 |
||||
|
|
October 28, 2005A Grave Indictment, but Grave Questions RemainFinally, the blog item we've all been waitiing for. I just posted this at my ""Capital Games" column at www.thenation.com. Share your take on the indictments below, and specualte away now that we have facts to speculate about. If a senior White House official leaks classified information that identifies an undercover CIA officer to reporters in order to undermine a critic of the administration, he is not entitled to lie about it to FBI agents and a grand jury charged with the task of determining if such a leak violated the law. That was special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's message, as he held a dramatic press conference at the Justice Department to explain the five-count indictment his grand jury issued against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. "This is a very serious matter," he insisted. The indictment charged Libby with two counts of making false statements to the FBI, two counts of committing perjury (by lying twice to the grand jury) and one count of obstruction of justice. All these charges referred to Libby's account of how he came to learn of Valerie Wilson, the undercover CIA official who was married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a White House critic, and who was outed in a July 14, 2003 Bob Novak column. During interviews with FBI agents and in his testimony before the grand jury, Libby--who, before the Novak column was published, told Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA--repeatedly claimed that he was merely passing along information he had heard from other reporters. For instance, on March 5, 2004, Libby, answering questions about a July 12, 2003 conversation with Cooper, told the grand jury, All I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters....I said, reporters are telling us that [about Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA]. I don't know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know--I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing. On March 24, 2004, Libby, in another appearance before the grand jury, said, All I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true....So I wanted to be clear they [the reporters to whom he spoke] didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know if it [the information about Valerie Wilson] was true, and I wanted them to understand that. But, according to the indictment, Libby had actively gathered information on Joseph Wilson and his wife after newspaper stories appeared about a trip that Joseph Wilson had taken to Niger for the CIA in February 2002, during which he had concluded that the allegation that Iraq had been shopping there for weapon-grade uranium was highly dubious. In May 2003, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, using Wilson as a source, wrote about this trip without naming Wilson. The Washington Post did the same the following month. And on July 6, 2003, Wilson published an op-ed piece in the Times describing his mission to Niger and his findings, which undercut the Bush administration's use of the Niger allegation in making a case for war. In late May 2003--after the first Kristof column and before Wilson went public with his op-ed--Libby asked Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman for information on the unnamed ambassador's trip to Niger. Grossman ordered the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report on the ambassador and the trip and subsequently told Libby that Wilson had been the ambassador. On June 9, 2003, according to the indictment, classified CIA documents that covered Wilson and the Niger trip (without mentioning Wilson by name) were faxed from the CIA to Libby. Two or three days later, Grossman told Libby, the indictment says, that "Wilson's wife worked at the CIA." About that time, Libby spoke with a senior CIA officer, who also informed Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Also about the time, the indictment states, Cheney told Libby that Wilson's wife was employed at the CIA in the counterproliferation division. This is an intriguing fact. Usually in Washington, principles ask their subordinates to dig up information for them. Apparently, Cheney was doing his own fact-finding on the Wilson front. The indictment does not explain what Cheney was up to or why. It notes that "Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA." Cheney had a back-channel behind his back-channel (Libby). Libby was not done gathering information on Joseph and Valerie Wilson. On or about June 14, 2003--still weeks before Wilson's op-ed article appeared--Libby, according to the indictment, met with a CIA briefer and "discussed with the briefer, among other things, 'Joseph Wilson' and his wife 'Valerie Wilson' in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger." (Fitzgerald's use of quotation marks in this passage of the indictment suggests he has notes from this meeting.) Libby, as depicted in the indictment, was aware of the sensitive nature of the material he had collected on the Wilsons. When an assistant asked if information on Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the charge that Cheney had sent Wilson to Niger (an allegation never made by Wilson, who had said that his trip was a response to a request that had come to the CIA from Cheney's office), Libby told his aide that he could not talk about this topic on a nonsecure telephone line. Yet days later--on June 23, 2003--Libby met with Judy Miller and told her that Wilson's wife might work at the CIA. And the day after Joseph Wilson's op-ed piece appeared, Libby had lunch with White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and informed him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, adding that this was not widely known. That week, Libby twice more discussed Valerie Wilson with Miller. And on July 10 or 11, 2003, Libby, according to the indictment, spoke to a senior White House official--identified as "Official A" and possibly White House aide Karl Rove--who told Libby that earlier in the week he (Official A) had discussed Wilson's wife and her CIA employment with Novak, who would be writing a column about her. If the indictment is correct, Libby was not only in the loop regarding Valerie Wilson and her connection to the CIA; he had helped to create it. Yet Fitzgerald's indictment quotes Libby declaring over and over he only had heard--and passed along--scuttlebutt received from other reporters. To prop up this cover story, Libby told the FBI agents that it had been NBC News' Tim Russert who had said to him that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA and that "all the reporters knew it." Russert told the grand jury that he had not discussed Wilson's wife with Libby and that in this particular conversation Libby had complained to him about an MSNBC reporter (who goes unnamed in the indictment). Libby appears to have concocted a rather clumsy cover story, especially in that he pointed to a specific reporter as his source--Russert--for the information on Valerie Wilson that he shared with Miller and Cooper. A reasonable assumption is that even if Libby was not a source for the Novak column that identified Valerie Wilson, he was attempting to distance himself--and perhaps Cheney--from the administration's effort to find and leak information on Wilson and his wife (even if it might be classified) to undercut Wilson's criticism. During the press conference, Fitzgerald noted that Libby was the first official who talked to a reporter about Valerie Wilson when he discussed her with Miller on June 23, 2003. Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby seems rather tight. Libby said he knew nothing about Wilson's wife except what he had heard from reporters. Fitzgerald has compiled what looks like solid evidence that Libby was actively collecting information on Joseph Wilson and his wife. And if this case goes to trial, possible witnesses for the prosecution include Russert, Fleischer, Grossman, Libby's principle deputy, a CIA briefer, Official A, and Cheney. Libby could be sentenced up to 30 years if found guilty of all counts. Libby, the first senior White House official to be indicted since the Ulysses Grant administration, is in serious legal trouble. Is anyone else? Fitzgerald's grand jury expired on Friday. But he has asked the presiding judge to keep a grand jury available for him because he has not completed his investigation. His probe, he said at the press conference, is "not quite done." Then he quickly added, "But I don't want to add to a feverish pitch. It's very, very routine that you keep a grand jury available for what you might need." He noted that the "substantial bulk of the work" has been completed. But he said, "Let's let the process take place." How to read this? Not over, but mostly finished. Fitzgerald seemed a man who was rather close to the end of a long and tough endeavor, and he yielded no hint of any indictments to come. He certainly did not signal or say, "Stay tuned." Does that mean this leak investigation could end only with Libby indicted--not for participating in the leak but for lying about his pre-leak actions? That's possible. And Fitzgerald, sticking to the rules of grand jury investigations, refused to reveal any information about the case that was not included in the indictment. Who were Novak's sources for the leak? Fitzgerald wouldn't say. Is Official A a new name for Mr. X--the term used by reporters to refer to Novak's original source? Fitzgerald didn't say. Might Rove be Official A? Fitzgerald didn't say. Why did the leak refer to Valerie Wilson by her maiden name of Plame? Fitzgerald didn't say. What sort of cooperation did Fitzgerald receive from Novak (who presumably spilled all to Fitzgerald, otherwise he would have landed in the slammer like Miller)? Fitzgerald didn't say. Was Cheney in cahoots with Libby regarding the latter's false testimony? Fitzgerald didn't say. How much damage was done to the CIA and its operations by the leak? Fitzgerald didn't say. What about George W. Bush? What did he know about Rove's involvement in the leak and when did he know it? No reporter at the press conference even asked about this. Fitzgerald did not share much beyond the information he had to disclose in order to indict Libby. He did declare that "the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified...but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community" and that "her cover was blown" by the Novak column. (So much for the goofy rightwing conspiracy theory that I colluded with Joseph Wilson after the Novak column to out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA operative. If you don't know about that, don't ask.) And he passionately countered the pre-indictment criticism from Republicans and others who argued that bringing perjury and obstruction of justice charges--rather than accusing anyone of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or other laws that apply to leaking classified information--would be a cheap shot or an act of prosecutorial overreaching. He explained that he and his investigators were assigned the job of investigating the unauthorized disclosure of classified information and determining if any laws--not one particular statute, such as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act--were violated. In such an inquiry, he said, "fine distinctions" are critical, and consequently, it is "important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth." In this probe, that included Libby. Fitzgerald indicated he had considered the possibility of charging leakers with violating the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime for government officials to disseminate classified information--to unauthorized individuals. Using the Espionage Act in this manner, some media and legal experts have claimed, would lead to an Official Secrets Act, but Fitzgerald said he didn't accept that analysis. Still, he called this act "a difficult statue to interpret." And he chose not to indict anyone--yet--for violating it. He also defended his choice to pursue Miller and Cooper and to seek Miller's imprisonment, citing a special need for their testimony. ("I do not think that a reporter should be subpoenaed anything close to routinely," he said.) When asked about detractors who have accused him of being partisan, he replied, "for which party?" Fitzgerald knows far more than what is in the Libby indictment. But the American public may never learn what he has uncovered. There might be no further indictments, and Fitzgerald dismissed the idea of writing a final report. He said that he does not have the authority to issue such a document--and that he does not believe a special counsel should have that authority. Independent counsels used to have the obligation to craft a final report that detailed their investigation and findings and explained decisions to prosecute and not prosecute. But the independent counsel law expired, and Fitzgerald is operating as a special counsel pursuant to Justice Department rules that do not provide for the production of a final report and that do compel prosecutors to keep grand jury material that is not used for an indictment or trial confidential. Feeling the reporter's pain, Fitzgerald remarked, "I know that people want to know whatever it is we know....We just can't do that....We either charge someone or we don't talk about them." Which means that after the government has paid for a two-year investigation, the public may be left in the dark about much of what happened in the leak case. The leakers may never be held accountable. Rove's role, Bush's knowledge, Cheney's potential involvement--all of that could remain a secret, even though Fitzgerald has apparently dug deep and unearthed much of the tale. When a reporter asked Fitzgerald if he had learned how Washington works, he replied, "Yes," and said no more. The Libby indictment does stand as a significant development. Libby was an influential aide for an influential veep in an administration that has often been accused of lying to get its way--such as during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. And he has been charged with putting himself above the law and undermining an investigation initiated by his administration's Justice Department. On January 22, 2001, Bush, while swearing in the new White House staff, said, "We must remember the high standards that come with high office. This begins with careful adherence to the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct. This means avoiding even the appearance of problems. This means checking and, if need be, double-checking that the rules have been obeyed. This means never compromising those rules....We are all accountable to one another. And above all, we are all accountable to the law and to the American people." Libby, who quickly resigned after the indictment was released, has fallen. But Rove, who also leaked classified information by passing information on Wilson's wife to Cooper and Novak, has violated White House rules and Bush's self-proclaimed standards, if not the law itself. He has not been held accountable yet, and that task may be beyond Fitzgerald's reach. Nor have Bush and Rove explained why the White House misled the public when it denied Rove and Libby were involved in the leak. Neither have accepted responsibility for that. As for Libby, Bush, in a brief statement, said he was "saddened" by the news of his indictment. He said nothing about the ethical standards of his White House. In politics and policy, lying is not always illegal. And it's easy to see why officials in this White House might think they can escape being held accountable for prevaricating. But Libby seems to have lied to the wrong guy in the wrong forum. "Truth is the engine of our judicial system," Fitzgerald declared while explaining the gravity of the Libby indictment. And this is a grave indictment. It just doesn't answer many grave questions that still remain in the CIA leak affair. Posted by David Corn at October 28, 2005 08:06 PM | ||
Comments
This sucks. We deserve to know more. But unlike Ken Starr, who was bloviating in his driveway every morning and having his lawyers leak every night, Patrick Fitzgerald follows the law to the letter, as painful as that is for so many of us. We can only hope that someday we may know the truth.
Posted by: Martha at October 28, 2005 08:20 PM
Jeanne,
Thanks for the link at 155 on the previous post.
The tragic state of partisan politics at the state level. As a Compassionate Buckeye, I had a bad feeling about the vote count in Ohio. Having been the object of non-political intimidation on the job based on false accusations, I can only imagine how much political intimidation of state and local employees took place in recent months. I had a friend who was an independent pharmacist several years ago and he almost went bankrupt because the state computers were in such bad shape and the state Medicaid program was slow in reimbursing him for Medicaid cases. In the 70's and 80's, I had another friend whose spouse worked in the state auditorճ office. Every payday he was required to donate money to the flower fund if he wanted to keep his job or ever be promoted. The committee used the flower fund in order to re-elect the state auditor. When I applied for a job after college graduation, the Republican interviewers told me that I would not get picked since I was a Democrat. Also in the 70's, the Democratic legislature would invite the Republican Welfare Director to attend hearings at the state capitol and then let him sit until later in the evening and then badger. He eventually died of a heart attack. As you can see, I have trouble believing the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio when he says that all of the votes were counted accurately. I know how easy it would be to hide bogus vote counts, especially in a computer system, especially in OHIO. I also got a bad feeling when the exit polls were not accurate. The science is too refined for so many of the exit polls to be wrong again. Finally, I had a touch of Deja Vu when the cameras were brought into the White House on election night to show the Bush clan assuring everyone that the votes would go their way. They were just too smug and over-confidant. I DID NOT TRUST HIM THAT NIGHT ANYMORE THAN I TRUSTED HIM in 2000 ago when he got off the phone with his brother and said he would win in FLORIDA.
Anyone who has taken a science class should understand the principle of significant digits and margin of error. In a system that is so imperfect and prone error whether it be innocent or not, should have a scientifically defined margin of error. Any vote within the margin of error should be declared a tie and a run-off election held strictly with the two most popular candidates with no other issues or referendum to could the day. All scientists should have seen the vote in Florida in 2000 as a dead heat and either the electoral vote split between the 2 candidates or they should call for a run-off election. I called the Jim Bohannon Radio show in November, 2004 and posed the question that an election just like exit polls have a margin of error of 2 to 4 % and the votes in Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2004 were scientific dead heat and the only way to decide would be a fun-off election. Jim Bohannon poo pooed the idea saying that there was no margin of error in elections. To my surprise, Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park author) the guest that evening, came to my defense and agreed that even elections have margins of error of up to 4%especially when there have been so many problems with vote counts in the past.
I have no doubt that the fix was in in Ohio.
Vote2Win Campaign may turbocharge voter registration & paper trails:
I would like to see this type of Press Release ASAP as we move to get more citizens to register and vote and to provide paper trails for all votes cast next year.
Citizen Change, a non-profit, non-partisan organization started in July, 2004, by entertainment mogul Sean Ґ. Diddy Combs in order to encourage young people to participate in the 2004 presidential election process, launched its new and improved model for 2005. The Vote or Die campaign successfully helped register millions of new voters. Being the latest recipient of an extreme Makeover, it will morph into a turbo-charged phase two entitled: Vote2Win. This could be the sequel with no equal. The first of several new public service announcements (PSA) will show Vote or die shirts and clothing being removed to reveal tattoos and/or undershirts displaying the new Vote2Win logo. The change from a somewhat negative self-defeating logo to a more positive proactive approach will help to emphasize the fact that all Americans will win if we all register and vote. We are not just proud to be an Americans, we are proud to act like an Americans.
The goal of Vote2win is to get corporations, organizations, and celebrities to donate prizes to be given away after the 2005 general election. The items could have limited costs to the donors but could greatly improve their public image. Who would not want to participate in a campaign to get all citizens to vote? What voter would not want to win dinner with Steve Martin, or an autographed book from Steven King, a cameo appearance on the Daily Show or perhaps on the West Wing or SNL, or how about playing a criminal or a victim on CSI? Citizens who vote in the next election would use the control number from their election machine receipt to register by mail or on a Web site after they vote and be entered in a fun, inspiring Vote2Win sweepstakes. Besides encouraging all Americans to register and vote, the campaign would put ongoing pressure on all localities to adopt voting systems with paper trails. It does not make any sense that ATM and lottery systems have processed trillions of transactions worldwide for decades and been accurate to the penny and Americans still do not have a voting process is just as accurate and open to audits. Having a more reliable election system would encourage even more people to vote and accept the outcome. We plan to replace the Red and Blue map of America with an Orange and Green map. Orange will be used to identify those counties that do not have paper trails on at least 90% of their voting machines and Green will be used for those counties that have met the 90% goal.
Posted by: MnMnM at October 28, 2005 08:34 PM
Mr. David Corn,
Another great post!
Thanks
Kirk
Posted by: capt at October 28, 2005 08:40 PM
ah..good spinnen Corn...but, you didn't get the hook...and almost everything you predicted...in you July 15th article and in this blog just didn't pan. It's what you get for buying a sale of rotten goods. This is probably the worst case scenario for Wilson, I look forward to the civil suit, if he is dumb enough to do it, especially discovery!
Posted by: mary mapes at October 28, 2005 08:57 PM
How do you know Grossman was the Undersecretary involved? I thought everyone else was speculating about his identity (Was it Bolton?, etc).
Posted by: Speed King at October 28, 2005 08:57 PM
As David illuminates, there is much we don't know -- and may never know. But, we do know that Scooter Libby's stories did not hold up to Fitzgerald's scrutiny. I think we can safely say that Libby engaged in a CRIMINAL campaign to hide/conceal evidence and to attempt to pass the blame on to others. I think Libby's indictment shows that there are others -- the VEEP included -- that knew that Libby was lying to protect himself. Now, we have to find out why they tolerated Libby's lies.
I am going to go nuts reading and listening to all the yammering from certain quarters that Democrats in Congress never do anything. The yammerers should keep in mind that the opposition party does not have the power to hold hearings officially, they cannot subpoena witnesses or any material. I wish it were not so...but that is the reality. That does not mean the Dems will do nothing. Waxman and Kennedy, among others, are already making statements and calling for new hearings.
But, the other reality is this: The thugs in the White House are counting on the Republican-controlled Congress to continue to ignore their constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch. Face it folks, the fascist-loving, lockstep lemmings who put this gang in the WH (twice) will have to turn on them before anything substantive changes.
But, I will remain hopeful that Fitzgerald has much more in the works...
Posted by: micki at October 28, 2005 09:01 PM
From previous thread (and still off-topic):
Tim: So just because he couldn't find the WMDs, means Saddam didn't have them?"
You're changing the subject.
You had said: "There was evidence that said Saddam may have not had WMDs, but there was FAR more evidence that claimed he did have WMDs."
You made a claim about the preponderance of evidence. But according to the best information available at the time, Blix's findings, there was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs.
And lo and behold, Blix was right. But then, you just can't trust them Euro types, can ya Bubba.
Now run along. You're boring me.
Posted by: Drewp at October 28, 2005 09:06 PM
Gee David, you must be very relieved that the grand jury indicted Irvin and not you.
Clifford May must be pretty discouraged that his blockbuster scoop has come to nothing. Must be some sort of liberal conspiracy.
Posted by: Drewp at October 28, 2005 09:11 PM
Oh so Bush, should believe Blix when the previous adminstration thought Iraq had WMDs, as well as 7 other countries??
Actually no, Blix did not have the best information at the time. The best info at the time was from the CIA and other intelligence agencies around the world.
Hans Blix also said this:
"I've never maintained that the [Bush] administration deliberately misled" the public, said Blix, who headed the inspection team before the US-led military action in Iraq. ''I think they misled themselves, that we can see. And then they misled the world."
Speaking at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University
David Kaye, who headed the Iraq Survey Group also has defended Bush, saying, it was right for Bush to act off of the intelligence presented to him.
Posted by: Tim L at October 28, 2005 09:25 PM
Mary Mapes: This is probably the worst case scenario for Wilson, I look forward to the civil suit, if he is dumb enough to do it, especially discovery!
Care to explain? I'm especially eager to know why this is bad for Wilson. And it seems to me that the discovery process will be a great opportunity to pull the lid off this cesspool.
Posted by: Drewp at October 28, 2005 09:31 PM
Micki,
Several pundits and conservatives have complained that it is not Fitzgerald's job to determine whther our lock-step march to WAR was based on a conspiracy of lies. That job belongs to Congress.
Guess who controls Congress?
The White House WHIGged when it should have WHAGged. The existence of the White House Iraq Group proves what their real motives were. After all of the rehetoric and promises after 911, it should have been the White House Anti-terrorist Group (WHAG). Again all citizens have been betrayed by the deadly abuse of power by
Libby, et. al.
Based on the jobs Libby may be offered by the private sector, the indictments may actually be a plus considering who he might be working for. Halliburton is always in need of people who are not afraid to perjure themselves.
Posted by: MnMnM at October 28, 2005 09:34 PM
Everybody would have gone to war with the bad intell, just nobody not one BUT Bush started a war on the lies about mushroom cloud and lies about yellow cake.
But Bush should never be held to account because everybody else would have done the same thing?
Do you not hear how ridiculous that sounds?
Bush never lied, everybody else would have and if all else fails David Kay defended the Coward from Crawford.
I am sold.
For sure, especially if Kay said so.
You like to throw around personal attacks I have yet to see on one by blog from any troll?
Don't be scared, come on down. It is set-up for cowards and I have a post especially for you!
Come on now, nothing to be all scared about. I will not attack you personally because you are not bright enough to catch my humor. HA!
capt meanie!
Posted by: capt at October 28, 2005 09:39 PM
Capt wrote:
"Everybody would have gone to war with the bad intell, just nobody not one BUT Bush started a war on the lies about mushroom cloud and lies about yellow cake."
Capt you Moron, Bush didn't know the intel was bad. The intelligence given to Bush indicated Iraq had WMDs, and indicated Iraq sought uranium from Niger, as the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the indepedent bipartisan Silberman/Rob WMD commission concluded, which YOU CAPT will not accept, since it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions about Bush.
But Bush should never be held to account because everybody else would have done the same thing?
Do you not hear how ridiculous that sounds?
Posted by: Tim L at October 28, 2005 09:47 PM
Tim L: Actually no, Blix did not have the best information at the time. The best info at the time was from the CIA and other intelligence agencies around the world.
False again. Even in the 1990s, the intelligence agencies were trying to infiltrate the inspection teams precisely because they had the best access to the Iraqi facilities. Read the 9/02 Time magazine interview with Ritter that was linked to in the previous thread.
Besides, it's now obvious that Blix had the best information. He's been proven right.
"I think they misled themselves, that we can see. And then they misled the world."
Indeed they did mislead the world.
David Kaye, who headed the Iraq Survey Group also has defended Bush, saying, it was right for Bush to act off of the intelligence presented to him.
Yet another loser. I clearly remember him arguing with Ritter before the war, claiming Ritter was dead wrong. As head of the postwar inspection regime, Kaye had more than ample opportunity prove himself right. Instead he's had to gorge on crow.
Posted by: Drewp at October 28, 2005 09:49 PM
capt,
they're not trolls or fanatics or stupid.
they just need help understanding why they are in the position they are, defending the dogs of war.
just keep talking to them, they've been here so long, i think they're begining to like us.
Posted by: ripple at October 28, 2005 09:51 PM
Capt, you know how rediculous YOU SOUND!?!?
All's I read from you is how bad Bush is, how he lies about this or that, but you can provide any verifiable proof!! You never talk about ideas. It's all Bush hatred.
Hell, Kerry probably could have won if the Left would of spent time debating the merits of the Iraq war, then trying to discredit Bush. Your arguements could have been:
The Iraq war was a war of choice, and Iraq was not an imminent threat. Or, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, because they didn't attack us. Those 2 arguements might have landed Kerry in the WH. But instead, you Leftists were trying to descredit Bush, which obviously didn't work and was debunked by the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the indepedent bipartisan Silberman/Rob WMD commission.
But see, you Leftists can't win in the arena of ideas, so the only way you can win is to descredit or criminalize republicans.
Posted by: Tim L at October 28, 2005 09:53 PM
Drewp, Bush did mislead thew world, but it was unintentional, not intentional.
There is a HUGE difference between intentionally misleading someone (lie), and unintentionally misleading someone (mistake).
Posted by: Tim L at October 28, 2005 09:57 PM
Capt,
I think ripple is right. Let's be really nice to Tim L.
Tim, no one is going to hurt you. Ok? Step away from your keyboard. It's ok, Tim. Think nice thoughts, like Bush being out of the White House.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 28, 2005 09:59 PM
"the arena of ideas"
is that where ideas are slaughtered for the Emperor?
I know your Emperor doesn't like ideas but subjecting them to the Arena is a little harsh don't you think Tim?
were you just saying something about sounding stupid?
Posted by: ripple at October 28, 2005 10:00 PM
Breakthrough for Tim!
Bush did mislead the world!
wow, we're proud of you man, keep it up.
Maybe soon, the motive will also be clear to you.
Posted by: ripple at October 28, 2005 10:02 PM
Karl Rove was Senior Advisor to the President up until February 2005 when he became the Deputy Chief of Staff of the United States (COSTUS) Did he have Top Secret clearance before that appointment? Even if he did, just having Top Secret clearance does not give him the authority to look at every Top Secret document that exists, it should be limited to a "need to know basis." He also probably violated the Privacy Act by divulging Plames's name.
It is a crime to violate any citizen's Privacy by divulging information to groups or individuals without a need to know or without the appropriate clearances. Whenever any agency . . . fails to comply with any other provision of this section, or any rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual [the individual may bring a civil action]." 5 U.S.C. ? 552a(g)(1)(D).
Posted by: MnMnM at October 28, 2005 10:04 PM
golly, if their were such innocent reasons for misinterpreting the intelligence, WHY is Scooter looking at 5-30 for lying about trashing the Wilsons? Oh,and cheney mentioned it to him, but i'm sure he said ,"Don't tell Judy!" And Scoot said,"don't you forget, W. doesn't know anything about it.Oh, but Carl spoke with Novak today."
I think Kathleen has it right. We need to to get the list of all on the committee and start sending postcards to those that can open Phase 2 that Roberts delayed till after the election. Also send cards to Kucinich"s committee to open the investigation. Fitz suggested or implied that the Congress can issue investigative reports,he must charge or hush. Kathleen, i hope you continue to push. Peace
Posted by: Dubendorf at October 28, 2005 10:08 PM
#2
MnMnM,
Thanks for the post. I felt so betrayed by the past 2 elections. This administistration took my voice away. I will never, ever forgive them for that. And what is even worse is that they took my son and daughters vote away.
How many people voted for the first time in the 2004 election and had the vote stolen from them? They were denied one of the most precious rights in America. It doesn't matter how you voted in 2000 and 2004. It didn't count.
What the White House doesn't understand is, it isn't about winning. It's about serving the nation honorably.
PS. And to thing these pieces of....are claiming they want democracy in Iraq.
Posted by: Jeanne at October 28, 2005 10:10 PM
Tim L: "Drewp, Bush did mislead thew world, but it was unintentional, not intentional.
There is a HUGE difference between intentionally misleading someone (lie), and unintentionally misleading someone (mistake)."
You sound like Scotty McClueless when he slips into robot mode.
You're simply choosing to ignore the points I made about Bush's Oct. '02 speech, the Downing St. memo (a denial by Blair hardly proves it was fraudulent), and everything else I listed.
You obviously have no interest in the truth. In that sense, Bush represents you perfectly, and I suppose that's why you support him in the face of all reason. You're two of a kind.
Now bugger off.
Posted by: Drewp at October 28, 2005 10:11 PM
Dubendorf, did you see the news today?? Libby got indicted because he lied to prosecutors and the FBI, it had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq war.
Dubendorf, I'm glad you're eager to see phase 2 completed of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, but let me ask you something just to make sure you're consistent.
Did you accept the conclusions of phase 1, which blame the failure to find WMDs on the CIA and other intelligence agencies around the world?? Now in order for there to have been an intelligence failure to find WMDs, that means the intelligence must have been wrong.
Posted by: Tim L at October 28, 2005 10:14 PM
Late Friday, three people close to the investigation, each asking to remain unidentified because of grand jury secrecy, identified Rove as Official A
Posted by: MnMnM at October 28, 2005 10:16 PM
Drewp, I haven't ignored anything. What was wrong with Bush talking about Iraq in the spring of 02 when he was planning on creating a war resolution later that year?
The DSM is NOT a real document. Didn't you criticize Bush for using that forged Italian document that claimed Hussein was seeking yellow cake uranium from Niger?? How do we know the DSM is the EXACT same thing the REAL document said?
And let me ask you this, why didn't Kerry go forward with trying to impeach Bush with the DSM? You know why, because he called for an invasion of Iraq in 1998! God you Leftists are such hypocrites!
Posted by: Tim L at October 28, 2005 10:19 PM
Sending postcards to washington is better than emails or letters. No envelopes cause they are rerouted to check for foul play. for a quarter you can get a stamped generic at the post office. Since our elected representatives refuse to comment or tell the truth,INVESTIGATE. It is a shame that gov't has to come to a halt to investigate itself so often. I'd rather they did the countries business but they're criminals goddammit. americas potential is there but not with the current crop(and thats not limited to repugs).
Posted by: Dubendorf at October 28, 2005 10:22 PM
Tim L,
I don't want your head to explode but look what was on Fox News.
Morris: Libby Indictment Implicates Cheney
On Fox News, former presidential advisor Dick Morris says todayճ events donմ bode well for Dick Cheney:
JOHN GIBSON: How bad is this damage? And what does the president need to control it, Dick?
DICK MORRIS: Well, it depends on whether we are just talking about Libby. If the prosecutor is happy with an indictment of him, a conviction, and that scalp on the wall is sufficient for him, then it just goes away. Itճ one bad chapter and it passes.
But it is very possible that the prosecutor looks up the food chain to Vice President Cheney. These investigations have a way of rising. And according to the terms of the indictment, Cheney told Libby about Valerie Plame and then Libby lied to the grand jury about how he found about it, saying that he got it from a reporter. Well, if thatճ the case, the vice president knew that Libby was lying.
And it wasnմ like his grand jury was secret. It was all over the place, you could read it in any newspaper. So my question is, why didnմ the vice president say anything? Why didnմ he speak up? And when youղe out there committing perjury and your boss is silent, and your boss knows that youղe doing that, itճ [the silence is] a subtle signal from your boss to say, "I appreciate it."
Posted by: Jeanne at October 28, 2005 10:23 PM
has any leftist ever said the intelligence was good? i sit in rural america, at the time i only had cable and MSM, and i knew the intelligence was not a slam dunk. Tim, I,too. must refrain from futher discourse with a troll for it cheapens the site when we hear dogma instead of serious consideration.Oh Scooter, the President didn't mean anything personel when he said he didn't like leakers. He meant he wanted any democrats in his administration to come forward.outahere
Posted by: Dubendorf at October 28, 2005 10:33 PM
The Prosecutor Never Rests and that is never the whole story. Headlines are screaming "Cheney Adviser Indicted in CIA Leak Probe" while under the radar US forces in Iraq reach 161,000, highest level of the war it is no wonder that Al-Jazeera: The new power on the small screen has more credibility than the MSM as Bush Heads to Camp David to Ponder Nominee to hide from the press and nurse a bottle of Jack Daniels leaving all of us to wonder What If? and ponder the real success from stuffing the ballot boxes in Iraq as Sunni-Shiite Warfare breaks out in Southeast Baghdad .
It is the same old story It Ain't The Crime. It's the Cover-up and as the leader of the "free world" it is past the Time for Dubya to Get His Act Together. A real leader does not have to be forced to do the right thing especially when A Tough Investigation Is Also Praised as Nonpartisan and whoever the other leaker named 'Official A' stands out in indictment, now we know Bush has been lying like an Ari pull string action figure and so At end of difficult week, Bush seeks to bolster war support hoping to change the subject to his other failures as a distraction but the ink is dry on the Libby indictment even though a more recent failure has a big problem because Two Months Later, Katrina Survivors are Losing the Battle and the world is watching. It is more a case that the world sees At the White House, the Spin Doctor Is Ill and there is just no medicine for this kind of a failure.
Just sayin'
capt
Posted by: capt at October 28, 2005 10:39 PM
Tim: "Drewp, I haven't ignored anything. What was wrong with Bush talking about Iraq in the spring of 02 when he was planning on creating a war resolution later that year?"
Nonsequitur. I was talking about his inclusion, omission, and inclusion again in his speeches of the charge that Saddam had tried to buy uranium.
Tim: "The DSM is NOT a real document."
If you're trying to say that the DSM is the minutes of a meeting, you're right. But so what? They were written by a British government official. Only Blair has disputed their accuracy, and of course he would.
"Tim: didn't you criticize Bush for using that forged Italian document that claimed Hussein was seeking yellow cake uranium from Niger?? How do we know the DSM is the EXACT same thing the REAL document said?
See above.
Tim: "And let me ask you this, why didn't Kerry go forward with trying to impeach Bush with the DSM? You know why, because he called for an invasion of Iraq in 1998! God you Leftists are such hypocrites!"
Do you even understand how the impeachment process works?
Posted by: Drewp at October 28, 2005 10:40 PM
"5-30 for lying about trashing the Wilsons?"
Do not forget AND $1.25 million in fines. Parking tickets to the elite but . . .
capt
Posted by: capt at October 28, 2005 10:42 PM
You guys think that Bush plans when he goes to Camp David. No. No. He dances the night away.
Dancing Bush
Posted by: Jeanne at October 28, 2005 11:10 PM
Why did Libby lie and not tell the truth? Was he afraid of being charged with outing a covered agent or was he covering up a conspiracy that may have included Cheney? Libby was a lawyer and he knew when he lied to the FBI and the Grand Jury those were serious crimes in their own right and that he had left such a trail of evidence behind him he knew his lies would likely be found out. Either lied because he outed Plame in a way that made him susceptible to prosecution or he was lying to coverup something bigger. My money is on the latter. Libby was Cheney's creature. I think LIbby did it to coverup something bigger that involved Cheney.
Posted by: Alvord at October 28, 2005 11:19 PM
Drewp wrote:
Well this is from Factcheck.org, a non-partisan research institute
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bushs 16 words well founded.
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from a number of intelligence reports, a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bushs 16 words a lie, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
"If you're trying to say that the DSM is the minutes of a meeting, you're right. But so what? They were written by a British government official. Only Blair has disputed their accuracy, and of course he would."
So, how do we know that what was written, was accurate?? We don't, so we can only speculate.
Also too, if the DSM was the defenitive proof that verifies Bush lied, then how come you and others on the Left believed Bush lied before you knew about the DSM??
Would that be a lie, for believing something that hasn't been proven yet!?!?
Posted by: Tim L at October 28, 2005 11:22 PM
#11 Oh. Shit. O. Deer.
Fergitabout the private sector...Libby is a Columbia University Law School issue, Yale grad...bush may pick him as his next SCOTUS nominee.
Happy Halloween! Did I scare you??!!
Posted by: micki at October 28, 2005 11:30 PM
Timo -- calm down. You are making greater fools out of your chosen leaders because you are making a fool out of yoursel... ......oh nevermind. Get some sleep.
Posted by: micki at October 28, 2005 11:32 PM
David what a great post, appreciate your insights. I watched the press conference on Cnn and there were a few things that stood out for me.
1. If the american public has a "right to know", and this investigation is to "vindicate the serious breach of the public's trust". Why in the hell do we not have the right to a FULL REPORT, from Fitzgerald??? WHY???
2. Fitzgerald made it clear that his investigation would NOT be investigating ALL of the false pre-war intelligence, as many of us had hoped. He made it crystal clear that this was the job of our congress. This is why I continue to PUSH HARD for PHASE II OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE TO BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY.
3. As I watched the press conference on Cnn the screen was often divided into three sectiions. With Cheney's speech and the staged military presence behind him, Bush in another screen, and Fitzgerald in the other screen.
This certainly seemed to be an obvious effort to undermine Fitzgerald's one and only press conference. Bush who has been continually saying he supports the way in which Fitzgerald is conducting the investigation and Fitzgerald's integrity, and his commitment to follow the letter of the law.
Bush has also repeated that he could not comment on an ongoing investigation. And then he chose that moment to address the nation about what at that time. Why was the screen divided into three. How completely inappropriate.
MORE OF KARL'S WORK, I GUESS.
4. Fitzgerald does appear to be a straight shooter. Although it really bothered me when he advised the public to ..."STEP BACK...TAKE A DEEP BREATH...AND LET THE PROCESS TAKE PLACE"..
Why in the hell should we trust any process at this point...we have watched this administration LIE this country into a unnecessary war which has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, divulge the identity of an undercover agent, jeopardize national security...
.TAKE A DEEP BREATH.. TAKE A DEEP BREATH ..easy for Fitzgerald or any of us to say. I dare him to say TAKE A DEEP BREATH to people who have lost family members due to the use of all of THE false intelligence that Joe Wilson was attempting to tell the truth about.
I believe we should be pushing harder than ever for what Fitzgerald referred to as "truth that is the engine of our judicial system" I will change that just a little to THE "SUPPOSED" TRUTH THAT IS THE ENGINE OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
WE NEED TO PUSH HARDER NOW... FOR THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. WE OWE THIS TO ALL OF THOSE WHO HAVE LOST FAMILY MEMBERS, INCLUDING IRAQI'S, TO OUR DEMOCRACY, AND TO THE TRUTH...
.
Posted by: kathleen at October 28, 2005 11:36 PM
Jeepers!
I can't even go on VACATION!!!
Y'all just ignore Timmy, 'less you want some cheap sport. He's about as capable as a bowling ball of learning from the facts.
He's got his "Bunnypants Uber Alles!" underoos on again...
sigh...
Came inside for a night in Beautiful Eagle, CO. Snow tonight and tomorrow... Aspen should be lovely...gotta drink one for Hunter at the Woody Creek tavern tomorrow.
Robert S. and Saladin and Family...I can't tell you what lingering warm feeling I have.
I'll tell you personal-like should I get the chance.
My sister and I are sharing the HONEYMOON Hot-Tub Suite!!!
How'd they KNOW we're from Kentucky?!!!
Later Y'all!
-T
Posted by: Hajji at October 28, 2005 11:37 PM
I am mad as hell.
Here's this man, Fitzgerald, telling us today how important it is for "us" to know who leaked. he said "we" needed to get to the bottom of this. Yet, at the end of the day, only he, the perpetrators and the grand jury know what really happened. The rest of "us" are left in the dark and soldiers still die for a lie. With little more information than we had yesterday, we have to continue in this guessing game; what really happened? Why is it important for Fitzgerald to know while we cannot be included? Doesn't he work for "us?" Aren't we the people that need to know?
I want Cheney's testimony, I want Rove's, I want Bush's testimony and I want to know, since they did not lie enough to be charged, what "truths" did they tell?
In other words, who knew what when?
Posted by: ArtJunky at October 28, 2005 11:40 PM
"I think Libby did it to coverup something bigger that involved Cheney"
I think so too. That is why Miller sat in jail until "the aspens turned together" it takes about that long to fake up the lies to cover for Rove and president Cheney.
I guess Kerry was spot on when he said this is the lyingest bunch of low-life say anything jerks.
Libby did win an award! The first White House staffer to be indicted in 130 years. The last guy was indicted then pardoned by President Grant.
Most every other president had the good sense to fire their criminals BEFORE they were indicted or pardoned them before a conviction could be brought.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 28, 2005 11:40 PM
#22 Dubendorf..thanks for taking up the cry for IMPLEMENTING PHASE II OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE. Patrick Fitzgerald made it crystal clear that ALL of the false pre-war intelligence is not his job to thoroughly investigate.
#25 Tim L ....How could PHASE I of that investigation come to any clear conclusions. When the WHITE HOUSE IRAQ GROUP AND THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS WERE COMPLETELY OFF LIMITS TO PHASE I OF THE INVESTIGATION?
The american people are under the FALSE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL OF THE PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE AND ALL OF THOSE WHO CREATED AND DESSIMINATED IT HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED.
CALL...WRITE...VISIT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND ALL OF THOSE ON THE COMMITTEE INCLUDING SENATOR PAT ROBERTS SENATOR ROCKERFELLER, DEMANDING THAT PHASE II BE IMPLEMETED IMMEDIATELY
Posted by: kathleen at October 28, 2005 11:46 PM
The grand jury is right and Fitzgerald was right to wait. If he has and is going to use the information from the Italian investigation Fitzgerald would be stepping on their toes if he made public the contents of their report before they make it public.
Fitzgerald has expanded the scope to include who and where the faked up Niger documents came from. That will be made public if not by Fitzgerald then from the Italian report.
I still see a very merry Fitzmas in store for all.
Nobody can undo the VP's COS lying more than once to the grand jury. This is the administration on trial and the buck stops at Bunnypants whether he likes it or not. He is either in control of his staff and his underlings or he is not. The fact that he knew what was happening and did nothing is an indictment of the whole Bush lie machine of which he is at the helm. He micro-manages everything and nobody breaks ranks so this was all done at Bush's instruction or he does not control his people.
Everybody see it and knows what's up.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 28, 2005 11:54 PM
Capt you Moron, Bush didn't know the intel was bad. Cheney did Tenet did and when Dufus found out that the intel was bad, did he fire anyone? Bush couldn't even fire Libby today. And tim, you keep calling him your president?The intelligence given to Bush indicated Iraq had WMDs, and indicated Iraq sought uranium from...
Posted by: ArtJunky at October 28, 2005 11:54 PM
Well, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence examined the intelligence from the US and other agencies around the world, and came to the conclusion that the intelligence did indicate that Iraq had WMDs. Plus, there's also the Silberman/Rob WMD commission which came to the same conclusion.
It's funny you should bring up the White House iraq Group, I would think that a leftist would be even more skeptical about them than then CIA or other world intelligence agencies because they were from the White House.
Kathleen, here's something to think about. Pretend that the US did not have intelligence indicating Iraq had WMDs, but just the other countries, such as France, Russia, Australia, Britain, China, Egypt and Jordan, would you believe these countries that Iraq had WMDs if the US didn't believe it?
Posted by: Tim L at October 28, 2005 11:55 PM
ArtJunky, Cheney and Tenet did not think the intelligence was bad, but answer my question to Kathleen in post 46. Would you believe other countries that claimed Iraq had WMDs, if the US didn't?
Posted by: Tim L at October 28, 2005 11:57 PM
Capt wrote:
"The grand jury is right and Fitzgerald was right to wait. If he has and is going to use the information from the Italian investigation Fitzgerald would be stepping on their toes if he made public the contents of their report before they make it public."
As it has already been proven, those forged Italian documents were not the basis for the Bush administration believing Iraq sought uranium from Niger. British and US intelligence was their basis.
Capt wrote:
"He is either in control of his staff and his underlings or he is not."
"He micro-manages everything and nobody breaks ranks so this was all done at Bush's instruction or he does not control his people."
Wait a minute! I thought Cheney ran the show, or is it Rove!?!?
Posted by: Tim L at October 29, 2005 12:07 AM
...Pretend that the US did not have intelligence indicating Iraq had WMDs, but just the other countries, such as France, Russia, Australia, Britain, China, Egypt and Jordan, would you believe these countries that Iraq had WMDs if the US didn't believe it?
That's not what happened but Dufus was just fine accepting crappy intel from Britain and putting it in King Georges speech, taking it out and then putting it back in for his nation presentation to the nation.
Remember Powell's speech to the UN? A lot of liberals changed their minds because of him. Guess who was feeding him "intel?" Mr. Lies...Scooter-boy himself.
Never fired! Doesn't it bother you that even after all the mistakes, nobody has been fired?
Posted by: ArtJunky at October 29, 2005 12:09 AM
AND THOUSANDS HAVE DIED BECAUSE OF THESE MISTAKES!!!
Posted by: ArtJunky at October 29, 2005 12:11 AM
Intel from 6 other countries besides Britain. I think Tenet should have been fired.
And answer my question, don't avoid it.
Posted by: Tim L at October 29, 2005 12:12 AM
And why?
Posted by: ArtJunky at October 29, 2005 12:13 AM
The intel was wrong...nobody fired? Cheney was down at the pentagon an unpresedented 10 times. They created an Special ops inside the pentagon to "filter" intelligence. Cheney set the filter and he got just what he was trying to get.
Posted by: ArtJunky at October 29, 2005 12:16 AM
It's a hypothetical question. Pretend that Clinton, or Gore or Kerry were president. Now lets say that a year or so after 9/11, that the countries of Britain, Russia, Australia, France, China, Egypt and Jordan all said Iraq possesed WMDs, but the US government did not believe it.
But would you believe it still?
Posted by: Tim L at October 29, 2005 12:16 AM
The intel was wrong...nobody fired? Cheney was down at the pentagon an unprecedented 10 times. They created an Special ops inside the pentagon to "filter" intelligence. Cheney set the filter and he got just what he was trying to get.
Posted by: ArtJunky at October 29, 2005 12:17 AM
That's not what the 2 bipartisan investigatins found.
Posted by: Tim L at October 29, 2005 12:19 AM
Libby: The War Party's Kamikaze
Why did Scooter lie and so badly?
by Justin Raimondo
"It's not over."
Out of Fitzgerald's hour-long press conference, these three words had the most resonance. Before we get into that, however, let's look at the man who has come out from behind the screen of this very closely-held investigation.
Fitzgerald's debut at the press conference put on display a character who might have been imagined by a novelist. He seems to embody the principle of justice: the clear concise nature of his speech, his narrow application of his mandate [.pdf], his adamant refusal to be drawn into politics of any sort. If this is the man the White House thought they were going to characterize as partisan, they had better go back to the drawing board.
*****end of clip*****
Antiwar.com is not for trolls or mindless drone bees walking like so many lemming to the Cliff (not May). HA!
I think Justin ROCKS!
capt
Posted by: capt at October 29, 2005 12:25 AM
Trying to find excuses? Sorry. Your president is a Dufus that shouldn't have gone into Iraq. He should have done what HE PROMISED TO CONGRESS and tried to make inspections work. Is that what Dufus did? Nope! He thumbed his nose at the experts and all those countries that you listed and went to war without them.
Now Iraq is broke. WHO DO YOU BLAME?
Would I trust other countries' intel over ours? Now I would. See, the problem with your little point is that you think that we would have done exactly the same thing. You think that somehow we would be in the same predicament that we find ourselves here today. When in fact, we wouldn't have tried to sell a war because we knew, Rice knew, Powell knew and G. H. Bush knew that Saddam was contained. And all the people that you pretend are so upstanding were calling for this war before the towers fell were saying..."We just need a new pearl harbor." PNAC Project for a New American Century.
Posted by: ArtJunky at October 29, 2005 12:29 AM
Rethinking Failed Policies
by Rep. Ron Paul
We have been warned. Prepare for a broader war in the Middle East, as plans are being laid for the next U.S.-led regime change Рin Syria. A UN report on the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policymaker: "Out of tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity." This statement reflects the continued neoconservative, Machiavellian influence on our foreign policy. The "opportunity" refers to the long-held neoconservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq.
This plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time. Just as 9/11 served the interests of those who longed for changes in Iraq, the sensationalism surrounding Hariri's death is being used to advance plans to remove Assad.
Congress already has assisted these plans by authorizing the sanctions placed on Syria last year. Harmful sanctions, as applied to Iraq in the 1990s, inevitably represent a major step toward war since they bring havoc to so many innocent people. Syria already has been charged with developing weapons of mass destruction based on no more evidence than was available when Iraq was similarly charged.
*****end of clip*****
A bit from a real conservative GOP politician. There is a link to watch the speech on video and Rep. Ron Paul is not the worst speaker I have ever heard.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 29, 2005 12:30 AM
Capt, I doubt Rep. Ron Paul would appreciate you calling him a GOPher.
Posted by: Tim L at October 29, 2005 12:35 AM
American Soldiers
2,254 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bushճ evil lies.
Posted by: Gerald at October 29, 2005 12:37 AM
'Plame-gate' & Myth of the Renegade Aide
By Robert Parry
October 27, 2005
One of the common myths of official Washington is that most political scandals result from overly aggressive aides operating out of control Рthe Watergate "third-rate burglary" or Iran-Contraճ "men of zeal" Рwith top officials getting in trouble only later by trying to cover the mess up.
But the reality Рwhich is relevant again amid the probe into the outing of a CIA officer Рis that a principal official is almost always lurking somewhere in the background of the original crime, sending signals or pulling strings with the expectation that, if caught, a subordinate will take the fall.
So now, much like the historical arguments over whether the Watergate break-in was approved by Richard Nixon or which Iran-Contra dealings were green-lighted by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the new question is whether Dick Cheney and George W. Bush winked at their top aides leaking the identity of Valerie Plame as retaliation for her husband exposing a deception used to take America to war in Iraq.
The "Plame-gate" probe has focused on Vice President Cheneyճ chief of staff I. Lewis Libby and President Bushճ deputy chief of staff Karl Rove. Based on whatճ now publicly known, it appears that Libby and Rove at minimum misled investigators about how they learned of Plameճ identity and how they disseminated that information.
Yet while special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald examines whether Libby and Rove committed crimes, official Washington has mostly averted its eyes from a potentially bigger question: Did their superiors, Cheney and/or Bush, encourage or order the leak?
If so, based on history, one of two outcomes would seem likely: either a constitutional crisis would result, with at least one of the top two U.S. executive officers implicated in a felony conspiracy, or a conveniently truncated investigation would follow, not getting much higher than Libby and Rove.
*****end of clip*****
I doubt the crimes will go any higher. Hard to say. I remember people said a third rate burglary would never take Nixon down. Nixon knew it was over when he lost his own parties support. Hard to say the GOPhers are in lock-step when they did not back the Miers mediocrity.
The funny thing is back in the early Է0ճ I would have supported Tricky Dick. I was so na?ve I was surprised to hear Dick curse on tape. I thought being a Quaker was a bit more reserved and far less foul mouthed.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 29, 2005 12:43 AM
ArtJunky wrote:
"Trying to find excuses? Sorry. Your president is a Dufus that shouldn't have gone into Iraq. He should have done what HE PROMISED TO CONGRESS and tried to make inspections work. Is that what Dufus did? Nope! He thumbed his nose at the experts and all those countries that you listed and went to war without them."
"When in fact, we wouldn't have tried to sell a war because we knew, Rice knew, Powell knew and G. H. Bush knew that Saddam was contained."
Actually, if we knew about the oil for food scandal, we could have contained Hussein. But, Hussein was trying to buy off UN weapons inspectors to lift the sanctions against him so he could restart his biological and chemical programs. Although he did not have WMDs at the time we invaded, he did have the intent and capability to make WMDs, according to Charles Dulfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.
Inspections weren't working because Hussein was defying the inspectors. He was not allowing tenative inspections. There were several times where he would not let inspectors do their job at particular times. He and his sons did not follow Bush's ultimatum to leave Iraq within 48 hours.
Some of those countries helped us, but not all. He didn't thumb his nose at anyone. France and Russia would NEVER have agreed with the war, after all, they were PROFITING by keeping Hussein in power.
Posted by: Tim L at October 29, 2005 12:44 AM
By what special power do you know what Rep. Ron Paul would like or not like?
Oh yeah, you just make up stuff to suit the moment.
Or maybe you could link me to his words on the subject?
Naw, I am pretty sure you are just spewing the made up stuff and calling it facts as always.
Tragic
capt
Posted by: capt at October 29, 2005 12:45 AM
What's Happening in the Dugout
Posted by: Gerald at October 29, 2005 12:46 AM
Capt wrote:
"The funny thing is back in the early Է0ճ I would have supported Tricky Dick. I was so na?ve I was surprised to hear Dick curse on tape. I thought being a Quaker was a bit more reserved and far less foul mouthed."
I find this extremely hard to believe! Nowadays, you seem to believe every lie leveled against Bush under the sun. You believe the lies David Corn tells about Bush.
Posted by: Tim L at October 29, 2005 12:48 AM
2,254 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bushճ evil lies.
And Dufus is getting a "media makeover." Wow, isn't his "suppot for the troops" heartwarming? Isn't that "resolve" to cover his mistakes encouraging?
Dufus and his merry men are trying to cover up their lies in an absurd and dishonorable distraction while Americans, innocent civilians die for those same lies/mistakes.
How much more "resolve" can this country take? How much will YOU, Tim, pay?
How old are you Tim? Signed up yet? Or, do you have better things to do? Remember, you can be as old as 43, I think, and still join. How about your kids (if you are that old) don't you think they should have their college money pulled until they serve in this war you approved of?
Is this mistake worth $10,000 to you? You're fine with paying my kids part of that, right?
Posted by: ArtJunky at October 29, 2005 12:49 AM
2,254 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan for Bushճ evil lies.
And Dufus is getting a "media makeover." Wow, isn't his "suppot for the troops" heartwarming? Isn't that "resolve" to cover his mistakes encouraging?
Dufus and his merry men are trying to cover up their lies in an absurd and dishonorable distraction while Americans, innocent civilians die for those same lies/mistakes.
How much more "resolve" can this country take? How much will YOU, Tim, pay?
How old are you Tim? Signed up yet? Or, do you have better things to do? Remember, you can be as old as 43, I think, and still join. How about your kids (if you are that old) don't you think they should have their college money pulled until they serve in this war you approved of?
Is this mistake worth $10,000 to you? You're fine with paying my kids part of that, right?
Posted by: ArtJunky at October 29, 2005 12:49 AM
Calling All Infowarriors: Protest the Klan in Austin
ALEX JONES COMMENT:
The Klan's upcoming appearance in Austin to protest gay marriage is completely transparent. The organization is nothing more than a globalist tentacle set out to spread mindless and divisive hatred. Even if you are against gay marriage, the Klan's presence is bad news, immediately connecting their insane rhetoric with the arguments against same-sex marriage. So now, if you're against gay marriage, you will be portrayed as being "with the Klan."
I've protested these globalist puppets and their puppet masters at Klan rallies all across Texas, as I have protested against other divisive and racist groups and I would love to be there this weekend, bullhorn in hand, to give them a piece of my mind. Unfortunately, I have to attend a twice rescheduled family reunion occurring while the Klan is in Austin to spread their vile trash. I do wholeheartedly encourage each one of you out there to protest these New World Order henchmen and spread the truth. Bring your infowarrior weapons: your bullhorn, your pen, your video camera to combat their lies, their burning crosses, and their divide-and-conquer game plan.
Klan To Rally In Support Of Gay Marriage Amendment
POSTED: 10:45 am CDT October 25, 2005
AUSTIN, Texas -- The Ku Klux Klan plans to rally in Austin to support the gay marriage amendment set for the Nov. 8 ballot.
The rally planned on the steps of city hall the Saturday before the election will urge voters to favor proposition 2.
However, some who support proposition 2 don't welcome the KKK's assistance.
One such person is Pastor Ryan Rush of Bannockburn Baptist Church.
Rush said that a group that would come in that is characterized as hateful and bigoted is not welcome in this city. He said he doesn't want the Klan as a partner on any cause.
In a letter the Klan sent to the city, the group acknowledged that security will be an issue, noting the violence that erupted at a KKK rally and march to the capitol in Austin in 1983.
*****end of clip*****
Okay, who lives near enough to represent?
capt
Posted by: capt at October 29, 2005 12:53 AM
Don't bother Capt, only 30% of Americans support gay marriage, which exemplifies how out of touch the far left is with America.
Posted by: Tim L at October 29, 2005 12:58 AM
A Negligent President
Posted by: Gerald at October 29, 2005 01:04 AM
White House on the ropes - and a bigger fight ahead
Trial of Cheney aide will turn spotlight on case for war in Iraq
Another blow to administration's foundering second term
Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday October 29, 2005
The Guardian
It could have been worse for the Bush White House, but not very much worse.
Karl Rove has not been charged for leaking intelligence, but he remains the subject of an investigation that will continue to gnaw away at the administration's weakest point: its justification for going to war in Iraq.
Meanwhile, Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been indicted and will face trial for perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice. He is no mere extra in this drama. He is the right-hand man of the most powerful vice-president in modern American history, and he got himself in trouble trying to protect his boss over the critical issue of US pre-war intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
*****end of clip*****
Seems like the "get it" in the UK. It is always interesting to hear from a different perspective. Across the pond they have a better media, less mainstream and a little more independent in some ways more restricted in others. They seem to be more newsworthy these days.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 29, 2005 01:08 AM
THOU DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH.
I've been reading this post over 2 months and have read so many worst case scenarios that I half believed that there may be something too it. In various discussions on this site i have said that I would stand up and say wrong is wrong if there were indictments. LIBBY IS WRONG FOR TELLING LIES TO THE GRAND JURY. IT is clear now that he had no reason to lie. Fitzie's report does validate some of the right wings theories, but it does not validate hardly any of Mr Corn's posts at this site. IF OTHER CHARGES ARE FILED AT ANOTHER DATE THEN WE WILL RE-EVALUATE THE FACTS AT THAT TIME.
1-THERE WAS NO CHARGE OF "OUT TING AN UNDERCOVER AGENT", Fitzie said Libby PASSED ALONG CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. If there was a grand jury for every time that the press received "classified information" then WATERGATE investigation would be about who passed along "CLASSIFIED" FBI information to the press.
You LEFTIES were so quick to validate Mark Felt as a Hero, and he was because he exposed something that was clearly illegal, even if his motive was questionable-BEING PASSED OVER AS THE TOP FBI MAN BY NIXON,HE WAS NEXT IN THE HOOVER CHAIN OF COMMAND.
If you LEFTIES were intellectually honest then you would be celebrating Libby as you did FELT because he exposed a CORRUPT CIA agent and her husband,as they tried to intervene in a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Wilson clearly a pathological liar in the mold of the Clinton's. This whole episode was an orchestrated attack against BUSH, for KERRY, by the WILSON'S. DO you even question that WILSON worked on the Kerry campaign as an advisers. Wilson's story has more holes in it and as solid as a pair of FISH NET BLACK PANTYHOSE. But you lefties see the story as being SOLID AS A ROCK. You lefties must coincide today that this is much to do about NOTHING, as there are NO CHARGES RELATING TO WHAT YOU MAIN STREAM LEFTIST MEDIA CHARGED!!!!!! ROVE IS NOT GOING TO JAIL,at this time, AND I HOPE YOU DRIVE YOURSELVES CRAZY WAITING FOR THE NEXT INCITEMENT.
DAVID CORN, AND THE REST OF HIS COHORTS IN THE MAIN STREAM LEFTIST MEDIA, SHOULD KNOWN AS "CHICKEN LITTLE", BECAUSE FOR ALL OF THE CALLS OF "THE SKY IS FALLING", THERE IS PROOF OF ANYTHING BUT:
1- THEY ARE DELUSIONAL, AND
2- NO MATTER THE FACTS, THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO COMPREHEND WHAT HAS JUST HAPPENED, AND THEREFORE JUDGE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR OWN ILLOGICAL REASONING!!!!
Posted by: trebeloc at October 29, 2005 01:10 AM
Getting worse for the White House
Leader
Saturday October 29, 2005
The Guardian
What is it about American presidents during their second terms? Not since Dwight Eisenhower nearly half a century ago has a two-term occupant of the White House not been hit by some sort of criminal investigation during his second period of office. Since Ike, every second term has turned sour in this way. Richard Nixon resigned because of Watergate, Ronald Reagan was undermined by Iran-Contra, and Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Now it is George Bush's turn to see his presidency take a similar hit, with the indictment yesterday of Lewis Libby on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements arising from the investigation into the leaking of the identity of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame.
The good news for the administration is that the indictment is procedural rather than substantive. The bad news is that the whole affair always comes back to the way the administration tried to bulk up the case for an Iraq war, which continues to drain Mr Bush's domestic credibility. Even so, lying to investigators and in court are still serious charges with real legal and political menace. Whatever the outcome of the prosecution, the political damage to Mr Bush will continue as long as the case plays out. Mr Libby may not be a man with a high international profile. But he is a member of the absolute inner circle of a White House notorious for its tight control of decision-making. As a longtime aide and chief of staff for the past five years to Dick Cheney, one of the most powerful US vice-presidents of modern times, Mr Libby was one of the administration's big beasts. Losing a man described as Mr Cheney's alter ego drives a big hole in the team. But things could get even worse. Judging by the indictment, Mr Cheney is likely to have to give evidence in Mr Libby's trial. The Karl Rove investigation is not over yet. It's still tin hat time at the White House.
Mr Bush ought to have been out celebrating yesterday. The government reported the US economy growing by a buoyant 3.8% year-on-year to the third quarter. But the president has run out of luck for now. Already buffeted by Iraq, social security reform failure, Hurricane Katrina and the Harriet Miers debacle, Mr Bush now heads a White House under siege from Democratic and Republican critics alike. A man who prided himself as a good leader now sees his administration tainted by cronyism, incompetence and dishonesty. It has been the worst week of his presidency. Mr Bush will need more than luck to recover from it.
*****end of article*****
"A man who prided himself as a good leader now sees his administration tainted by cronyism, incompetence and dishonesty. It has been the worst week of his presidency"
Yep, I think they do "get it." The American MSM should be ashamed.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 29, 2005 01:14 AM
Why Is Bush So Stupid
Posted by: Gerald at October 29, 2005 01:20 AM
Indictment doesn't clear up mystery at heart of CIA leak probe
By Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - At the heart of Friday's indictment of a top White House aide remain two unsolved mysteries.
Who forged the documents that claimed Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium for nuclear weapons in the African country of Niger?
How did a version of the tale get into President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, even though U.S. intelligence agencies never confirmed it and some intelligence analysts doubted it?
Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who found no substance to the alleged deal during a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, accused Bush in July 2003 of twisting the intelligence.
Shortly thereafter, the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA officer, was leaked to journalists, igniting special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's probe.
The FBI has been investigating the clumsy forgeries, which first surfaced in Rome in October 2002, for two years, but has made little progress, four U.S. government officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation continues. Those officials blame a lack of cooperation from Italy. A spokesman for the Italian Embassy in Washington denied that.
*****end of article*****
One of the most complete timelines I have seen starts where the clip ends. I spot checked a couple of dates, they are right on.
Hard to say what is really going on with the Italians. I have read and posted that they gave Fitzgerald their report (yet unpublished) then this stuff.
Time will tell. There is another shoe to drop.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 29, 2005 01:24 AM
Fitzgerald for president. Hoo-ha!
Posted by: Ted at October 29, 2005 01:24 AM
The article that I read about our stupid president did not post. I read the article on the Mothers against the Draft website.
Posted by: Gerald at October 29, 2005 01:28 AM
Leak investigation not seen over
10/28/2005 @ 2:22 pm
Filed by Jason Leopold
In one of the boldest moves yet in the 22-month investigation into the outing of a covert CIA agent to a handful of top reporters covering the White House, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is extending his probe and pursuing much more serious charges against senior White House officials, lawyers directly involved in the case told RAW STORY Friday.
While many people were left confused by news reports that said Rove wouldn't be indicted Friday, the lawyers said that Rove remains under intense scrutiny and added that Fitzgerald is betting on the fact that he can secure an indictments against him or other officials on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, the misuse of classified information, and possibly other charges, as early as next week.
"This investigation is not yet over," one of the lawyers in the case said. "You must keep in mind that people like Mr. Rove are still under investigation. Rather than securing an indictment on perjury charges against Mr. Rove Mr. Fitzgerald strongly believes he can convince the grand jury that he broke other laws."
The lawyers said that in the past month Fitzgerald has obtained explosive information in the case that has enabled him to pursue broader charges such as conspiracy, and civil rights violations against targets like Rove. Rove could also provide information that would allow Fitzgerald to target additional officials.
Specifically, the lawyers said Fitzgerald is focusing on phony intelligence documents that led to the outing of Valerie Plame Wilsonճ identity: the documents that claimed Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow-cake uranium from Niger.
*****end of article*****
A bit more encouraging news on Rawstory.
Fitzgerald could be more pitbull than lap-dog.
I can hope until he says he is done. If every liar top to bottom is not taken down it will not be justice. Seems odd that so many of us pine for even a small measure of justice when the crimes are so much bigger?
Have we all fallen for the low expectations that this mendatious madmen have peddled? Have we all bought into just degrees of right and wrong. Dividing up the truth pie in pieces too thin to ever stand?
Fitzgerald made it clear he is serious and focused on his mission. If that is justice then he is the best man for the job. He does come across as apolitical and that word has been used by those who know him well.
There is no divorcing politics from politicians. I can only hope the liars insult his senses.
capt
Posted by: capt at October 29, 2005 01:36 AM
The article talked about the fact that the military cannot recruit medical professionals. The reason for Hitler Bush having such a difficult time with recruiting is that people do not trust him. He is a very reckless person.
Posted by: Gerald at October 29, 2005 01:38 AM
Paradox
Louis Tice of the Pacific Institute in Seattle, Washington offers a paradox, "You give up control in order to be in control." Confident leaders do not have to rule by controlling and punitive threats. He also discusses Erickson's book, "Eight Stages of Human Development" regarding leadership. Leadership starts at the top with basic trust. A dishonest leader cannot be an effective leader. Controlling and punitive threats will have consequences and there will be a backlash against such a leader. People will subtly undermine the leader and in the end the leader is not in control and he or she remains in a constant state of fear. A fearful leader is an unstable leader. Good examples of fearful and unstable leaders are Napoleon and Hitler. We must be vigilant of such leaders, be it in the United States or in the world.
Please pay careful attention to Bush's behavior. You do not have to be a licensed psychiatrist or a Ph.D. psychologist to know that Bush is a very sick person. His increased temper tantrums, his abusive language, his flying all over the country, and his apparent alcoholism and drug intake are signs that Bush is losing it. We have in the WH a very unstable beast who could snap at any minute. We must never forget this psycho's depraved indifference in the murdering of human beings. Pray hard for this demented and deranged amoeba!
Posted by: Gerald at October 29, 2005 01:45 AM
Capt, we are freakin doomed dude! I can't believe anyone is spending one line responding to that idiot.
Hajji, glad you and sis are well, we had a blast! Hope you make it back Cali way soon.
Posted by: Saladin at October 29, 2005 01:48 AM
Assessing the President
There are generals and church people who say that George W. Bush was chosen to be president by God. I cannot prove or disprove what people are saying. So, I offer you my assessment with some trepidation.
George W. Bush and his regime have been an experiment in mendacity with the American people. His disciples claim that he is the messianic messenger but his message has obfuscated the American people. His character lacks the probity to be a leader and his actions are more reflective of a nefarious person. George W. Bush expects Americans and the media to obsequious to what he says because he says it.
Before I accept the hyperbole that George W. Bush was chosen by God to be president and that God speaks to him, he must possess the virtues of my God which are humility, love, mercy, and patience. Personally, Mr. Bush does not possess any of these virtues. I see him more as a controlling, punitive, and vengeful person, totally lacking in compassion.
George W. Bush displays a depraved indifference toward the killing of living human beings.
Posted by: Gerald at October 29, 2005 01:48 AM
Trebeloc: "If you LEFTIES were intellectually honest then you would be celebrating Libby as you did FELT because he exposed a CORRUPT CIA agent"
Corrupt CIA agent!?
Your pathology goes well beyond ideology. You're just outta your f***ing mind. Psycho, wacko, looney, bonkers, around the bend, rowing with one oar. You've completely lost touch. Get someone to throw you a line. Seek professional help. Good luck.
Posted by: Drewp at October 29, 2005 01:52 AM
From: WRH
Plame, Niger documents, and the Office of Special Plans
Concerning the origins of the forged Niger documents, Patrick Fitzgerald's office has recently received information and documents relating to this case from the Italian government. Yet there has been almost no investigation into some of the key players such as Rocco Martino, the Italian security consultant who attempted to sell the forged documents to a reporter in Rome in late 2002.
Rocco Martino has yet to be interviewed by the FBI because they claim that the Italian government has not allowed them to interview him, yet Mr. Martino has traveled to the United States twice in 2004 and still the FBI has not attempted to interview him.
Posted Oct 28, 2005 05:08 PM PST
Just as the FBI has not attempted to interview Dr. Philip Zack, the man actually caught on the security system entering the storage area where the anthrax used in the letters was kept.
Interesting how the FBI avoids interviewing people who really should be interviewed.
-------------
Perjury and obstruction of justice? Don't forget to slap him on the wrist. Bad boy!
Posted by: Saladin at October 29, 2005 01:54 AM
Corporations and Persons
I watched Television Ontario (TVO). The program title was "The Corporation - The Pathology of Commerce." The program mentioned that the Supreme Court ruled that a corporation is a person than surely a person is a person. The program highlighted a checklist for mental disorders. Since a corporation can be considered a person, the mental disorder checklist can be applied.
Here is the checklist.
1. Callousness toward people
2. Impersonal relationships with people
3. Disregard for the safety of others
4. Deceitfulness
5. Incapacity to experience guilt
6. Failure to comply toward social norms to benefit people
From the checklist corporations displayed a psychopathic mental disorder. If we use the same checklist for our two highest leaders, then we would have to conclude that george w. bush and dick chaney display the same mental disorder. It would be my perception that the above two men are unfit to be president and vice-president, respectively. They hold too much power for men who have a possible mental disorder.
Posted by: Gerald at October 29, 2005 01:56 AM
Capt you can post as many "Mr. Rove is still under investigation" stories as you want to feed the psychosis of the left. You have been posting stories for months and they still are not true and full of speculation, not facts! I listened to the news conference today and the reporters wanted the SP to say that ROVE was still a target, but he didn't,and wouldn't.
Maybe capt can post the indictment and the SP's press conference where he said, we don't comment on people who are not indited, because they have committed no crime. A real journalist would report that fact, not the "speculation of lawyers". ALL WE HAVE BEEN HEARING FORM CAPT-CORN-AND MSM IS SPECULATION, AND IT WAS ALL WRONG!!!!!!!
BY THE WAY WHY DON'T WE SEE STORIES OF AMERICANS COMMENTING ON CASES GOING ON IN EUROPE, DOES THE EUROPEAN PRESS CALL FOR AMERICAN LAWYERS FOR COMMENT ON THEIR CASES, I DOUBT IT, NOT IF THEY ARE NOT TRAINED AND CERTIFIED IN EUROPEAN LAW! I COULD CARE LESS WHAT THE WORLD HAS TO SAY ABOUT AMERICA, MY NEIGHBOR HAS NO SAY ABOUT WHAT GOES ON IN MY HOUSEHOLD AND IF HE DOES WHO CARES, IT IS NONE OF HIS BUSINESS!
Posted by: Trebeloc at October 29, 2005 02:00 AM
From the checklist corporations displayed a psychopathic mental disorder. If we use the same checklist for the MAIN STREEM MEDIA AND THE LEFTIES, then we would have to conclude that MAIN STREEM MEDIA AND THE LEFTIES display the same mental disorder. It would be my perception that NO MATTER THE FACTS, THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO COMPREHEND WHAT HAS JUST HAPPENED, AND THEREFORE JUDGE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR OWN ILLOGICAL REASONING!!!!.
Posted by: Trebeloc at October 29, 2005 02:06 AM
Everyone on this blog needs to go to www.factcheck.org, which is an indepedent non-partisan political fact checker.
In particular, the LIE that Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs, is addressed in this link:
http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html
The LIE that Bush lied about Iraq trying to seek uranium from Niger:
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
Posted by: Tim L at October 29, 2005 02:16 AM
SORRY tim l YOU CAME TO THE WRONG SITE FOR FACTS! ONly SPECULATION, CONJECTURE AND CONSPIRACY THEORY'S ARE ALLOWED ON THIS SITE, THEY WOULDNT BELIEVE THE TRUTH IF IT HIT THEM ON THE HEAD......THE CHICKEN LITTLES!
Posted by: Trebeloc at October 29, 2005 02:28 AM
Iraq: Yellowcake Aside, How Real was the Rest?
Besides the intelligence the Administration knew was bad, it's worth examining the intel they assumed was good
Posted Wednesday, Jul. 16, 2003
The Niger yellowcake uranium imbroglio concerns a piece of intelligence Washington knew was bad that was nonetheless restated in President Bush's State of the Union address. A bureaucratic snafu, says the Bush Administration, and one which doesn't detract at all from the case for war; in fact it was hardly a significant part of that case in the first place. Indeed. But three months after taking control of Iraq, the deeper question looming on the horizon is less how one item of bad intelligence slipped into a keynote speech than how so much of the intelligence the Administration had believed was solid appears to have been rather liquid, even gaseous.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has attempted to ride out the yellowcake crisis by defending Bush and at the same time clearing his own name by making clear that he never repeated that particular untruth. Combining those two objectives can be tough. "At the time of the president's State of the Union, a judgement was made that was an appropriate statement for the president to make," he told reporters in South Africa last week, referring to the Niger allegation. "When I made my presentation to the United Nations and we really went through every single thing we knew about all of the various issues with respect to weapons of mass destruction, we did not believe that it was appropriate to use that example anymore. It was not standing the test of time. And so I didn't use it, and we haven't used it since." The test of time?! Exactly eight days passed between the president's speech and the secretary's UN presentation.
*****end of article*****
Right, so they had Libby smear Wilson because they had nothing to hide and were completely truthful about going to war when they KNEW by the time Powell lied to the UN.
They went to war anyway. That is where it becomes starting a war on a lie. Drunk on petty power and high on their own lies they knew Saddam was a paper tiger and that our military already owned the no fly zones. They were so excited about how well everything was going to go they thought they would never have to answer for their criminal acts.
Hell, I am glad they went after Joe Wilson. Imagine if they had just ignored him. Nobody would be in trouble for anything. The extent that the yellow-cake lie contributed to the run up to war would never have exposed who knew what and when.
Thank goodness for the arrogance. If they were as good as they were put up to be they would have never over-reached. If they had a ounce of humility they would not have tried to pull it off. If they had any discipline they would not have screwed up so