now that the plame affair has been fully exposed as the kerfufle it always was, and we know armitage was the "leaker", it makes no sense to continue to further pour taxpayer dollars down the drain. pardon libby, sent fitz back to chicago, and moveOn.
Rest assure Dubya, like Dad, will pardon all of the guys in his adminsitration who have done serious wrong. He may well pardon himself, too. In the mean time he and the gang are trying to change the laws to keep from being prosecuted for war crimes, violations of the Geneva Convention and other assorted crimes.
Why? Libby was prosecuted for a cover-up, not for leaking. He did try to mislead a grand jury even if he wasn't a leaker.
The irony is too much. I'm sure that you like all the other Republicans were all for never holding any sort of impeachment trial on Bill Clinton for not revealing that he got his oil changed in the Oval Office and sending Ken Starr back to wherever when Whitewater turned out to be a big kerfufle, right? Two sides of the same coin. You reap what you sow. Special prosecutors and drive by legal attacks are legitimate tools or politics these days thanks to the Republican monomania for a Clinton witch hunt. Lying about national security issues is much more of an issue that offering misleading statements about oral sex.
a Washington Post piece of September 2003: "Before the Novak column was published," the Post said, quoting a senior administration official, "two top white house officials contacted at least six reporters and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." If that reporting is right, the questions remain.
This guy was the 2nd source http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/cia.leak/index.html Also, the key thing to note is that there were multiple leaks to multiple journalists. Novak had two people tell him. The first was unknown (originally thought to be Libby but now it seems it is Armitage) and the second one was Rove. Bob Woodward later came out and basically hinted that Libby didn't leak it to him and also said it wasn't an administration official. (also now we think it is Armitage) However, Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller (the two original journalists) still don't have links to Armitage and Cooper confirmed that Libby was his source as did Miller. Cooper's second source was also Rove. Now since Novak was the first to report and thus the first to get the leak (although the timetable is still fishy), the discussion tends to shift to his sources which appear to involve Armitage. Either way, Libby isn't totally innocent.
Not to make this thread about Clinton again, but I think they are both big deals. Perjury before a grand jury by a federal government official is pretty much always a big deal. Libby tried to cover up a deliberate retaliatory attack on a political enemy that endangered a CIA operative. Clinton tried to subvert justice in a sexual assault case. Both are bad. The only real difference I see is that there are more people involved in this more recent case that we haven't punished yet, but should.
Perjury? Getting a BJ shouldn't be something you have to answer under oath in the first place. It was consentual. It was between adults. It was wrong but hardly something you deserve to get charged perjury for.
clinton lied about the BJ from an intern who worked for him in the context of <i>a sexual harrassment</i> lawsuit. it was a bit more serious than you think.
"harrassment"? Give me a break. That B!TCH was in for the fame and money. She is fat and strong enough to harrass a lot of men.
