The difference of course is that Clinton lied in an investigation into an actual crime. there is no such allegation in this case. to be clear however, Libby's alledged actions, if substantiated, like Clinton's, are indefensible. i propose Libby receive the same punishment as Clinton, then perhaps we can all just, MoveOn.
How can the grand jury get to the heart of the matter when all the repub players keep lying? ____________ "Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took an oath and he testified." "He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly." --Fitzgerald __________ And the investigation rolls on...
As it was said on one of the Sunday morning political shows by (I think) Bill Kristol, it seems that Libby knew that he had done something illegal and chose to lie during the investigation rather than be prosecuted for revealing the identity of a covert agent. I spoke to some of my friends in the White House and on the Hill and it turns out that this is apparently the rumor privately floating around D.C. on both sides of the aisle (The reason I know this is b/c I was a White House staffer for 18 months during the 1st term). It's a lot less serious a crime to commit perjury than to out a covert agent, and Libby seems to have chosen to lie and hope that he could get away with it, while knowing full well that if he got busted, at least he would only be busted for perjury. Granted, it is very much a rumor, but it is definitely the one floating around D.C.
Okay, remember that indictment that you linked? Try reading it. "Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community." After a two year investigation Mr. Fitzgerald is the authority on the subject. This is no longer up to debate. She was undercover and her cover was leaked to journalists. There is an ongoing investigation to see who did the leak, how and why. The investigation isn't over. Remember the new grand jury? Indictments may still be forthcoming. Even if they aren't, we haven't even gotten to Libby's trial yet. More testimony, more investigation, more everything. This is far from over.
I worked in the National Economic Council (the economic policy advisers to the President). I worked mostly on health care and social security policy while I was there, although I also did a bit of energy policy as well. It was an amazing experience to say the least, even though I didn't always agree with the policies we were advocating and am now taking a break from the political world.
dude, the comment regarding the indictment you quoted was fitzgerald's not mine. he's the one who said the indictment does not alledge libby outed flame.
Mr Hitchens, as usual, gets to the point: http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007479 -- What Goes Around, Comes Around The Plame kerfuffle has made hypocrites of just about everyone. BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS Monday, October 31, 2005 12:01 a.m. The Republicans who drafted and proposed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in the early days of the Reagan administration, in a vain attempt to end the career of CIA defector Philip Agee, could not have known that their hasty legislation would one day paralyze the workings of a conservative wartime administration. Nor could the eager internationalist Wilsonians who rammed through the 1917 Espionage Act--the most repressive legislation since the Alien and Sedition laws--have expected it to be used against government officials making the case for an overseas military intervention. But then, who would have thought that liberals and civil libertarians--the New York Times called for the repeal of the IIPA as soon as it was passed, or else for it to be struck down by the courts--would find these same catch-all statutes coming in handy for the embarrassment of Team Bush? The outrage of the left at any infringement of CIA prerogatives is only the least of the ironies in the indictment of Lewis Libby for discussing matters the disclosure of which, in and of itself, appears to have violated no known law. To judge by his verbose and self-regarding performance, containing as it did the most prolix and least relevant baseball analogy ever offered to a non-Chicago audience, Patrick Fitzgerald is not a man with whom the ironic weighs heavily. Nor does he seem discountenanced by his failure to find any breach in the IIPA or even the more broadly drawn Espionage Act. Mr. Libby stands accused of misstating his conversations with almost every journalist in Washington except for the only one--Robert Novak--who actually published the totemic name of Valerie Plame. "We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent," Mr. Fitzgerald contentedly confirmed. If--and one has to say "if"--the transmission of any classified information is a crime, then as Mr. Fitzgerald also confirmed, one would be in the deep waters of the Espionage Act, which is "a very difficult statute to interpret." Actually, it is a very easy act to interpret. It declares that even something very well-known is secret if the state defines it as secret: the same principle as the dreaded British Official Secrets Act. As to the critical question of whether Ms. Plame had any cover to blow, Mr. Fitzgerald was equally insouciant: "I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert." In the absence of any such assertion or allegation, one must be forgiven for wondering what any of this gigantic fuss can possibly be about. I know some apparently sensible people who are prepared to believe, still, that a Machiavellian cabal in the White House wanted to punish Joseph Wilson by exposing his wife to embarrassment and even to danger. So strong is this belief that it envisages Karl Rove (say) deciding to accomplish the foul deed by tipping off Robert Novak, one of the most anti-Iraq-war and pro-CIA journalists in the capital, as if he were precisely the pliant tool one would select for the dastardly work. And then, presumably to thicken the plot, Mr. Novak calls the CIA to confirm, as it readily did, that Ms. Plame was in the agency's employ. Meanwhile, and just to make things more amusing, George Tenet, in his capacity as Director of Central Intelligence, tells Dick Cheney that he employs Mr. Wilson's wife as an analyst of the weird and wonderful world of WMD. So jealously guarded is its own exclusive right to "out" her, however, that no sooner does anyone else mention her name than the CIA refers the Wilson/Plame disclosure to the Department of Justice. Mr. Fitzgerald, therefore, seems to have decided to act "as if." He conducts himself as if Ms. Plame's identity was not widely known, as if she were working under "non official cover" (NOC), as if national security had been compromised, and as if one or even two catch-all laws had been broken. By this merely hypothetical standard, he has performed exceedingly well, even if rather long-windedly, before pulling up his essentially empty net. However, what if one proposes an alternative "what if" narrative? What if Mr. Wilson spoke falsely when he asserted that his wife, who was not in fact under "non-official cover," had nothing to do with his visit to Niger? What if he was wrong in stating that Iraqi envoys had never even expressed an interest in Niger's only export? (Most European intelligence services stand by their story that there was indeed such a Baathist initiative.) What if his main friends in Niger were the very people he was supposed to be investigating? Well, in that event, and after he had awarded himself some space on an op-ed page, what was to inhibit an employee of the Bush administration from calling attention to these facts, and letting reporters decide for themselves? The CIA had proven itself untrustworthy or incompetent on numerous occasions before, during and after the crisis of Sept. 11, 2001. Why should it be the only agency of the government that can invoke the law, broken or (as in this case) unbroken, to protect itself from leaks while protecting its own leakers? All worthwhile information in Washington is "classified" one way or another. We have good reason to be grateful to various officials and reporters who have, in our past, decided that disclosure was in the public interest. None of the major criticisms of the Bush administration would have become available if it were not for the willingness of many former or serving bureaucrats to "go public." But this widely understood right--now presumably in some jeopardy--makes no sense if supporters of the administration are not permitted to reply in kind. Logic and history suggest that there will be a turn of the political wheel, and that Dems will regain control of the White House or the Congress. Will they be willing to accept the inflexible standard of secrecy that they have exacted in the Wilson imbroglio? Will they forbid their own civil servants to put a case, in confidence, to members of the press? Will they allow their trusted loyalists to be dragged before grand juries, and the reporters to be forced to open notebooks to the gaze of any prosecutor? The answer today is presumably "yes," which brings me back to where I began, and to the stupid acquiescence of Republicans in the passage of a law that should never have allowed to hollow out the First Amendment in the first place. Mr. Hitchens, columnist for Vanity Fair, is the author of "Thomas Jefferson: Author of America" (Eminent Lives, 2005).
Yes, that is Fitzgerald's comment. He is the one that said her status was classified. There are whitehouse documents that show it was marked as such. Yet her name was leaked to the press. It seems clear that a crime was committed by doing that, and Fitzgerald hasn't said anything to the contrary. But, for the sake of argument let's pretend no crime was committed. Why do you still call her outing, the loss of a classified intel agent engaged in the war on terror, and the loss of a front business with established contacts in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the middle east, "nothing"? Are you going to continue to dodge the question, or are you going to man up and answer it? Even if you believe that there are some technicalities that mean it can't be prosecuted do you think it is ok to blow the cover of intel branches investigating terrorists and their ability to get nuclear capability? If it can be done and defended from criminal prosecution on technicalities is that ok? Is that really what you think of the people fighting the war on terror? Do you think it is ok to give away troop positions while they are in the field? Sur
Sur, revealing the identity of a truly undercover officer involved in vital work for the national defense would indeed be a tragedy. however, ms. flame's id was revealed by aldridge ames in 1994. further, if she was truly undercover, why did the CIA confirm to Robert Novak that she worked at the agency? whatever she may have been, undercover was not one of them. as to the supposed crime, contrary to your "clearly", fitzgerald has said it's not clear one was committed.
Is there a reason why you ignore the facts uncovered? Fitzgerald who has done the investigating has already stated that her status was undercover. That is a matter of record, there is no guessing about whether or not she was undercover. It is a matter of record that she was. We also know the kinds of work that she was doing, and that Brewster Jennings had contacts and ongoing operations in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the middle east. I am curious why you think you know better than the CIA and everyone else involved that her work wasn't that important? Why do you know better than the CIA and Fitzgerald that she wasn't undercover, when those entities have already made clear that she was under cover? It must be strange to decide on your own, contrary to stated record, that a classified under cover agent isn't really classified and that working to investigate terrorists groups and their ability to get nuclear capability for the CIA isn't really all that important, and not a big deal. What would constitute something important in the CIA's work to fight terrorism, since sniffing out terrorist groups and their ability to get nukes doesn't make the list of really important job duties? Are you angry that our tax dollars have gone to fund such trivial pursuits as establishing a fake company, having it registered with Dun & Bradstreet, establishing a hold in Saudi Arabia while we are emroiled in conflict with Islamic terrorists in the middle east, and then tracing possible ways means that terrorist groups could come up with nuclear material? It was the CIA that wanted the leak investigated. They CIA didn't do that because they felt she wasn't really undercover.
did they investigate themselves then? if she was undercover, why did the CIA press officer confirm to Novak that she worked there? if she had NOC status, as you assert, then SOP would have been to deny all knowledge of her. he didn't, he put novak on hold, and came back and confirmed she worked there. NOC? Not.
Basso you keep saying that she wasn't. However Fitzgerald has already come out and said that she was. Why does your assumption based on what Novak claims somehow trum Fitzgerald's investigation and this document which was seen by certain persons who work in the whitehouse. Of course later a reporter from the Wall Street Journal found out that the whole document was marked top secret, and the part with Plame's identity was marked with even higher level of classified information. For you to keep making an assumption based on something that Novak supposedly claims happened in the face of Fitzgerald's investigation showing that her status was classified, the CIA requesting an investigation when her name was leaked, and documents that have information about her clearly marked as classified in existence, then your assumptions don't hold water in the face of all those facts and evidence.
Does anyone have the comment made by the President or VP wrt Libby after his indictment and resignation? President Bush's Remarks on the Resignation of Scooter Libby Courtesy of the White House Friday, October 28, 2005; 6:06 PM THE PRESIDENT: Today I accepted the resignation of Scooter Libby. Scooter has worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and sacrificed much in the service to this country. He served the Vice President and me through extraordinary times in our nation's history. Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation and ongoing legal proceedings are serious, and now the proceedings -- the process moves into a new phase. In our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial. While we're all saddened by today's news, we remain wholly focused on the many issues and opportunities facing this country. I got a job to do, and so do the people who work in the White House. We got a job to protect the American people, and that's what we'll continue working hard to do. I look forward to working with Congress on policies to keep this economy moving. And pretty soon I'll be naming somebody to the Supreme Court. Thank you all very much.
Dude, you're not reading my posts closely. I quoted you: This is unequivocally wrong. To prove as much I then posted a quote from the indictment which said: Fitzgerald is the authority on this information; this is a lynchpin in his obviously very thorough investigation. A lot of work was done to confirm this information. This is no longer a subject of debate. Plame's status was classified. Period. Case closed. As for the quote you use as a sail rigged to the mast of the EverMovingGoalpost, that Fitz doesn't allege that Libby did out Plame... let's say it for the fourth or fifth time- he can't get to the bottom of things, because he's alleging that Libby has lied, many times and consistently.
A look back at some of basso's previous posts in this thread: So, who was right and who was wrong here, Colonel?
Nolen, that's why basso is having such a difficult time responding to your posts. Lying is standard operating procedure for Republicans; therefore, basso thinks Libby has done nothing wrong!
it appears i was, since the headline at cnn is "bush proposes flu pandemic plan" and not "rove frog-marched out of whitehouse."
