Lewis Libby pardoned...

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Quote

No, she was using her position at the CIA to undermine the policies of the elected government,

Your conclusions are at best speculative. It would be good if you regarded (and presented) them as such.

EDIT: Annihilated stray prepositional phrase.

I was assuming that someone as intelligent as you would have concluded that the above was speculation based on circumstantial evidence. I didn't think I needed to put a disclaimer on the obvious.

[billvon 2,435]

>Where has the DOJ accused "the Bush administration" of lying?

From the indictment:

- Beginning on or about January 20, 2001, and continuing through the date of this indictment, defendant I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as SCOOTER LIBBY,was employed as Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs.

- On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia, I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as SCOOTER LIBBY, defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement.

The indictment would be a really good thing to read if you want to talk about the indictment. It would save you from having to type all these questions.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

YAY!!

and we are back to blame the victim.

Victim?!? That's like saying a robber who gets run over by the cops, is the victim. Oh wait, that's happened. Valerie Plame was done in by her husband (unintentionally, of course). Had he presented the truth, her involvement wouldn't have come to light.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Quote

Look at it this way... The Bush administration was accused of lying by Joe Wilson. They rightly wanted to know who is Joe Wilson, how did he get involved in this, and why is he lying about the governments decision-making process. Wouldn't you want to know this if you were accused of lying, and you knew you didn't lie? Gee, his wife works at the CIA and used her influence to see that he be assigned to the trip to Nigeria to investigate claims of Iraqi attempts to procure uranium. Do you think she didn't know her husband's obvious bias against the administration (evidenced by his "misstatements.") Did she do anything to correct his "missstatements?" No, she was using her position at the CIA to undermine the policies of the elected government, and it blew up in her and her lying husband's face. She doesn't deserve a career at the CIA.

And if Bush was actually lying? Then Wilson was telling the truth. How does that scenerio compute.
There are many signs that this may have in fact been the case.

Joe Wilson's accusations have been completely discredited by a bipartisan Senate Commission. He's been exposed as a idealogue and a liar. By all means, let's investigate whether Bush lied. It might put this to bed.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

>Where has the DOJ accused "the Bush administration" of lying?

From the indictment:

- Beginning on or about January 20, 2001, and continuing through the date of this indictment, defendant I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as SCOOTER LIBBY,was employed as Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs.

- On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia, I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as SCOOTER LIBBY, defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement.

The indictment would be a really good thing to read if you want to talk about the indictment. It would save you from having to type all these questions.

Thanks, but I've already read the indictment. Unfortunately, it doesn't support your conclusion that the administration was accused of lying. I know you're smart enough to know that the indictment accused Libby, not the administration, of lying. But, then again, you've always been a "buck stops at the top" kind of person, so I can see why you made your misrepresentation about the administration being accused of lying.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

YAY!!

and we are back to blame the victim.

Victim?!? That's like saying a robber who gets run over by the cops, is the victim. Oh wait, that's happened. Valerie Plame was done in by her husband (unintentionally, of course). Had he presented the truth, her involvement wouldn't have come to light.

Oh absolutely.

Becuase Wilson lied, that gives someone the right to name her to a newspaper and then LIE about it? So anytime someone lies about something we should revel classified information?

But here is the key and it has nothing to do with her being CIA or not: Libby LIED in a OFFICIAL investigation. But so what right? Wilson MADE Libby do it. Why, Wilson had a gun to his head and MADE him lie.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

The indictment would be a really good thing to read if you want to talk about the indictment. It would save you from having to type all these questions.

Perhaps it'd be more accurate to mention that DOJ accused a *member* of the Bush administration of lying.

Kinda like blaming the whole family for one kid's getting in the cookie jar, ya know? Even if we have reason to suspect the rest of the kids are also up to no good.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Becuase Wilson lied, that gives someone the right to name her to a newspaper and then LIE about it? So anytime someone lies about something we should revel classified information?

But here is the key and it has nothing to do with her being CIA or not: Libby LIED in a OFFICIAL investigation. But so what right? Wilson MADE Libby do it. Why, Wilson had a gun to his head and MADE him lie.

If what Libby said was a lie, then he should be prosecuted.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Quote

The indictment would be a really good thing to read if you want to talk about the indictment. It would save you from having to type all these questions.

Perhaps it'd be more accurate to mention that DOJ accused a *member* of the Bush administration of lying.

Kinda like blaming the whole family for one kid's getting in the cookie jar, ya know? Even if we have reason to suspect the rest of the kids are also up to no good.

Much better.

[billvon 2,435]

>I know you're smart enough to know that the indictment accused Libby,
> not the administration, of lying.

Fair enough. A high ranking member of the Bush administration has been accused of lying.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Hey, if John can keep putting up that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein from 20 years ago....

Always happy to oblige

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Hey, if John can keep putting up that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein from 20 years ago....

One more time...RUMSFELD IS STILL IN POWER. How can you not see the difference?

If making comparisons to Clinton is gauche because he's no longer in office, then how is showing a picture from the Reagan administration relevant?

If one is ancient history, then so must the other be...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ReBirth 0]

Because the subject of one is CURRENTLY in office. Come on...you're not dumb, are you being intentionally obtuse?

[mnealtx 0]

No, I'm not being deliberately obtuse.... if events from 5 years ago are unallowed because they're old history, then events from 20+ years ago are even older history...*THAT* is my point, which you conveniently continue to overlook...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ReBirth 0]

And my point isn't the age of the event, it's whether the subject of the event is in power or not. That's what you continue to overlook. If Joe Shmoe down in Tennessee committed a crime yesterday, I don't give a shit. If a senior member of the current administration did 20 years ago, I find that relevant.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>The crime that they were originally supposed to have commited
>was found not to have happened.

Right. But since a CIA agent _was_ outed, we know a crime was committed. Perhaps it really wasn't Libby - in which case I would hope he would be offered a reduced sentence for helping them identify who the guilty party was.

Assumming he knows. I think this smacks back to the press and to Plame's husband. Fitzgerald is basing an indictment on events/conversations that supposedly happened over two years ago.

Additionally, after this detailed investigation, the indictment doesn't even cover the initial charge. The CIA has more to do with its own leaks than anything else. Everyone was so quick to blame them for faulty intelligence on other matters, now, all of the sudden, they're sacred and couldn't be accountable for one employee's identity?

Plame's function had to do with counter-terrorism and WMD investigations etc. How funny that Wilson would be asked to investigate allegations that Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger. Wilson, a loud-mouth diplomat.

I'm calling bullsh*t on all of this.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,435]

>Fitzgerald is basing an indictment on events/conversations that
>supposedly happened over two years ago.

No, he's basing his indictment on sworn testimony offered by Libby. Libby hung himself.

Once again, HE IS NOT BEING INDICTED FOR OUTING PLAME. He is being indicted for lying under oath and for obstructing justice. The person who outed Plame is as yet unknown. It may well be Libby; we will have to see.

>Plame's function had to do with counter-terrorism and WMD investigations etc.

Are you saying that since you did not know what a secret CIA agent was doing, she could not have been working the WMD angle? Once again I would refer you to the definition of "covert agent." The job description will not include the term "doing something everyone knows about."

I swear, right wingers have an incredibly plastic mindset. When we were going to war with Iraq, I heard several right wingers here saying "Hey, you don't know everything the president knows! I'm sure he has excellent top secret intelligence about Saddam's WMD's." Now it has become "Hey, if I didn't know what was going on in the CIA, it didn't happen!"

[ReBirth 0]

From TomAiello's posted list of favorite quotes...

If I told you, it wouldn't be covert. would it?
- George H.W. Bush When asked to comment on Covert action in Central America

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Fitzgerald is basing an indictment on events/conversations that
>supposedly happened over two years ago.

No, he's basing his indictment on sworn testimony offered by Libby. Libby hung himself.

Once again, HE IS NOT BEING INDICTED FOR OUTING PLAME. He is being indicted for lying under oath and for obstructing justice. The person who outed Plame is as yet unknown. It may well be Libby; we will have to see.

>Plame's function had to do with counter-terrorism and WMD investigations etc.

Are you saying that since you did not know what a secret CIA agent was doing, she could not have been working the WMD angle? Once again I would refer you to the definition of "covert agent." The job description will not include the term "doing something everyone knows about."

I swear, right wingers have an incredibly plastic mindset. When we were going to war with Iraq, I heard several right wingers here saying "Hey, you don't know everything the president knows! I'm sure he has excellent top secret intelligence about Saddam's WMD's." Now it has become "Hey, if I didn't know what was going on in the CIA, it didn't happen!"

I have no idea where the hell you got that from my post. We know a CIA agent was outed, you and I can agree on that point. The first area that should be investigated is the CIA. Obviously their efforts to contain an operative's identity concealed failed. I point first to her husband, a diplomat, and a politician. That should send the red flags right up to start with. I won't even get in depth with the fact that the press is stepping all over their own dicks with this mess, which they caused by printing the information in the first place, regardless of how they learned of it. Nothing is sacred to them.

I'm not saying they (CIA) did or did not do their job, but obviously they need to evaluate the current measures they have in place as to domestic employees and their respective security requirements, identity protocols, etc. Instead, someone is drawing a dotted line between a "cog" in one machine (CIA) to another cog, somewhere in another machine (White House). It doesn't fly.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,435]

>We know a CIA agent was outed, you and I can agree on that point.

Agreed.

>The first area that should be investigated is the CIA.

The first place that should be investigated is the person that outed her to the public, which was Novak. Then work backwards from him. It might take prosecutors to the CIA if that's where the leak came from. Instead it took them to Cheney's office, where his chief of staff perjured himself to try to hide what happened. (Which is why he was indicted.)

>I'm not saying they (CIA) did or did not do their job, but obviously
> they need to evaluate the current measures they have in place as to
> domestic employees and their respective security requirements,
>identity protocols, etc.

Do you think a change in policy where the CIA gives less information to the administration (to help prevent this in the future) will help the US fight terror? I think I'd rather make sure it never happens again, by coming down hard on whoever violated their security clearance and revealed her name to Novak.

[ReBirth 0]

No shit....if the breach in security is the whitehouse, are we to suggest that the CIA does not share info with them anymore?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

No shit....if the breach in security is the whitehouse, are we to suggest that the CIA does not share info with them anymore?

How much detail do you think the CIA, DoD, NSA, NRO does not report to the White House. A whole lot. Part of it is due to plausible deniability, part of it is a security measure (the mysterious "high ranking administration source" for the press).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>We know a CIA agent was outed, you and I can agree on that point.

Agreed.

>The first area that should be investigated is the CIA.

The first place that should be investigated is the person that outed her to the public, which was Novak. Then work backwards from him. It might take prosecutors to the CIA if that's where the leak came from. Instead it took them to Cheney's office, where his chief of staff perjured himself to try to hide what happened. (Which is why he was indicted.)

It took him to Cheney's office because Novak's source was in the the White House. He was not the only journalist with this information. The press is not so tightly woven that they draw information from a single source. They compete for information too. To assume there isn't a break from CIA protocols doesn't make sense to me.

Quote

>I'm not saying they (CIA) did or did not do their job, but obviously
> they need to evaluate the current measures they have in place as to
> domestic employees and their respective security requirements,
>identity protocols, etc.

Do you think a change in policy where the CIA gives less information to the administration (to help prevent this in the future) will help the US fight terror? I think I'd rather make sure it never happens again, by coming down hard on whoever violated their security clearance and revealed her name to Novak.

The coming "down hard" to ensure it never happens again has only partial merit. It has no redundancy to it. Look at what's-his-name from the Clinton admin (Berger?), who mishandled a whole bunch of top secret material. He lost his clearance for three years. That's not a deterrent, by any measure. The CIA does need to guard its resources, that includes concealing source information even from executives, and then only revealing that information when it comes down to a matter of policy shift or national security.

If the CIA was really concered about Plame's identity security, they would've done a whole lot more. Washington DC is a gushing hose of information, no secrets are kept. That's my view.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,435]

>that includes concealing source information even from executives . . .

Again, reducing the information available to the executive branch is a bad idea if we want to 'fight terror' and all that. We failed to stop 9/11 because we 'couldn't connect the dots'; our intelligence saw all the pieces but did not see the plan until it was too late. Deciding to cripple our intelligence mechanism further seems like a mistake.

>If the CIA was really concered about Plame's identity security, they
>would've done a whole lot more.

I agree they may have been lax. Fortunately they are now making up for it, and going after the leak.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>that includes concealing source information even from executives . . .

Again, reducing the information available to the executive branch is a bad idea if we want to 'fight terror' and all that. We failed to stop 9/11 because we 'couldn't connect the dots'; our intelligence saw all the pieces but did not see the plan until it was too late. Deciding to cripple our intelligence mechanism further seems like a mistake.

Information can be shared without revealing analysts' identities. Connecting the dots has nothing to do with who's reading the information, as long as the information is shared. The Clinton administration fouled that up.

Quote

>If the CIA was really concered about Plame's identity security, they
>would've done a whole lot more.

I agree they may have been lax. Fortunately they are now making up for it, and going after the leak.

Here, we disagree. I think they are on a witch hunt, driven by the left to avenge their failure for nondection of 9/11, etc.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!