i'm on record elsewhere stating the paula jones investigation should not have been allowed to proceed while clinton was in office. once it did however, and clinton lied under oath, he deserved what he got. same here- the "underlying crime" may not have been committed, yet if libby did what he's alledged to have done, he deserves his fate. however, contrary to senator pelosi, mr. fitzgerald has stated flatly the Flame affair is Not about the iraq war, uranium in niger, sexed up intel, or anything other than one man's apparent perjury. and yet the dems churn away at the political fabric. oh, well, i hope they have a good time. there will certainly be fewer of them around in the next congress.
Just because the DA didn't believe there was a legal basis to convict doesn't mean he didn't do it, see Orenthal. Moreover, are you FA-REAKING kidding me? The Bush administration didn't mean to out Valerie Plame? Smear tactics and dirty politics have been Karl Rove's strategy since day one. Swift boat veterans anyone? You sir are ignorant of how this administration has operated. I have a motive, he was following Cheney's marching orders. You honestly believe an administration that was willing to fabricate and misrepresent evidence as the basis for a preemptive war wouldn't have a problem throwing one more person under the bus? Wow...
Sounds reasonable - reading the indictment and statements by Fitzgerald that is. Having said this, based on his press conference, Fitzgerald seems convinced that Libby willfully leaked "classified" information (Plame's affiliation with the CIA) to reporters not entitled to receive it. No one is arguing to the contrary, but he couldn't be sure whether Libby had the criminal intent the statute requires. Notice Fitzgerald didn't say he would have difficulty proving Libby's criminal intent, but that he didn't know what Libby's intent was. That's a significant distinction because it's the difference between Libby having committed a crime that is difficult to prove, and not having committed it at all.
TJ, it doesn't matter where she drove to work, or didn't drive to work. It doesn't matter what her friends believed she did or didn't do. Her status is something of record. The record either lists it as undercover or not. In this case it has come to light that beyond a doubt her status was top secret of the highest level. The record is clear. You can claim whatever you want about who knew and didn't know, none of that changes the record. There is no argument about it. In fact the U.S. govt. listed her status as so secret that it could not even be shared with friendly foreign govts. That is a matter of record her status is shown by the markings on that official govt. document. You can make up whatever false stories about everyone knowing what she did. Yes they are false her neighbors were in fact questioned about it, and they responded they did not know what she did. But whether they knew or didn't know, doesn't even matter. Her status was a matter of record. That record reveals that she was indeed under cover of the highest level. No matter what scenarios you make up, or what straws Basso desperately reaches for, the record is there, and the facts are in. I am all for debating about Plame's job, and the Fitzgerald investigation. I would love to here what rationale people use to defend it. But in order to do that we need to start from the point where people aren't going to continue ignoring the official record and try to make up their own stories to minimize what was done. A number of things are known, they are in record, and not on the table for debate anymore. One of those things is that Plame was under cover and her status was at the highest level of classification to such a degree that even govts. allied to the U.S. and considered friendly were not to know of her work.
Yeah, people are so mad at the Democrats over the Plame leak. Notice how Bush and the GOP numbers have soared since all of this started coming out. What an amazing outpouring of sympathy.
And look who's knocked off the front page today and tomorrow! We ain't talkin about Alito or bird flu huh! I think that's the nerve....
works for me, Alito sails through. i say, bring in on tho. the dems want a debate about the war? glad to have it. hard to defend being against freedom and democracy for 50M people, but then, that's the modern democratic party: more in common with PJB than JFK or FDR.
If Freedom and Democracy were such great arguments, why didn't Bush and Cheney use them as the primary justifications for war before we invaded Iraq?
apologize for Freedom and Democracy? why no! i embrace them! you'd be well advised to do the same, assuming Harry Pelosi ever wants to be anything more than pathetic sideshow.
I don't subscribe to your version of freedom and democracy. Thank god only 38% of Americans do. [edit] Why don't you answer vwiggin's question basso?
Except when you don't like the result of Freedom and Democracy as was the case in Venezuela when a free populace democratically elected Chavez. You didn't used to be that keen on standing for freedom and democracy then. But if you have changed, then I applaude your stance.
Democrats detail times their efforts to examine intel were blocked The following fact sheet was issued to reporters Tuesday afternoon, following Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) decision to force the Senate into closed session over a report on the failure of Iraq WMD intelligence. It is presented "as is." For more than two years, Senate Democrats have pressed Republicans to address the misuse of intelligence. At every turn, Republicans have blocked efforts to investigate how intelligence was used in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Below details the long record established by Democrats to investigate this matter. March 14, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Mueller requesting an investigation into the origin of the Niger documents. May 23, 2003 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent a letter to the CIA and State Department Inspectors General to review issues related to the Niger documents. June 2, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller issued a press release endorsing a statement made of the previous weekend by Senator Warner calling for a joint SSCI/SASC investigation. June 4, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller issued a press release saying he would push for an investigation. Senator Roberts issued a press release saying calls for an investigation are premature. June 10, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts asking for an investigation. June 11, 2003 – All Committee Democrats signed a letter to Senator Roberts asking for a meeting of the Committee to discuss the question of authorizing an inquiry into the intelligence that formed the basis for going to war. June 11, 2003 – Senator Roberts issued a press release saying this is routine committee oversight, and that criticism of the intelligence community is unwarranted. Senator Rockefeller issued a press release calling the ongoing review inadequate. June 20, 2003 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller issued a joint press release laying out the scope of the inquiry. August 13, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts making 14 points about the investigation, asking to expand the inquiry to address the “use of intelligence by policy makers” and asking for several other actions. September 9, 2003 – After press reports quoting Senator Roberts as saying the investigation was almost over, Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts urging him not to rush to complete the investigation prematurely. October 29, 2003 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet expressing in strong terms that he should provide documents that have been requested and make individuals available. October 30, 2003 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent letters to Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice expressing in strong terms that they should provide documents that have been requested and make individuals available. October 31, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet asking for documents related to the interaction between intelligence and policy makers, including the documents from the Vice President’s office related to the Powell speech. November 2, 2003 – Senator Roberts made statements during a joint television appearance with Senator Rockefeller claiming that the White house would provide all documents they jointly requested. December 5, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to National Security Advisor Rice asking for her help getting documents and access to individuals. January 22, 2004 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet asking for compliance with the Oct. 31 request for documents. February 12, 2004 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller issued a joint press release announcing the Committee’s unanimous approval of the expansion of the Iraq review, to include use of intelligence in the form of public statements, and listing other aspects of what became Phase II. March 23, 2004 – Senator Rockefeller sent yet another letter to Director Tenet asking for compliance with the Oct. 31 request for documents. June 17, 2004 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller joint press release announcing the unanimous approval of the report. July 16, 2004 – Committee Democrats sent a letter to Bush asking for the one page summary of the NIE prepared for Bush. The Committee staff had been allowed to review it but could not take notes and the Committee was never given a copy. February 3, 2005 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts outlining Committee priorities for the coming year and encouraging completion of Phase II. August 5, 2005 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts expressing concern over the lack of progress on Phase II and calling for a draft to be presented to the Committee at a business meeting in September. September 29, 2005 – All Committee Democrats joined in additional views to the annual Intelligence Authorization Bill criticizing the lack of progress on Phase II. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrats_detail_times_their_efforts_to_1101.html
The 'freeing people from an oppressive dictator' was a small fraction of the initial justification to go to war. Please imagine, if you will, every press release, every public speech, every repetition by the president, administration officials, and republican talking heads leading up to the war. Think about all those talking points. Think of what those points were. Think of how often they were discussed. Now, imagine every time that Weapons of Mass Destruction was mentioned, active nuclear program, Al Qaida, and replace them with "freedom and democracy" for the Iraqi people. Then replace the few initial mentions of freeing the Iraqis from a dictator and replace them with claims of WMD and Al-Qaida links. No way in hell do the American people, of any political party, approve of a full out invasion under those circumstances. The neocons believed in democratizing the Middle East, saw an opportunity after 9/11 and took it. They knew that they could never sell the war as a nation building expenditure. Therefore, they keyed in on WMD and terrorism ad nauseum, and either exaggerated evidence or lied or both in order to hype up enough fear to get approval for a war, and to denounce any critics as unpatriotic. "Freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people" is only one of many stops for the U.S.S. EverChangingGoalPost in post-war justificationland.
Senator Rockefeller Rocks! He has been working hard, too bad a larger stink about the stonewalling wasn't made sooner. At least the Democrats had a little spine today.
and yet, it received major mention in the SOTU 2003, shortly before the war: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html perhaps you were out getting a beer during this section?
