage too.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 06, 2007 07:28 PM (pzen5)
PLEASE, no. I'm so tired of their strawman orgies I'm about to pass out. And that's without reading all the comments in this nauseating thread.
Posted by: Beth at March 06, 2007 07:28 PM (yqiXY)
Shampoo. Something with which filthy hippies could stand to become better acquainted.
Posted by: Beth at March 06, 2007 07:30 PM (yqiXY)
Posted by Dave
THANK you for making that joke. I'm too classy to go there.
And I still laughed even though I wrote it myself about half an hour ago
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 07:31 PM (QTv8u)
Posted by: Beth at March 06, 2007 07:33 PM (yqiXY)
Posted by: Carl Gordon at March 06, 2007 07:33 PM (mJcqG)
Posted by Evil Progressive
Bwahahahahaha!
Nothing can beat that! Seacrest OUT!!!!
Posted by: Warden at March 06, 2007 07:34 PM (UJmWS)
This is hardly the forum to try to lure me into cybersex, OregonMuse. Besides, I'm guessing you're a guy and I don't roll that way.
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 07:35 PM (00ME/)
Gentlemen, gentlemen...let's take that sort of talk into the Ann Coulter thread, shall we?
Posted by: Slublog at March 06, 2007 07:38 PM (CRSWl)
Posted by: Beth at March 06, 2007 07:41 PM (yqiXY)
Also, dems, why are you guys so happy when the VP has health issues? Would you be happy if something bad happened to me? I mean, I support Israel, I think Islam is a death cult, I think the EU and the UN are useless, democrates are hippocrates and mostly commies...I mean, if there was a chance one of you, or all of you, could hurt me in someway, would be happy? I really am your political enemy, I will allway be against you, politicaly. Does me saying that make me evil?
I sense that you belive that the VP is evil. I sense that there will be celebrating on the left when he dies. I fully suppot the VP. Does that make me evil? I would do the same things in his place. Do I need to die too? Will you smile if I get hit by a truck tomorrow?
Posted by: perc at March 06, 2007 07:44 PM (rFdp/)
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 07:50 PM (i7vTG)
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 07:52 PM (i7vTG)
waiting...
Posted by: perc at March 06, 2007 07:54 PM (rFdp/)
Riiiiight. Selling any bridges in Brooklyn lately?
Same juror saying that they felt that the VP should be the one on trial. Yet, "this had nothing to do with politics."
Finally, Hyde telling the press that he hopes Bush doesn't pardon Libby, because that would be unethical.
Posted by: Xoxotl at March 06, 2007 07:59 PM (oKrrY)
I believe it was a "bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee" which completely exonerated the Clintons with any WhiteWater wrongdoing in 1994.
And?
Wilson admitted he "misspoke" to the committee staff after this report was issued.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 08:02 PM (HnXYV)
I think the short bus broke down and they're all out wandering around looking for the bathrooms and juice box vending machines.
Posted by: OregonMuse at March 06, 2007 08:02 PM (CkYzD)
Based on precident, his sentence should be the following:
Disbarred for 5 years.
Pay $25,000 fine.
Serve 2 years as President of the United States.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 06, 2007 08:04 PM (plsiE)
If Goldwater was alive today he'd piss all over these bunch of frauds who call themselves conservatives and/ or Republicans.
What's your excuse?
Posted by: Robert at March 06, 2007 08:04 PM (gv7pu)
Posted by: Beth at March 06, 2007 08:09 PM (yqiXY)
"Today's Verdict [Bill Bennett]
What we know is this: Guilty on four out of five counts is bad. But at the same time, we may have just seen the latest and most dramatic example of a troublesome trend of the times in which we live: the criminalization of politics. What was alleged in public—the terrible thing that caused the outrage—was the outing of a classified CIA agent. But this thing, as terrible as it was alleged to be, was not only never proven, it—the gravamen of the whole dispute—was never even charged. It seems plausible to assume that Libby was found guilty by the jury because they didn’t believe his account regarding statements recalled from his memory. But, when well-established journalists’ memories fail them in a trial about conversations that seemingly didn’t mean that much, it is hard not to excuse the Vice President's Chief of Staff about those very same conversations in a time of war.
This case will have a backlash the press will regret: sources will be less likely to speak with them, not because the press was called to testify but because senior government officials will be expected to remember every jot and tittle of what they say to each member of the press in their background, off-the-record, and investigative interviews.
For my own part, based on the above, I still do not believe that Scooter Libby’s actions were criminal and that he is deserving of jail. There might have been real crimes here, but if there were, unfortunately, they were never charged. Joe Wilson’s hands are not clean, and neither are Richard Armitage’s.
In the aftermath of this case, I maintain what I said the first time Joe Wilson alleged the outing of his wife: if your spouse’s position is of such a classified nature that disclosure of her position would put her job in jeopardy, then don’t write a political op-ed in the New York Times that has implications for what your spouse did to put you in a position to write that op-ed."
Posted by: N. O'Brain at March 06, 2007 08:10 PM (PmWhP)
Heh. If Goldwater were alive today, would he be:
A: Pissing on frauds
B. Lobbying for Gay Marriage
or
C. Scratching frantically at the lid of his coffin.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 08:11 PM (ATbKm)
Er, the referral has nothing to do with an actual crime being committed.
No matter how much you wish it so.
And now we have the other leftist citing unnamed "polls" as if that is relevant.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 08:11 PM (HnXYV)
Well, duh. Where's he been the last few years? Every time you turn around, the frothing maniacs on the left are shrieking about impeachment and seeing Bush and Cheney in jail. AS IF.
They're fucking insane. Remember when they thought Fitz was going to get Rove, and how it was "just the beginning?" It seems every couple of weeks they come up with some new federal "crime" Bush and Cheney have committed. This week: Walter Reed. Nevermind the fact that military health care is substandard and HAS BEEN FOR DECADES (despite the fact that the utopian left wants less defense spending). They don't give a shit about Walter Reed or any of the other crappy places military and veterans receive care; they only care about scoring points, invalid as those points may be.
Posted by: Beth at March 06, 2007 08:19 PM (yqiXY)
(And when did it become the fuckin' rule that we are all supposed to worship at the altar of Goldwater, anyway?)
Posted by: Beth at March 06, 2007 08:21 PM (yqiXY)
But at the same time, we may have just seen the latest and most dramatic example of a troublesome trend of the times in which we live: the criminalization of politics. What was alleged in public—the terrible thing that caused the outrage—was the outing of a classified CIA agent. But this thing, as terrible as it was alleged to be, was not only never proven, it—the gravamen of the whole dispute—was never even charged.
Whitewater, anyone?
Remember that? A four-year, $40 million investigation into the Clintons, because conservative Republican politicians didn't like them?
And what was the final result of that criminal investigation? No proven corruption; no proven lawbreaking; nothing. Clintons cleared of all original charges. All that came out of it was a totally unrelated charge, that Bill Clinton perjured himself about a private sexual relationship in an unrelated sexual harassment case - a case so weak the judge just laughed it out of court.
Let's replace the above snippet with the facts of Whitewater, and see how it plays:
But at the same time, we may have just seen the latest and most dramatic example of a troublesome trend of the times in which we live: the criminalization of politics. What was alleged in public—the terrible thing that caused the outrage—was Bill Clinton's sexual harassment. But this thing, as terrible as it was alleged to be, was not only never proven, it—the gravamen of the whole dispute—was thrown straight out of court.<./i>
Not quite as outraged about that, are you?
But if a REPUBLICAN administration is in trouble, suddenly investigation of White House crime is criminalization of politics.
Let's review: Democrat who lies under oath to obstruct justice in a case that's dismissed - he's the devil.
Republican who lies under oath to obstruct justice in a case that's still ongoing - he's a persecuted innocent.
Funny how that works.
Posted by: jim at March 06, 2007 08:24 PM (QAh+h)
Well, I did campaign for him back in the day so I've got a soft spot for the old man. That's what made Robert's comment so funny. As if he supported AUH2O.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 08:28 PM (ATbKm)
Oddly enough, I do it from a generaly right wing (actually pro-military, pro-american dominance) perspective.
I know that the freedom hegemony is not a popular thought, thats why I don't define myself by party's, because party's can fail tomorrow, but apparently the concept of "freedom" based on all of the shitty bio-fic-pic's has been around forever. (which it hasn't, it's new, and almost exclusive to The US)
I am in favor of freeing murderers to commit murder, and I'm even more in favor of people who might be murdered to kill those who might murder them.
Maybe I'm too Jeffersonian in my sense of liberty.
Liberty is ugly, it's bloody, and it also creates individuals like me. Largely harmless, though usefull, who are free enough to be SUCKS! on the very environment that created them.
I CAN, but I don't. I and my family have that liberty, and that freedom, without being slaughtered.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 08:28 PM (QTv8u)
Except that he lied under oath to a grand jury.
Devil? No, just a pathetic excuse of a human being.
"Republican who lies under oath to obstruct justice in a case that's still ongoing - he's a persecuted innocent."
What ongoing case? There is NO ongoing case.
"Funny how that works"
Yeah, a lying scumbag gets impeached. Funny, that.
"Posted by jim at March 6, 2007 08:24 PM "
Posted by: N. O'Brain at March 06, 2007 08:31 PM (PmWhP)
Posted by: shaman at March 06, 2007 08:31 PM (l/EGU)
NYA NYA NYA NYA NYAAAAAAAAAAAANYA
*rereads own comment*
Okay maybe not that nyanish.
Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 06, 2007 08:31 PM (QTv8u)
That's great, but what all the convictions?
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 08:33 PM (HnXYV)
I was but a whippersnapper then, passing out flyers and buttons with my slingshot in my back pocket. I did go to the Convention though. Extremely cool. I ran into Walter Cronkite, literally, he knocked me to the ground but was nice about it.
Tob
Posted by: Toby, old but with fire in the furnace. at March 06, 2007 08:35 PM (ATbKm)
Tob
Posted by: Toby, old but with fire in the furnace. at March 06, 2007 08:41 PM (ATbKm)
Posted by: Beth at March 06, 2007 08:41 PM (yqiXY)
Nevermind the fact that military health care is substandard and HAS BEEN FOR DECADES (despite the fact that the utopian left wants less defense spending).
And, isn't bureaucratic health care, exactly what the Utopian Left wants to push down our throats?
I can hardly wait
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 08:44 PM (bMsDT)
The wacky thing is, by now we've all personally met through various media almost every variety of ineffectual crank on the planet now, and we just don't care anymore. Sure, it might be interesting to watch a challenge where goobers staple boloney to their faces, then swim through the shark-infested waters of the Florida panhandle, but they already pitched that last week.
But I’m coming off as a pessimistic ponce, so I should behave, salute the rag and be a little more “Up with People!”. The truth is nothing will lull you into a peaceful sleep quite like the repetitive pointless arguing of several illiterate “fair and balanced” mouth breathers, as opposed to the sweat-glistened man titties found on nearly every “fashionable” beach and the soaring boring heights of the standard over-hyped Luau. From the scenic sewers of Sebastapol, where bobos sip champagne and celebrate freedom from criminal charges, to the floor of the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Hawaii, where the ever wily crab sneaks along looking for some free lunch hoisted port-side with much gusto by some idiot tourist wonk who couldn’t resist that third serving of chunky deep-fat fried pupus, freedom is on the march and it’s feet smell! Bad. In a land where we cheer on TV tyrants like Martha Stewart and Donald Trump for being bossy and small-minded and unbearable, while our bossy and small-minded and unbearable leaders send fine men across the seas to conquer and destroy and strong-arm to their hearts' content, freedom, like the an upscale burrito at Taco Belch, reigns supreme! We stand for what we've always stood for: freedom for us, and demeaning, menial jobs, bomb cratered farmlands, and chicken pox for everyone else! Hip, hip, hooray!
Posted by: Carl Gordon at March 06, 2007 08:46 PM (mJcqG)
Devil? No, just a pathetic excuse of a human being.
So is Libby, then, a pathetic excuse of a human being, *because* he lied under oath?
In other words, do you apply the same moral code to Libby that you do to Clinton? Yes or no?
Posted by: jim at March 06, 2007 08:48 PM (QAh+h)
I like the cut of your jib Carl.
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 08:51 PM (ATbKm)
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 08:54 PM (i7vTG)
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 08:44 PM (bMsDT)
YES. Exactly.
Posted by: Beth at March 06, 2007 08:54 PM (yqiXY)
It mimics the joy that I observed in the Afro-American community when OJ Simpson got away with murdering 2 white people. I say, no reparations until OJ pays his civil suit!
If I were Bush, to earn back a level of respect from us neofascists, I'd pardon Libby and have Fitzgerald arrested and sent to Gitmo.
Posted by: Lord Elzkior at March 06, 2007 08:55 PM (ySmeE)
We collectively would desire a panacea to remedy the current social afflictions, “Reality” shows, repetitive mean-spirited whoopee cushion pratfalls hoisted on the defenseless and dimwitted seeking their 5 seconds of fame and the “B” slot on the “Today Show”, but let’s face it – it’s entertainment because it features the sorts of vacuous, fiercely competitive but vaguely stupid back-biting yuppies we went to college with, the usual ragtag assortment of ineffectual pootbutts that you can find on every show, from "I Want to Be a Hilton Pinhead" to "I Wanna Be a Pressed Soap Cake" to "I Want to Be a Honey-Baked Ham." Yawn.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 09:00 PM (ATbKm)
It's this type of moonbat thinking that drives me nuts. I think I can safely speak for all conservatives when I say we don't want people to get the chicken pox. They are itchy, the kids whine and you have to put the lotion on them. It sucks.
As for the rest of the rant, spot on buddy. It's like you are reading my mind!
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 09:00 PM (gNyUT)
Posted by: Beth at March 06, 2007 09:00 PM (yqiXY)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 09:03 PM (ATbKm)
Solid info? How was it solid info when we didn't find any of the WMD that the sources said were there?
What exactly was "solid?"
I was thinking more along the lines of:
"Not trusting unvalidated humint from sources who have a vested interested in deposing Hussein."
You know, real stuff, not the political fluff from the Senate report, or from your brain.
Posted by: Tits McGee at March 06, 2007 09:08 PM (5WIBL)
Your mom can't wait to read it.
Posted by: Tits McGee at March 06, 2007 09:09 PM (5WIBL)
Reading impaired I see.
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 09:12 PM (ATbKm)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 09:16 PM (ATbKm)
Posted by: Judd on March 6, 2007 06:36 PM
Not "graduation High School..." ? Interesting use of the verb "graduate"...
Typical single-wide dweller white trash from one of those Midwest or Southern states that live off the rich Northeastern States' welfare. New York --- my state -- gets $0.65 cents for every tax dollar it turns over to the Treasury. The other $0.35 per dollar goes to feed, clothe, and house, the losers who live in poor states and who keep on voting Republican -- i.e., against their own interests -- because they are too stupid to put two thoughts together and because they are under the spell of religious crackpots.
I, personally, would like to see the State of New York stop subsidizing the lazy and stupid morons who populate the Midwest and the Southern United States. These people are parasites on society. They refuse to get an education, they refuse to better themselves, but the rich states should take care of these losers? Worse, the rich states have to subsidize morons who buy whatever the religious fanatics sell them, and try to bring the country down to their Cro-Magnon level?
New York has to subsidize idiots who believe that dinosaurs were frolicking in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve? New York has to subsidize crassly ignorant imbeciles who believe in creationism? New York has to subsidize anti-science morons and religious fanatics? Hell, no.
The rich northern states should secede from the rest of the US. There are no good reasons why they should be subsidizing abysmal stupidity, crass ignorance, and religious fanaticism.
Posted by: Evil Progressive at March 06, 2007 09:20 PM (+jr1W)
"Not trusting unvalidated humint from sources who have a vested interested in deposing Hussein."
You know, real stuff,
Hey, uhh... Tits, how exactly do you validate human intel?
Have the enemy provide us with GPS coordinates? What?
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 09:22 PM (i7vTG)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 09:23 PM (ATbKm)
Try again.
Where was the "reconstituted nuclear weapons" program? Where were the thousands of gallons of nerve agent and biological weapons? Where were all those ballistic missiles that threatened Europe and America? Where were all those drones that could carry BW to the US Homeland?
Hey, uhh... Tits, how exactly do you validate human intel?
MASINT, COMINT, SIGINT - to name three.
Next.
Posted by: Tits McGee at March 06, 2007 09:26 PM (5WIBL)
My bad.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 09:28 PM (ATbKm)
I hope Geoff comes back, I have a poem for him:
Stop that Troll!
I hit my troll. I made it fly.
I hit my troll as it came by.
It went around and then came back
I gave my troll another WHACK!
I hit it high. I hit it low.
I made him holler no NO NO!
And then, my troll came back again!
Could this go on all day and night?
It could, you know, and it just might!
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 09:30 PM (i7vTG)
Posted by: Tits McGee at March 06, 2007 09:31 PM (5WIBL)
Posted by: Terminator X at March 06, 2007 09:31 PM (5WIBL)
I'd love to see some proof of this.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 09:35 PM (HnXYV)
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 09:35 PM (HnXYV)
Posted by: Fred at March 06, 2007 09:37 PM (qfNFY)
I like it. Suck 'em dry I say.
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 09:38 PM (ATbKm)
Er, did you mean like Virginia which has a higher median income than New York?
So do Colorado and Alaska, FYI...
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 09:39 PM (HnXYV)
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 09:40 PM (i7vTG)
We don't know.
Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Thanks for playing!
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 09:43 PM (HnXYV)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 09:43 PM (ATbKm)
Posted by: THE REST OF THE STATES at March 06, 2007 09:47 PM (yHvEo)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 09:50 PM (ATbKm)
If you really wanna git maiiid, thank of all yo tax dollahs being speant on persecutin po Scootah, whossa gonna git hisself a predential pardon.
Posted by: Monkey Guano Slinger at March 06, 2007 09:51 PM (ySmeE)
Look what I found!
Intelligence Community Collection Activities Against Iraq's WMD:
It seems to include all types of intelligence.
Next!
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 09:53 PM (i7vTG)
Lying under oath about reasons that took un into an unnecessary war that has cost thousands of people their lives is just perfectly fine with us. Libby has been linched by a Liberal mob.... How dare they convict some one for lying under oath on some unrelated charge to the original case!!!
Posted by: gil at March 06, 2007 09:53 PM (PZFOw)
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 09:54 PM (i7vTG)
Totally. So, what you need to do is teach those wingers a lesson by letting them get their way. See how they like living in a country with low taxes. Ha! That'll teach 'em.
They're voting against their interest, and if you dislike them, you should, too.
Posted by: sandy burger at March 06, 2007 09:54 PM (K2rlS)
Very nice, Nice Deb.
You can always tell how work is going by how much I engage the trolls. Right now I have no flipping clue how to make sense of this worthless data that I have to somehow turn into coherent science.
I'd better turn off the wireless again, or I'll never get it done.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 09:55 PM (Fx6Qk)
He's on to us!?!! Cursed Rovian brain implant! I try to leave the coven but deb just keeps pulling me back.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 09:56 PM (ATbKm)
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 09:58 PM (ATbKm)
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 10:06 PM (i7vTG)
Totally. So, what you need to do is teach those wingers a lesson by letting them get their way. See how they like living in a country with low taxes. Ha! That'll teach 'em.
Hee hee. Yeah, that'll teach us.
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 10:08 PM (i7vTG)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2007 10:11 PM (wmgz8)
Wasn't it always meant to be a relative term? I had thought that you adopted it to distinguish yourself from she who can't be named lest technorati summon her. The other deb.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 10:12 PM (ATbKm)
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 10:15 PM (i7vTG)
Yes - unaccounted for.
Not 'definitely existing, being sold to terrorists, and ready to point kill US citizens on US soil at any hour, so we have to invade right away!'
Which is what the Bush administration painted things as, with their months of marketing that included Rice's famous "smoking gun of a mushroom cloud", Cheney's false certainty, and Powell's shameful parade of PR before the UN that has (justly) destroyed his career...
Funny how the WMD's weren't found to exist, like all the liberal critics and most impartial experts said they didn't. And like the UN experts were concludnig, before Bush cut their report short and invaded anyway.
Since it can't be that liberals were right, there must be some other explanation.
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 10:26 PM (QAh+h)
Heh. I've always loved the notquote quotes. So bohemian and creative.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 10:28 PM (ATbKm)
Not 'definitely existing, being sold to terrorists, and ready to point kill US citizens on US soil at any hour
Yes, in liberal land biological weapons being "unaccounted for" isn't anything to worry about.
Way to go, idiot.
I bet you're against handgun registration too, right?
Hypocrite much?
Funny how the WMD's weren't found to exist, like all the liberal critics and most impartial experts said they didn't.
You can't name a single "liberal critic" who said they didn't exist prior to the invasion.
In other words, you're using the wisdom of hindsight to make your silly pronouncements.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 10:29 PM (HnXYV)
Was that before or after Senator Schumer recommended he head a commission looking into the problems with the VA?
Just asking...
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 10:30 PM (HnXYV)
Better question: where the hell is Ace with the disinfectant?
Posted by: The Black Republican at March 06, 2007 10:30 PM (Edy/C)
See fact about Powell above.
Could you possibly be any more stupid?
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 10:31 PM (HnXYV)
Not 'definitely existing, being sold to terrorists, and ready to point kill US citizens on US soil at any hour, so we have to invade right away!'
Of course nobody said any such thing.
That "right away" invasion took place a year and a half after the 9/11 attacks.
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 10:31 PM (HnXYV)
I think I recall some but not any in a position to know. If I had any interest I would google to see Ramsey Clarks take at the time, but I don't. Its a big world, somebody guessed right I'm sure.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 10:32 PM (ATbKm)
read your own article before posting:
It doesn't say a damn thing, other than they tried to improve intel collection on Iraq. All substantive portions on SIGINT, MASINT, COMINT and IMINT are omitted.
So how do you know they backed up the HUMINT? It could very well say that those INTs were inconclusive.
Try again.
Posted by: Tits McGee at March 06, 2007 10:32 PM (5WIBL)
We get it. Republican Congress tries its best to find something, anything, on the Clintons.
Whitewater = zippy.
Monica = Bill cheated. Shocking. Nothing that Henry Hyde and Newt didn't do as well.
Posted by: Tits McGee at March 06, 2007 10:34 PM (5WIBL)
Coffee, Tea, or Me? Northwest Airlines Employee Arrested For Ejaculating On Sleeping Passengerwas fairly ribald, just stay away from any coulter threads. they will harsh your mellow badly.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 06, 2007 10:35 PM (ATbKm)
It doesn't say a damn thing, other than they tried to improve intel collection on Iraq. All substantive portions on SIGINT, MASINT, COMINT and IMINT are omitted.
Not omitted, redacted...for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 10:42 PM (i7vTG)
Posted by: Jay at March 06, 2007 10:43 PM (HnXYV)
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 06, 2007 10:43 PM (i7vTG)
Interesting.
According to the actual record, the Bush administration said Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat - which means urgent, which means must be acted upon soon or there will be dire consequences.
Here's the record:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
And specifically also:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/
Rice: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Now please go read this site:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39500-2003Aug9?language=printer
Some quotes for you:
This article is based on interviews with analysts and policymakers inside and outside the U.S. government, and access to internal documents and technical evidence not previously made public.
The new information indicates a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates -- in public and behind the scenes -- made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views. The White House seldom corrected misstatements or acknowledged loss of confidence in information upon which it had previously relied:
...• The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002 cited new construction at facilities once associated with Iraq's nuclear program, but analysts had no reliable information at the time about what was happening under the roofs. By February, a month before the war, U.S. government specialists on the ground in Iraq had seen for themselves that there were no forbidden activities at the sites.
• Gas centrifuge experts consulted by the U.S. government said repeatedly for more than a year that the aluminum tubes were not suitable or intended for uranium enrichment. By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further undermined the government's assertion. The Bush administration portrayed the scientists as a minority and emphasized that the experts did not describe the centrifuge theory as impossible. [In fact the analyst who was sure the tubes were for a centrifuge was a minority of ONE. So this is a lie. Ooops.]
• In the weeks and months following Joe's Vienna briefing, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others continued to describe the use of such tubes for rockets as an implausible hypothesis, even after U.S. analysts collected and photographed in Iraq a virtually identical tube marked with the logo of the Medusa's Italian manufacturer and the words, in English, "81mm rocket."
• The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago, including the introduction of the term "mushroom cloud" into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to "educate the public" about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it.
That's the facts.
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 10:52 PM (QAh+h)
Interesting.
According to the actual record, the Bush administration said Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat - which means urgent, which means must be acted upon soon or there will be dire consequences.
Here's the record:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
And specifically also:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/
Rice: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Now please go read this site:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39500-2003Aug9?language=printer
Some quotes for you:
This article is based on interviews with analysts and policymakers inside and outside the U.S. government, and access to internal documents and technical evidence not previously made public.
The new information indicates a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates -- in public and behind the scenes -- made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views. The White House seldom corrected misstatements or acknowledged loss of confidence in information upon which it had previously relied:
...• The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002 cited new construction at facilities once associated with Iraq's nuclear program, but analysts had no reliable information at the time about what was happening under the roofs. By February, a month before the war, U.S. government specialists on the ground in Iraq had seen for themselves that there were no forbidden activities at the sites.
• Gas centrifuge experts consulted by the U.S. government said repeatedly for more than a year that the aluminum tubes were not suitable or intended for uranium enrichment. By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further undermined the government's assertion. The Bush administration portrayed the scientists as a minority and emphasized that the experts did not describe the centrifuge theory as impossible. [In fact the analyst who was sure the tubes were for a centrifuge was a minority of ONE. So this is a lie. Ooops.]
• In the weeks and months following Joe's Vienna briefing, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others continued to describe the use of such tubes for rockets as an implausible hypothesis, even after U.S. analysts collected and photographed in Iraq a virtually identical tube marked with the logo of the Medusa's Italian manufacturer and the words, in English, "81mm rocket."
• The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago, including the introduction of the term "mushroom cloud" into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to "educate the public" about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it.
That's the facts.
Posted by: jim at March 06, 2007 10:52 PM (QAh+h)
But I can't believe she would speak with such authority if that was the case.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 10:54 PM (Fx6Qk)
Of Bill and Hillary? Please, do tell.
Not omitted, redacted...for obvious reasons.
Exactly. So why are you using information that you can't read as evidence to support your claim? Your Adobe can un-redact the info?
Ms. McGee lost me at the "political fluff" characterization of the Senate report. It's almost like she never read it.
But I can't believe she would speak with such authority if that was the case.
Not much to read - redacted (see above). If it wasn't political fluff, then what was it?
Posted by: Tits McGee at March 06, 2007 10:59 PM (5WIBL)
Which were already evaluated by the Senate committee a year and a half after Pincus' little hit piece. And by the Chicago Tribune a year after that. The simple fact is that the 2002 NIE was very alarming, it represented the best assessment of our consensus intelligence position at the time, and the administration reacted accordingly.
All your wishful and vile thinking notwithstanding.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 11:02 PM (Fx6Qk)
That's just sad.
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 11:03 PM (gNyUT)
Well, I felt that the context of the redacted text showed that the document was fairly robust. There was quite a bit that wasn't redacted, of course, and that was substantive. Dismissing it in toto because of the redactions is weak.
It's like you're not trying.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 11:05 PM (Fx6Qk)
I'm thinking that with a little more work I can add a couple more to my collection.
But I'm going to need a bigger jar. And more holes in the lid.
Posted by: geoff at March 06, 2007 11:06 PM (Fx6Qk)
In the immortal words of Forrest Gore...err, I mean Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does."
Posted by: zetetic at March 06, 2007 11:07 PM (qsP3H)
Posted by: Drew at March 06, 2007 11:18 PM (gNyUT)
What's funny is this guy thinks that these quotes demonstrate the Bush administration saying there was an imminent threat when President Bush clearly said "if we wait for the threat to be imminent, it's too late."
That's the best you got? That's what you're basing your position on? Did you even read what you posted??
The closest you managed to find was this quote:
"This is about imminent threat."
Did you ever even look at the context, to see what Mr MaClellan was talking about? Do you even care? Lets see if you do, here's the context:
QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?
MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.
QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.
QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.
QUESTION: Who's going to do the reminding to NATO?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I just made some comments regarding that and, obviously, we will work through NATO, as well.
QUESTION: So what's the significance of that, it goes to the core -- I mean, what if it's rejected?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we support the request by Turkey under Article IV.
See how that works? You look at where he actually said these words, rather than presuming guilt without the slightest basis. What's the context? A discussion of the threat of a veto in the UN over Turkey's assistance. Are you reading this? What he said had nothing to do with WMD or Iraq.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 06, 2007 11:41 PM (wmgz8)
What WMD's sold to terrorists?
Are you drinking and typing now?
Hey. give it up . There were no WMD's and if any one ended up looking like an idiot ..... well you know who they are right? Have a mirror close bye?
Posted by: at March 06, 2007 11:55 PM (PZFOw)
You most have a Masters in Litterature.
Did you actually tried to make a point... Or are you like going with the force?
And you call the Left "Leftards" ... OH You most have a good first hand knowledge about that for sure.
Posted by: gil at March 06, 2007 11:59 PM (PZFOw)
Jim is not very good at reading/comprehension . Give him a brake.
Most of the Right Wing individuals on this and other blogs are not very inclined to understand the real world.
So in their eyes there were WMD's, and we are doing great in Iraq.... And OH yes Mr. Libby's lies were no big deal... Clinton's were. After all what's a few thousand dead people because of lies Vs. a blow Job in the WHite House!!!
In other words my friend, you are trying to have a serious debate with ...... shall we say idiots?....I am sorry, Let's not get that personal, and just live it at intellectually challenged individuals.
Posted by: gil at March 07, 2007 12:10 AM (PZFOw)
Stop lying, Gil. Stop it now. It is disgusting. It is wrong. And it embarrasses you and your cause.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 12:18 AM (Fx6Qk)
Posted by: Carl Hungus at March 07, 2007 12:24 AM (bWkaR)
Posted by: Drew at March 07, 2007 12:27 AM (gNyUT)
Another lefty troll who thinks he's our intellectual better...
"Jim is not very good at reading/comprehension . Give him a brake...
I am sorry, Let's not get that personal, and just live it at intellectually challenged individuals."
Posted by gil at March 7, 2007 12:10 AM
Truly, we are not worthy.
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at March 07, 2007 12:35 AM (iBgga)
#525 Hey. give it up . There were no WMD's and if any one ended up looking like an idiot ..... well you know who they are right? Have a mirror close bye?
Wrong liar. There have been WMD's discovered in Iraq.
500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003,
500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003,
500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003,
WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
• Click here to read the declassified portion of the NGIC report.
Your a fucking lying sack of shit, or ignorant, or both. Respond you asshat.
Posted by: perc at March 07, 2007 01:32 AM (rFdp/)
Joseph Wilson.
?From 1988 to 1991, he was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. He was praised by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than one hundred Americans at the embassy, despite Saddam Hussein's threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. As a result, in 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein.[10] When Hussein sent a note to Wilson (along with other embassy heads in Iraq) threatening to execute anyone sheltering foreigners in Iraq, Wilson publicly repudiated the dictator by appearing at a press conference wearing a homemade noose around his neck and saying "If the choice is to allow American citizens to be taken hostage or to be executed, I will bring my own fucking rope," a flair for public appearance that has become a trademark of Wilson."
Posted by: honest cloud at March 07, 2007 01:32 AM (a6vlD)
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 01:41 AM (Fx6Qk)
Posted by: Dalton at March 07, 2007 02:01 AM (zkeOi)
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at March 07, 2007 02:38 AM (iBgga)
500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003,
Fox News didn't even believe this!! The *Pentagon* even stated that Santorum and Hoekstra were full of it.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum/
So why do you believe it?
a) These were not the WMD's that we were worth invading for, they date from before the FIRST Gulf War in 1991.
b) the chemicals in them are considered by all experts to have so degraded over time that are no longer useful as weapons
c) These alleged WMD's were already noticed and ignored by the White House Survey Group.
So, you're wrong. But please, go and check my facts. When you find out you are wrong, I shall expect your apology.
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 04:03 AM (wK80C)
Is that the best you can do, quibble over whether or not the exact word 'imminent' was used?
Wow.
Are you really trying to say that the Bush Administration did NOT try to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was a threat?
I mean, what?
OK then....
Sigh...this is the level that I have to go to. I don't know why I do. But I will, one more time.
From the President's own speeches:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people....
The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
But we shouldn't invade right away, let's wait and see? That's what that speech is implying, right?
That's the same speech in which Bush asks for Congress to grant him the right to use force without asking Congress first, by the way. But I guess that's just a coincidence.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?
The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.
And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Now that's just Bush himself. Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the other flunkies then went on to all the other talk shows, producing quotes which I've shown which you've also avoided....
How can you read those words, and POSSIBLY interpret that as NOT meaning Bush is saying Iraq is an imminent threat?
Now, as I said in my *original* argument, that is quite a different story than Clinton saying, when he left office, that there were WMD's which were unaccounted for.
Clinton did not say that we should invade Iraq to find them because they threatened us directly. Nor did he imply that statement at all.
So please have the intellectual honesty to stop trying to say "Clinton thought Saddam had WMD's too, therefore Bush was right to commit us an invasion and occupation of Iraq."
It literally does not follow, can't you see that?
Besides the fact that the paid UN experts, after a more extensive investigation of Iraq than had ever occurred in history, had found nothing at all, and there's consistent evidence that the Bush administration didn't care and was determined to invade no matter what they found.
Finally - why do you continue to make excuses for Bush and his administration?
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 04:25 AM (wK80C)
on a brighter note: YAY! Wickedpinto joined THIS discussion! THAT'S the way to get a 450 post thread to over 500 easy! ;-) Fight the good fight dude.
Posted by: Meiguo Guizi) American Devil at March 07, 2007 04:45 AM (RxWwc)
What Clinton said:
“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
“. . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 05:28 AM (Fx6Qk)
At least one live sarin round was used as an IED. Munitions are like cockroaches. There's hardly ever "just one".
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 07, 2007 07:04 AM (5OYu4)
The lesson to be learned here is simple:
Save the receipt
Had Saddam saved his receipts from the UN WMD Destruction Process, there'd be no casus belli for Bush.
Also, Jim has no coherent understanding of 'reality' as it existed in 2002. For example, how many UN Inspectors were put into Iraq and when did they enter?
Posted by: BumperStickerist at March 07, 2007 09:10 AM (Pkdqo)
Posted by: propensity at March 07, 2007 09:24 AM (4j2IJ)
why did he lie at the grand jury? maybe because if he had admitted his previous lies he would have been given the same slap on the wrist that berger got. in that event he would have lost his clearance and his job. and in the process, he would have embarrassed the white house at a time when bad news was piling up.
whatever the reason, libby's contined lying led to this ridiculous trial (on that score i agree with all of you) costing taxpayers millions and ecclipsing other more important investigations.
for that he deserves a harsh sentence when compared to sandy berger. very harsh!
Posted by: propensity at March 07, 2007 09:32 AM (4j2IJ)
Shucks, ah never said that. That quote was manufactured by the vast right-wing conspiracy that's out to deny me mah rightful legacy.
Posted by: W.J.C. at March 07, 2007 09:35 AM (cIyxg)
<em>How can you read those words, and POSSIBLY interpret that as NOT meaning Bush is saying Iraq is an imminent threat?
</em>
Uh, probably because he said we needed to act before the threat was "imminent"
That's how.
Posted by: Jay at March 07, 2007 10:25 AM (VZ0Yh)
You mean other than the convictions, right?
Of Bill and Hillary? Please, do tell.
Um, stupid, there were 33 Whitewater convictions.
That's a bit more than Libby.
Yet I don't hear you ignorants saying this investigation is a "waste"
Posted by: Jay at March 07, 2007 10:27 AM (VZ0Yh)
According to the actual record, the Bush administration said Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat - which means urgent, which means must be acted upon soon or there will be dire consequences.
No they didn't.
And you can't post a single sentence showing they did.
Isn't it funny your "proof" includes your interpretation of the words?
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late
-That's what President Bush said, clown
Posted by: Jay at March 07, 2007 10:32 AM (VZ0Yh)
LOL
That's funny shit coming from a party that likes to impeach Presidents for lying about blowjobs.
Posted by: at March 07, 2007 11:31 AM (nM0Mp)
Truthfully, it was just perjury about a requested blowjob, Jones refused to touch the bent willy.
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at March 07, 2007 11:47 AM (ATbKm)
It was also about obstruction as Clinton tried to have Monica submit a false affidavit.
Here is the left's playbook:
Controversial Republican statement - that's not the exact words that were said but we know what was meant.
Controversial Liberal statement - Admittedly those were the exact words of the statement but they have been misinterpreted.
Posted by: roc ingersol at March 07, 2007 11:58 AM (m2CN7)
Republicans outsourced to private companies. What does that have to do with Universal Healthcare?
Once more, nice and slow for you rubes.
"We support the troops" is a saying Republicans use to squash dissent.
They really don't support the troops.
It's just a saying. It has NOTHING to do with reality.
Now, if you can show me the soldiers who are part of the richest 1% of Americans, or officers or board members of a Fortune 500 company, then it might not just be a slogan used to squash dissent.
BTW, great job on the Iraq War.
Idiots.
Posted by: Robert at March 07, 2007 12:17 PM (VTtVl)
Posted by: Slublog at March 07, 2007 12:20 PM (R8+nJ)
Robert,
Can I buy you a clue? This thread is not about Walter Reed.
Also, you might want to stop telling people who literally support the troops in many tangible ways, some of whom are active or retired military, or are married to active or retired military that they don't support the troops.
It's quite ignorant and unbecoming of you.
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 07, 2007 12:26 PM (i7vTG)
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 07, 2007 12:27 PM (i7vTG)
Posted by: Toby928 at March 07, 2007 12:37 PM (ATbKm)
That's funny shit coming from a party that likes to impeach Presidents for lying about blowjobs.
Hilarious.
Great grasp of the topic there, stupid.
Posted by: Jay at March 07, 2007 12:59 PM (VZ0Yh)
"We support the troops" is a saying Republicans use to squash dissent.
They really don't support the troops.
It's just a saying. It has NOTHING to do with reality.
Actually, "we support the troops" is a phrase the left came up with in 2004 to try and win an election. You "support" the troops, but not the war.
Allegedly.
Please do try and get a clue.
Posted by: Jay at March 07, 2007 01:02 PM (VZ0Yh)
A lot.
It shows the kind of care that results when profit is the underlying motive. Just like the health insurers are doing today.
Thanks for bringing this up. I hadn't really thought of it as such.
Posted by: honest cloud at March 07, 2007 01:14 PM (a6vlD)
And you can't post a single sentence showing they did.
Oh my frakking lord - the whole point is, IT'S NOT A SINGLE SENTENCE on the Bush administration's!!!!
It's the **only possible** implication of the MANY statements coming from Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many others, as they sold the invasion to the American people.
But you stick to finding one single sentence that says this.
Are you actually trying to say that Bush told us we should invade Iraq, because Iraq WASN'T a danger?
I mean, what the hell is even your point?
Geoff, where in Clinton's statement do you see him say that we should invade and occupy Iraq?
At what point did Clinton ask Congress for the right to commit our troops without going to congress first?
As you well know, he did neither. Therefore his statements about what Saddam *may* have, do not work as a justification for Bush invading - especially when Bush had access to better and more recent intel, and invaded *anyway*.
You can speculate about Clinton all you want, but you and I both know - and it should be obvious and beyond discussion - that Clinton did not invade Iraq, and Bush did. Jesus.
Purple Avenger, one live sarin round is not a Weapon of Mass Destruction that was worth invading a country for. If you disagree, bring it up with the White House - but they don't even think so and they're looking like idiots for not finding WMD. I'd think that if there were any way to palm this or other 'sarin rounds' as WMD's, they'd do so - but I expect they don't because they know they'd be laughed at by the world.
Bumperstickerist, 2002 isn't where the UN inspections ended. Interesting that you zero in on that date. How about 2003, right before we invaded?? Oh, look, the UN Inspectors were there, doing their jobs and finding no WMD's - and then they had to flee for their lives because we were bombing anyway. Looks like you're wrong. I expect your apology to be forthcoming.
And Jay, you've got to be kidding me.
Uh, probably because he said we needed to act before the threat was "imminent"
Sigh, just go here and look at this:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=imminent
"ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head"
If we need to act right away *before* a threat occurs - then we are threatened by a possible future. In other words, a threat is imminent. So no matter how you want to slice it, Bush is saying we need to act now because of a threat.
It amazes me how stuck you guys are on
a) the word imminent coming only from Bush's mouth, as if his employees Rice, Cheney, McClellan et all don't do what he says
b) that 'serious threat', 'terrible threat', etc. etc. somehow not using the exact word 'imminent' means something important.
But what could this mean, exactly? That Bush and his crew *weren't* trying to convince the US to invade Iraq?
Alright, that's it, I give up playing word games with you children.
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 01:50 PM (wK80C)
Not unlike most, if not all of your ideological peers.
I hope you appreciate the site. I thought you would find it warm and comforting.
Posted by: Hilluhry! at March 07, 2007 02:00 PM (1tlBF)
No, nooooo. Do it some more.
Please?
Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 07, 2007 02:03 PM (W5xJB)
Posted by: Susan at March 07, 2007 02:42 PM (QdGwf)
It is really questionable whether chemical weapons qualify as WMD. Nuclear weapons or infectious agents come closer to fitting that definition. Chemical weapons could be reasonably considered WMD only if present in huge quantities coupled with a functional delivery system capable of causing mass casualties (which is, after all, what WMD means). A few left over, partially degraded, chemical warheads simply don't qualify as WMD--they pose less of a danger than left-over explosive munitions. Which is probably why even George Bush has not seized upon this as validation of his "WMD in Iraq" claim.
Posted by: trrll at March 07, 2007 03:00 PM (6ORla)
Clinton described a growing threat that would endanger Iraqis, the region, and the world. He didn't actually have a prescription for solving it though. You seem to consider that a strength, rather than a fatal weakness. Had Clinton acted with the urgency of his rhetoric, we might be standing in a completely different place today.
But the point is that Clinton recognized the threat, recognized that it wasn't going to go away, and made it a matter of Public Law that we attempt to change the regime in Iraq. I doubt he anticipated another 5 years of obfuscation by Hussein, and the wake up call that told us that the world was a much smaller place than we had realized.
Where do you see Clinton saying, "Iraq is a major and growing threat, and we should depose Hussein, but we shouldn't ever consider invading the country to effect a change of regime?"
At what point did Clinton ask Congress for the right to commit our troops without going to congress first?
That's funny. Do another one.
Bush had access to better and more recent intel, and invaded *anyway*.
Did you even glance at the 2002 NIE? Do you know what the "more recent intel" said? If any president ever received an intelligence finding that threatening, I'd be asking for impeachment if he didn't invade.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 03:01 PM (Fx6Qk)
Alright, that's it, I give up playing word games with you children.
At least he admits he's playing word games.
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 07, 2007 03:27 PM (i7vTG)
No, Clinton - like Bush Sr., I might add - knew that invasion wouldn't work. And this is before we were already committed to Afghanistan.
Applying a prescription that smarter men *knew* would create *more* danger for the US, is worse than having no prescription.
And also, Geoff, I'm not even going to get into 2002. I don't have to. You're conveniently ignoring the info we had in 2003 - and the fact that Bush still invaded.
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 03:36 PM (QAh+h)
http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/dec1998/iraq-d17.shtml
And it talks about nothing but that Clinton attacked Iraq via missiles in 1998.
But, as I say once again, in 2003, when we had better and more recent information on Saddam's WMD's and the inspectors were on the ground, finding none - it was a good idea for Bush to commit our troops to invade and occupy, why?
I'm curious - what do you think that link actually proves?
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 03:41 PM (QAh+h)
That must be why Clinton supported the invasion and defended Bush against his detractors up until late 2004. If he is as prescient as you claim, then he is evil for abetting Bush in a plan he knew would fail.
Or maybe your fantasy about Clinton's position is just so much crap.
You're conveniently ignoring the info we had in 2003
And you're conveniently inflating it. The 2002 NIE was published 5 months before we invaded. The consensus opinion of the US intelligence community didn't change in those 5 months. You can cherry pick pieces of evidence that emerged, but the fact is that the administration fully expected to find WMD when they entered Iraq. Because that was what the consensus judgment of the intelligence community told them to expect.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 03:44 PM (Fx6Qk)
Wow.
I admit defending my arguments against attacks that are based on a very narrow legalistic interpretation of words, by showing that the words don't even apply that way.
Do you admit that various commenters were playing word games against my arguments, with this ridiculous insistence that if Bush didn't personally use the exact phrase 'imminent threat', that means his administration *wasn't* painting Iraq as a place we needed to invade as soon as possible?
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 03:47 PM (QAh+h)
Do you even know what the mission of the inspectors was? They weren't hunting for WMD, they were verifying the destruction of WMD. When they tried to perform unannounced inspections, they were redirected or barred from the facility. The shell game that Hussein was playing - a game even Ritter complained about in the 90s - was the stuff of legend.
What kind of confidence was the administration supposed to have with the hapless inspectors being led around by the nose, and in the face of the continuing assurances by the intelligence community that WMD were there?
This is cherry-picking and hindsight of the most adolescent sort.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 03:56 PM (Fx6Qk)
Why Clinton supported the invasion and defended Bush for so long, is on him. I suspect he didn't want to be called a traitor for not supporting the President in a time of war. Even though that didnt' stop Republicans from criticizing him during Bosnia - but that's a whole different subject.
If Clinton thought the WMD's were worth invading for, he would have invaded. Since he did not invade Iraq, he did not think the WMD's were invading for. See? Simple.
As for Bush Sr., he wrote a Times editorial about why he didn't invade Iraq during the first Gulf War - and it reads like a prophecy of all that's gone wrong since Bush Jr. invaded. Should I post it for you?
The 2002 NIE was published 5 months before we invaded. The consensus opinion of the US intelligence community didn't change in those 5 months.
So the fact that the UN's paid experts found no WMD's, means nothing?
The fact that the US own operatives on the ground, the month before the invasion - I refer you to what I've already quoted, many posts above:
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002 cited new construction at facilities once associated with Iraq's nuclear program, but analysts had no reliable information at the time about what was happening under the roofs. By February, a month before the war, U.S. government specialists on the ground in Iraq had seen for themselves that there were no forbidden activities at the sites.
That also means nothing?
You can cherry pick pieces of evidence that emerged, but the fact is that the administration fully expected to find WMD when they entered Iraq.
Oh, they may have expected it. The point is that there was no rational reason to expect the WMD's, because no one was finding them - and there was no need to invade, if it was that hard to find the WMD's, there would be no way for Saddam to use them.
We could have just wrapped up Afghanistan and eliminated Al Qaeda, instead of getting pulled into a ridiculous distraction that's now killed over 3000 of our soldiers, wounded over 15,000, increased Al Qaeda's recruiting, finances and prestige, isolated us from our allies of over 50 years, cost us $ Trillions of dollars, etc. etc.
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 04:03 PM (QAh+h)
And it talks about nothing but that Clinton attacked Iraq via missiles in 1998. - jim
I'm curious - what do you think that link actually proves? - jim
It proves your ignorance. You flatly stated that Clinton never invaded Iraq. I guess tossing a few missiles their way to destroy a supposed chemical weapon factory in an shallow attempt to take the heat off a sticky situation that you are in at home isn't really an invasion in your eyes?
Remind me again, what was the threat that we faced from Haiti in the '90s? Or Bosnia?
Posted by: Hilluhry! at March 07, 2007 04:13 PM (1tlBF)
Do you admit that various commenters were playing word games against my arguments, with this ridiculous insistence that if Bush didn't personally use the exact phrase 'imminent threat', that means his administration *wasn't* painting Iraq as a place we needed to invade as soon as possible?
No, they're not playing word games. Words have specific meanings, as people here keep trying to explain to you. But since you have this notion in your head that Bush said Iraq was am imminent threat, when he said just the opposite, you refuse to listen.
From Bush's state of the union speech 2003:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 07, 2007 04:15 PM (i7vTG)
At the time. See? Circumstances change.
And Clinton acknowledged that. As he also would have acknowledged that you tried to lie about his motives. By your logic, if Bush had thought WMD were worth invading for, he would have invaded in 2001. This is an embarrassingly stupid argument.
I refer you to what I've already quoted, many posts above:
You sure like that old Pincus article. The fact was the Senate investigation superceded Pincus's vaguely sourced piece. End of your little story. Even if it hadn't, the cites by Pincus came nowhere near refuting the entirety of the NIE.
if it was that hard to find the WMD's, there would be no way for Saddam to use them.
And that's just nonsense.
We could have just wrapped up Afghanistan and eliminated Al Qaeda,
That's a frightfully glib reduction of the Pakistan problem. No matter how many troops you amass, they do you no good if you can't enter Pakistan.
*****
I don't know why you feel the need to ignore the results of the Senate and Butler investigations, or the Chicago Tribune inquest, in favor of your WaPo article. And I can't imagine what compels you to invent positions that Clinton never held, or to hold up a piece of evidence and claim that it invalidates the entire NIE.
Well, yes I can, actually. We call it BDS and you've got it bad.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 04:17 PM (Fx6Qk)
I'll stop you right there - that happened in the 1990's.
After 2001, and especially during in the run up to the Iraq war, there was not one single site which the inspectors were not eventually allowed to see.
Prove me wrong, and show me the sites that the inspectors were barred from during their inspections after 2001. Show me any accounts of any information that they wanted access to, which they didn't get access to.
I find it particularly ironic that you quote Scott Ritter complaining about weapons inspections issues in the 1990's, but you don't quote him when he said in 2002:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.iraq/
In his address Sunday, Ritter denied that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction but acknowledged that concerns exist about the country's weapons programs.
"These concerns are almost exclusively technical in nature and do not overcome the reality that Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, had been certified as being disarmed to a 90 [percent] to 95 percent level," he said.
Oh, and he also said the US was on the verge of making a tragic mistake, and that the US was using WMD's as an excuse to go to war with Iraq.
Ahem.
I know you *want* to believe this is hindsight. But these facts were present, and the experts were telling the Bush administration, you, me, and all of us.
And the Bush administration decided to invade regardless of what the facts were. And that is what the historical record shows.
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 04:19 PM (QAh+h)
I find it particularly ironic that you don't note that Ritter had no idea what he was talking about since he stopped being an inspector in 1998, and that his motives were suspect after having his movie funded by an Iraqi businessman.
Twist source material much?
And the Bush administration decided to invade regardless of what the facts were. And that is what the historical record shows
Your cherrypicking and historical revisionism is falling apart faster and faster.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 04:24 PM (Fx6Qk)
I seem to remember the Democrats promising to take troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan to "fight the real terrorists," at least before the elections.
Can you tell me how they're coming along on those plans?
And, yeah, please explain the Democratic Plan for invading Pakistan, a country of 100+ million people, having perhaps the most radicalized and Al Qaeda supporting population in the world, which also happens to have nuclear weapons, and is one assassination attempt from falling into Al Qaedaist control?
Really, I can perhaps get behind the liberals' plan to conduct this massive overland invasion into the mountainous NWFP, but I need some details about how y'all plan to go about doing so, first.
Posted by: ace at March 07, 2007 04:28 PM (+u1X0)
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 07, 2007 04:31 PM (i7vTG)
Uh, no. Actually, sending missiles into another nation is not an an invasion. You see, sending missiles into another nation is called an *attack*. An invasion is when you send soldiers - live bodies - inside another nation. And then if it's successful, they typically occupy it.
Got that important difference?
Now why did you confuse these two?
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 04:31 PM (QAh+h)
I assume you have detailed plans about this, because I must assume that no one would be so frivolous as to "talk tough" about invading a nuclear-armed, Al Qaeda-sympathizing country of 100 million plus citizens without first having given the matter a great deal of thought.
Surely one wouldn't casually discuss "going into Pakistan to find the real terrorists" -- a war perhaps five or six times larger than that we fought in Iraq -- simply as an opportunistic and empty partisan talking point.
Posted by: ace at March 07, 2007 04:32 PM (+u1X0)
Iraq has admitted to UNSCOM having a large, effective, system for hiding proscribed material including documentation, components, production equipment and, possibly, biological and chemical agents and weapons from the UN. Shortly after the adoption of UNSCR 687 in April 1991, an Administrative Security Committee (ASC) was formed with responsibility for advising Saddam on the information which could be released to UNSCOM and the IAEA. The Committee consisted of senior Military Industrial Commission (MIC) scientists from all of Iraq's WMD programmes. The Higher Security Committee (HSC) of the Presidential Office was in overall command of deception operations. The system was directed from the very highest political levels within the Presidential Office and involved, if not Saddam himself, his youngest son, Qusai. The system for hiding proscribed material relies on high mobility and good command and control. It uses lorries to move items at short notice and most hide sites appear to be located close to good road links and telecommunications. The Baghdad area was particularly favoured. In addition to active measures to hide material from the UN, Iraq has attempted to monitor, delay and collect intelligence on UN operations to aid its overall deception plan.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 04:32 PM (Fx6Qk)
Eventually. I love that. Yep, they were eventually allowed to see everyplace they wanted to see. Only, ya know, not until Saddam's people had enough time to remove whatever they didn't want the inspectors to see. But, ...ya know...eventually they were allowed in.
What a jackass.
Posted by: Hilluhry! at March 07, 2007 04:35 PM (1tlBF)
'cuz I hate what I'm doing at work right now. I have crap data that I can't figure out what to do with, but that I have to turn into a thing of beauty post haste. So I'm ignoring the post haste part and procrastinating via troll hunts.
Jim here isn't the worst sort of troll - he's made some stuff up and he distorts the evidence, but he's at least trying to support what he says. Unlike, say, muirgeo.
Ace has a lot of banning work to do.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 04:36 PM (Fx6Qk)
Uh-huh. I see. Scott Ritter just immediately stopped being an expert in his life's work the day after he quit. And it's just random coincidence that everything Scott Ritter said in 2002 has turned out to be exactly right.
Oh, and it's just random coincidence that all the other weapons inspectors who were on the ground in 2002 and 2003 that found no WMD's, have also been proven to be right.
And, even though they presented the facts to the Bush administration and the world, and even though as I've shown to you the US gov'ts own people on the ground were corroborating these facts - the Bush administration still acted with total foresight.
Right.
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 04:36 PM (QAh+h)
Yeah, right.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 04:37 PM (Fx6Qk)
I need to know the details of the Pelosi-Murtha plan for the invasion of Pakistan.
Again, as you keep alluding to this, and they promised this before the elections, I'm sure their plan is available on the internet for my inspection.
Can you point me to the right URL?
Posted by: ace at March 07, 2007 04:37 PM (+u1X0)
So you would have been good with it if Bush just continued to launch missile after missile into Iraq, randomly killing untold numbers of anonymous innocents and maybe hitting something or maybe not, instead of {gasp} actually invading the country?
Posted by: Hilluhry! at March 07, 2007 04:39 PM (1tlBF)
Can you tell me how they're coming along on those plans?
Probably not so well.
And, yeah, please explain the Democratic Plan for invading Pakistan, a country of 100+ million people, having perhaps the most radicalized and Al Qaeda supporting population in the world, which also happens to have nuclear weapons, and is one assassination attempt from falling into Al Qaedaist control?
I am not aware of any. What's the Bush administration plan?
Really, I can perhaps get behind the liberals' plan to conduct this massive overland invasion into the mountainous NWFP, but I need some details about how y'all plan to go about doing so, first.
I'm not aware of a liberal push for an invasion of Pakistan. There are only two things that seem to work towards reducing terrorism: surgical police action, and making the conditions on the ground better, so that people have more to lose and are less willing to die for a cause.
You can ask the British how well pure military force works, for reducing terrorism; the IRA is still around, and the British have left most of the country.
What do you think should be done?
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 04:43 PM (QAh+h)
Posted by: ace at March 07, 2007 04:44 PM (+u1X0)
Yes, actually. Not the best situation, but that would have been more preferable to what we have now.
Why?
Continuing to send missiles wouldn't have killed 3000 US soldiers, wounded another 15000+, cost $3 trillion +, etc. etc.
It still would have killed a lot of innocent civilian Iraqis - but probably not as many of them as have been killed by the invasion either. The most conservative estimate there is about 30,000 civilians. How many were killed by Clinton's missiles, roughly four I think?
And we would have had the troops and resources to commit to Afghanistan, and catch Bin Laden, and finish Al Qaeda and the Taliban both.
But come on - you know all these things.
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 04:49 PM (QAh+h)
I don't understand. You said:
>>>We could have just wrapped up Afghanistan and eliminated Al Qaeda, instead of getting pulled into a ridiculous distraction that's now killed over 3000 of our soldiers, wounded over 15,000, increased Al Qaeda's recruiting, finances and prestige, isolated us from our allies of over 50 years, cost us $ Trillions of dollars, etc. etc.
Surely you know that Al Qaeda and the Taliban have fled to sanctuaries in NWFP, Pakistan, and other border provinces.
So when you speak of "wrapping up" in Afghanistan, I assume you mean "finishing them off," not merely ejecting them (as we've already done, no thanks to you or the Democrats).
So I need to see what your plans are for actually "wrapping up" in Afghanistan beyond what Bush has already done.
See, if you want to fight them, you have to go to where they are. And where they are is the border, and mostly over the border, in Pakistan.
Plans, please. Pronto.
Tough guy.
Yeah, you like to talk like a general, don't you?
Fuckin' pussy.
Big fuckin' hero on the Internet, ain't ya? A warrior borne.
PS, since you're gung ho to fight in Afghanistan, why haven't you enlisted for duty, chickenh@wk?
Posted by: ace at March 07, 2007 04:49 PM (+u1X0)
It's like Centralia, PA where an underground coal fire has been burning since 1961 or the tire dump on The Simpsons (take your pick).
You have to give it to the lefties, they are like the Energizer Bunny of stupid...they just keep going and going and going.....
Posted by: Drew at March 07, 2007 04:56 PM (gNyUT)
Then look at the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Remember his bluster about not relying on hindsight? Seems like he's forgotten all about that.
The sweet reward of the disintegration of the troll. Of course he completely lost it initially with his imaginative take on Clinton's motives - that lie killed off his credibility even before he started contradicting himself.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 05:00 PM (Fx6Qk)
Uh-huh. Surely you know how they got there? Because we let them go, rather than finish the job.
So when you speak of "wrapping up" in Afghanistan, I assume you mean "finishing them off," not merely ejecting them (as we've already done, no thanks to you or the Democrats).
Oh, please! Are you saying we invaded Afghanistan to EJECT Al Qaeda? No! We were told we were going there to finish them.
Now you're spinning the fact they were able to escape us in Afghanistan, as some sort of success on Bush's part?
So I need to see what your plans are for actually "wrapping up" in Afghanistan beyond what Bush has already done.
First, I want to you to be clear on how much damage Bush has done to our efforts in Afghanistan, by utterly blowing it there, and by invading Iraq and utterly blowing that.
Now, if you want to have a discussion about what we should do going forward, that's a separate discussion.
I think we should:
a) guarantee to the Iraqi people that they own their oil as a natural resource, and we as the US are not interested in it at all. And then prove this. This takes away a major leg for Al Qaeda to stand on.
b) get the $9 BILLION (and counting) that Halliburton et al have 'lost' in Iraq, and put that towards getting the lights and power running, sewage working, and other basic services, so the Iraqis and others have less reason to hate us.
c) get Iran and Syria to the table, to calm things the frak down. It's a bitter pill, but we need their help to keep Iraq from just going postal.
Even the White House is starting to see the needed sanity in this, although they have a hard time admitting it.
That's for the overall region - because Iraq is hurting everything else there.
Now for Afghanistan specifically, I would increase aid to farmers so they can grow other crops than heroin - which is funding the Taliban and other groups that hate us.
For Pakistan, I would a) get them into a non-proliferation treaty (you know, the kind of thing we had as solid policy, before Bush blew it wide open, by allowing India to develop nukes in return for giving us concessions on freaking **mangoes??**) and
b) make all future aid to Pakistan contingent on results in finding and capturing Al Qaeda, and
c) enlist the help of our allies, with whatever trades that might be helpful, in putting together a UN-led initiative to wipe out Al Qaeda.
What do you think we should do?
The rest of your post contains insults - why? I have yet to insult you in any fashion.
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 05:01 PM (QAh+h)
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 05:02 PM (Fx6Qk)
Maybe it's because your hijacking one of his threads. Or maybe it's because you've been glossing over all the errors in your arguments. Or maybe because nobody here has any respect for you or cares about your long- and officially-debunked arguments.
We're just messing with you to pass the time since we wore out most of the other trolls.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 05:05 PM (Fx6Qk)
get Iran and Syria to the table, to calm things the frak down. It's a bitter pill, but we need their help to keep Iraq from just going postal.
lol. We need their help. lol.
Reality-based.lol.
Posted by: Bart at March 07, 2007 05:08 PM (sI9JF)
Uh, no Geoff. It's not that Ritter wasn't reliable in 1998. It's that before 1998, Saddam was giving inspectors trouble, and after 2001, he obviously wasn't.
To sum up, Ritter was accurately and truthfully describing the situation in 1998, and he was acurately and truthfully describing the situation in 2002. The circumstances of the situation changed.
Do you understand what I'm saying? If you do not, please let me know and I will make it clearer for you.
Then look at the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Remember his bluster about not relying on hindsight? Seems like he's forgotten all about that.
I'm showing to you that Scott Ritter was right. There was no reason to think he was wrong in 2002, either. But whatever.
Seems like you're misinterpreting my words, as you have no actual evidence of inspectors being denied any access to sites after 2001.
Please prove me wrong, and show me this evidence.
Posted by: at March 07, 2007 05:10 PM (QAh+h)
Another abysmal distortion of the facts. India had its first nuclear explosion in 1974. They developed nukes decades ago. So why are we cooperating with India to develop nuclear power plants? Was it really mangoes? Or was it the fact that Shanghai Cooperation Organization (China in particular) and the US have been competing for a long-term strategic alliance with India.
Naw, must've been mangoes.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 05:10 PM (Fx6Qk)
I see. That's cool. I'm not bitter.
I don't think Nice Deb can soften them up like me, but hey, if that's what you want.
Posted by: Bart at March 07, 2007 05:11 PM (sI9JF)
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 05:11 PM (QAh+h)
I wasn't going to get involved in an argument that's obviously gotten goofy but your post @ 5:01 is just too much:
I think we should:
a) guarantee to the Iraqi people that they own their oil as a natural resource, and we as the US are not interested in it at all. And then prove this. This takes away a major leg for Al Qaeda to stand on.
Maybe you are right about this. If we stop taking Iraq's resources we'll hurt Al Qaeda. Oh wait, we haven't taken any of their resources (see their newly passed oil sharing plan) and Al Qaeda attacked us long before we went any where near Iraq.
b) get the $9 BILLION (and counting) that Halliburton et al have 'lost' in Iraq, and put that towards getting the lights and power running, sewage working, and other basic services, so the Iraqis and others have less reason to hate us.
I guess the billions we've spent on the improvements (it's a link to CentCom so you can see what we've done) weren't enough to get them to have 'less reason to hate us'. BTW-What proof do you have that they hate us? I grant you most don't like the situation but there's no proof they want us to leave tomorrow.
c) get Iran and Syria to the table, to calm things the frak down.
Why is it so hard for people to accept the fact that Iran and Syria don't want things to calm down in Iraq? If they did, they could, you know, stop creating trouble and supplying weapons. They don't need talks for that, they just need to, um, DO IT!
Posted by: Drew at March 07, 2007 05:14 PM (gNyUT)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4764826.stm
Energy-hungry India will get access to US civil nuclear technology and open its nuclear facilities to inspection...India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)....
[Bush] he said "the US is looking forward to eating Indian mangoes", under an agreement to expand trade in farm products.
Geoff, I'm only going by what Bush says. He doesn't mention the Shanghai Cooperation Organization at all.
So, that's speculation on your part, until you can find Bush saying that.
However, that could be another reason why Bush signed that treaty, sure.
It still doesn't mean that having another nation outside the nuclear non-proliferation pact is a good idea. Quite the opposite.
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 05:19 PM (QAh+h)
I see. That's cool. I'm not bitter.
I don't think Nice Deb can soften them up like me, but hey, if that's what you want.
Gay. In every way, gay.
Posted by: JackStraw at March 07, 2007 05:19 PM (t+mja)
The point that you are not so adroitly dodging is: "how accurate was he in 2002?"
The answer that I provided initially and that you have been trying to squirm away from is: not very. He had no special access to info on the 2002 inspections, and he had a major change of heart on Iraq coinciding with the Iraqi funding of his film. What you have no proof of is that anything really changed between 1998 and 2002, other than a perception of more transparent access to the sites.
Please prove me wrong, and show me this evidence.
They were allowed access to *most* sites (per Blix's UN testimony), but not all, so you should be careful on that point. But the point is that based on their earlier experiences, there was no reason to believe that the UN would ever know if they had inspected all the relevant sites, or if a shell game was being played.
Not to mention that they only inspected 350 sites, 40 of them new, out of 1015 sites they inspected in the 90's. And they inspected those sites in 3 months.
The UN inspections were nowhere near adequate to support the assertions that they made. And most of us suspected that the OIF scandal was the reason those assertions were made. You can prance about touting the inspection results all you want, but at the time they were not credible, and certainly came nowhere near undermining confidence in the NIE.
And now I'm late.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 05:19 PM (Fx6Qk)
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 05:20 PM (QAh+h)
Posted by: roc ingersol at March 07, 2007 05:20 PM (m2CN7)
Sometimes other nations want something from us, before they do something for us. The situation with Iraq, Iran and Syria is one of those times.
You can accept this or deny this, but either way it's still reality.
Posted by: jim at March 07, 2007 05:22 PM (QAh+h)
1. Secure the Iranian and Syrianian borders. Nothing goes in and nothing comes out.
2. Hunt down and kill every single Islamofascist terrorist in the world.
Posted by: Bart at March 07, 2007 05:27 PM (sI9JF)
I am a little stunned from you withering retort to my critique of your post but I'll give it a shot....
I am pretty good with the surge plan that's in place. My main concern about it when it was being discussed was sealing the borders with Iran and Syria. The Brits are doing that in the south with Iran and lots of progress is being made in Anbar by engaging the local sheiks instead of pretending the national government can do it there at this point.
My other concern was with the Rules of Engagement but that seems to be about to change as well.
I say let's give Petraeus a chance to make it happen. It beats the alternative.
(btw- see those oddly colored words? They are links to sources. They are what separate arguments from rants. Try them sometime.)
Posted by: Drew at March 07, 2007 05:29 PM (gNyUT)
You bored him. geoff hates that.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 07, 2007 05:31 PM (pzen5)
Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.”
In one ear and out the other. Watch and see.
Posted by: spongeworthy at March 07, 2007 05:35 PM (uSomN)
Okay, Jim...what do they want that we can give them? Let me guess your response, 'we won't know unless we talk to them'. Am I right? C'mon admit I am.
Here's the thing...there's nothing we can give them. Well, that's not true. We might be able to peel Syria off if we promise Assad we'll get the UN to back of on the Harari investigation. I know it's heresy on the right but I'd think about that deal to get Syria to shut down it's border (reasonably verifiable) and peel them off from Iran (harder to judge). But considering their falling out in recent days, it might not be a bad idea.
I don't like or trust Assad but we've made deals with bad guys before to fight worse guys and then gone back and dealt with our temporary 'friend' later.
But Iran? Never. They need to be defeated, now (actually yesterday).
Posted by: Drew at March 07, 2007 05:37 PM (gNyUT)
You bored him. geoff hates that.
No, it was Ace who was doing the insulting, and I was hoping he'd come back and finish the guy off.
Sometimes other nations want something from us, before they do something for us. The situation with Iraq, Iran and Syria is one of those times.
You can accept this or deny this, but either way it's still reality.
His comments are becoming increasingly nonsensical.
Posted by: Nice Deb at March 07, 2007 05:39 PM (i7vTG)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 07, 2007 05:50 PM (pzen5)
ROFL!!!
Yeah, we had to send 100,000 troops to Kuwait, but by gum, he's right. Eventually, after lengthy delays of days or weeks, and in total violation of the process, inspectors were allowed to see the sites they tried to enter. After we mobilized an army on his border.
Moron.
Posted by: Dogstar at March 07, 2007 05:51 PM (dpudc)
Duh. We're playing a game of strategy and diplomacy - you have to read between the lines. Unless you read the Asian press, where they spell it all out for you.
But if you really need to hear that it's about more than mangoes from someone in the administration, here's Condi testifying to Congress on the deal:
The initiative that we are putting before you and asking for legislation to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 will advance international security, enhance energy security, further environmental protection, and increase business opportunities for both our countries. All of these benefits must be viewed in this larger context, of course, of how the initiative itself elevates the U.S.-India relationship to the new strategic level that we desire.
.
The initiative, first and foremost, will deepen that strategic partnership. The United States and India are laying the foundation for cooperation on major issues in the region and beyond, building on and building up our broader relationship between our peoples and governments.
Do you really believe the things you say? You can't. Not really. "Mangoes for nukes." That's really funny.
I'm going to get a t-shirt made.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 06:31 PM (Fx6Qk)
Did he really say that? Ha ha ha ha ha!!
How many times have we been through this? How many times have we referenced the SIGIR reports and clarified this? And then moron-boy comes trotting in and steps in it again.
For what I'm sure is not the last time: there was no $9 billion "lost" in Iraq. Ever. Not even close to being lost. Ever. The "lost money" meme was a misinterpretation by the press that was seized upon by the loonier libs. And Halliburton had nothing to do with the money.
If you ask nicely and promise to retain the answer and never spew that lie again, I'll tell you what happened to the money. But only gross incompetents don't already know.
Posted by: geoff at March 07, 2007 06:38 PM (Fx6Qk)
Posted by: Drew at March 07, 2007 09:38 PM (gNyUT)
Posted by: jhc at March 07, 2007 09:43 PM (IL3Gd)
Posted by: ²È½Ð¾¯½÷ at January 30, 2009 05:15 AM (hXNNS)
Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 07:54 AM (xpuiO)
Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 11:49 PM (C/zDM)
Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 07:49 AM (C/zDM)
Processing 0.21, elapsed 0.2276 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0454 seconds, 634 records returned.
Page size 447 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.
Dale's ECB
Election Projection
Federal Review
Real Clear Politics
Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
Zogby
FoxNews Polls
Sabato/Crystal Ball
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)