Politico’s Simon: Libby Didn’t Commit A ‘Real Crime’
Politico’s Simon: Libby Didn’t Commit A ‘Real Crime’
Today on Meet the Press, Politico reporter Roger Simon called the case against Scooter Libby “a nutty trial that nobody except the people involved in it and the people covering it care about.” Simon said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Libby merely because he “didn’t tell him the complete truth.”
Actually, Scooter Libby lied — under oath, to a federal grand jury. He is facing serious felony charges: obstruction of justice, making false statements to a grand jury, and perjury. But according to Simon, these aren’t “real crimes.”
Watch it:
The American people know Libby stands accused of “real” crimes. An ABC News poll taken when Libby was indicted found that 70 percent of Americans considered the charges against Libby to be serious, and a majority of Americans believed the Libby indictment “indicates broader problems with ethical wrongdoing in the Bush Administration.”
Transcript:
SIMON: I also have to say this is a nutty trial that nobody except the people involved in it and the people covering it care about. Once again, we have a prosecutor who can’t get an indictment for the real crime — leaking the identity of a CIA agent. So he goes instead for the crime of, well, people didn’t tell him the complete truth when they talked to him. I mean, there’s no underlying crime here that anyone has been indicted for. This is just a show trial. And I’ve got to say, even if he’s convicted — and he may not be — but even if he is convicted, would any judge send to prison a guy named Scooter? He wouldn’t last 48 hours.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yeah, treason isn’t a real crime, just in our heads, lawbooks, statutes, do I need to continue?
February 11th, 2007 at 12:28 pmShyyyte!
To Republicans, this is business as usual.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:31 pmHey Simon, Clinton got impeached for lying under oath. Was that a show trial too? I doubt you’d let Bubba off the hook as easy as you are letting off Scooter.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:33 pmActually, Scooter Libby lied — under oath, to a federal grand jury.
So much for innocent before proven guilty, ey Payson? Don’t let that partisan bias hit you on the way out.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:33 pmCaption contest ~
February 11th, 2007 at 12:34 pmPlease Lord, make all these investigations go away! In Geebus name we ask thee!
Nearly spit up my coffee when I saw this. Yet another example of the beltway boy with the belt too taught around his neck. Sad state of affairs when you have Kurtz rebutting its significance.
Matalin’s talking drivel rings hollow.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:34 pmNo Libby committed real crimes, but the corporate owned GOP press wants him acquited of any wrongdoing. They also prefer not to see Cheney pulling Libby’s strings, so Simon is helping to cover truth up.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:34 pm…but even if he is convicted, would any judge send to prison a guy named Scooter? He wouldn’t last 48 hours.
That’s “daft old white guy” thinking for you.
Translation: Simon lies all the time, but doesn’t see anything wrong with it, so Scooter didn’t commit and “real crime.”
February 11th, 2007 at 12:35 pmActually, Scooter Libby lied — under oath, to a federal grand jury.
Comment by Seixon
Refute it. It has been proven and acknowledged. An allergy to facts must be a debilitating disease, how do you get by?
February 11th, 2007 at 12:38 pmGet all the latest Libby trial news, legal documents, timelines and other essential materials at:
February 11th, 2007 at 12:39 pm“The CIA Leak/PlameGate Resource Center.”
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”- Joseph Goebbels. Another example of fascism making itself known in that [alleged] beacon of democracy, the United States of America. Also, of all the people appearing on today’s Sunday Talk shows, not one of them is a genuine anti-war voice. Why have they not invited Dennis Kucinich or Amy Goodman or Howard Zinn? How about Anthony Arnove or Kevin Zeese or Peter Laufer or Norman Solomon? One of the biggest news stories of the week was the mistrial of one of the most vociferous critics of the Iraq War, Lt. Ehren Watada, yet neither he nor his attorney, Eric Seitz, have been invited to appear on these shows. What are the networks so afraid of?
In the runup to the war, there was, incredibly, only one anti-war voice heard on the corporate airwaves. Apparently, the more things change, the more they remain the same.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pmBill Clinton didn’t commit a crime either. It didn’t stop the partisans from impeaching a popular President.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the partisans don’t like it much.
The Scooter Libby trial is good in the sense that it has exposed how much like the mafia this Administration is.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:42 pmoh boy…. add this to David Brooks’ attempt to make it a non-issue.
From Charlie Rose (this past Thursday night):
Brooks: “The American people should not care about this trial”.
which I think he repeated in some form the next night on Lehrer news hour…
… They are scared sh*tless that this story won’t die….
February 11th, 2007 at 12:48 pmyeah and hitlary didn’t vote for the war.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:51 pmi hear this…
politico, politico, politico… who are these guys and where did they come from all of a sudden?, with so much supposed gravitas…
it’s a brand new site… cbs, i think… but they’re everywhere…
February 11th, 2007 at 12:52 pmnot a problem, if it’s not the usual bullshit… or lies…
.
…i heard this…
February 11th, 2007 at 12:53 pm.
Actually, Scooter Libby lied — under oath, to a federal grand jury.
That’s right…and if memory serves, that’s called perjury and it’s the same charge under which Congress impeached President Clinton. If perjury and obstruction of justice are important enough to consider removing a President from office, I think it’s safe to say that these are serious crimes. This is just a case of a neoconservative
trying to claim that it’s a crime when someone else does it, but not when they do it — which is absolute 100% Grade-A bovine excrement.
SIMON:…even if he is convicted, would any judge send to prison a guy named Scooter? He wouldn’t last 48 hours.
TOUGH. Perhaps Libby should have thought about the potential consequences of getting caught before he chose to lie under oath. Then again, most likely, he either thought that he was too smart to get caught (which is exactly what a lot of criminals think before they get caught) or he thought that the Bush administration would protect him. In any case, I thought conservatives always claimed to be the party of personal responsibility? They’re certainly fond of saying that anyone who commits a crime had better be prepared to do the time — but that works both ways and it should apply to everyone, not just people whom the conservatives consider to be “the criminal element”.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pmLibby and Bush and the rest of their vile gang lie, cheat and steal, but that’s fine with the Republic Party, the Republic Party of Treason and Treason coverups…
February 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pmRight – neither did Clinton, and look what happened there. Thanks for your 2 cents Politico, now we’ll carry on with our Impeachment.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:56 pmActually, Scooter Libby lied — under oath, to a federal grand jury. He is facing serious felony charges: obstruction of justice, making false statements to a grand jury, and perjury.
Actually, according to the Democrats, these aren’t real crimes. At least they weren’t when Bill Clinton faced the same charges.
Can I have an order of Double Standard with a side of BS, please.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:56 pm“…would any judge send to prison a guy named Scooter? He wouldn’t last 48 hours.”
I hope so. A traitor’s fate.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:02 pm# 15, go to this, for more background on Politico
February 11th, 2007 at 1:08 pmI have watched all the Sunday talking heads today and one thing has remained constant in all of them, Republicans are lying sons of bitches, every man, woman and child who claims that title. The have dwelled in delusion for so long, they do not recognize truth or reality. The party is blowing up before our eyes.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:09 pmHis name is not scooter, it’s irving lewis libby.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:09 pmActually, according to the Democrats, these aren’t real crimes. At least they weren’t when Bill Clinton faced the same charges.
Can I have an order of Double Standard with a side of BS, please.
Comment by hacker bob
Name one prominent dem who said these weren’t real crimes.
Or you might want some crow to go with that Double Standard Whopper.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:10 pmSimon is channelling Kay Bailey Huthinson…
From TP, 10/23/05:
On Meet the Press, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson picks up where Bill Kristol left off:
February 11th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Simon: Once again, we have a prosecutor who can’t get an indictment for the real crime — leaking the identity of a CIA agent.
Wow. Even Simon agrees that Valerie was a CIA agent, something many of our trolls deny.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:13 pmWe all know that if Libby had lied about oral sex, then Mr. Simon would be rabidly sniffing the sheets looking for semen stains.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:16 pmComment by Barfly
Did I say prominent dems? I am refering to posters on this site. Some tend to minimize the issue by saying Clinton lied about something that was no ones business. I agree it was no ones business other than Bill, Hillary, and Monica, but he still lied about it to a Grand Jury.
Sorry, not enough meat on crow.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:17 pmCrime, smime! To a beltway whore, only Democrats commit crimes. Republicans just tell the truth in a different direction.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:19 pmSeixon wrote:
“So much for innocent before proven guilty, ey Payson? Don’t let that partisan bias hit you on the way out.”
Which one of the commentators here are sitting on the jury? Which one is a member of the prosecution team?
February 11th, 2007 at 1:22 pmWell, if Libby did go to jail, at least it would enliven his prose: “It’s Autumn, and the inmates are all turning nasty, as they are all interconnected by their leg shackles . . .
Did I say prominent dems? I am refering to posters on this site.
according to the Democrats
No, you weren’t. “The dems” doesn’t indicate posters on this site, so will that be baked, or deep fat fried?
February 11th, 2007 at 1:24 pmComment by Joe D. — February 11, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
That is a great quote, can I borrow it?
February 11th, 2007 at 1:25 pmOnce again, we have a prosecutor who can’t get an indictment for the real crime — leaking the identity of a CIA agent.
maybe because some people lied?
February 11th, 2007 at 1:25 pmIf this Simon is referring to Libby’s lies when he states “Libby didn’t commit a real crime” then neither did Bill Clinton. If we look at all the facts, like participating in the outing of a CIA agent, then Simon would have to admit that treason is a real crime and Libby is guilty of a real crime. The truth is, Simon would not let facts get in the way of his stupid statements.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:27 pmYo, HB. Your order is ready . . .
February 11th, 2007 at 1:28 pmComment by Barfly
Ok, I will give you that one as I was unclear. How is you beer batter? Can I have a side of potatoe wedges too?
February 11th, 2007 at 1:30 pm“the democrats” is pretty clear, bob. But I’ll leave you with you meal now. Don’t forget to tip the help.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:33 pmApparently it’s not a real crime if no one is hurt. I seem to recall lying under oath a serious crime when Bill Clinton did it back in the day…
February 11th, 2007 at 1:34 pmOkay – here we ago again… it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault… damn that Bill Clinton… still wrecking our nation after all these years. When oh when we will be free of all his havoc? (sarc off)
February 11th, 2007 at 1:35 pmLibby Didn’t Commit A ‘Real Crime’
So then . . . he and his best friend Dick,
February 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pmprobably won’t be going to ‘Real Prison’ either.
Comment by Barfly
Let me try again, although I shouldn’t talk with my mouth full.
Some of the posters here would say that these things are not a “real crime” because they do not think it was a “real crime” when Bill Clintons faced many of the same charges.
Barfly, next time at least pluck the feathers. and you forgot the katsup.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pmDoes anyone have any twink or preteen sex videos for sale or trade?
My present collection is boring the hell out of me. Trades and cash?
I prefer young boy videos age 4-8 is my age range. Anyone?
I like to seduce them with Fudge Stripe cookies by Keebler.
Hence my name, E.L. Fudge_Packer_Boy. I like to play the role of E.L. Fudge, the Keebler elf.
The boys get transfixed with what I say and this is when I make my move.
Email me about your offers.
E.L. Fudge_Packer_Boy
> I have several for sale E.L. Fudge_Packer_Boy.
Email me I will get with you in the ThinkFast thread.
Shhhh!
Would you like one called †Johnny Cum Lately †?
February 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pmHow about one called †Preteen Incest is Best “
Actually, according to the Democrats, these aren’t real crimes. At least they weren’t when Bill Clinton faced the same charges. — Hacker Bob
*************************************
Ah, but the Democrats weren’t in control of Congress when Clinton was impeached and they weren’t the ones who brought the charges against him — the Republicans were. You’re splitting hairs, Bob — better close your eyes before the smoke you’re blowing gets into them! The argument stands…if the Republicans considered perjury and obstruction of justice enough of a reason to vote for impeaching Clinton, then it’s certainly enough of a reason to prosecute Libby.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pmIn my opinion it is a real crime if Scooter did it. It was also a real crime when Bill did it.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:39 pmby the by, I see rachel is awake. Best to ignore!
February 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pmDid I say prominent dems? I am refering to posters on this site. Some tend to minimize the issue by saying Clinton lied about something that was no ones business. I agree it was no ones business other than Bill, Hillary, and Monica, but he still lied about it to a Grand Jury.
Sorry, not enough meat on crow.
Comment by hacker bob — February 11, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
This was never proven.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:43 pmComment by Bluestocking
As we posted at almost the same time, You missed my statement.
Yes, I think it is enough to prosecute Libby, just as it was enough to go after Bill. It has nothing to do with ideology (for me) it has to do with equal treatment under the law.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:43 pmThe neocons must be really frightened. The liberal msm is providing lots of opportunities for these liars to spread their feces all over the networks with the hope that folks will believe them and ignore the truth.
Here’s some truth: So far on Sunday, one more flag draped coffin to arrive in the US and neither Bush nor Cheney will be there of offer their respect and thanks to this solder. Bush stated that the sacrifice is worth it so one more dead solder doesn’t mean anything to Bush.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:45 pmIn the spectacularly unlikely event that Roger Simon had even a shred of journalistic credibility left, it’s safe to say that it’s gone now.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:45 pmActually, according to the Democrats, these aren’t real crimes. At least they weren’t when Bill Clinton faced the same charges.
Can I have an order of Double Standard with a side of BS, please.
Comment by hacker bob — February 11, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
and
Re: Comment by Barfly — February 11, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Let’s raise the bar. Name 10, H. Bob. And we want quotes and sources.
I think you’ll find among a majority of Democrats, the issue wasn’t that it wasn’t a crime, it just wasn’t a crime that merited impeachment and removal from office. Clinton lied about a consensual sexual act with an adult woman. And if I recall, reading the Starr report as posted on the Internet it was Monica who made the “first moves” on Clinton, if you know what I mean. I’ve posted the relevant section of the report for you below so that you can read it yourself. Leading up to this, Clinton and Lewinsky talked alot on the phone and in person, and Monica said she had a big crush on Bill and there had been “intense flirtation.”
Here are details from their first sexual encounter; this is from the Narrative, Section II, subsection C:
Ms. Lewinsky testified that Wednesday, November 15, 1995 — the second day of the government shutdown — marked the beginning of her sexual relationship with the President.
.
.
.
According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the President made eye contact when he came to the West Wing to see Mr. Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, then again later at an informal birthday party for Jennifer Palmieri, Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff.(149) At one point, Ms. Lewinsky and the President talked alone in the Chief of Staff’s office. In the course of flirting with him, she raised her jacket in the back and showed him the straps of her thong underwear, which extended above her pants.(150)
Yeah. Poor little innocent Monica. Showing her thong to the President of the United States. He didn’t ask her to. She volunteered. She knew exactly what she was doing.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:48 pmComment by SteveW — February 11, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
thanks for that link… informative… i especially liked this:
Politico journalists covering political campaigns plan to carry a video camera with them to every assignment, [4] and journalists are encouraged to promote their work elsewhere.
how exciting! how novel! whoddu thunk it!?!
February 11th, 2007 at 1:48 pm…
Libby’s lawyers are now rethinking putting Cheney on the stand. They must be afraid that Cheney will point the finger at Libby and state that he didn’t know anything about Valerie Plame and that Libby is lying about Cheney’s involvement. I’m enjoying watching these lying scumbags turn on each other.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:52 pmNow will you take a look at this… the trolls have managed to turn this into a Clinton issue and have directed the conversation away from the topic of lying Libby.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pmOkay, my post #46 disappeared! WTF?
February 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pmBecause I happened to mention vagin(a)? Peni(s)?
I hope my rebuttal of hacker bob wasn’t erased because of those two words!
I hope my rebuttal of hacker bob wasn’t erased because of those two words!
Comment by DRxJ
Apparently, you’re safe if you’re soliciting child porn.
February 11th, 2007 at 1:59 pmIn my opinion it is a real crime if Scooter did it. It was also a real crime when Bill did it. — Hacker Bob
**************************************
If you will notice, I never said in either of my posts that it wasn’t — I merely pointed out that the Republicans can’t have it both ways. If they attempted to remove Clinton from office for committing perjury over an adulterous affair — a matter which you yourself said in one of your earlier posts was really nobody else’s business apart from the people involved — then they should not object to Libby’s prosecution on the same charges, which is exactly what this yutz Roger Simon is attempting to do.
And while we’re on the subject of President Clinton, an important question nobody seems to be asking is…why is it that the US government went to such great lengths to investigate Clinton, but has not gone to even half those same lengths to investigate Bush? Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky…all of this was considered enough reason to investigate Clinton. So why isn’t a similar amount of effort being put into investigating Bush, when there’s easily as much reason to do so?
February 11th, 2007 at 1:59 pmFake opinions from fake leaders and their propagandists.
If Cheney were a real man he would have admitted to outing Plame esp. if he felt Wilson was wrong. Sometimes you have 2 take one for the team. I guess it shook Cheney up pretty bad when John Q. Public told him to go F*CK HIMSELF live on national TV.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:01 pmRefute it. It has been proven and acknowledged. An allergy to facts must be a debilitating disease, how do you get by?
I don’t know whether Libby lied or not, but to me, it’s equally plausible that Tim Russert has lied, for example. Through Russert’s testimony last week, it was acknowledged that NBC lied in their statement about the case, claiming that they didn’t want Russert to out his sources, although he had already given up Libby to investigators.
We have Ari Fleischer’s testimony, saying that he had a conversation with Libby about Mrs. Wilson early on, and that he also told David Gregory of NBC. Libby says he doesn’t remember the convo with Fleischer, Gregory hasn’t denied or acknowledged Fleischer’s testimony.
Now, Tim Russert is Gregory’s boss. Andrea Mitchell, who had talked to Joe Wilson and others involved in the story, and who claimed in October 2003 that “everyone knew” that Mrs. Wilson was CIA, also has Tim Russert as her boss.
So we have two journalists reporting to Russert who may very well have known about Mrs. Wilson, but we’re to believe that Russert never brought up Mrs. Wilson at all in his convo with Libby.
I’d say there’s ample room to suspect either side in this circus of lying, but of course, the blind partisans at Think Progress will decide before the jury who’s guilty or not.
Oh, and just as a coincidence, Russert’s testimony to the FBI has gone “missing”, and most of Fitzgerald’s case against Libby rests squarely on the shoulders of Russert. Andrea Mitchell wasn’t even interviewed in person by the FBI, only by phone. Just another amazing set of coincidences I guess.
Anyways, I’ll just note for the record that I think that both Clinton’s perjury back in the Lewinsky scandal and Libby’s alleged perjury in the Plame scandal were/are a complete waste of time.
Fitzgerald has stated quite clearly that he hasn’t found any evidence of a crime on Libby’s behalf other than the alleged perjury. He has found no evidence that Libby knew of Plame’s classified job status. He has found no evidence of an orchestrated campaign to out Plame by the OVP. That is what the prosecutor has said himself.
The rest is all your collective partisan imagination playing tricks on you.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:01 pmwell, I was hoping to have a good debate with hacker bob regarding the comparison of Clinton’s perjury accusation to Libby’s accusation. But the moderators here at TP, I guess, decided actual words describing the human anatomy was too much, and it was deleted.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:02 pmYet, on other threads, posters can hijack frequent user names, and add a description of fellatio, and nothing happens.
I’m out.
Peace, hackerbob, and maybe we can have this discussion another time!
Peace also, Zooey!
February 11th, 2007 at 2:05 pmMr. Simon is right!
In this entire fiasco, the US is the big loser.
Instead of charging Bush or Cheney with lying to the country about the affair, or about leaking a CIA agent’s name, we are left with a peon who lied about things disassociated with the main crime.
Since Bush I was the motivation behind this law to begin with, I can only imagine what he is thinking about his son and his son’s actions.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pmThe MSM shills will continue on this tack because their ability to ride the gravy train depends on it. Luckily, they’re betting the farm (the bet being that the American people are willing pawns in the game, and that we take being constantly lied to with a wink and a nod) and they’re going to loose. Then we get our farm back.
Now that they’ve chosen sides, we’d (”we” being the people) be smart to start flexing some political muscle. Every now and then, the blogosphere will mount an email campaign to try to influence those who advertise in the MSM (ABC’s Path to 9-11 comes to mind). With all of the power of the internet and the increasing importance of the blogosphere as the preferred source of information for the general public, it seems that setting up a system to quickly and accurately target these advertisers with petitions, etc., would be a no brainer. Has anyone tried this?
Hmmmm…
February 11th, 2007 at 2:08 pmSeixon everyone knows full well what happened. The only question is is it worth it to pursue this on behalf of Plame, and admitted administration critic.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:08 pmPersonally I think BushCo had every right to play games with Plame/Wilson because the CIA IS a political entity. But jeesh quit playing this silly shell game.
The rest is all your collective partisan imagination playing tricks on you.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Partisan imagination…like…America will suffer another terrorist attack if Kerry is elected. Like…if the Democrats win Congress, the terrorists win. Like…the Democrats want the terrorists to win. Like…the Democrats want America to lose in Iraq. Like…the Democrats do not support the troops.
Thanks for putting things in perspective for us!
February 11th, 2007 at 2:09 pmComment by hacker bob — February 11, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
NAME TWO! Provide citations!
Nice to know you employ the same tactics as your Fuhrer: you put words in other’s mouths, then criticize them for what you say they said.
Clinton lied about a consensual relationship. He was impeached but not convicted. But Clinton never had criminal charges filed against him.
Once again, bob, you bring up a falacious argument.
Martha Stewart spent time in prison, convicted of this “not a real crime.” Remember, she was not charged with the underlying crime of insider trading.
Libby willingly participated in exposing a covert agent, and the entire covert operation she worked for. He then lied about his role, making it difficult, if not impossible, to file charges against the person responsible for destroying her career and the covert operation tasked with investigating the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
And it may well be that no law was broken in revealing Plame’s identity. It may well be that President Bush gave Vice-President Cheney the authority to declassify her, putting her life at risk, as well as the lives of everyone she had ever contacted over the past several years. And for what? To discredit someone who dared tell the truth about one of Bush’s lies in Bush’s run-up to killing hundreds of thousands of innocent children, women, and men.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:09 pmwell, I was hoping to have a good debate with hacker bob regarding the comparison of Clinton’s perjury accusation to Libby’s accusation. But the moderators here at TP, I guess, decided actual words describing the human anatomy was too much, and it was deleted.
Yet, on other threads, posters can hijack frequent user names, and add a description of fellatio, and nothing happens.
I’m out.
Peace, hackerbob, and maybe we can have this discussion another time!
Comment by DRxJ
>
Oh my whatever will we do without DRxJ ?
February 11th, 2007 at 2:10 pmWho gives a rats asss?
Hey Simon,
February 11th, 2007 at 2:11 pmDidn’t they impeach Clinton for lying under oath (albeit for a non-crime)?
Why are you making excuses for this lowlife, Libby, who now finds himself on the outside looking in where Cheney and Bush have closed the door on him? Ater they find LIbby guilty of perjury, they should go after Cheney who was the mastermind behind all of this.
More “partisan imagination”:
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol attacked Obama’s Iraq policy, saying he wants to appease terrorists like pro-slavery politician Stephen Douglas tried to appease slave-owners. Kristol said, “Obama’s speech is a ‘can’t we get along’ speech — sort of the opposite of Lincoln. He would have been with Stephen Douglas in 1858.â€
February 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pmThe rest is all your collective partisan imagination playing tricks on you.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
I agree with you. Everyone is lying except Libby.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pmIt must be on the Sunday edition of talking points from Rove handed out to those appearing on TV — make this issue of Libby a non-story, downgrade it to a nuisance, demean its importance.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pmMake it go away.
The purpose of the Libby trial is to get public documentation as to who initiated the outing of a CIA agent. Libby is the weakest link and Libby’s trial has brought out all kinds of details that were not presented to the Grand Jury. Next up… indicting either Dick Cheney or Karl Rove for the act of treason… outing a CIA agent which jeopardizes the security of the US.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:17 pmpolitico, politico, politico… who are these guys This is a new website where Washington political reporters all get together and write. Mike Allen, Jim Vanderhei, Roger Simon, et al. write their opinions. The politico – politico.com.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:19 pmI check it out, but I don’t like the design of the site, not user-friendly.
I don’t know if these guys gave up their day jobs to do this, but the three of them have been making the rounds a lot recently.
Marie – you bet Karl Rove wants this Libby trial to go away. He’s afraid that he’s next in line to stand trial for either treason or lying under oath.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pmi don’t have the time to find another link that i can copy and paste this from… someone should be able to find it… but -
from this link:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/2005_10_28_fitzgerald_press_conference.pdf
scroll down to page 5, and read, “And with that I’ll take questions.”
that first question and FITZGERALD’s answer are extrememly important…
remember this?:
“And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice is the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes.“
…
libby threw sand in his face… when this obstruction is cleared up, there will be charges that amount to TREASON.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pm.
Why don`t you people STFU and let the military handle MILITARY operations?
Your second guessing attitude in general is telling. If we ever faced a massive terrorist attack in the US what would you do?
Go on TP and birch all about it I suppose.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:21 pmThank God for strong leaders who are not swayed by polls and public ” opinion “
What I want to know is – why isn’t it BREAKING NEWS and on every newpaper front page that fingers now point towards Cheney as commiting treason? Oh yes – we all knew that all along but for mainstream media to keep this from the general public is criminal.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:22 pmLook what they did to Clinton and over what? This proves we live in a fascist state.
…but the three of them have been making the rounds a lot recently.
Comment by Marie — February 11, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
that’s what i noticed and commented on…
February 11th, 2007 at 2:27 pmsee also link at #22 @ 1:08 pm…
sounds like some did give up the day job… heh…
Look what they did to Clinton and over what? This proves we live in a fascist state.
Comment by Lee
No…it proves YOU are a lefto-fascist is all. Any other more ” original ” jokes you would like to share?
February 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pm“And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice is the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes.“
…
libby threw sand in his face… when this obstruction is cleared up, there will be charges that amount to TREASON.
katy – good point. Libby’s trial will lead to someone or somebodies being charged with treason.
The GOP won’t let Cheney go to jail. Instead, Cheney will be forced to resign because of “heart problems”. Cheney will be waiting for a heart transplant, the donor will be Bush Jr. Sorry, that was below the belt. Just couldn’t resist it.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pmSince the troll wants to take control, let’s talk about fly fishing. The weather is actually tolerable today. Makes me yearn for Spring and for fly fishing on the beautiful streams of northern PA.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pm#67, Comment by Briseadh na Faire — February 11, 2007 @ 2:09 pm:
Well stated, re: the underlying seriousness of what actually took place here.
You’re also correct in pointing out those who would attribute statements to a poster who didn’t, in fact, make them. This ever-so-subtle, dishonest tactic is used frequently by the 28percenters in here. It’ll derail the basis for a debate every time.
Excellent post.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:32 pmConcerning Roger Simon: I sent a note to him asking him to now come out and admit the Clinton episode was a show trial, since according to what he said on Meet the Press this morning, perjury is not a crime.
I suggest other people leave a comment with Roger here:
http://www.politico.com/reporters/RogerSimon.html
You’ll need to be brief, they only allow a 200 character response.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:34 pmYou sound nervous, Hiram. It’s funny. The American Jewish Counsil is so freaked out by the large numbers of people who don’t give a shit about you that they have to run ads on local am radio defending Israel’s right to exist.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:35 pmNow tell me is THAT second guessing? ; )
MSM is their baby.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:35 pmHiram is Rachel is VV
February 11th, 2007 at 2:40 pmNo…it proves YOU are a lefto-fascist is all. Any other more †original †jokes you would like to share?
Comment by Hiram from Israel — February 11, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
You are a righto-fascist.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:42 pmComment by CoffinsDrapedWithFlags — February 11, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Remember that little note of Cheney’s? The one where the words “the Pres” were crossed out? There is at least a hint that Bush gave Cheney the authority to declassify Plame’s status. If that’s the case, Cheney might not be guilty of treason.
There are other questions I do not know the answers to. For example, can the President, on his authority alone, declassify the status of a covert operative? If so, that would chill the job prospects of everyone in the CIA and other covert operations of the U.S. government, especially since we have an Administration apparently willing to do just that, in order to serve their political agenda.
Everyone is expendable.
February 11th, 2007 at 2:49 pmThe Bush and the Republicans are firing good prosecutors and replacing them with cronies. They are avoiding the normal appointment process under a loophole they snuck into the “Patriot” Act. The Federal Prosecutor who was investigating the Cunningham web of corruption is fired. Investigation over.
This stuff makes my blood boil. And it’s far from an isolated incident by Republicans. Whatever happened to that damn contract with America they promised us?!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/02/09/united_states_attorneys/index.html
February 11th, 2007 at 2:50 pmCaption:
“Shut your eyes! Open your mouth! OOOH, what’s gonna happen to you!”
February 11th, 2007 at 2:56 pmComment by jd21,
Your link says it all really.
It is in the title of the link.
OPINION
http://www.salon.com/ opinion/ conason/ 2007/ 02/ 09/ united_states_attorneys/ index.html
NOT FACT
OPINION
Anything more substantial?
February 11th, 2007 at 2:58 pmjd21 – that was another Republic tricksy with words… it was a contract ON America.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:00 pmApparently you read nothing more than the URL. The article is loaded with facts. Check it out before you post, and you won’t come across as stupid.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:15 pmBriseadh na Faire – Bush may have given Cheney the go ahead, however, we can’t afford to impeach Bush before Cheney is removed from power. Even though we know that Cheney is the real White House, things will be worst is he becomes the reall president. Let’s hope for the demised of Cheney before the demise of Bush.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:15 pmCheney will be waiting for a heart transplant, the donor will be Bush Jr.
Comment by CoffinsDrapedWithFlags — February 11, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
i’m thinking his brain is even bigger than his heart… but he doesn’t have enough of either to be a donor…
February 11th, 2007 at 3:19 pm.
katy – touche’ ;)
February 11th, 2007 at 3:24 pmWC,
Partisan imagination…like…America will suffer another terrorist attack if Kerry is elected. Like…if the Democrats win Congress, the terrorists win. Like…the Democrats want the terrorists to win. Like…the Democrats want America to lose in Iraq. Like…the Democrats do not support the troops.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth!
Nat,
I agree with you. Everyone is lying except Libby.
Why does it always have to be about lying with you people? Here’s a crazy idea: most of these people don’t remember what in the hell actually happened because it was such a long time ago and nobody really gave a damn about Wilson’s wife because there were larger issues to deal with in regards to Wilson’s false claims.
Tim Russert and NBC have already to have mislead a court about their actions, so I am inclined not to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Take Judy Miller for example. She had other sources for the info on Plame. She doesn’t want to reveal who. She says she doesn’t remember this and that. Liar, or just bad memory?
Matt Cooper has already been impeached because his testimony did not match with what he wrote to his superiors at TIME.
Libby claims he talked to Glenn Kessler of the WaPo about Plame – he says it never happened. So, is Libby just remembering wrong, or purposefully lying to make himself look bad? Is Kessler lying, or just not remembering? Pincus received a leak about Plame from someone – he hasn’t named them. He denies Woodward told him about Plame, though Woodward is sure he told Pincus. Who do we believe? Are they lying or remembering incorrectly?
You want to avoid all of these intricacies and focus on the storyline that has been sold to you from the very beginning: Libby is guilty, guilty, guilty. Of something. You know, whatever.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:27 pmComment by CoffinsDrapedWithFlags — February 11, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have shown a willingness to support Bush no matter what. They were quite willing to doom countless Americans to be blown up or shot to death while they prevent even so much as a debate on the Iraq War which might embarass the President.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:32 pmNow lying to the grand jury isn’t a crime I say let all the convicts out of jail. Now our children can lie and it’s not wrong. Oh how I wish that was the law when I was young. No wonder Fitzgerald couldn’t find out who leaked the CIA’s name everyone was lying. What does that say about our legal system when it’s not a crime to ly under oath. So much for truth and God.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:36 pmHiram from Israel and to all your other TP post names:
You are so right on…. what was I thinking… MY GOD Clinton LIED about his sex life, impeach impeach impeach…
But evidense is showing Cheney and probably Bush too outed a CIA official, one that happened to be involved with Iran, but oh so what….. it just a high crime anyway punishable by death. We will just let this go since it doesn’t matter right?
February 11th, 2007 at 3:39 pmlooks like roger reaches an orgasmic state when he lies.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:39 pmNot sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our ’surge’ will not include too many of these types…
February 11th, 2007 at 3:40 pmhttp://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html
Bil Clinton is past history – why people keep rehashing that crud is beyond me. It’s irrelevant to this case.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:02 pmWhy does it always have to be about lying with you people?
Perjury is a crime. Ask Lewinsky.
Here’s a crazy idea: most of these people don’t remember what in the hell actually happened because it was such a long time ago and nobody really gave a damn about Wilson’s wife because there were larger issues to deal with in regards to Wilson’s false claims -Seixon
Actually the Ambassador, Owens, had debunked the yellow cake claims before Wilson had ever showed up. Wilsons claims were not false.
WHy do you so intentionally lie Seixon?
Plame was working on Iran.
Outing an agent is a serious crime, a law I might add created by HW Bush.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:07 pmYour kidding right? Perjury is a crime.
Plame was working on Iran intelligence. Your pathetic
Seixon your not fooling anyone but yourself with your misleading gibberish. Go back to your Norway Blog and blog about your government that wants to hire Koreans to replace you.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:10 pmYAY!!! its free lying day!!!! WHOO HOOO!!!!!
February 11th, 2007 at 4:15 pmThere’s no reason to think that a judge wouldn’t send a guy named “Scooter” to prison, yet there’s EVERY reason to know that an idiot named “W” would pardon one…
February 11th, 2007 at 4:15 pmMom, Baseball & Apple Lies!
February 11th, 2007 at 4:18 pmJet Mech,
Perjury is a crime. Ask Lewinsky.
As I’ve already stated, the Lewinsky affair was a waste of time and ridiculous.
Actually the Ambassador, Owens, had debunked the yellow cake claims before Wilson had ever showed up. Wilsons claims were not false.
How do you debunk a claim simply by asking people questions, people who would have no reason to tell you the truth if there was anything to cover up? In other words, to hold you to this logic, to determine whether or not the Bush administration misled the American people in regards to Iraq, you just go to the Bush administration and ask them, “So, did you guys lie?” and then they give the obvious answer “No” and then you say, “Well then, that settles that!”
Are you seriously that dense?
Wilsons claims WERE false. He claimed through anonymous leaks that the OVP ordered his mission, that they knew about the mission, that they knew he had debunked the forged documents. All of this was false, as it was the CIA that ordered the mission, the CIA never reported the mission to the OVP, and Wilson had nothing to do with the forged documents.
Read. Learn.
Plame was working on Iran.
There is absolutely zero evidence of this.
Outing an agent is a serious crime, a law I might add created by HW Bush.
Yet the guy whose leak was the basis of the outing, Novak’s article, Richard Armitage, has been charged with absolutely nothing. Why is that? You’re correct that outing an agent is a serious crime, but that’s not what happened here. There was no deliberate attempt at outing Valerie Plame.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:24 pmLeft = Communism
Right = Facism
Get your baseless attacks right. Idiot.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Same difference. It`s six of one, and a half dozen of the other.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:25 pmSeixon your not fooling anyone but yourself with your misleading gibberish. Go back to your Norway Blog and blog about your government that wants to hire Koreans to replace you.
Comment by Jet Mech
Yes. That`s telling him you douchbag. He has MORE RIGHT to post here than YOU!
Get it? Got it? Good?
You flailing fledgling.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:27 pmSpudge,
Yes there is. If you choose to ignore it, that is your own dumb fault.
David Shuster claiming so isn’t “evidence”. Where’s the evidence? Provide a single piece of evidence. Thanks.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:34 pmAccording to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:46 pmWhy does it always have to be about lying with you people? Here’s a crazy idea: most of these people don’t remember what in the hell actually happened because it was such a long time ago
===The not remembering is Scooter’s biggest problem.
and nobody really gave a damn about Wilson’s wife because there were larger issues to deal with in regards to Wilson’s false claims.
===If by false you mean irrefutably true then I agree with you.
Tim Russert and NBC have already to have mislead a court about their actions, so I am inclined not to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
===He says he didn’t know Plame’s identity before Novak outed her. I’ll take his word for it.
Take Judy Miller for example. She had other sources for the info on Plame. She doesn’t want to reveal who. She says she doesn’t remember this and that. Liar, or just bad memory?
===Scooter was one of her sources and Scooter is the one on trial. It doesn’t matter that she can’t remember in this case.
Matt Cooper has already been impeached because his testimony did not match with what he wrote to his superiors at TIME.
===Scooter should call Cooper to the stand.
Libby claims he talked to Glenn Kessler of the WaPo about Plame – he says it never happened. So, is Libby just remembering wrong, or purposefully lying to make himself look bad? Is Kessler lying, or just not remembering? Pincus received a leak about Plame from someone – he hasn’t named them. He denies Woodward told him about Plame, though Woodward is sure he told Pincus. Who do we believe? Are they lying or remembering incorrectly?
===Who knows; the jury will have to sort it out.
You want to avoid all of these intricacies and focus on the storyline that has been sold to you from the very beginning: Libby is guilty, guilty, guilty. Of something. You know, whatever.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
===Most people agree that the testimony so far has been damaging. Libby should take the stand and argue that everyone who has testified against him has a faulty memory or is lying.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:48 pmNow, you post something about there not being evidence and that is why I am not posting it.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
A typical ” backstroke technique ” used by democratic debaters.
I believe the laymens term is ” crawfishin the hell outta here ” or
” Gettin the hell outta dodge ”
This is what dems do when they are defenseless on the issues.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:50 pmSimon said Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Libby merely because he “didn’t tell him the complete truth.â€
Ahhh… yuh… If memory serves me right, Clinton wasn’t impeached for having sex with a grown adult, but for lying about it. Regardless, Libby’s testimony is taking us along many, intricate paths. Some, lead right up the front door of the Vice-President and President himself. It is filled with NOTHING BUT LIES. So, tell me again, Simon, why this isn’t a “real crime”.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:52 pmPud Boy is no match for the likes of Seixon or Vince P .
February 11th, 2007 at 4:52 pmDavid Shuster claiming so isn’t “evidenceâ€. Where’s the evidence? Provide a single piece of evidence. Thanks.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
A lot of the information is classified but Judith Miller said in her Grand Jury testimony that when Libby outed Plame, he mentioned that she dealt with limiting the proliferation of unconventional weapons.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:56 pmHey, everyone knows it’s mostly legal to not tell “the complete truth” to judges and prosecutors and stuff. Or even give them an enhanced version of the incomplete truth, and all.
I mean, if you’re a Republican, cause they protect this country from the Muslimoon turists and those wacko environment so called scientists what don’t believe in the Bible and all.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:04 pmAnd, why did we need Politico? What was it we were missing? I thought we already enough administration-friendly news organizations and blogs. What’s the point of having one more group of lazy journalists bent on soft-peddling anything that might cast the White House in a bad light?
What drives someone to start up something like this?
February 11th, 2007 at 5:04 pmYes. That`s telling him you douchbag. He has MORE RIGHT to post here than YOU!Get it? Got it? Good?
You flailing fledgling.
Comment by Hiram from Israel
Your a foolish person if you think Seixon (perhaps you are Seixon) has more rights than anyone here. But then again why do you care?
February 11th, 2007 at 5:06 pmAccording to you people should just shut up and let ‘the crazies’ rule without question failed fledgling.
is no match for the likes of Seixon or Vince P .
Comment by sexy sausage
There all basically the same troll. Seixon, Vince P, Rachel et al
February 11th, 2007 at 5:09 pmSpudge,
It is not my job to educate you. The evidence has been provided numerous times in the past. I don’t need to post it again, as you will just ignore it as usual, so it is a waste of my time to try and get you to read something you will ignore.
Again, David Shuster or Larisa Alexandrovna saying it is so does not make it so. Especially when Alexandrovna’s sources are VIPS. They have not provided a single shred of evidence, just claims from obvious VIPS people. So again, I ask, where is the actual evidence?
Briseadh na Faire,
David Shuster is a fabulist, and simply reported Raw Story’s reporting as if he confirmed it for himself, which he did not. Shuster recently claimed that Libby destroyed evidence in the Plame investigation – yet no one else present at the trial reported that. Why? Well, because Shuster just made it up out of whole cloth.
Larisa Alexandrovna, a stenographer for VIPS (as you can plainly see in the article that claimed Plame worked on Iran, Larry Johnson is a named source), is the only one to have claimed it, and as I noted to Spudge, without a shred of evidence.
Larisa Alexandrovna has reported a great many things, many of which have never been corroborated or shown to be true. So in other words, do you think that an alternative news journalist with a known record of being completely wrong is tantamount to “evidence” or something?
Nat,
He says he didn’t know Plame’s identity before Novak outed her. I’ll take his word for it.
Even though Ari Fleischer testified to telling his subordinate, David Gregory? Even though Andrea Mitchell interviewed Wilson on MTP? Even though Mitchell wrote an article stating low-level operatives had sent Wilson? Even though Mitchell later stated that “everyone knew” that Plame was CIA?
There is your double standard right there. You’ll give Russert the benefit of the doubt, even though there is good reason not to, but you will not give Libby the same benefit of the doubt. Why?
Scooter was one of her sources and Scooter is the one on trial. It doesn’t matter that she can’t remember in this case.
OK, so it doesn’t remember that someone else had already told her about Plame? It doesn’t matter that she might have confused conversations with Libby with other people? It doesn’t matter that she did not remember her interview with Libby in June? Ah, as we see, the only thing that matters to you is that Libby says he doesn’t remember some things, and that you call him a liar for, while everyone else gets a pass. Why is that exactly?
Scooter should call Cooper to the stand.
He already has been on the stand, genius.
Who knows; the jury will have to sort it out.
Oh, OK. But not the guilty part – that has already been determined, right? LOL.
Most people agree that the testimony so far has been damaging. Libby should take the stand and argue that everyone who has testified against him has a faulty memory or is lying.
Ironically enough, the only real damaging testimony has come from the Bush administration in Ari Fleischer. The rest of the lot have demonstrated that they have very vague or inconsistent recollections of what happened, and that they don’t have much to go on as far as notes and documentary evidence goes.
There is no need to claim that anyone is lying, only that their memory of events is not clear, just as Libby’s memory is not clear.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:09 pmNat,
A lot of the information is classified but Judith Miller said in her Grand Jury testimony that when Libby outed Plame, he mentioned that she dealt with limiting the proliferation of unconventional weapons.
Naturally, working in the Counter Proliferation Division of the CIA would involve limiting the proliferation of unconventional weapons. Duh. But where’s the evidence of her working on Iran?
February 11th, 2007 at 5:11 pmI’m sure that if Libby and Cheney haven’t committed perjury or other obstruction, they can certainly explain who did and who is responsible for outing Valerie Plame on the stand. After all, they are outstanding men of integrity, good faith, etc.
Valerie Plame is getting some due process out of this, that alone should be good reason for the fine advocates of law and order to be pleased with the matter. We don’t want governance based in lies, smears, bad record keeping, amnesia, and ends-justifies-the-means behavior, do we? I mean, that undermines institutions and therefore the Republic, does it not?
February 11th, 2007 at 5:11 pmst-st-st-st-stuttering Simon, st-st-st-s-tuttering Simon should be indicted for being stupid. If I was a sadistic bully like George Bush, I’d stick a firecracker up his a- and light it, like George used to do to frogs when he was a kid.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:14 pmThere is no need to claim that anyone is lying, only that their memory of events is not clear, just as Libby’s memory is not clear.
Comment by Seixon
Yeh un-huh. The best advice you can ever hear from a lawyer are “I don’t recall”
We all know it’s a BS excuse. Admit it.
Libby didn’t get where he is by having a bad ‘misremember’
February 11th, 2007 at 5:14 pmjillian,
EARTH TO JILLIAN: Richard Armitage told Novak that Plame worked at the CIA.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:15 pmBut where’s the evidence of her working on Iran?
Comment by Seixon
It’s secret I can’t tell you, but she was.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:17 pmThere is no need to claim that anyone is lying, only that their memory of events is not clear, just as Libby’s memory is not clear.
Comment by Seixon
That’s crap. Go wash your hands.
I have an idea, let’s wait to hear what the JURY says!
February 11th, 2007 at 5:18 pmHiram,
If you asked me what I said 4 years ago and to whom, I’m not so sure I would be able to do anything but say, “I don’t recall.” Would you? Yes, the best advice from a lawyer would be to claim you don’t remember, as many of the witnesses called by the prosecution have already done, but that would also be the case if you actually can’t remember.
This is circular logic that is greatly used at Think Progress. Everything Bush says about Iran shows he has intentions of attacking Iran, but when Bush says he doesn’t intend on doing that, that means he is hiding it and wants to. In other words everything => Bush wants to attack Iran.
In the same manner:
everything => Libby is lying
says doesn’t remember => Libby lying
says something incorrect => Libby lying
other people not rememering => Libby lying
I love the logical reasoning of people at this site. It’s like watching a 9/11 conspiracy thread.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:20 pmIt’s secret I can’t tell you, but she was.
Heh, I think that sums it up in a nutshell ;)
February 11th, 2007 at 5:20 pmRichard Armitage told Novak that Plame worked at the CIA.
Comment by Seixon
And you believe that? Why? You don’t believe anything else. If that’s true why wasn’t Armitage charged?
February 11th, 2007 at 5:21 pmZooey,
Ah, but first up, the defense will call their witnesses. This should be fun.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:21 pmIt’s secret I can’t tell you, but she was.
Comment by Hiram not from Israel
Another type of offshoot of the “crawfish technique” to attempt get out of a tough spot in the middle of debate. Used exclusively by Democrats.
It should be read: “I just know these things and me alone”
February 11th, 2007 at 5:22 pmI have an idea, let’s wait to hear what the JURY says!
Yeh, Let them decide how ‘good’ his misremember was.
What is is.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:24 pmEven though Ari Fleischer testified to telling his subordinate, David Gregory? Even though Andrea Mitchell interviewed Wilson on MTP? Even though Mitchell wrote an article stating low-level operatives had sent Wilson? Even though Mitchell later stated that “everyone knew†that Plame was CIA?
There is your double standard right there. You’ll give Russert the benefit of the doubt, even though there is good reason not to, but you will not give Libby the same benefit of the doubt. Why?
===Which part of “he said he didn’t know” you don’t understand.
OK, so it doesn’t remember that someone else had already told her about Plame? It doesn’t matter that she might have confused conversations with Libby with other people? It doesn’t matter that she did not remember her interview with Libby in June? Ah, as we see, the only thing that matters to you is that Libby says he doesn’t remember some things, and that you call him a liar for, while everyone else gets a pass. Why is that exactly?
===Libby is the one who is on trial; Libby was one of her sources. Are you saying that Libby wasn’t a source?
He already has been on the stand, genius.
===I’m not following the trial as intensely as you. What was the problem with Cooper’s testimony?
Oh, OK. But not the guilty part – that has already been determined, right? LOL.
===He is guilty. You want us to believe that everyone is lying except Libby.
Ironically enough, the only real damaging testimony has come from the Bush administration in Ari Fleischer. The rest of the lot have demonstrated that they have very vague or inconsistent recollections of what happened, and that they don’t have much to go on as far as notes and documentary evidence goes.
There is no need to claim that anyone is lying, only that their memory of events is not clear, just as Libby’s memory is not clear.
===The totality of it has been damaging.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:24 pmIt’s secret I can’t tell you, but she was.
Heh, I think that sums it up in a nutshell ;)
Comment by Seixon
The truth is that YOU don’t know yet you keep on as if you do.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:26 pmHeh.
Naturally, working in the Counter Proliferation Division of the CIA would involve limiting the proliferation of unconventional weapons. Duh. But where’s the evidence of her working on Iran?
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html
February 11th, 2007 at 5:27 pmThis is circular logic that is greatly used at Think Progress. Everything Bush says about Iran shows he has intentions of attacking Iran, but when Bush says he doesn’t intend on doing that, that means he is hiding it and wants to. In other words everything => Bush wants to attack Iran.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
If he didn’t pull this same crap with Iraq, no one would be questioning the moron.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:32 pm#134 Seixon
Again, David Shuster or Larisa Alexandrovna saying it is so does not make it so.
I don’t accept your refusal to accept David Shuster as a reliable source.
Shuster (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/01.html#a8126): “Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran.”
He doesn’t have to reveal who those intelligence sources are. It’s his job to be reliable. It’s your job just to throw as much crap up against the wall as it takes for something to stick. So far, nada.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:33 pmComment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Except for the tiny little fact that the criminal charge is perjury.
It’s kinda funny, the whole Nixon White House had a collective case of memory failure, until the tapes showed up.
Next, ask yourself, how is it that Dick Cheney would tolerate a Chief of Staff with faulty memory?
How could Scooter handle the minutia of his job if he had difficulty remembering who he talked to and when?
February 11th, 2007 at 5:40 pmNat,
Libby is the one who is on trial; Libby was one of her sources. Are you saying that Libby wasn’t a source?
No, I’m saying that Miller claims not to remember who she talked to about Wilson before Libby, but for some reason remembers things about Libby, which she didn’t always remember.
I’m not following the trial as intensely as you. What was the problem with Cooper’s testimony?
Wow, what a surprise, that. Cooper’s testimony to the grand jury was at odds with what he told his editors at TIME, and Judge Walton noted that Cooper’s testimony in court could be impeached because of this.
He is guilty. You want us to believe that everyone is lying except Libby.
No, I’m not asking you to believe anything. I’m asking you to hold Libby to the same standard as everyone else. Most of the people have testified that their memory is very fuzzy and not corroborated by any notes.
The totality of it has been damaging.
You should really get out of Think Progress world once in a while and widen your horizons.
http://www.rawstory.com/ news/ 2005/ Outed_CIA_officer_was_working_on_0213.html
As I’ve already stated, Alexandrovna has reported many things that have never been corroborated, and she’s a stenographer for the VIPS group that has been carrying out propaganda on behalf of Plame since this whole thing started.
There is nothing in her article, aside from claims by “former intelligence officials” that Plame worked on Iran.
So, in other words, you believe that anonymous claims relayed to an alternative news journalist with a poor record of telling the truth is tantamount to “evidence” of something. Good grief, where have all the critical thinkers gone?
February 11th, 2007 at 5:43 pmComment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
I’m curious, how is it you readily dismiss everyone who says something negative about the Bush Administration, yet accept without question every claim made by someone in the Bush Administration?
February 11th, 2007 at 5:45 pm“Actually, according to the Democrats, these aren’t real crimes. At least they weren’t when Bill Clinton faced the same charges.”
Hacker Bob, I know this is really hard to understand. But lying about getting a blow job is NOT the same level of ill as lying about outing a CIA undercover agent. In fact, perjury has to do with relevant matters– that is, it’s not considered perjury that I, um, slightly understated my weight when I renewed my driver’s license. Whether or not Bill Clinton had sexual relations (and even what that refers to is open to debate– just ask a cross-section of men whether they think a blow-job is “sexual relations”) with Monica L doesn’t have relevance to whether he a decade before made a pass at Paula Jones. So even if he did lie, it wasn’t about anything relevant. Oh, and I know that this is really hard to imagine, but getting a blow job or even making a pass against Paula Jones is NOT a crime. Maybe they ought to be… but they aren’t.
However, Scooter Libby is accused of lying about something very relevant to the crime of outing a CIA agent. In fact, because he has apparently lied about what he said, who he said it to, and who told him to say it, the investigation was stymied. It is possible that when all the testimony is done, someone (named Cheney?) will be indicted for the original crime.
Now perhaps you personally think getting a blow job is MUCH more actionable than outing a CIA agent. But alas, the law books don’t agree with you. Go figure. I mean, imagine getting a blow job…. well, I know you can’t imagine that. I’m sure it’s much easier for you to imagine personally outing a CIA agent.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:50 pm#142 seixon
This is circular logic that is greatly used at Think Progress. Everything Bush says about Iran shows he has intentions of attacking Iran, but when Bush says he doesn’t intend on doing that, that means he is hiding it and wants to. In other words everything => Bush wants to attack Iran.
Nobody says that his denial proves that he plans to attack. The point is that he was vigorously denying that he had any intention of attacking Iraq while he had people in the White House leaking to the press that he was going to attack Iraq. It was common knowledge with the press, but all they could do was report it, they couldn’t report who it was that told them about it. That’s how the White House got everyone accustomed to the idea that we would invade Iraq, even while Bush was publicly denying it.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:50 pmBriseadh,
I’m curious, how is it you readily dismiss everyone who says something negative about the Bush Administration, yet accept without question every claim made by someone in the Bush Administration?
Care to demonstrate an example of this, because it sounds like a fat, juicy strawman to me. What you’re doing is projecting your own practice of doing the opposite – believe anyone who says something negative about the Bush administration and dismiss anyone who points out factual errors.
poper,
It is possible that when all the testimony is done, someone (named Cheney?) will be indicted for the original crime.
Nope. I’m sorry you’ve been misled into believing this, but Fitzgerald is done with his investigation. He has found no evidence that Plame was deliberately outed by anyone. The sooner you realize this, the better.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:55 pmAccording to liberals, perjury is NOT a real crime.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:55 pmpoper
I din’t know. Try lying to your missus about getting a blowjob and then lie to her about the neighbours having WMD. The smart money is on the wife getting more pis$$ed off about the BJ! :-)
February 11th, 2007 at 5:55 pmNo, I’m saying that Miller claims not to remember who she talked to about Wilson before Libby, but for some reason remembers things about Libby, which she didn’t always remember.
===It doesn’t in this particular case because Libby is the focus.
Wow, what a surprise, that. Cooper’s testimony to the grand jury was at odds with what he told his editors at TIME, and Judge Walton noted that Cooper’s testimony in court could be impeached because of this.
===What was the contradicted? Libby wasn’t his source?
No, I’m not asking you to believe anything. I’m asking you to hold Libby to the same standard as everyone else. Most of the people have testified that their memory is very fuzzy and not corroborated by any notes.
===In order to give Libby the benefit of the doubt, you have to believe everyone else is lying. You can do that, I won’t.
You should really get out of Think Progress world once in a while and widen your horizons.
===And go to some far right sight that reports opinion as fact.
As I’ve already stated, Alexandrovna has reported many things that have never been corroborated, and she’s a stenographer for the VIPS group that has been carrying out propaganda on behalf of Plame since this whole thing started.
===What else as she reported?
There is nothing in her article, aside from claims by “former intelligence officials†that Plame worked on Iran.
===She is reporting classified information; no one is willing to go on record.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:56 pmchimpeach,
Nobody says that his denial proves that he plans to attack.
Actually, that is exactly what several people on TP argued to me just the other day. They said that Bush’s denials prove that he is planning it.
The point is that he was vigorously denying that he had any intention of attacking Iraq while he had people in the White House leaking to the press that he was going to attack Iraq.
This isn’t accurate. Bush said he had not made the decision to attack Iraq yet, but he certainly did say that he would go the military route if Iraq did not comply with the UN, which Iraq ended up not doing. Bush said again and again that he would lead a coalition of the willing against Iraq if Iraq did not comply. He has said nothing of the sort about Iran.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:59 pmCare to demonstrate an example of this, because it sounds like a fat, juicy strawman to me. What you’re doing is projecting your own practice of doing the opposite – believe anyone who says something negative about the Bush administration and dismiss anyone who points out factual errors.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
===No factual errors have been pointed out.
Nope. I’m sorry you’ve been misled into believing this, but Fitzgerald is done with his investigation. He has found no evidence that Plame was deliberately outed by anyone. The sooner you realize this, the better.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
===Fitzgerald cannot indict him even if he wanted to.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:01 pmOk, here’s your “fat, juicy strawman:”
You’ve begged the question once. Care to try for strike two?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:02 pmSexion
Regardless of what Bush said before Iraq, the rest of the world believes that he is gung-ho enough to start another war.
OK, let’s be brutal. The world knows Bush mislead us about Iraq so no-one trusts anything he says now.
I’m afraid that’s the truth.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:03 pmCare to demonstrate an example of this
Comment by Seixon
1) Your opinions on Iraq occupation.
2) Your opinions on Climate Change.
3) Your opinions on Libby´s case.
You are boring us to death…
February 11th, 2007 at 6:06 pmActually, that is exactly what several people on TP argued to me just the other day. They said that Bush’s denials prove that he is planning it.
-Which poster?
This isn’t accurate. Bush said he had not made the decision to attack Iraq yet, but he certainly did say that he would go the military route if Iraq did not comply with the UN, which Iraq ended up not doing.
-He had already made to decision to invade.
-Iraq was complying and the war criminal attacked anyway.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pmNat,
What was the contradicted? Libby wasn’t his source?
I can’t recall exactly what it was, but I think he told his editor to change a quote he got from Libby. Libby said “I heard that too” to him, while I think first Cooper alleged that Libby brought up Plame. Judge Walton said that Cooper’s testimony could be impeached, go check it out.
In order to give Libby the benefit of the doubt, you have to believe everyone else is lying. You can do that, I won’t.
No, you don’t. You are thinking black/white here. What if people simply remember things wrong, aided along by the prosecution or media reports in their recollections? Doesn’t mean they are lying. Everyone can remember things wrongly. You seemed to gloss past all the problems with believing that Russert is telling the truth. There are reasons to believe that Libby and Russert aren’t being truthful, yet you only focus on Libby, even though most of the counts against Libby are based on what he said he heard from Russert.
And go to some far right sight that reports opinion as fact.
No, you can read documents and testimony for yourself instead of relying on others to tell you what it says. I’d say 99% of all misinformed views are created by relying on others to relate facts to you. Think Progress reports opinion as fact all the time, so does the Right. Only a fool believes “their” side isn’t guilty of doing it.
What else as she reported?
For starters, she claimed that I, yes I, had harassed her, stalked her, and threatened her. She sent a letter to my ISP alleging all sorts of lies about me to try and get them to shut down my blog. She is a liar, plain and simple. She and Jason Leopold churned out a great many articles in 2005 that were completely fraudulent. Go back and read her archives for yourself.
There’s a reason why Jason Leopold and Larisa Alexandrovna get a lot of “exclusive” scoops. Try and figure it out. What happened to Leopold should be a clue.
She is reporting classified information; no one is willing to go on record.
And that is the game they play. What if, oh I don’t know, it was BS? How would you know? What if, I don’t know, Larry Johnson and the VIPS group was peddling lies? Would you know the difference? Or would you just continue to blindly believe things that have not been documented?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pmRepublicans are incapable of committing a real crime…..haven’t you heard?
Ask Ollie North.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pmBriseadh,
All you have to do is come up with a single example. Insinuating that my blog will immediately prove you correct is a disingenuous attempt at evading having to prove your point.
UKBristolDave,
Many in the world certainly believe that Bush misled about Iraq, yet there is no hard evidence to show that is the case. Bush repeated what the intelligence agencies had found and published to Congress. The CIA screwed up, and have successfully smeared Bush with their failures.
Juan C,
1) Your opinions on Iraq occupation.
2) Your opinions on Climate Change.
3) Your opinions on Libby´s case.
1. My opinions on the Iraq invasion would have been the same regardless who was in the White House, so this is not an example at all.
2. My opinions on climate change are, again, not related to the Bush administration in the slightest. They are based on the facts as they exist, and the many examples of global warming alarmists making things up or misleading people with the science they say proves them right.
3. Ah, so “innocent unilt proven guilty” is me simply repeating what the White House says. Funny, I thought that was a legal principle all democracies cherished. Silly me.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:14 pmSeixon
Yeah, that speech in the UN by Powell wasn’t a masterclass in distortion was it?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:20 pmI can’t recall exactly what it was, but I think he told his editor to change a quote he got from Libby. Libby said “I heard that too†to him, while I think first Cooper alleged that Libby brought up Plame. Judge Walton said that Cooper’s testimony could be impeached, go check it out.
===I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Are you saying Libby wasn’t his source?
What if people simply remember things wrong, aided along by the prosecution or media reports in their recollections?
===I’m sure the defense asked that question. What did they say?
No, you can read documents and testimony for yourself instead of relying on others to tell you what it says. I’d say 99% of all misinformed views are created by relying on others to relate facts to you. Think Progress reports opinion as fact all the time, so does the Right. Only a fool believes “their†side isn’t guilty of doing it.
===Actually, I’m just waiting for him to be convicted and to see whether or not Bush will pardon him.
For starters, she claimed that I, yes I, had harassed her, stalked her, and threatened her. She sent a letter to my ISP alleging all sorts of lies about me to try and get them to shut down my blog. She is a liar, plain and simple. She and Jason Leopold churned out a great many articles in 2005 that were completely fraudulent. Go back and read her archives for yourself.
There’s a reason why Jason Leopold and Larisa Alexandrovna get a lot of “exclusive†scoops. Try and figure it out. What happened to Leopold should be a clue.
===What articles? And why are you stalking her?
And that is the game they play. What if, oh I don’t know, it was BS? How would you know? What if, I don’t know, Larry Johnson and the VIPS group was peddling lies? Would you know the difference? Or would you just continue to blindly believe things that have not been documented?
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
===What you’re basically saying is that no reporting is credible.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:23 pmNat,
Which poster?
One example:
He had already made to decision to invade.
How do you know? What evidence do you have to base that on? When did Bush decide? I don’t have a clue. Neither do you. My guess, from available documents that have been declassified, is January 2003.
Iraq was complying and the war criminal attacked anyway.
Hans Blix would have disagreed with you on January 27, 2003. Read his report.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:24 pmUKBristolDave,
Yeah, that speech in the UN by Powell wasn’t a masterclass in distortion was it?
You mean the one where the director of the CIA sat behind Powell and had vetted all the information in it? That one?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:25 pmThis guy would object to Al Capone being prosecuted by Eliot Ness for tax evasion.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:26 pmmaybe sexion missed this… deserves reposted…
the explanation from the man himself…
http://www.usdoj.gov/ usao/ iln/ osc/ documents/ 2005_10_28_fitzgerald_press_conference.pdf
scroll down to page 5, and read, “And with that I’ll take questions.â€
that first question and FITZGERALD’s answer are extrememly important…
remember this?:
February 11th, 2007 at 6:26 pm“And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice is the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes.“
…
libby threw sand in his face… when this obstruction is cleared up, there will be charges that amount to TREASON.
.
Comment by katy — February 11, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Nat,
I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Are you saying Libby wasn’t his source?
Rove was Cooper’s source, not Libby. Cooper tried to get it confirmed with Libby, and Libby told him, “I’ve heard that too.”
I’m sure the defense asked that question. What did they say?
Many of them said it was possible.
Actually, I’m just waiting for him to be convicted and to see whether or not Bush will pardon him.
I think Bush will pardon him. Clinton pardoned a bunch of criminals, why not pardon a guy convicted of the same offense as Clinton?
What articles? And why are you stalking her?
Articles about the Plame investigation, for one. I’m not stalking her, as her dozens of emails to me show.
What you’re basically saying is that no reporting is credible.
Reporting based solely on the claims of anonymous leakers is not all that credible, no. You need something more substantive than that to believe it, in my opinion. Leakers all have their reasons for leaking, some of which may be disinformation. You need to be able to independently corroborate their claims. If you can’t, what they’re saying is no more credible than random rumors. That’s been a large problem with the media, that anonymous leakers mislead the journalists and the public by extension.
Joe Wilson did this. He misled Nicholas Kristof and Walter Pincus into reporting that the OVP had known about his mission, and had known about the Niger forgeries.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:30 pmkaty,
That was over a year ago. Fitzgerald has since said he has no evidence of a crime being committed. Fitzgerald continued his investigation into Rove until the summer of 2006, after which he wrapped up the investigation and decided not to pursue charges against anyone else.
Let go.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:34 pmNat,
Which poster?
One example:
===I don’t disagree with him. I think they would come right and say “we war criminals are attacking Iraq.”
How do you know? What evidence do you have to base that on? When did Bush decide? I don’t have a clue. Neither do you. My guess, from available documents that have been declassified, is January 2003.
====Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, PNAC members being appointed to key positions in the Bush administration, the manipulation of intelligence, they didn’t go back for a vote at the UN, pulling the weapons inspector from Iraq before they completed their inspections and the Downing Street Memo.
Hans Blix would have disagreed with you on January 27, 2003. Read his report.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
===The report doesn’t disagree. He said there were minor problems that they were working through. Didn’t he have another report just before the war criminals invaded?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:37 pmSeixon EVERY piece of evidence you present is held in complete Isolation of all events before or after. Each piece nicely fits whatever position you want to support, but each is discarded as needed.
Its an amazing skill.
Rank Sophistry, but a skill nonetheless.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:42 pmRove was Cooper’s source, not Libby. Cooper tried to get it confirmed with Libby, and Libby told him, “I’ve heard that too.â€
===And this means…?
Many of them said it was possible.
===Who? And I’m sure the jury will take this into account before convicted him.
I think Bush will pardon him. Clinton pardoned a bunch of criminals, why not pardon a guy convicted of the same offense as Clinton?
===you can only pardon a criminal. Bush will pardon a lot of criminals including himself (if he’s not impeached).
Articles about the Plame investigation, for one. I’m not stalking her, as her dozens of emails to me show.
Which articles? And stop stalking her.
Reporting based solely on the claims of anonymous leakers is not all that credible, no. You need something more substantive than that to believe it, in my opinion. Leakers all have their reasons for leaking, some of which may be disinformation. You need to be able to independently corroborate their claims. If you can’t, what they’re saying is no more credible than random rumors. That’s been a large problem with the media, that anonymous leakers mislead the journalists and the public by extension.
===We’ll have to agree to disagree then.
Joe Wilson did this. He misled Nicholas Kristof and Walter Pincus into reporting that the OVP had known about his mission, and had known about the Niger forgeries.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
===The first part of your statement is a lie. He explained the mishap with the forgeries a long time ago.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pmThat was over a year ago. Fitzgerald has since said he has no evidence of a crime being committed. Fitzgerald continued his investigation into Rove until the summer of 2006, after which he wrapped up the investigation and decided not to pursue charges against anyone else.
Let go.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
When did he say this?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:53 pmNat,
OK, so you agree with the circular logic that anything indicates that Bush is going to attack Iran, and nothing can dispel that notion? Why am I not surprised?
Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, PNAC members being appointed to key positions in the Bush administration, the manipulation of intelligence, they didn’t go back for a vote at the UN, pulling the weapons inspector from Iraq before they completed their inspections and the Downing Street Memo.
OK, OK, back up the bus. When did Bush decide to invade Iraq and how do you know this? Be specific.
The report doesn’t disagree. He said there were minor problems that they were working through. Didn’t he have another report just before the war criminals invaded?
Ah, OK, so you say Iraq was complying, Blix says they weren’t, and you claim he’s not disagreeing with you. Alrighty then. Blix reported to the UN on March 7, 2003, where he gave Iraq a better grade of cooperation than in January, but still noted problems and that Iraq had tried to argue that some of their missiles were not proscribed.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then.
So you believe in every report that originates with anonymous leakers? Wow. You are truly a sucker.
The first part of your statement is a lie. He explained the mishap with the forgeries a long time ago.
Yes, I suppose Wilson “misspoke” in the same way to three different reporters, and applauded these stories written by these journalists at a conference in the middle of June without correcting the false information in them, and then proceeded to claim that the government, NOT THE CIA, had sent him. Yeah, just a huge misunderstanding. He “misspoke”. Over and over again. You are truly gullible aren’t you?
Wilson on June 14, 2003:
Wilson knew this wasn’t true, but said it anyways, then lied again later when he claimed that he never implied that Cheney had sent him. Keep believing him if you want. But there he is, on tape, lying.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:06 pmThat’s strike two. You’re supposed to provide your own citations, not tell someone else to do your research for you.
You’re also showing your ignorance of the rules of evidence. Any witness’s testimony could be impeached, so what you raise is a non-issue born of your own ignorance. STRIKE THREE – YOU’RE OUT.
But please play again, only, next time, hone your research skills first. Try using “the Google.”
February 11th, 2007 at 7:09 pmRoger Simon = bespectacled William Kristol
February 11th, 2007 at 7:16 pmOn Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked “TOP SECRET” that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.
Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, senior administration officials said.
The previously undisclosed Iraq directive is characteristic of an internal decision-making process that has been obscured from public view. Over the next nine months, the administration would make Iraq the central focus of its war on terrorism without producing a rich paper trail or record of key meetings and events leading to a formal decision to act against President Saddam Hussein, according to a review of administration decision-making based on interviews with more than 20 participants.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:18 pmBy the way, Seixon, it’s after 1 a.m. your time. Are you pulling another all-nighter?
February 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pmBnF,
must be another manic phase……………
February 11th, 2007 at 7:26 pmNo one will EVER win a debate with Seixon because he, like Cheney, refuses to accept any premise that may debunk his position. He thinks he knows everything and it is his duty to tell the rest of us his “truth”. Seixon is, in the end, just a very intelligent and master wordsmithing troll trying to divert attention and hijack threads. Rather than waste time trying to debate him, perhaps we should just respond along the lines of “OK, Seixon, whatever you say”.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:26 pmOK, so you agree with the circular logic that anything indicates that Bush is going to attack Iran, and nothing can dispel that notion? Why am I not surprised?
===I don’t know he’s going to attack. Past actions suggest that the war criminal is in attacking mode.
OK, OK, back up the bus. When did Bush decide to invade Iraq and how do you know this? Be specific.
===The day he entered office.
Ah, OK, so you say Iraq was complying, Blix says they weren’t, and you claim he’s not disagreeing with you. Alrighty then. Blix reported to the UN on March 7, 2003, where he gave Iraq a better grade of cooperation than in January, but still noted problems and that Iraq had tried to argue that some of their missiles were not proscribed.
===Blix said they were cooperating, letting the inspectors go wherever they wanted to. He wanted more time to complete the inspections but the war criminals pull him and the other inspectors.
So you believe in every report that originates with anonymous leakers? Wow. You are truly a sucker.
===Some reports I believe and some I don’t. I have no reason to doubt the reporting.
Yes, I suppose Wilson “misspoke†in the same way to three different reporters, and applauded these stories written by these journalists at a conference in the middle of June without correcting the false information in them, and then proceeded to claim that the government, NOT THE CIA, had sent him. Yeah, just a huge misunderstanding. He “misspokeâ€. Over and over again. You are truly gullible aren’t you?
===He knew who signed the receipt for the uranium and concluded they had to forgeries. Yes, mistakenly said he saw the forgeries.
I just want to assure you that that American ambassador who has been cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian over in London, who actually went over to Niger on behalf of the government, not of the CIA, but of the government
===He said in article in the NY times that the CIA sent him because the vice president’s office had some questions. I dont think what he says contradicts that.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:26 pmTrue – Looks like he’s gone. Sheesh. Just when I was starting to have fun….
February 11th, 2007 at 7:29 pmSo you believe in every report that originates with anonymous leakers? Wow. You are truly a sucker.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Where are the reports you said were fraudulent?
February 11th, 2007 at 7:31 pmComment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — February 11, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
Ok, PLC, whatever you say….
;-)
February 11th, 2007 at 7:31 pmBriseadh na Faire
OK, ok, I guess I earned that one!
February 11th, 2007 at 7:38 pmBriseadh,
Have you seen this Top Secret 2.5 page document? No, but you still believe you know what it says? Why? I love this:
Wow, isn’t that something. We know that they decided it, but apparently there was no paper trail to be found of this decision. In other words, we know it happened, we just don’t have any proof. And that, boys and girls, is how many a conspiracy theory is born. “The evidence that proves what I say has been destroyed!”
By the way, Seixon, it’s after 1 a.m. your time. Are you pulling another all-nighter?
1AM really isn’t all that late, and I have no intention of staying up all night. After all, I do have work tomorrow.
Nat,
The day he entered office.
OK, and now the evidence…?
Blix said they were cooperating, letting the inspectors go wherever they wanted to. He wanted more time to complete the inspections but the war criminals pull him and the other inspectors.
Well, that is a good way of presenting half the truth as the full truth. These “war criminals” were aware of the decade-long history of Iraq playing along with inspections and drawing them out for years and years while pretending to be “complying”. The “war criminals” recognized the one and only real problem in Iraq: Saddam Hussein.
Some reports I believe and some I don’t. I have no reason to doubt the reporting.
Exactly. Reading between the lines here, you believe anonymous reports that go along with your own political positions, and disbelieve ones that are contrary. You could not define yourself as a political partisan dupe better than that.
He knew who signed the receipt for the uranium and concluded they had to forgeries. Yes, mistakenly said he saw the forgeries.
Yet the CIA says they never told him this. The plot thickens. He mistakenly told three reporters the same story? I must say, that Wilson sure does have some tough luck.
He said in article in the NY times that the CIA sent him because the vice president’s office had some questions. I dont think what he says contradicts that.
Oh, you are so naive. You don’t see the brilliance in first leaking false information anonymously, and then correcting yourself when you go public when you realize the Bush administration is about to bust you for lying?
Wilson was betting on people like you saying, “Well look, he said the CIA sent him in his July 6 op-ed. He didn’t lie.” Yet then you ignore all the times he said that the Vice President sent him before that, anonymously. Such naivety.
Let me just cite that June 14 claim by Wilson again:
How you can defend such a plain lie by Wilson is pathetic. Wilson knew that the CIA sent him, yet here he said that was not the case. L. I. E.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:41 pmComment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — February 11, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
Ok, PLC, whatever you say….
;-)
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
(Although I loathe to admit my knowledge of the following person…)
Just like Larry the CableGuy would say,
February 11th, 2007 at 7:42 pm“I don’t care who you are – that’s funny right there!”
ChildrenofLir,
You are an insufferable pedophile.
I sense some pedophilia attacks coming up for you.
Just sayin…
A ” scullymania ” in your honor if you will…
February 11th, 2007 at 7:49 pm“OK,PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) , whatever you sayâ€.
Same applies to you sporto
February 11th, 2007 at 7:51 pmWell, that is a good way of presenting half the truth as the full truth. These “war criminals†were aware of the decade-long history of Iraq playing along with inspections and drawing them out for years and years while pretending to be “complyingâ€. The “war criminals†recognized the one and only real problem in Iraq: Saddam Hussein.
The war criminal got their war and searched for the stockpiles and found nothing. Apparently the inspections were working and Saddam was co-operating.
OK, and now the evidence…?
===The evidence is the PNAC document which looks like it was written by Hitler.
Exactly. Reading between the lines here, you believe anonymous reports that go along with your own political positions, and disbelieve ones that are contrary. You could not define yourself as a political partisan dupe better than that.
===If you give me a reason to doubt them, I will.
Yet the CIA says they never told him this. The plot thickens. He mistakenly told three reporters the same story? I must say, that Wilson sure does have some tough luck.
===When did the CIA say this?
Oh, you are so naive. You don’t see the brilliance in first leaking false information anonymously, and then correcting yourself when you go public when you realize the Bush administration is about to bust you for lying?
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
===So he said this and then corrected himself in the NY Times with or without provocation? Who called him out on it before his NY Times piece?
February 11th, 2007 at 7:57 pmNat,
The war criminal got their war and searched for the stockpiles and found nothing. Apparently the inspections were working and Saddam was co-operating.
Yes, and I’m sure the Iraqi people were delighted with all of Saddam’s “cooperation”.
The evidence is the PNAC document which looks like it was written by Hitler.
By that logic, then Clinton also decided in 1998 to invade Iraq with the Iraq Liberation Act. Or maybe not. You have no evidence for your claim, and now you’re just being ridiculous.
If you give me a reason to doubt them, I will.
So you believe ANYTHING as long as you aren’t given a reason to doubt it by someone else? Wow. Astonishing. A critical thinker you are not.
When did the CIA say this?
Oh, I don’t know, under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence?
So he said this and then corrected himself in the NY Times with or without provocation? Who called him out on it before his NY Times piece?
He had talked to Marc Grossman at the State Department, an old friend of his, and Grossman knew that the State Department and administration were going to rebut Wilson’s false anonymous allegations. Grossman testified to calling Wilson, or receiving a call from Wilson, before Wilson wrote his op-ed.
Wilson lied, Grossman tipped him off that they were going to rebut him, then he went public and corrected his own lies – except for the one where he maintained that the Vice President must have known about his mission. Instead of his anonymous leaks, where it was stated as fact that the State Department and OVP knew about his mission, he hedged himself a bit in his op-ed and said that he would have to believe based on prior government experience that the OVP would have been notified.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:06 pmComment by scully from scullyville
Give it up Rachel no one pays any attention to your ‘foley’ pedophilic posts anymore no matter what moniker you post that assinine buffoonery under.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:07 pmComment by Seixon — February 11, 2007
Dayumm, are you still going on about that what you don’t know?
I went to the beer store, the grocery store, took the dog for a walk, and Yawn..ZZZzzZZzzz
Give it a rest Jeebus Christ.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:10 pmThe problem, Seixon, with all your protestations about Wilson, is that they are off-topic. Wilson is not charged with lying, but Libby is.
And you fail, repeatedly, to provide citations for your allegations. Hence, for all we know YOU are lying!
February 11th, 2007 at 8:12 pmChildrenofLir,
You are an insufferable pedophile.
I sense some pedophilia attacks coming up for you.
Just sayin…
A †scullymania †in your honor if you will…
February 11th, 2007 at 8:13 pmYou are an insufferable pedophile -Rachel
You forget my list of REAL pedophiles Rachel?
Wanna see it again?
February 11th, 2007 at 8:18 pm* Republican County Commissioner Patrick Lee McGuire surrendered to police after allegedly molesting girls between the ages of 8 and 13.
Heh.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:20 pmBriseadh,
You’re right, Wilson isn’t charged with lying, because lying to the press is not a crime. Yet it is Wilson’s lies to the press that set all of this in motion. As for your claim that I don’t provide citations, I just cited an MP3 of Wilson’s lie in mid-June 2003. What, you can’t accept the words coming straight out of the horse’s mouth?
If you feel I need to document something more clearly, just ask. I have already cited where I got the information from. I cited an MP3 of Wilson’s statement, I have cited the trial testimony of Marc Grossman, what else do you want documented?
February 11th, 2007 at 8:23 pmVice President Dick Cheney is expected to make a “historic appearance” on the witness stand at the trial for his former aide, I. Lewis Libby, who is accused of obstructing justice and lying to officials investigating the Bush Administration’s alleged “outing” of a CIA officer, Monday’s New York Times reports.
Heres another bone for ya to chew over and over and over
February 11th, 2007 at 8:31 pmYou’re right, Wilson isn’t charged with lying, because lying to the press is not a crime.
Duh. Hello.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:33 pmYes, and I’m sure the Iraqi people were delighted with all of Saddam’s “cooperationâ€.
===I would think so. If he had those weapons he could have used on them. Or he could have used them on American troops after Bush invaded.
By that logic, then Clinton also decided in 1998 to invade Iraq with the Iraq Liberation Act. Or maybe not. You have no evidence for your claim, and now you’re just being ridiculous.
===The Iraq Liberation Act specially stated not to invade. The Iraq Liberation Act came to fruition only after the PNAC urged him to invade Iraq. On the other hand, the Hitlerish document by the PNAC said to invade after a “new pearl harbor” because only then can a war be justified.
So you believe ANYTHING as long as you aren’t given a reason to doubt it by someone else? Wow. Astonishing. A critical thinker you are not.
===I have no reason to doubt the reporting. If you post the fraudulent reporting you claimed they did, I will disavow the article.
Oh, I don’t know, under oath before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence?
===You’re right.
He had talked to Marc Grossman at the State Department, an old friend of his, and Grossman knew that the State Department and administration were going to rebut Wilson’s false anonymous allegations. Grossman testified to calling Wilson, or receiving a call from Wilson, before Wilson wrote his op-ed.
Wilson lied, Grossman tipped him off that they were going to rebut him, then he went public and corrected his own lies – except for the one where he maintained that the Vice President must have known about his mission. Instead of his anonymous leaks, where it was stated as fact that the State Department and OVP knew about his mission, he hedged himself a bit in his op-ed and said that he would have to believe based on prior government experience that the OVP would have been notified.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
-You may be right again.
-Now how do these misspeak or lies affect his uranium claim?
February 11th, 2007 at 8:34 pmComment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Sorry, Seixon, doesn’t count. You didn’t provide links. For all I know, you’re just making things up and/or taking statements out of context. But that’s ok. You can do that because you’re not under oath, right?
February 11th, 2007 at 8:34 pmSo Wilson may have lied to the press.
Whooop de doooo!!
It pales in comparison to the lies spouted by the BK.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:37 pmYou’re right, Wilson isn’t charged with lying, because lying to the press is not a crime. Yet it is Wilson’s lies to the press that set all of this in motion. As for your claim that I don’t provide citations, I just cited an MP3 of Wilson’s lie in mid-June 2003. What, you can’t accept the words coming straight out of the horse’s mouth?
If you feel I need to document something more clearly, just ask. I have already cited where I got the information from. I cited an MP3 of Wilson’s statement, I have cited the trial testimony of Marc Grossman, what else do you want documented?
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
He did not see the forgeries and the VP did not send him, this means…?
February 11th, 2007 at 8:39 pmComment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — February 11, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
:-D
I couldn’t resist. Now I’m just kickin’ and having fun keeping Seixon up all night. He’s still going strong at 2:30 a.m. his time, and he has to go to work tomorrow!
February 11th, 2007 at 8:40 pmIn late February of 2002, Wilson was sent to Niger on behalf of the CIA to investigate the possibility that Saddam Hussein had a deal to buy enriched uranium yellowcake. Wilson met with the current Ambassador, Owens-Kirkpatrick, at the embassy, and was informed that she had already debunked that story.
Doesn’t really matter about the Wilson yellowcake claim Seixon. It was debunked before Wilson ever went.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:54 pmNext thing ya know Seix will be defending 8Ball.
Heh.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:55 pmJet Mech,
Cheney testifying will surely be a big feast in the media. A historic event is always great fun.
Nat,
Bush was not a member of PNAC, thus you cannot use their document, which does not state explicitly to invade Iraq as far as I know, to prove when Bush decided to invade Iraq.
Also, I note again that you will believe any anonymous report until it is disproven. I’d suggest another approach: believing an anonymous report when it is corroborated by other information. To each his own, though.
Wilson’s lies affect the uranium claim because his own report did not debunk the notion that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. In fact, the CIA noted that his chat with the PM in Niger provided slight credibility to the notion that Iraq had sought uranium there. Wilson, in essence, accused the Vice President of purposely ignoring a report that debunked what the president said in the SOTU, even though the report did not debunk it, nor did the VP know about it.
Briseadh,
I provided a link to an MP3 of Wilson speaking above, please check it out instead of being dishonest. Now I’m heading for the covers. Have fun listening to Wilson lie.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:55 pmBush was not a member of PNAC
Jeb Bush was. Heh.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:57 pmWilson’s lies affect the uranium claim because his own report did not debunk the notion that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger.
No, read my post above, Owens=Kirkpatrick debunked it as well.
February 11th, 2007 at 8:58 pmHe had talked to Marc Grossman at the State Department, an old friend of his, and Grossman knew that the State Department and administration were going to rebut Wilson’s false anonymous allegations. Grossman testified to calling Wilson, or receiving a call from Wilson, before Wilson wrote his op-ed.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
Where can I find this info?
February 11th, 2007 at 8:58 pmCheney testifying will surely be a big feast in the media. A historic event is always great fun.
Naw, fun would be putting these guys in a ring and let them duke it out!
February 11th, 2007 at 9:01 pmBush was not a member of PNAC, thus you cannot use their document, which does not state explicitly to invade Iraq as far as I know, to prove when Bush decided to invade Iraq.
===Richard Cheney -Vice President, Donald Rumsfeld – Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz – Deputy Secretary of Defense, Lewis “Scooter” Libby – Chief of Staff for the Vice President, Richard Armitage – Deputy Secretary of State any many others who were signers to that Hitlerish document are/were in the Bush administration.
Also, I note again that you will believe any anonymous report until it is disproven. I’d suggest another approach: believing an anonymous report when it is corroborated by other information. To each his own, though.
===You said there was fraudulent reporting. Post them.
Wilson’s lies affect the uranium claim because his own report did not debunk the notion that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. In fact, the CIA noted that his chat with the PM in Niger provided slight credibility to the notion that Iraq had sought uranium there. Wilson, in essence, accused the Vice President of purposely ignoring a report that debunked what the president said in the SOTU, even though the report did not debunk it, nor did the VP know about it.
===He said he found no evidence to support the claim.
===if the CIA thought it lent slight credibility the administration should have conveyed that. Also the INR said after Wilson’s trip it strengthened their position the Iraq did not seek uranium.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:11 pmWhere can I find this info?
Comment by Nat
Seixon’s greatest source — his ass.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:12 pmWilson’s lies affect the uranium claim because his own report did not debunk the notion that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. In fact, the CIA noted that his chat with the PM in Niger provided slight credibility to the notion that Iraq had sought uranium there.
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
The PM said the Iraq was seeking uranium because he had a gut feeling something. How Wilson or anyone else suppose to take him seriously.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:21 pmYou say nobody cares, but I care. Does that make me a nobody. After all, we have impeached presidents for a lot less. Frankly I have to say you are full of horse ____ (expletive for manure).
February 11th, 2007 at 9:26 pmOnce and for all……Clinton didn’t commit a crime! Purgery is a crime ONLY when the lie is material to the case. If you lie about your golf score when the case is about a stolen car is not a crime…Lying about your golf score when you used that score to cheat somone out of there house would be a crime if the trial is about trying to get your house back… Clinton did not commit a crime. Libby is being accused about lying about something that the investigation is about. That would be a CRIME.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:37 pmScooter’s a lawyer, right? Well, once he’s found guilty of perjury, I guess he’ll have to be disbarred. After all, that’s what gets the right making panty pudding about Clinton, right? Too bad Scooter didn’t at least get a blowjob for his trouble, instead of having to providing oral to the Veep.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:04 pmnumbskull, here again?; please go somewhere else to play with yourself! I guess georgie and dick are too busy to acknowldge you tonight. Again, go somewhere else, a place that suits your inellect more, like a busy interstate!
February 11th, 2007 at 11:15 pmSo, in Simon’s world only Democrats commit crimes — like Clinton or maybe Martha Stewart.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:30 pmRight! Ask Martha Stewart if lying to investigators and grand juries and obstructing justice is a crime or not. Didn’t matter whether she did the “crime” or not … that’s not the issue here or then but what one swore to under oath. But he’ll get his pardon for falling on the sword for Cheney.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:42 pmLOL … saw an SUV with the best bumper sticker of all time today …
AT LEAST W HAD AN EXIT STRATEGY FOR NAM!!!!
February 11th, 2007 at 11:47 pmScrew Scooter’s little Liescapdes. I want something done about “Big Dick” Cheney and his very own little shadow presidency that’s totally above the law and outside of anyone’s oversight, according to “Big Dick” and his minions.
Scooter’s small game compared to “Big Dick”. The phrase “high crimes and treason” comes to mind. I so look forward to the day I watch Dick being led off in an orange jumpsuit w/ his wrists shackled to his waiste.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:58 amOn the other hand Simon looks like the kind of a guy that would love to be caged with a group of burly men …
February 12th, 2007 at 12:58 amYou mean the one where the director of the CIA sat behind Powell and had vetted all the information in it? That one?
Comment by Seixon — February 11, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
Oh, you referring to this speech by Powell? From interview of the former chief of the CIA’s Europe division, Tyler Drumheller, by Spiegel Online; link here.
SPIEGEL: The German government was convinced that “Curveball” would not be used in the now famous presentation that then US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave in 2003 before the United Nations Security Council.
Drumheller: I had assured my German friends that it wouldn’t be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: “Hey Boss, be careful with that German report. It’s supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that.” He said: “Yeah, yeah. Right. Dont worry about that.”
SPIEGEL: But it turned out to be the centerpiece in Powell’s presentation — and nobody had told him about the doubts.
Drumheller: I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it.
SPIEGEL: So the White House just ignored the fact that the whole story might have been untrue?
Drumheller: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy.
Hmmm.
February 12th, 2007 at 1:02 amlying about consentual sex
vs.
lying about compromising national security
February 12th, 2007 at 1:41 amComment by the republic of stupidity — February 12, 2007 @ 12:58 am
That is “Little Dick” Cheney, he has no sack as well.
Yeah Clinton lied under oath and was impeached for it. At least what Libby is lying about has legs unlike the whole Ken Starr showboat. Give Fitz $60-70 million and see what he comes up with. Wat more than someone lying about a blow job.
GIVE BUSH AND CHENEY ONE MORE TERM — LIFE IN PRISON
February 12th, 2007 at 1:42 amWC: Yeah, it’s awesome how all these CIA folks knew all the intelligence was juiced, but decided to wait until after the invasion to tell anyone. Oh, not to mention that they have no evidence of what they claim, other than their word being taken as gospel by a all too eager media.
Show me the phone records. Show me the memos. Show me anything that actually corroborates what Drumheller is claiming. Blindly believing people is not my cup of tea.
February 12th, 2007 at 3:26 amRepublicans are pathological liars.
February 12th, 2007 at 6:38 amre#246 trueblue
Following your lead:
Two six ton jet engines that burn jet fuel are “boiled” away by a jet fuel fire.
How STUPID do you have to be to believe something like that!
February 12th, 2007 at 7:59 amDidn’t that nice Kay Baily Hutcheson bring us through this non-sensical talking point? And was swatted down quickly. What happened to the rule of law Republicans?
February 12th, 2007 at 10:43 amDidn’t that nice Kay Baily Hutcheson bring us through this non-sensical talking point? And was swatted down quickly. What happened to the rule of law Republicans?
Comment by ForTruth — February 12, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Yes, and then she backpedaled. Just give Simon a couple of days and he’ll whip out the “I was misquoted” BS.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:05 pmSince when are reckless endangerment and treason not crimes?
February 12th, 2007 at 12:11 pmComment by Lucifer — February 12, 2007 @ 3:26 am
And would you and all the Bush lovers in America believed Drumheller if he had gone public with this info prior to the invasion? Hell no. Bush was too busy ratcheting up public fear by raising the terror threat level over the objections of Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge.
And besides that (and I know that it’s near impossible for your small brain to wrap itself around this, but try to keep up), sometimes your position in a company or organization requires that you just keep your mouth shut if you value your current and future career (and possibly your life). Years ago I was a tech support person for a major cable company. It would have been a simple thing to tell our customers that, yes, you are correct Mr. Joe Sixpack in saying that sometimes our service sucks, and let me tell you why, but as insignificant as I might have been in the corporate world, I needed a job and the company required me to support it no matter what. Were people harmed by our poor service? Other than possibly missing that all important football game on Sunday due to a cable outage, the answer, I believe, would be “no.” But had I spilled the beans and management got wind of it, I’d had been escorted to the front door.
As for Drumheller, did you read the entire interview to which I linked? I’d say that based on his position in the CIA, he knows what he is talking about. He knew that “Curveball” could not be trusted. He warned his superior about this and was assured it would be addressed. It was not.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pmSexion: “Bush was not a member of PNAC, thus you cannot use their document, which does not state explicitly to invade Iraq as far as I know, to prove when Bush decided to invade Iraq.”
This is how you know Sexion is an intellectually dishonest operative who uses obfuscation and distortion to cloud the issue. Bush’s brother Jeb and most of the members of his inner circle signed the PNAC document. I think that on this issue at least, it’s important to remember that Sexion’s goal is to muddy the waters and spread confusion.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:22 pm…”pay no attention to that propagandist in the msm”…
…whomever he/she might be…
Bush, Cheney and the ENTIRE Republican Party and their supporters…
…you know who they are…
…your family, your co-workers, your neighbors, acquaintences and friends…
…are ALL TRAITORS…
…who refuse to see this criminal “al Crackkker” warmongering/profiteering regime…
…for what it really is…
…a corporate-owned subsidiary of AIPAC and the House of Saud…strong>
February 12th, 2007 at 12:23 pmLet’s recall for a moment what the politicians who Sexion supports said about crimes of this nature back in ‘99:
Sen. Brownback: “Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government.” [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]
Sen. Hutchison: “The reason that I voted to remove him from office is because I think the overridding issue here is that truth will remain the standard for perjury and obstruction of justice in our criminal justice system and it must not be gray. It must not be muddy.” [AP, 2/12/99]
Sen. McConnell: “I am completely and utterly perplexed by those who argue that perjury and obstruction of justice are not high crimes and misdemeanors…Perjury and obstruction hammer away at the twin pillars of our legal system: truth and justice.” [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]
Sen. Frist: “There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors…Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor…The crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice are public crimes threatening the administration of justice.” [Congressional Record, 2/12/99]
February 12th, 2007 at 12:25 pmShow me the phone records. Show me the memos. Show me anything that actually corroborates what Drumheller is claiming. Blindly believing people is not my cup of tea.
Comment by Lucifer — February 12, 2007 @ 3:26 am
I don’t have to show you any phone records or memos. Given the fact that there were no WMD’s in Iraq, which means they were not a threat to their neighbors or to the U.S. (a point made by both Powell and Rice in early and mid-2001 when they said that the sanctions against Iraq were working, Saddam was not capable of starting a WMD program, and that Iraq was contained), I think that Drumheller’s points have been proven.
As for blindly believing people, how many times have you “blindly” believed Bush and members of his administration when they have made various claims? Have you demanded phone records or memos? Wild Dick Cheney has said in public that the insurgents were in “their last throes.” Did you believe him, or did you want to see the proof in the face of sustained and/or increasing attacks on our troops by those “last throes” insurgents? Don Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMDs were located. Did you blindly believe him, or did you demand that the phone calls and memos and satellite photos be released to the public so that you could sort through the intelligence yourself before agreeing or disagreeing with his conclusion? When Dick Cheney said that America would surely be attacked again if Kerry was elected president, did you blindly believe him, or did you ask for proof? Or did you just trust that Cheney and Rumsfeld knew what they were talking about because…well, just because they said so?
February 12th, 2007 at 12:32 pm249: ain’t it cute that people argue about what Dubbie did or didn’t do, when it’s old news that he just does what his Boss tells him to do anyway??
February 12th, 2007 at 12:34 pmBUT PEOPLE!!!!!
February 12th, 2007 at 1:38 pmANNA NICOLE SMITH IS DEAD!
Who cares about treason and looming war with Iran?
Could anything Wilson may or may not have done justify the Bush administrations vendetta? The Wilson bashers’ misdirections only work on the easily suggestable. It boils down to this. The CIA asked the justice department to investigate the outing of of a deep cover operative working on nuclear proliferation issues in Iran. It is becoming increasingly apparent that a campaign against Wilson including the outing of his wife was orchestrated by Cheney with Bush’s blessing. This doesn’t come as news to those of us in the reality-based community. In order to protect himself and his boss, Scooter lied repeatedly to a grand jury. He’s going down.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pmSo when are we going to start prosecuting people for fake crimes and cancel everybody loves raymond?
February 12th, 2007 at 3:30 pmOf course it’s a real crime, even when Slick Willie lied, even though at that time it was the Dems who said, oh lying about sex isn’t a crime. It is if it’s under oath!! Doesn’t matter who does the lying and for what reason. a LIE is a LIE! Perjury is Perjury!!!
February 12th, 2007 at 3:53 pm#254 a deep cover operative?? Surely you jest. She was a desk jockey in washington and get her hubby a cushy little deal going to nigeria. Deep cover operative?? Oh PULEAZE!!!!!!
February 12th, 2007 at 3:58 pmDouglas, Valerie Plame ran a CIA front operation called Brewster-Jennings and Assoc., I believe. The company was a long-running operation designed to track the proliferation of illegal nuclear weapons. Conservatives evidently do not think this is important work. Strange. The day after Bob Novak published the name of her company, the operation was through. Now, I ask you: if Al Gore said something to a member of the media which led to the ruining of an intelligence asset like this, what would republicans have said?
February 12th, 2007 at 5:03 pmComment by Douglas G. — February 12, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
Your boyfriend Roger Simon, quoted at the top of this thread, says that she was an agent who was outed. You calling Simon a liar?
February 12th, 2007 at 5:26 pmOf course it’s a real crime, even when Slick Willie lied, even though at that time it was the Dems who said, oh lying about sex isn’t a crime. It is if it’s under oath!! Doesn’t matter who does the lying and for what reason. a LIE is a LIE! Perjury is Perjury!!!
Comment by Douglas G. — February 12, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
No…the Dems said that lying about sex did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. If Clinton had stolen a crate of bananas from the local market and then lied about it to a grand jury, would you still throw him out of office?
Funny that one of the supposed crimes that Clinton committed was giving away national secrets to China. Why didn’t you and your wonderful Republicans impeach him over that? Huh? No evidence? Not as hot and steamy as revealing a sexual affair carried on by the President?
February 12th, 2007 at 5:31 pmSimple Roger Simon met a pieman going to the fair;
Said Simple Roger Simon to the pieman “Let me taste your ware”
Said the pieman to Simple Roger Simon “Show me first your penny”
Said Simple Simon to the pieman “Sir, I have not any!”
Simple Roger Simon went a-fishing for to catch a whale;
February 12th, 2007 at 9:42 pmAll the water he had got as in his mother’s pail.
Simple Roger Simon went to look if plums grew on a thistle;
He pricked his fingers very much which maded poor Simon whistle.
He went for water in a sieve but soon it all fell through;
And Simple Roger Simon would have us believe the Libby case is nutty
Which makes me wonder if Simple Roger Simon’s brain is made of putty
Or if Simple Roger Simon’s lack of common sense
Made him ask to sample pieman’s ware without any cents!
Any one of America’s People can very clearly see that Scooter Libby
Is as GUILTY AS SIN, LIED TO THE GRAND JURY, and is no better than a common skivvy!
Simple Roger Simon would have us believe Libby didn’t commit a real crime!
I wouldn’t give A RAT’s ASS for Simon’s DAMNABLE LYING, let alone a plugged dime!!!!!
So Simple Roger Simon, CRAWL BACK UNDER THE ROCK YOU CREPT FORTH FROM,
And Hope to God we don’t put you in a STOCKS and THROW ROTTEN TOMATOES AT YOU, YOU DUM-DUMB!
And now poor Simple Roger Simon bids you all “Adieu”!
Simple simon is an example of everything wrong with what passes for journalists today. Condescending, wrong and partisan.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:05 am