VIDEO: Fitzgerald Speaks Out On Libby Verdict
VIDEO: Fitzgerald Speaks Out On Libby Verdict
At his post-verdict press conference, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said Libby had “lied and obstructed justice in a serious matter. The results are actually sad. It’s sad that we had a situation where a high-level official — a person who worked in the office of the Vice President — obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that had not happened.”
Fitzgerald added, “it’s not the verdict that justifies the investigation, it’s the facts.”
The Nation’s David Corn asked Fitzgerald to comment on his previous courtroom assertion that, “There is a cloud over the vice president…There is a cloud over the White House.” Fitzgerald responded that “the fact that there was a cloud over anyone was not our doing, it was the facts of the case, [and] it was aggravated by Mr. Libby telling falsehoods.”
Watch it:
UPDATE: White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says the White House will continue its “principled stand” of not commenting:
PERINO: I know that there’s going to be a lot of disappointment with this, but there is an ongoing criminal proceeding. Scooter Libby’s attorneys just announced that they are going to ask for a new trial, and that they are going to, failing that, they would appeal the verdict. And so our principled stand of not commenting on ongoing legal investigations is going to continue.
UPDATE II: Fmr. Ambassador Joseph Wilson on MSNBC’s Countdown and CNN’s Larry King Live tonight.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh shit man, not the facts!!!!! Bush et al hate the facts!
March 6th, 2007 at 1:13 pmRepeat this often and loud.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pmtsk, why do facts hate America?
March 6th, 2007 at 1:16 pmOOPS! There goes your trial against Cheney et. all. Down the “cess-pool” drain.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:16 pmShame he isn’t planning on pursuing further. Time for Congress to give him a mandate to do just that.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:16 pmAh, Fitzie! I love him so much. He deserves a medal. But if I were him, I would watch my back. who knows what kind of friends Cheney has. He’s wounded this administration mortally, and such things are not easily forgiven.
At the very least, as far as US attorneys pursuing republicans go, he has gone the furtherest, so I would not be surprised if Gonzalez will be asking for his resignation, like he has done with the other US attroneys.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:19 pmComment by Real RedNeck
Your name is the only thing we agree with you about.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:20 pmThis Fitz guy is a lying DNC paid scumbag. I’m furios at the verdict.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:22 pmsad little redneck. All your heroes are proving to be paper tigers. full of buckshot.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pmNow hopefully the press will begin reporting on the backstory:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/26/MNG62FDUGL1.DTL
March 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pmAt least we know that Fitz said “there is NO DOUBT that Mrs. Wilson was in a classified position”.
The only reason we are not getting these traitors on outing her is that the outing was done by the VP and that makes it no longer classified info. Quite the loophole these cowards get to use against our country. at least they are consistant. They hate our troops, our constitution, our CIA officers, and the Countrys founding principles.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:24 pmI do HATE these people.
And so our principled stand of not commenting on ongoing legal investigations is going to continue.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
March 6th, 2007 at 1:24 pmOOPS! There goes your trial against Cheney et. all. Down the “cess-pool†drain.
Comment by Real Sap
If you didn’t know, Cheney is still going to civil court, and this conviction all but assures he’s going to lose to the Wilsons. Have a nice day.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:25 pmHow Ironic that Redstate’s website is down now.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:25 pmPrinciple stand. That’s rich.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pmI suggest we flood the MSM with letters to the editor demanding that they keep asking “What did the President and Vice President know and when did they know it” until we get a straight answer from the administration.
letters@washpost.com
March 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pmletters@nytimes.com
letters@sfchronicle.com
Editors@newsweek.coml
letters@time.com
I hope this is the proverbial straw. One down, more to go. This administration is criminal, and this conviction is just the tip.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pmWhite House spokeswoman Dana Perino says the White House will continue its “principled stand†of not commenting:
Typical but not suprising! Justice is coming Cheney, better retire before he has to answer.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:30 pmI would not be surprised if Gonzalez will be asking for his resignation, like he has done with the other US attroneys.
Not an “if”, but a “when”. I’m guessing next week.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:30 pmI think the blood clots are going to magically force Cheney to retire and they will put Mitt Romney in to take over the bully pulpit.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:34 pmFitzgerald is correct that this is a very sad thing to see someone like Libby actually lie under Oath. He also pointed out that there is no proof of the VP and the Pres having anything to do with it.
They should continue the investigation, but I trust Fitzgerald was a good prosecuter.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:35 pmClearly Fitzgerald believes that Cheney is responsible for obstructing justice by working with Scooter to concoct a false story, and presumably he also believes that Cheney directed the outing of Plame. His words might be interpreted to mean that he can only pursue Cheney if Scooter or someone else rolls over. But perhaps he is avoiding the case on the grounds that Cheney could skirt charges on the theory that the VP has legal authority to declassify information. In any case, Congress has a great opportunity to hold hearings and subpoena Cheney.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:36 pmLibby should’ve stuffed some classified documents down his pants; he would’ve gotten away with it.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:37 pm“principled stand”… you mean like that principled vow to “fire anyone associated with this leak” and then proceed to protect Turd Blossom Rove and Cheney? oh, THAT principled stand…
March 6th, 2007 at 1:38 pmHe also pointed out that there is no proof of the VP and the Pres having anything to do with it.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Uh, exactly where did you hear this, Roger? Voices in your head don’t count.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:38 pm“OOPS! There goes your trial against Cheney et. all. Down the “cess-pool†drain.
Comment by Real RedNeck”
um, its et al. not et. all. from et alii (et al.)
March 6th, 2007 at 1:38 pmNow Bush will pardon Libby to make this case “go away”… after all, if Scooter gets a 30-year sentence and rolls on his boss… well, that just won’t do.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pm#21
this is more incriminating to dick(cheney) than to scooter. it shows the lengths scooter would go to protect the vp who in fact went to great lengths to discredit wilson because dickeydoo was determined to go into iraq and NOONE better not come with info to discredit his claim. dickeydoo has ALOT of explaining to do.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pmLibby should’ve stuffed some classified documents down his pants; he would’ve gotten away with it.
Comment by Dale — March 6, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Wow. Wrong twice in one talking point. Berger did not “stuff” documents “down his pants”. And he didn’t get away with what he did do, either. He pled guilty to charges and lost his security clearance and paid a big fine, and it is an ugly mark on him.
Idiot.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:41 pmUh, exactly where did you hear this, Roger? Voices in your head don’t count.
Comment by VerbalKint — March 6, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
That’s just what Seixon told him ;)
March 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pmisn’t this considered an enabler to TREASON and dickeydoo and co as we all know are the treason masters.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pmWhat a nice way to start off the morning. I hope that this is only the beginning of some better days to come. I’ll just bet Dick’s spincter is cutting off blood supply to his brain, at this point. -heh-
March 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm#11 The only reason we are not getting these traitors on outing her is that the outing was done by the VP and that makes it no longer classified info.
Not true. From what I understand, by statute, declassification can only come from the original classifying authority. The Prez or the VP can direct that authority to declassify, but can not unilaterally do it themselves.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pmLibby’s attorneys will ask for a new trial or appeal. Now let’s see a grandjury found his guilty then the trial jurors found him guilty again. So now it’s up to Gonzales to hire a DOJ lawyer who will be as corrupt as the White House and follow the Bush policy and drop all charges as if your a GOP you can commit crimes and policy. But Dems can be charged falsely and that is the new Bush legal system. The White House will fire Patrick J. Fitzgerald as he works for Justice and that’s not what this country is about anymore. Bush will put the right people in place to continue the crime wave and Americans will continue to say there’s nothing they can do about it. Yes Osama did his homework about Bush/Cheney and Americans. No need to be attacked ever again we are letting the enemy from within to destroy the United States of America. The media will do as their told and spin this one most like make Fitzgerald the criminal for even bringing charges against a White House criminal staffer. No one told the jury that the Bush policy was the new law.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:45 pm“principled stand” has to be the most outrageously laughable phrase to come out of the White House in the last 6+ years.
principle, in this context, must mean “unwavering devotion to hiding the truth and covering our own asses”, inasmuch as that could be called a “principle”….
how soviet can we get?
March 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pmthis administration explain anything? that’s funny. I got a real chuckle out of that one.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pm#25 I didn’t “hear” it, it is obvious. This is the man afterall that investigated this crime. How in the hell would you assume he found incriminating evidence against Bush or Cheney yet didn’t prosecute them? It is obvious because he DID NOT produce charges against them after his investigation meaning he found no evidence. Seems very cut and dry. When you investigate a crime and find no evidence against someone, you can’t prosecute. Since he didn’t prosecute, he did find evidence. Man, having to spell this stuff out is odd. Your brighter then that VerbalKink
March 6th, 2007 at 1:48 pm#29, he paid a $10,000 fine and lost his security clearance for three years. “ugly mark”… wanna place a bet that if Hillary wins the presidency that he plays a big part of her WH staff? In the Nat’l Security Advisor’s office, if not getting the title himself?
“Ugly mark” indeed.
Being a Democrat means never having to say your sorry.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:53 pmI think the blood clots are going to magically force Cheney to retire and they will put Mitt Romney in to take over the bully pulpit.
Comment by The Amazing Kreskin
Evil dick or unprincipled mitt, evil or unprincipled? Rethugs really don’t have a deep pool to draw from.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pmRepublican to English dictionary:
“principled stand” (n): Continued stonewalling in the face of obvious wrongdoing.
This has been a public service of the Dubya Obfuscation Explication Service (”DOES”, pronounced “dohs”). No charge, no need for thanks.
Cheers,
March 6th, 2007 at 1:55 pmExample of RW commentary:
“This Fitz guy is a lying DNC paid scumbag [sic]. I’m furios [sic] at the verdict.” — firehead
Oh, look over there: Cuss words on a left wing blog. Time for a blogger ethics panel….
Cheers,
March 6th, 2007 at 1:58 pmMore proof there is no evidence against Cheney or Bush:
FITZGERALD: “I DO NOT EXPECT TO FILE ANY FURTHER CHARGES AGAINST ANYONE… THE INVESTIGATION IS INACTIVE”
March 6th, 2007 at 1:58 pm“He also pointed out that there is no proof of the VP and the Pres having anything to do with it.”
Roger_Roger, that statement and the back pedalling you just did don’t have any resemblence to each other. Your logic may in fact be valid, but what you said was simply not true… Fitz didn not point out any such thing. You deduced it yourself.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:00 pmFirst this:
He also pointed out that there is no proof of the VP and the Pres having anything to do with it.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Followed by this:
How in the hell would you assume he found incriminating evidence against Bush or Cheney yet didn’t prosecute them?
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
When you know very well that is not what you said originally. What a feeble attempt at moving the goal posts.
Just answer the question: Where did you read Fitzgerald said there was no proof Cheney or Bush had anything to do with it? If anything, Fitzgerald hinted the exact opposite is true.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:00 pmBush can’t comment on ongoing trials unless due to his principled stand unless he decides that he can. Like in the DeLay trial.
What an arse.
I love fitz’s quote:“the fact that there was a cloud over anyone was not our doing, it was the facts of the case, [and] it was aggravated by Mr. Libby telling falsehoods.â€
Beautifully put.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:00 pm#25 I didn’t “hear†it, it is obvious. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
So you lied. For someone that claims they aren’t a repuke, you sure to act like one!
Your claim was what Fitzgerald *said*, not what you inferred. That makes you a flat out liar – Seixon!
This is the man afterall that investigated this crime. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Actually Fitz investigated the whole whitehouse, he only charged Libby – so far. This is how Fitz operates, he convicts one criminal at a time.
How in the hell would you assume he found incriminating evidence against Bush or Cheney yet didn’t prosecute them? Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Because it’s time consuming and destructive for a single prosecutor to run more than one court case at a time – dingbat.
It is obvious because he DID NOT produce charges against them after his investigation meaning he found no evidence. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Obvious? Or are you just st*pid?
Seems very cut and dry. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Like the sh*t that fills your skull? Maybe to you.
When you investigate a crime and find no evidence against someone, you can’t prosecute. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
When you investigate a crime family, and corruption, you nail them one at a time. That’s so each party convicted flips on the rest. Fitz came from prosecuting organized crime – so he’s perfect to deal with dishonest immoral repukes like you!
Since he didn’t prosecute, he did find evidence. Man, having to spell this stuff out is odd. Your brighter then that VerbalKink Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
You come up with the most st*pid conclusions.
Neither of which justify your claims of what he *said*, that he didn’t say. You’re a dishonest liar!
March 6th, 2007 at 2:01 pmBeing a Democrat means never having to say your sorry.
So the Democrat who admits his offense, pleads guilty, and takes his punishment like a man isn’t saying he’s sorry, but the Republican felon who refuses to admit his crime to the very end, hoping to have his buddies rescue him is.
You’ve got some screwed up sense of reality, Dale.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:02 pm#42 That is not proof that he has no evidence, all it says is that he is not expecting to file further charges. I think the trial evidence alone pretty much showed that dirty dick was at the vortex of the leak & smear campaign.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:02 pmExecutioner we have a High Treason coming your way prepare the gallows
March 6th, 2007 at 2:03 pmJust the facts, maam, nothin but the facts.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:05 pmall it says is that he is not expecting to file further charges.
Comment by mark — March 6, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
…and it very likely is because the evidence is inconclusive, not that it doesn’t exist at all.
In the interview Fitzgerald lets slip that it was they who leaked Plame’s identity If anything, this hints to the involvement of a group of people, not just one person, as Roger*2 would have us believe.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pmJust because Libby is going to appeal and appeal and exercise his judicial rights doesn’t mean we can’t use the information revealed in THIS trial as the basis for prosecuting OTHERS involved.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pmAgain with the quote:
Fitzgerald: “I do not expect to file any further charges against anyone. The investigation is inactive.”
He is obviously suggesting that this issue is over and he has prosectued the right and only man. He himself even says he EXPECTS to not file anymore charges against ANYONE. This is the guy who investigated the entire White House and he is saying this situation is over.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:11 pmFitzgerald said that no one else will be charged BUT if Libby cuts a deal to get less jail time, WE WILL BE LOOKING AT Torticola Cheney GETTING THE HOT SEAT ALONG WITH Rove AND OTHER MEMBERS OF Bushland Uber Allies–CHIMPya ALSO!!!!! Cheney, YOU BETTER HOPE A GOOD ATTACK, HEART OR MAN-MADE, CARRIES YOU OFF TO THE NEXT WORLD BEFORE THE INDICTMENTS COME DOWN!!!!!
March 6th, 2007 at 2:12 pmRoger_Roger:
Fitzgerald is correct that this is a very sad thing to see someone like Libby actually lie under Oath. He also pointed out that there is no proof of the VP and the Pres having anything to do with it.
When you’re right, you’re right. When Libby lied, he did that volitionally, and it wasn’t Dubya and Cheney that lied. OTOH, the trial showed that the maladministration was in it up to their necks in the outing of Plame, and that Cheney took personal notice of Wilson. As for Dubya, remember when he said that anyone connected with the outing would be looking for a new job? Ha-ha-haaaa-hah-haa-heh-heeeehhh…. Good one, huh?
Cheers,
March 6th, 2007 at 2:12 pm#51 If the info you have is inconclusive and not solid enough to stand up in court, you have NOTHING.
Again, please note I did say I have a feeling Cheney is involved. I simply don’t rush to judgement as that is not how our legal system works. it is also pointless as it gets you no where.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pmThe thing about this trial that is unsettling to me is that Libby and Cheney were not placed on the stand. The only reason for that to me means that they didn’t want anything else revealed in cross examination. They didn’t put everything they had into the case on purpose to hide more damning information. The only way this would work is if a pardon is coming for Libby.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:13 pmIt is obvious because he DID NOT produce charges against them after his investigation meaning he found no evidence. Seems very cut and dry. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
What an idiot.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:14 pmShe left off the “except when it suits us.”
March 6th, 2007 at 2:14 pmWhy is Seixon’s site down?
Mourning or too Coward to acknowledge he was WRONG?
Mr Seixon, your Crow is served.
http://www.seixon.com/
March 6th, 2007 at 2:15 pm@ Operation Northwoods III:
this administration explain anything? that’s funny. I got a real chuckle out of that one.
Ring Lardner had this anticipated by almost a century: “‘Shut up’, he explained…”
Cheers,
March 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pmThat’s surprising, RR… Rushing to judgement is W’s bread and butter!
March 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pmHe is obviously suggesting that this issue is over and he has prosectued the right and only man. He himself even says he EXPECTS to not file anymore charges against ANYONE.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Roger_Roger, give it up. You won’t be able to convince yourself, much less anyone else here, with this crap.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pmThe water just got heavier.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pmLibby should’ve stuffed some classified documents down his pants; he would’ve gotten away with it.
Comment by Dale — March 6, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Bwahahahha Dale – this is all you’ve got? Don’t be too disappointed with your boy Scooter. At least he didn’t keep tapes of his and Cheney’s discussions ala nixon, so he’s learned something, hehehehehe
March 6th, 2007 at 2:18 pmThe GOP is throwing members under the bus in record numbers.
Firehead; Got any proof to back up your allegation?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55560-2005Feb1?language=printer
So the senator, who as the state’s senior Republican had the right to recommend a candidate to the White House, went to one of Hoover’s successors for advice.
“I called Louis Freeh and said, ‘Who’s the best assistant U.S. attorney you know of in the country?’ He said, ‘Patrick Fitzgerald in the Southern District of New York.’ ” The senator then called Mary Jo White, who ran the New York office. Same question. Same answer.
At the time, Patrick Fitzgerald was trying suspects in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He thought the call from a senatorial aide was a practical joke by one of his buddies. But as soon as their interview was over, the senator knew he had his man.
“I thought, ‘He is the original Untouchable,’ ” Peter Fitzgerald says. “You could just see it in his eyes that he was a straight shooter. There were no levers that anyone had over him. He had no desire to become a partner in a private law firm. He has no interest in electoral politics. He wanted to be a prosecutor.”
He convicted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and all four defendants in the embassy bombings, which had left 224 people dead. He extracted a guilty plea from Mafia capo John Gambino and became an authority on bin Laden, whom he indicted in 1998 for a global terrorist conspiracy that included the African bombings.
He registered to vote as an Independent in New York, only to discover, when he began receiving fundraising calls, that Independent was a political party. He re-registered with no affiliation, as he did later in Chicago.
So Firehead still think he is DNC?
Smakkety Smakkety Smak!
March 6th, 2007 at 2:19 pmRoger_Roger, aren’t you the same dum bass that claimed Libby was innocent?
March 6th, 2007 at 2:19 pmFull preznitial pardon in…
5,4,3…
-Gleeful Rogue_Roger-
March 6th, 2007 at 2:20 pmIf the info you have is inconclusive and not solid enough to stand up in court, you have NOTHING.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
That the evidence is inconclusive doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, as you sugested. These are two different things.
I simply don’t rush to judgement as that is not how our legal system works.
What, are you a lawyer or do you play one on TV? Spare me the theatricals -this is a blog.
Again, if anything Fitzgerald hinted that there was a cover-up and that Libby didn’t act on his own.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:21 pm“No one is above the law” eh? I guess that means except Bush and Cheney.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:41 pmRoger-Roger
March 6th, 2007 at 2:43 pmDid you hear the jury member say that they felt that Libby was the fall guy for the truly guilty parties.
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus,
Did you finally grow up? I am very suprised you are still using the words you used last week. You know, the ones that were demeaning to women. Anyways, I never said Libby was innocent for sure. I certainly could have said he is innocent until proven guilty which is fair and I hope everyone here believes that.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:46 pmI certainly could have said he is innocent until proven guilty which is fair and I hope everyone here believes that.
Everyone but Gonzalez & Bush.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pmRoger_Roger
Actually, he hasn’t pressed charges – yet.
This doesn’t mean there isn’t a case to answer, this could mean he is not about to take the sorts of risks involved in taking on a US president with a fanatical following with anything short of security footage of that president eating a baby while dancing a jig on top of a pile of puppies.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:59 pmI never said Libby was innocent for sure. I certainly could have said he is innocent until proven guilty which is fair and I hope everyone here believes that.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Isn’t it funny how the Republicans use that as an excuse not to do any investigation at all?
March 6th, 2007 at 2:59 pmAnyone have any old troll posts saying Libby will be found innocent?
Just askin’
March 6th, 2007 at 3:13 pmMay I make a suggestion to all progressives..I refuse to take on troll’s and their vitrol, most have black heart’s like this administration any way so for today I will not comment on their usual bad judgment on who they follow…Instead for your consideration, how about sending email’s to all your representatives asking for investigation’s (again) and demanding impeachment, jail time and seizing the asset’s of bush/cheney/rove/rice and all involved..
I’m not going to gloat or be obnoxious like the reich winger’s do at every terrible thing they win with the bush cabal…..I am going to be grateful for this little win for justice…..There is still so much to do, which I have been doing every day, now that his one thing is accomplished I can focus on all the other thing’s still on going, Impeachment, stopping the war’s, Vetran’s care, Katrina, restoring our constitution on and on…Do as you choose but don’t be distracted, please…Did you hug someone you love today?…Plant a tree or flower? Can you do one little thing for our country and the world?….Blessings, we still need them…Peace is the answer.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:14 pm“No comment on an on-going investigation” = pleading the 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pmConspiracy seems to be the best way to avoid punishment for crimes committed. Great way to avoid personal responsibility, and pass the buck. And to boot, the term “conspiracy” has been turned into a crazy man’s word.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:16 pmSharon I hugged my son, daughter, and wife today.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:17 pmWith such a poor memory will Libby remember that he was convicted?
March 6th, 2007 at 3:18 pmConspiracy is only a crazy man’s word to crazy men. Those who have an understanding of the English language don’t think it is a crazy man’s word.
Conspiracy:
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
In this case, Cheney, Rove and Scooty had a conspiracy to out Valerie Plame.
This was a Conspiracy Theory. But the fact that Scooty was proven to have lied to a Grand Jury regarding said Conspiracy Theory adds some validity to the theory.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:26 pmAnyone have any old troll posts saying Libby will be found innocent?
Just askin’
Comment by ForTruth — March 6, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Don’t have any at the ready FT, but I don’t think we’d have too much trouble finding something by seixon. Let’s ‘beetlejuice’ him and see what he’s got to say…..
seixon…….seixon……….seixon
March 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pmFitzgerald responded that “the fact that there was a cloud over anyone was not our doing, it was the facts of the case, [and] it was aggravated by Mr. Libby telling falsehoods.â€
These words make me all tingly….
I am totally in love with Fitz.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:35 pmseixon…….seixon……….seixon
Comment by Quadrajet
Dude, he’s always lurking. Soon he won’t be able to stand it, and he’ll show up.
Heh.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:36 pm#75 Please note that I said we certainly should investigate the matter further. If there is proof that Bush or Cheney themselves somehow provided Congress with false evidence knowingly, they certainly should be impeached without question. I think it is a very important matter to get to the bottom to.
What you folks can’t stand is someone that isn’t a party loyalist to the end. In your world, the Dems are always right and the repugs are always wrong. You defend you side regardless of issue. It is becoming very apparent that party loyalist like yourselves care about your party gaining more power. This is becoming obvious and it is sad that the “issues” take a back seat to political power.
I on the other hand believe that each individual issue needs to be looked at on its own basis. Bush and the 109th congress controlled by the repugs was a failure but they still did some good things. Bad men can go good things and good men can do some bad.
I defend the repugs on issues I believe they are right on. I also have no problem defending the Dems on issues they are correct with. I happily defend the Dems positions on Global Warming, Death Penalty, Gay Marriage, Minimum Wage, Illegal Wire taps, and I even agree that the invasion of Iraq was wrong.
The problem is I care about the issues, not the party. I don’t weigh my answer based on the potential political power gain like pure party loyalist like you folks. This has become apparent when I watched you all loyally defend the Dems new support of the Iraq war. The only reason they are voting yes to prolonging the war is because they are eager to gain seats and power in 08′. That is damn sad and proves how much many here care about the party and not the issue.
So quick to scream about the horrible iraq war and all the dead soldiers, yet equally as quick to defend Pelosi’s new position of wanting to approve Bush’s Iraq war money and extend the war. SAD
March 6th, 2007 at 3:37 pmScooter Libby…..
Finally, a man of convictions. :-D
March 6th, 2007 at 3:37 pmI rarely listen to the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. I’ve been listening to Hannity for the past 30 minutes. His head is so exploding. Jury was rigged, prosecutor and judge are liberals, this is the criminalization of political views, Clinton did it…
March 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pm#85 – he may be layin’ low Zooey, his website is down and he’s flying a ‘nobody’s home’ screen. Talking points haven’t been issue yet I guess.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pmGreat one Zooey,…Beautiful weather on the way..Blessings
March 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pmhe may be layin’ low Zooey, his website is down and he’s flying a ‘nobody’s home’ screen. Talking points haven’t been issue yet I guess.
Comment by Quadrajet
OMG, that’s the best laugh I’ve had all day! He’s still lurking somehow, he’s obsessed with TP.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:46 pmHey Sharon,
The beautiful weather is here. Thank you! Thank you!
March 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pmIt seems that redstate is down also. Sympathy pains?
March 6th, 2007 at 3:50 pmYour welcome Lady Zooey, Although I don’t do weather I do a lot of other thing’s by sympathy request…More on that another time….The candles were lit and I had lot’s of help on the Libby thing…..Turning on the light’s does not necessarily mean electricity especiely when dealing with a witch….LOL…Been realy busy with letters to representatives this morning and even black hearted pupett got a copy of me asking my rep’s to impeach him…HaHa! His underling will love that..
Still having a lot of trouble on this site, not here much…Every time they tinker with it my iMac goes into melt down..That’s alright to busy planting flower’s hugging tree’s writing letters to polatician’s and running the Bear….To every one, sorry off topic..Back to the prim roses…Blessings.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:57 pmCivilization & War Rant
Bush is not responsible for the war in Iraq. Al Gore said during his campaign against Bush II that Bush I should have finished the job; and we never tire of pretending these days that the Clinton-Gore government was not attacking Iraq…. they were, regularly and lethally. War is inherent to civilization; and that is why we’ll have more and more of it, and why it will eventually percolate from the peripheries populated by Dark Others into our suburbs.
Everything we have that we list in our catalogue of civilization is forged out of fraud, theft, and murder. The cities of the world are built up on fraud, theft, and murder. Show me the exception, and I’ll take it back.
The fine woods and metals and animal guts that make the orchestras, the stones and steel and trees for our libraries, the fabric and workmanship of our clothing, and the food displayed strategically along our supermarket shelves… they all require war. They are taken from cultures who first refuse to cooperate, then who are forced to cooperate or be depopulated.
The expansive and expanding heaps of technomass — of asphalt and glass and plastic and paint and shiny right-angles — are scraped out of hillsides and coastlines, with the corpses of biomes and simpler cultures left behind as the mizzens of this wretched thing called civilization. The more this disease has spread, the more it has manifested and magnified its most acute symptom: war.
Technology is driven by scarcity, and scarcity by pillage, and new technology to correct for the iatrogenesis of the last technology. This is not a mark of superiority, but the cascading catastrophe of power seeking the enslavement of first women, then slaves and colonies and nature…
Conquest is a necessity to continue civilization. How long would this country last as it is without the oil from abroad? What if those abroad said, No? Be real, be realistic before you answer this question with pious abstractions. How long would things stay “stable” hereabouts if the supermarket shelves were suddenly bare? If the shutters went up on WalMart’s windows? How much of what we take for granted each and every day comes from someplace else, where the cop with the truncheon stands near the worker, and the sea lane is kept open by a Naval battle group?
Every “advanced” society exists as a parasite on those less “advanced,” and that can be proven empirically and decisively. Civilization cannot exist in the absence of war, because civilization is itself inherently exploitative. Los Angeles cannot exist without the water from Colorado. New York cannot exist without the “inputs” from abroad. We know damn well this is true, so we conceal it under pretty abstractions like “free market,” and pretend that the wars required to maintain the power of the powerful are moral failures, anomalies within civilization instead of something as intrinsic as long ears on a rabbit.
Bring us to the point where we will at least admit of this truth; and there is a remote chance that we can figure out some tentative first steps how to stop the runaway train… that is, in the end, to change everything.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:06 pmReply to # 77: Sharon, I never saw the outing of a CIA operative, or Libby/Cheney/Rove lying about the outing, as the problem.
I saw (and still see) the problem as this corrupt administration’s lying us into the invasion, occupation, and destruction of Iraq.
Libby is found guilty, but we are still occupying and destroying Iraq, with an escalation of troops ongoing!
You are right, Sharon. Progressives on this and other threads need to “…focus on all the other thing’s still on going, …on and on…” And, I join you in urging other Progressives to do the same.
I’m focusing on getting our troops out of harm’s way in Iraq (and keeping them out of harm’s way in Iran), by any means possible. I pray that Impeachment and Removal is not the means we have to use, because it is such a lengthy process.
I prefer following Dennis Kucinich’s plan for immediate withdrawal of troops. http://kucinich.us/node/1780
Whatever Progressives do to accomplish immediate, safe withdrawal of our troops will be opposed by the regressive elements of the Democratic and Republican members of Congress. So, unless our prayers are answered soon, we are in for a long, hard two years. That is why it is so impartant for we, as Progressives, to focus on what is important, and ignore the trolls.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pmSo quick to scream about the horrible iraq war and all the dead soldiers, yet equally as quick to defend Pelosi’s new position of wanting to approve Bush’s Iraq war money and extend the war. SAD Comment by Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Why are you so eager to support Bush in starving and murdering soldiers? Bush won’t withdraw the troops, and short of impeaching him that leaves Congress with the choice of starving out soldiers, or applying other pressures on Bush while feeding the soldiers.
Why do you hate the troops so much Roger_Roger, do you work for Osama?
March 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmI thought the white house wouldn’t comment because it was an ongoing trial. What now LIARS? It’s over, what the hell do you have to say now? No comment huh phackers. This just in, Cheney is dissappointed in the verdict. Boo hooo ass!! Your next you freakin’ liar. HANG ALL THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION for TREASON. Barring that, make sure everyone of these criminials rots in chains for the rest of their ungodly lives.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:18 pmbryan, me too. Sean is imploding and it is hillarious. liberals, no crime, liberals, armitage, liberals, clinton really lied, liberals, fitz was a liberal plant. funny stuff. and this is the best the right has. HA HA HA HA
I may have to take some Pepto and watch Hannity and the other guy tonight for a good belly laugh. maybe we will get lucky and they will have Ann on for the 4,598 th time talking about Anna or Al’s power bill?????
March 6th, 2007 at 4:23 pmRoger_Roger:
What you folks can’t stand is someone that isn’t a party loyalist to the end. In your world, the Dems are always right and the repugs are always wrong. You defend you side regardless of issue. It is becoming very apparent that party loyalist like yourselves care about your party gaining more power. This is becoming obvious and it is sad that the “issues†take a back seat to political power.
Projecting much?!?!?
Bush and the 109th congress controlled by the repugs was a failure but they still did some good things.
Ummmm … <*scratched head*> … ummm, still thinking…. Name one.
Cheers,
March 6th, 2007 at 4:30 pmAnyone have any old troll posts saying Libby will be found innocent?
Just askin’Comment by ForTruth — March 6, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
I will let them speak for themselves:
In addition, I think Fitzgerald made it quite clear that the indictment of Libby has nothing to do the with war in Iraq. Let me repeat in case you still don’t understand, the indictment of Libby has nothing to do the with war in Iraq. Again, there was no outing of Plame, and the only crime possibly committed was perjury and conspiracy by Libby. Democrats really need to let go of this, or come next year, they will lose five more seats in the Senate and 10 more in the House.
Comment by Ed — November 2, 2005
AND another thing…. has anyone asked why Miller was put in jail? Novak came clean early on – it’s obvious he gave up his source. What did Judy do differently? Who else is she covering for? The case is so complex and the jump the gun left could end up with egg on their face…..again.
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma — October 18, 2005
Don’t be too hard on them. They have had a rough week, learning how they all served as “useful idiots†for the publicity seeking Joe and Valerie Wilson. They dreamed of “Fitzmas†and instead found out they had been played for fools. We should pity them, not mock them (Although, it IS oh-so enjoyable mocking them!)
Comment by Exley
Well, well, well, FINALLY ThinkProgress touches upon the revelations this week that the so-called leak of Valerie “Vanity Fair†Plame’s identity has turned out to be a media-hyped non-story. I can understand why TP has been so reluctant to bring it up…I am sure it, like so many other “progressives,†deluded themselves (or tried to mislead others) into thinking that there was any type of “scandal†here. And now it has blown up in your collective faces. How embarassing for you. You folks certainly allowed yourselves to be taken for a ride by the odious Joe Wilson and his publicity-seeking wife.
Comment by Exley —
I can’t wait until Joe Wilson has to testify before a grand jury and will expose all of the lies he has been spreading. This whole thing will blow up in your faces. It will happen, especially after the stunt that Reid pulled yesterday.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:33 pmComment by Ed
rachel rj kinniardi:
Technology is driven by scarcity, and scarcity by pillage, …
So pillage is essential for technology? Curious opinion….
… and new technology to correct for the iatrogenesis of the last technology.
“iatrogenesis of the last technology”?!?!? You mean we’re inevitably consigned to fixing up our last mistakes? When will it end? And how?
My, William Blake had nothing on you….
Cheers,
March 6th, 2007 at 4:35 pmhterrya,
The very best way to encourage your party to end this war is to call your congress people and ask them to vote no to the bill in front of them right now. Bush gave them his needed spending bill for the Iraq war. All they have to do is vote no and the ar is over. So you in luck, there isn’t anything complicated since Bush set it up for them. How scary will it be if they actually vote yes to this war? Then those that want the war to end will have no one in congress looking out for their views.
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus,
Listen kid. Bush would not be allowed to let 200,000 soldiers starve to death. Nice try trying to get a rise out of me but the American public wouldn’t allow it nor would the world. Bush is a bad president, but that is beyond even him. If your against this war, tell your Dem leaders to make sure and vote NO to Iraq war spending. Voting yes means you support this war and wish to extend it.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:36 pmOutstanding post’s Rachel,Hterrya and VVG….BTW H, I love Kucinich and have been following him and wanting him to be nominated for some time. Sadly the majority of the voter’s seem to be more impresed with what a man look’s like than what he actuelly does..Sophmoric love fest instead of substance. Now we have many good candidates but still he stand’s out for never wavering and pointing out fact’s and truth with out photo op’s and reterick.
Rachel, I have been reading all your post’s of late and they are brilliant, I thank you for taking the time and informing us of link’s we can vote on, I have been joining your effort’s…Again Thank You..
V.V. I do diffrent work at diffrent times depending on many helpful signs…Note I wrote a scathing response several day’s ago to r.r. on a think fast thread..I had enough and responded, if it is there, even baited the troll’s so to speak…Not today…My opinion is this concerning many of the troll’s, they are here to play their game’s (mind masterbation for one) to incite our response and direct us away from the work we must do….Today is not a day I will play with them, but by all mean’s if it pleases you do it….Blessings all…..Smile at all you see and tell someone you love them today….Good Job For Truth…
March 6th, 2007 at 4:37 pmAnd since Fitz never indicted anyone for violating the IIPA or otherwise “outing” Plame, and since Fitz has today said the investigation is inactive, my statement remains accurate. You seem to be under the misunderstanding, Barfly, that Libby was convicted of “outing” Plame or violating the IIPA. That is incorrect.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:43 pmOh come on Sharon. Come out and play! Aren’t you the one that was advocating we encourage our troops to break the law a few days ago? Weren’t you the one that wanted to even help them break the law? Please let me know how that goes for you. Also please shoot me an email with all the soldiers you helped and there names. I would assume you would have no problem with that as you see it as completely ok. So, fill me in soon sweety.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:44 pmAs a convicted felon will Scooter be disbarred? If he is that might be enough reason for him to flip even if jail time is short.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:49 pmIf Roger_Roger would shut his big lying yap maybe somebody with some real knowledge could answer.
#107 What did I lie about Shane? Please inform me.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:51 pmComment by Barfly — March 6, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Fantastic, Barfly. :)
March 6th, 2007 at 4:53 pmShane, It is likely Libby will be disbarred. When President Clinton copped to a similar plea with prosecutors and admitted he have misleading testimony his law license in Arkansas was suspended (In court papers closing the Arkansas disbarment proceedings, he admitted to conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice”). The former president also resigned from the U.S. Supreme Court Bar rather than face disbarment or some other lesser sanction. I would imagine Libby will face similar sanctions.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:55 pmSo, fill me in soon sweety.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Don’t disrespect Sharon, asswipe. You don’t rate.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:55 pmOh and Roger you idiot:
March 6th, 2007 at 4:56 pmIts hard to convict people when the witnesses are willing to lie to the FBI and obstruct justice.
That’s what Scooter’s convicted of. If they ask him the same questions he can’t lie now can he?
Reply to # 103, Roger_Roger — March 6, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Hey, distracting troll! Do you think I am going to take any advice from you?
You have only one objective in this and the other Progressive threads you haunt; you disrupt and distract from serious discussions of the issues by injecting erroneous and extraneous troll comments and dissimulation.
UNDER THE BRIDGE!
March 6th, 2007 at 5:06 pmPlease Shane,
Get over it. The prosecuter himself said he does no intent to seek anymore charges against anyone. He called the case closed. Obviously this sounds like a prosecuter that is satisfied that he got the right man and the evidence isn’t there to prosecute anyone else. I guess in Dem party loyalist world we can use conspiricy theories to convict anyone with an (R) after their name, but that only works in your wacky world. Those of us in the real world that care more about the individual issues simply won’t accept that. We require some true evidence which you have none of.
I suppose in the end, you as a party loyalist really only care about how much more political power this story can buy your party. What the actually issues are truly irrelevant. How many times are you going to investigate this matter? Are you going to keep going up to 08′ so you have some poltical fire power to fling? I bet you will and then I bet you drop the story cold the moment is fails to become useful.
You know, this is what got the repugs in trouble. You and your party are heading down that slippery path quickly.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:10 pmRoger_Roger
March 6th, 2007 at 5:17 pmYou lie about wanting the war ended. You are a Bush ass kisser all the way. And you say you don’t like him.
What you want is Democrats to vote no to end any spending on the war so that you and your cronies can start your crying about how Democrats hate the soldiers. But you neocons would gladly sacrifice the welfare of soldiers to win your votes.
Progressives are not going to let Repukes tell us how to handle our politics. We know how to pressure our representatives. Just because your leaders don’t listen to the people don’t project.
Reply to #114: “…you as a party loyalist…”
Shane as a “party loyalist?”
UNDER THE BRIDGE, TROLL!
March 6th, 2007 at 5:18 pmRoger_Roger
March 6th, 2007 at 5:32 pmWe’re not the one distancing ourselves from our party. We’re on the site that supports our party.
You’re trolling here.
Are you so embarassed by your party that you no long can go to their sites.
We will keep going as long and hard as we have to to get your crooks and traitors out of office. You can troll every day and you will accomplish nothing. You could be on neocon sites getting stroked all day but you choose to be here getting crap.
Tell us Roger_Roger what you do in your life that causes you to need so much abuse. I bet its really icky.
#115 I have never lied about my war stance. I believe that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. I also believe that we need to clean up the mess we made and stay in Iraq till that is finished. If I was in congress I would vote based on that belief. Not sure how I am lying. Furthermore, you once again are pointing out that your party is planning to vote Yes in support of this war simply for political gain. My god, your pointing it out yourself. This has been my only point. The issue (Iraq War) simply isn’t the primary focus for you and other party loyalist. Your primary focus is simply looking good and gaining more political power whatever the cost. That is the same problem the repugs had and they lost the country and all power because of it. Good luck with that idea though.
Lastly, everyone keeps trying to pin me into this “I defend Bush” tag. When today have I defended him? I clearly have stated over and over that Bush has been a bad president and has done horrible things. Hell, I don’t even support or back what the 109th congress did. In the end however, I am not a party loyalist and since you are you won’t understand someone who cares more about the issues. I’ll certainly back Bush if he is correct about something even though he has been mostly a bad president because I don’t care about Bush, I care about the issues. I hold the Dems in the same regard. I’ll defend the Dems any chance I get if they are right about an issue.
Again, this is probably way over your head because you can’t understand someone caring only about topics and issues. I honestly don’t care if the president has a (D) or an (R) after there name. As long as they do a good job and are correct on the issues, thats all that matters. Those fancy party tags are simply for the braindead mass’ like many here that love to ride the party train and not think for themselves. The Dems and Repugs like people like you as well because they can’t fail people like you.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:33 pmReply to # 118:
I never accused you of being a “party loyalist!” I accused you of being a TROLL!
And, you have proved it by moving the topic off of Libby verdict and onto YOU and whether YOU:
1. “… lied about (YOUR) “war stance”
2. “… defend Bushâ€
3. “…don’t care if the president has a (D) or an (R) after there (sic) name.”
UNDER THE BRIDGE, NASTY TROLL! This thread is not about YOU!
March 6th, 2007 at 5:52 pmIn my defense re: #101, no where do I say that Libby will be acquitted. Since Barfly did not provide the dates of my statement’s I had to look them up to find out what we were discussing. Turns out they are from September 2006 when it was revealed that the original source for Novak’s column was Richard Armitage. What I was saying back then (albeit, obnoxiously, I must admit) was the Armitage revelation showed there was no White House effort to “out” Plame to Novak. I believe I also went on to say that it was possible that the Armitage revelation dealth a “near-fatal” blow to the Libby prosecution. Not near enough, it seems.
I can take my lumps. Even though I never said the Armitage revelation was “fatal” (I used the qualifuer), it is now clear it had pretty much zero impact on the Libby prosecution. I got it wrong.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:09 pmI echo L’il Dick’s sentiments on Scooter’s conviction…
…Yessir, this IS a sad day…
…when they’ve used our badly needed tax dollars to convict this TRAITOR…
…and we may never get to see him…
…blindfolded…
…and shot/hanged…
…along with his co-conspirators…
March 6th, 2007 at 6:33 pm“I got it wrong.”
Comment # 120, by Exley — March 6, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
I just wish the current, corrupt, filthy, warmongering, lying administration could admit the same. That is why I can’t understand why you so staunchly defend them, Exley. Aren’t you afraid that the crap they spread so shamelessly will get on you by association?
March 6th, 2007 at 6:36 pm[...] the White House did not offer much comment in response to the Libby indictment, press spokeswoman Dana Perino notably did not rule out a [...]
March 6th, 2007 at 8:37 pm“TURDS OF A repugnant-repub rightwingnut crank fudge-pachyderm
March 6th, 2007 at 9:27 pmG(houlish) O(pportunistic) P(edophile) Bushland Uber Allies FEATHER STICK TOGETHER” BY ASSOCIATION AND THE TROLLS WILL BE FLUSHED DOWN THE CRAPPER OF HISTORY TOGETHER AS WELL–GOOD RIDDANCE TO BAD RUBBISH!!!!!
#118 Roger_Roger
March 7th, 2007 at 12:00 amInteresting how you cherry pick the words in a paragraph that suit your needs. And you say your not a Repuke. We’re not the Fox News audience here. We don’t believe everything some big dumb ass tells us. As Progressives we all want the war to end now. And we are pressuring our representatives to act now to stop the war and impeach your idols. Unfortunately too many of your cronies are still in office to make it a done deal. There’s pesky issues like vetoes that you wouldn’t understand, obviously, because you consistenly suggest that the newly appointed congress should have handled all this immediately.
Really, are you that stupid or is it a put on? Really there is at least one troll stuck on each issue so I’m guessing your acting stupid and are on the payroll at Dickless DoubleChen’s bunker.
, it is now clear it had pretty much zero impact on the Libby prosecution. I got it wrong. Comment by Exley — March 6, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
You always get it wrong Ex-Lie, you’re just too st*pid and cowardly to typically admit it. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to fixing the problem. You’re wrong alright – please look at the rest of your st*pid comments. That one is just the tip of the glacier!
March 7th, 2007 at 1:17 amAnd since Fitz never indicted anyone for violating the IIPA or otherwise “outing†Plame, and since Fitz has today said the investigation is inactive, my statement remains accurate. You seem to be under the misunderstanding, Barfly, that Libby was convicted of “outing†Plame or violating the IIPA. That is incorrect.
Comment by Exley
What part of I will let them speak for themselves: don’t you comprehend? Trying to create weak strawmen, like “You seem to be under the misunderstanding, Barfly, that Libby was convicted of “outing†Plame or violating the IIPA. That is incorrect. is all you know how to do, isn’t it? A truly shabby intellect. But I absolutely loved the part where you were hoist by your own filty petard:
I believe I also went on to say that it was possible that the Armitage revelation dealth a “near-fatal†blow to the Libby prosecution. Not near enough, it seems.
I can take my lumps. Even though I never said the Armitage revelation was “fatal†(I used the qualifuer), it is now clear it had pretty much zero impact on the Libby prosecution. I got it wrong.
That makes it 0-11now, doesn’t it?
Ha, ha, ha, ha . . .
Exley, you’re the biggest nitwit on the net!
March 7th, 2007 at 3:36 amOh, my mistake. It’s now 1-11. I wouldn’t want to deny you your hard-fought victory, Exley.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:46 am[...] Scooter Libby die for Cheney’s sins? Or Rove’s? And on the third day will he rise from the dead? Or just get a presidential [...]
March 7th, 2007 at 9:35 amAh, typical Barfly…Skulking in here in the middle of the night to post his comment and then running away.
Hey, Barfly, ever come up with any evidence to support your now discredited claim that Congress did not have access to the full 12,000 page Iraq weapons dossier? No…I guess you don’t. That was another in a long series of embarassing misstatements on your part….
Like when you claimed that Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier, when in reality Congress voted two months BEFORE the release of the dossier….Heh!
Then, of course, there was your humiliation when you mistakenly claimed that no one at UN did saw the full Iraq dossier, when, in fact, it was shown that the five permanent members of the Security Council did indeed have access to the full 12,000 page dossier.
There are so many others, Barfly. Those were just your most recent blunders.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:47 am#125 I fail to see what anyone could do if the Dems vote no to the Iraq spending bill. It would end the war just like you want. You said, “And we are pressuring our representatives to act now to stop the war”. So are you just lying or are you in fact pressuring Pelosi to change her mind and vote no to this bill and end the war? Just curious if your truly serious or your just trying to tell me off.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:56 amSo, to review: Exley tried to make the claim that congress has indeed seen all of Saddam’s weapons declation, although the UN had edited out parts, making my contention that congress has never seen this info correct.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:39 pmBarfly,
I can’t even give you a “nice try” here, because this is a truly pathetic effort on your part for a myriad of reasons:
Mistake #1) You initially claimed back on Feb. 16 that the United States had redacted the dossier before giving it to “the U.N.” (Barfly’s post: “At the beginning of the war, Saddam gave the US a fourteen thousand page document listing all the weapons he had, and where he procured them from. When the Bush administration turned the document over to the UN, ten thousand pages of information had been redacted. Congress has never seen what’s contained in those redacted pages.”)
(Let us set aside the fact that you were wrong about when Iraq turned over the dossier It was in December 2002. The war did not begin until March 2003).
Now you send an article that indicates that the U.N.’s own Hans Blix was the one who wanted to give a redacted copy to the UNSC, not the United States. You have contradicted yourself.
Mistake #2) You ignore the fact that Blix’s decision was changed and that in fact the five permanent members of the UN Security Council did, in fact, receive the full 12,000 dossier:
Syria to Boycott UN Meeting on
Iraqi Arms Dossier
Reuters
December 19, 2002
Syria said on Thursday it had instructed its representatives at the United Nations in New York to boycott Security Council talks on Iraq’s arms declaration in protest against receiving an excised copy of the text.
“The foreign ministry asked its permanent delegation in New York not to participate in the Security Council discussion regarding the Iraqi declaration on weapons of mass destruction after Syria returned yesterday the abridged copy,” the official SANA news agency said.
Syria sent an excised copy of Iraq’s arms declaration back to U.N. inspection commissions on Wednesday, saying it wanted the same uncensored 12,000-page version the five permanent Security Council members had received, after getting only about 3,500 pages …
The council’s five permanent members — the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France — obtained the full document more than a week ago.”
See also:
Tensions at UN over Iraq dossier
BBC
December 17, 2002
The 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council are to receive edited versions of the Iraqi weapons dossier on Tuesday amid US scepticism about Baghdad’s declaration. The United States and Britain have signalled that they are ready for war if Iraq is found to be in “material breach” of the tough new UN Security Council resolution adopted on 8 November. The other permanent members – China, France and Russia – are now studying the document. They received uncensored copies of the dossier, but the non-permanent members will receive only edited versions - minus sensitive information that could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction.”
So, once again, Barfly, you were wrong when you claimed the U.S. redacted the dossier so that “the UN” never saw the complete dossier. As we see, the five permanent members of the Security Council saw the full, 12,000 page document and that it was Hans Blix who wanted to give a redacted version.
Mistake #3) Still, no where do you provide a shred of evidence that the Congress did not have access to the full 12,000 page dossier. You have been asked numerous times by me and others to provide such evidence and yet three weeks later you have provided nothing. Just admit you were wrong, Barfly….Your continued refusal to acknowledge the facts in the face of all the evidence is almost painful to watch.
As for your mistaken contention that Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier, when in fact, Congress voted two months before the release of the dossier, that blunder of yours has been thoroughly documented on the Feb. 16 thread.
So, in closing, again I wish I could say “nice try.” But you have only managed to embarass yourself further.
March 7th, 2007 at 2:02 pm#132…Heh! That’s right, Barfly…Keep embarassing yourself:
“The council’s five permanent members — the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France — obtained the full document more than a week ago.â€
Syria to Boycott UN Meeting on
March 7th, 2007 at 2:08 pmIraqi Arms Dossier
Reuters
December 19, 2002
Heh! That’s right, Barfly…Keep embarassing yourself:
Now you send an article that indicates that the U.N.’s own Hans Blix was the one who wanted to give a redacted copy to the UNSC, not the United States. You have contradicted yourself.
Boy you’re being willfully ignorant.
If Blix edited stuff out , how did congress ever see it? I haven’t contradicted myself, merely clarified the actual situation, in regards to the weapons declaration’s redacted parts. You haven’t debunked the basic assertion: that congress has yet to see the unredacted version. Poor boy.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:00 pmAs for your mistaken contention that Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier, when in fact, Congress voted two months before the release of the dossier, that blunder of yours has been thoroughly documented on the Feb. 16 thread.
That is your strawman. Here’s my post. Please highlight the exact words that show I asserted “that Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier,
Barfly’s post: “At the beginning of the war, Saddam gave the US a fourteen thousand page document listing all the weapons he had, and where he procured them from. When the Bush administration turned the document over to the UN, ten thousand pages of information had been redacted. Congress has never seen what’s contained in those redacted pages.â€)
You can’t because I never said it. I said nothing about congress voting before having seen the documents, you inferred it. That’s your weak strawman. A truly shabby intellect, indeed.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:07 pmOh yeah, I forgot: heh.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:09 pmIf Blix edited stuff out , how did congress ever see it?
Read the subsequent Reuters and BBC article again, Barfly. Blix did NOT edit anything out of the dossier that went to the five permanent members of the Security Council.
“it wanted the same uncensored 12,000-page version the five permanent Security Council members had received, after getting only about 3,500 pages … “
“The council’s five permanent members — the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France — obtained the full document more than a week ago.â€
Only the non-permanent members of the Security Council received the redacted version.
Even the article you sent says that the U.S. wanted all of the permanent members to see the full document. They didn’t accept Blix’s proposal and it was later changed so that the US, UK, Russia, China, and France got the full document.
Just admit you were wrong, Barfly, and we can all get along with our lives.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pmRead the subsequent Reuters and BBC article again, Barfly. Blix did NOT edit anything out of the dossier that went to the five permanent members of the Security Council.
And from that, you inferred that congress had, in fact, seen the documents?
Lets all play the inference game: I can infer from your constant revisiting of this issue, that it is a grey area that you don’t really know a lot about, because there isn’t a lot of information available, and that it troubles you enough to try to debink me. I can also infer that knowing how you like to style yourelf as well-informed, in the weeks that have passed, you’ve also been looking for conclusive information, but to prove me wrong. Since you haven’t produced such evidence, I can infer that you realize you’ve overstepped the available information, and are now desperate to deflect from that fact. To do this, you construct weak strawmen, like this: As for your mistaken contention that Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier, when in fact, Congress voted two months before the release of the dossier, and think no one will notice that those weren’t my words, but in fact yours. And now that i’ve conclusively show how intellectually corrupt you are, you suddenly just want to get along . . .
Just admit you were wrong, Barfly, and we can all get along with our lives.
Comment by Exley
You admit to trying that laughable strawman tactic, and we’ll see.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:05 pmThey didn’t accept Blix’s proposal and it was later changed so that the US, UK, Russia, China, and France got the full document.
The Bush administration withheld other information from congress subsequent to the start of the war; what makes you think they shared all this info beforehand? We both know how politically explosive that information is for certain American companies. And if info was withheld from congress committee democrats, it doesn’t count as anything but a CYA strategy for the White house if they did release it all, but only republicans saw it.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:12 pmBarfly,
Do you now acknowledge that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council had access to the full, uncensored 12,000 page Iraqi dossier?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:20 pmDo you now acknowledge that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council had access to the full, uncensored 12,000 page Iraqi dossier?
Yes. I even showed you a news article which said exactly that, didn’t I? Do you acknowledge that you attempted to lie, by falsely stating that I said Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier, even after I repeatedly pointed out your falsehood? But you still haven’t proven me wrong on this, as I hope you can now see. Going from memory, I was wrong about the number of pages in the report, but the core assertion, that congress has never been fully apprised of the unredacted document, has never been disproven. I’ve written my congressman and senators about this, but just get back the perfunctory “we appreciate your input” bullshit. Regardless, the core assertion still stands unscathed.
March 8th, 2007 at 3:14 amBarfly,
“Yes. I even showed you a news article which said exactly that, didn’t I?”
Actually, I was the one who produced the news articles (BBC and Reuters) that showed the five permanent members received the full unredacted document. You sent an earlier article saying that Blix wanted to redact it for everyone.
“but the core assertion, that congress has never been fully apprised of the unredacted document, has never been disproven.”
But that is not how it works. If a person makes an assertion, it is that person’s responsibility to back up that assertion. You haven’t done that. I am impressed, however, that you called your congressman. Shows real commitment on your part.
“stating that I said Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier”
In your initial response to Dale, you certainly seemed to be implying that the dossier was released prior to the congressional vote on the AUMF. But, I will take you at your word that that is not what you meant and I won’t raise the point again.
In fact, I’d say this whole topic has been exhausted. Let’s move on to our next (inevitable) disagreement.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:25 amHi
Thanks for the good well written article.
Fitzgerald’s job was to find all of the leakers, so that, President Bush could have this information and act with respect to his televised promise to remove all of them form his administration.
The President did not order that just one leaker be found or that just the first leaker be identified, all leakers were to be fired. In addition they were to be prosecuted if there was sufficient evidence of guilt. Fitzgerald’s official orders in writing (see in full below from Justice Department web posting) by the Justice Department were to lead an “investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity” Fitzgerald’s authority “is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure (note not ‘crime‘), as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your (Fitzgerald’s) investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General’s authority to impose or pursue.â€
(See the Commission of and instructions to special Council Fitzgerald by Deputy Attorney General below)
Prosecution was only one of the goals of the “Special Council”, the first was to find who made “unauthorized†disclosure .
The President has only removed one White House leaker so far.
During this time Mr. Fitzgerald has been the Chief U.S.
Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, The U.S. Attorney in charge of all terrorist case in the United States as well as the Special prosecutor in the Plame case. He has successfully convicted two terrorists of charges he brought against them in February, 2007, sent the former Republican Governor of Illinois to prison and prosecuted
Democratic political appointed employees of the City of Chicago for giving engineering and inspector jobs for patronage reasons in violation of civil service law.
TWO LETTERS: LETTER OF APPOINTMENT
AND LETTER OF DUTIES
1. LETTER OF APPOINTMENT
Office of the Deputy Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530
March 8th, 2007 at 4:45 pmDecember 30, 2003
The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald United States Attorney 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Patrick,
By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U. S .C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.
/s/ James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General
2. LETTER OF DUTIES
Office of the Deputy Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530
February 6, 2004
The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald United States Attorney Northern District of Illinois 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Patrick:
At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of “all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity” is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General’s authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of “Special Counsel” in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.
Sincerely,
/s/ James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General
The time has come…
my many friends …
to talk of Many things…
Let’s see if the good People of America
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:21 amcan convince the Congress
to compell him to go after ALL those
who led to the outing of
Ms Plame.