NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep. At first he said he was appalled at the plame outing. Then he promised to fire anyone involved. Then, when testimony showed that the people involved were largely Libby and Rove, he didn't fire them but instead had to regrettfully accept Libby's resignation. But not until he was indicted.

And today?


Oh, well it's all just a hoot! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_latin_america_2)


When an Argentine reporter said sources told him that Kirchner planned to ask Bush for help reaching a new financial agreement on its debts with the International Monetary Fund, Bush expressed mock surprise that government officials can act as secret-leaking sources.

"I'm not going to ask you who they are, of course," Bush said, drawing laughter from the U.S. contingent in the room. "Inside joke here, for my team."


Oh yes George. Everyone is laughing ......


Because damaging national security during a time of war is one hell of a punchline!!

(looking around his desk,)

These weapons of mass destruction must be around here somewhere!

Thats one expensive paperweight.

Thats one expensive paperweight.

That describes Bush perfectly.

It is funny. Libs are all going on like she was skulking in a back alley of Beirut, infiltrating Islamic Jihad. She was a frickn' desk jockey.

Haven't you wondered why your hero Fitzgerald, the "prosecutors' prosecutor", didn't indict on leaking the name? Becuase it wasn't a crime, that's why.

Haven't you wondered why your hero Fitzgerald, the "prosecutors' prosecutor", didn't indict on leaking the name? Becuase it wasn't a crime, that's why.
I don't know. Why wasn't Clinton charged with adultery?

It is funny. Libs are all going on like she was skulking in a back alley of Beirut, infiltrating Islamic Jihad. She was a frickn' desk jockey.

Haven't you wondered why your hero Fitzgerald, the "prosecutors' prosecutor", didn't indict on leaking the name? Becuase it wasn't a crime, that's why.
So... Scooter was indicted for perjury for covering up... nothing?

It is funny. Libs are all going on like she was skulking in a back alley of Beirut, infiltrating Islamic Jihad. She was a frickn' desk jockey.

Haven't you wondered why your hero Fitzgerald, the "prosecutors' prosecutor", didn't indict on leaking the name? Becuase it wasn't a crime, that's why.

Excuse me?

She was an active covert agent working overseas for much of her career. If you check her timeline, she returned to Langley and took up domestic tasks at the time her twins were born.

And not only was SHE blown, the cover organization that she worked through was also blown by Novak, perhaps compromizing other agents that we are unaware of.


But it is nice to see you minimalizing the issue. Perhaps we should take out ads listing ALL classified CIA agents with their names and addresses since it is of such little importance..... according to you.

I don't know. Why wasn't Clinton charged with adultery?

Because adultery isn't a crime, which is exactly my point.

Excuse me?

She was an active covert agent working overseas for much of her career. If you check her timeline, she returned to Langley and took up domestic tasks at the time her twins were born.

And not only was SHE blown, the cover organization that she worked through was also blown by Novak, perhaps compromizing other agents that we are unaware of.


But it is nice to see you minimalizing the issue. Perhaps we should take out ads listing ALL classified CIA agents with their names and addresses since it is of such little importance..... according to you.

Gosh, when did libs start caring so much about the CIA? I thought the CIA was just the tool of fascist Amerikkka to tear down democracies in South America and put up puppet dictatorships.

Gosh, when did libs start caring so much about the CIA? I thought the CIA was just the tool of fascist Amerikkka to tear down democracies in South America and put up puppet dictatorships.

You seem to have liberals confused with hippies.

Because adultery isn't a crime, which is exactly my point.
It is hard to convict for treason when the two witnesses are passing the guy the notes.

It is funny. Libs are all going on like she was skulking in a back alley of Beirut, infiltrating Islamic Jihad. She was a frickn' desk jockey.

Haven't you wondered why your hero Fitzgerald, the "prosecutors' prosecutor", didn't indict on leaking the name? Becuase it wasn't a crime, that's why.

Here, read the indictment.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_pr_28102005.pdf

Hot from the DOJ, for your eyes only.

Here's an excerpt:

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. Disclosure of classified information about an individual’s employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individual’s future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them, the indictment states.

Gosh, when did libs start caring so much about the CIA? I thought the CIA was just the tool of fascist Amerikkka to tear down democracies in South America and put up puppet dictatorships.

I love how people like you never actually bother to reply to valid remarks, instead choosing to attack people when backed into a corner. I guess actually thinking about an issue would give you a headache. Easier to swallow all of the party talking points, is it?

Haven't you wondered why your hero Fitzgerald, the "prosecutors' prosecutor", didn't indict on leaking the name? Becuase it wasn't a crime, that's why.

Because to indict on the leak, it has to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Libby intentionally leaked information that he knew was classified.

Barring the existence of witnesses who can testify to Libby's foreknowledge, documents by Libby saying the same or some other conclusive evidence that rises to a very high level of proof, it's impossible to determine what was known by whom and when it was known. At least partly because of Libby's documented lies, it was impossible to determine if the leak was intentional and fully informed.

Whereas, if Clinton had not lied, the only thing that would have been determined was that a BJ took place...which we already knew. Unless it wasn't consentual or it took place with a minor, a BJ, no matter what the motive, is not a crime.

Therefore:

Leak = possible crime covered up with a lie that made the determination that such an act was a crime impossible.

BJ = Not a crime at all, covered up by a lie that made the determination that such an act occured laughingly easy anyway.

I love how people like you never actually bother to reply to valid remarks, instead choosing to attack people when backed into a corner. I guess actually thinking about an issue would give you a headache. Easier to swallow all of the party talking points, is it?

Backed into a corner? If you would practice your reading skills I noted how SHE WASNT COVERT. I simply didn't feel the need to respond to the same question twice.

This was pretty funny, in my opinion. That CIA thing was a joke that was an excuse to take down Rove, and by extension Cheney. They wanted to get Rove so bad, and they didn't.

The funniest thing was that there was no actual crime committed that had anything to do with the CIA agent's identity. They got them on obstruction of justice, which is pretty ridiculous when there was no crime committed which actually required justice. This was a mockery that was just as bad as the Clinton witchhunt in 1998. I'm waiting for them to drop "perjury" a few more times.

Gosh, when did libs start caring so much about the CIA? I thought the CIA was just the tool of fascist Amerikkka to tear down democracies in South America and put up puppet dictatorships.

Holy shit, that was the juke of a century.

You: "The outing of Valerie Plame did not endanger her, and it was not a crime."

Him: "It did in fact endanger her and others, and it was a crime"

You: "But liberals hate the CIA!"

My head is spinning even after I recapped it.

Does it matter? Smart money says Shrub pardons Scooter before he leaves office.

And if a criminal who just found out Plame's cover company was nosing into his or her business decided to have a whole bunch of those people executed and publically thanked the Bush administration for the cleanup, what will the Busheviks say?

And if a criminal who just found out Plame's cover company was nosing into his or her business decided to have a whole bunch of those people executed and publically thanked the Bush administration for the cleanup, what will the Busheviks say?

Apparently, there isn't much of a problem because no one was actually indicted for outing her. No one has done anything illegal here other than "obstruct justice", which along with perjury is the best tool to get someone in a witch hunt. Of course, the Republicans know about that trick that quite well, but...

It is funny. Libs are all going on like she was skulking in a back alley of Beirut, infiltrating Islamic Jihad. She was a frickn' desk jockey.Your ignorance astounds me. Perhaps we should be free to gave away the names of every member of the CIA, unless they are actively involved in an assignment overseas? :rolleyes:

Your ignorance astounds me. Perhaps we should be free to gave away the names of every member of the CIA, unless they are actively involved in an assignment overseas? :rolleyes:
You mean we aren't supposed to?
Shit.
Well thats it for me at this job.

Does it matter? Smart money says Shrub pardons Scooter before he leaves office.

And if a criminal who just found out Plame's cover company was nosing into his or her business decided to have a whole bunch of those people executed and publically thanked the Bush administration for the cleanup, what will the Busheviks say?
Won't need to. Libby won't be convicted for a bad memory. That's pretty much all the perjury charge amounts to in this case. He remembered something differently than a reporter. He got indicted. If the case isn't dismissed outright, it's a sure thing there'll be no conviction.

Backed into a corner? If you would practice your reading skills I noted how SHE WASNT COVERT. I simply didn't feel the need to respond to the same question twice.

YOU say she isn't covert. The conservative prosecutor, Fitzgerald. confirms that her identity was classified and not common knowledge and that her ability to undertake future covert excercises was eliminated by this leak. People who worked with her at the CIA confirm she was covert. But YOU say she wasn't.

Who the $%&# are you?

If you still labor under the misapprehension that she wasn't covert, you are:

1. Unable to process new information. By another name, an idiot.

2. An intentional shill for Libby, Rove, etc..

3. Living in an alternate universe.

So, which are you, because the facts (linked to, mind you,) indicate that you're full of it.

Because adultery isn't a crime, which is exactly my point.
No, it is a crime; just a misdemeanor

Won't need to. Libby won't be convicted for a bad memory. That's pretty much all the perjury charge amounts to in this case. He remembered something differently than a reporter. He got indicted. If the case isn't dismissed outright, it's a sure thing there'll be no conviction.

Ah, another member of the "hooked on phonics" washout program.

Can you not read the indictment and the accompanying press release? Is there any information that isn't spoon fed to you?

Claiming that his memory failed him isn't going to fly. A lapse in memory will result in some disagreement one's testimony. A consistent barrage of false information can't be blamed on memory, and you know it.

Read the fricking indictment already, chump.

Ah, another member of the "hooked on phonics" washout program.

Can you not read the indictment and the accompanying press release? Is there any information that isn't spoon fed to you?

Claiming that his memory failed him isn't going to fly. A lapse in memory will result in some disagreement one's testimony. A consistent barrage of false information can't be blamed on memory, and you know it.

Read the fricking indictment already, chump.

Well, as best as I can figure it out it happened this way. New York Times reporter Matthew Cooper asked Libby what he had heard about the status of Valerie Plame. Libby answered that he had heard other reporters saying that Plame worked for the CIA. The investigation apparently showed that Libby told Cooper that Plame worked for the CIA without the qualification that he had heard that from other reporters. There's two of your crimes, the two counts of perjury. Libby also said that he had talked to NBC's Tim Russert about the affair, when he had not.

What wasn't Libby charged with? Disclosing the name of a CIA covert agent, or conspiring to do so. I don't know who first coined this phrase, but essentially Libby was charged with lying about a crime that was not committed.

In the case of Scooter Libby and Valerie Plame it seems clear that no crime was committed, yet lies may have been told during the investigative process that made that determination. If so, then indictments are proper, and punishment is warranted. Remember, though, that it is not enough for a statement to be untrue for it to be categorized as a lie. The person uttering that statement has to know that the statement was not true at the time the statement was made.

But it's all you have to hang on to, so don't let me rain on your parade.

random crap that indicates that Myrmidonisia neither read the indictment nor the press release, and yet wants to pretend that he knows what he's talking about.

Good job!

"GW thinks leaks are.... funny!"

Ahhhh, shaduppppp! :p

Good job!
I'm not sure any of you read past the first couple lines. But then, that's what you want to hang on to -- the idea that a covert agent was named in a fit of political revenge. It might have happened, but not between Val and Scooter.

Wishing it was so doesn't make it so. Sorry. Maybe something good will happen for Democrats after the next two years, but I doubt it.

Wait so not only does Dubbya like starting wars over oil but he is now criticising Wales' favourite Vegetable!

THAT BASTARD!:eek:

.

What wasn't Libby charged with? Disclosing the name of a CIA covert agent, or conspiring to do so. I don't know who first coined this phrase, but essentially Libby was charged with lying about a crime that was not committed.


That part is still incorrect. The fact that the prosecution has not been able to make a winnable case against a particular person for Plame's outing does not mean that a crime did not occur.

That's like saying that a few women in London died of natural causes because no case was ever made against whoever Jack the Ripper was.

Your analogy is not quite right. Libby was investigated for the crime and the evidence was found wanting. To my recollection, no actual suspects were ever investigated for the Ripper crimes. There was no espionage crime committed by Libby against Plame. Not in the eyes of the law, in any event.

Which brings me to one more thing. Libby is going to have the hubris to actually plead not guilty! No bargains, no pleas of 'no contest', just a real plea of not guilty. I guess that means he doesn't think you can be indicted for memory lapses, either.

That part is still incorrect. The fact that the prosecution has not been able to make a winnable case against a particular person for Plame's outing does not mean that a crime did not occur.

That's like saying that a few women in London died of natural causes because no case was ever made against whoever Jack the Ripper was.

Your analogy is not quite right. Libby was investigated for the crime and the evidence was found wanting. To my recollection, no actual suspects were ever investigated for the Ripper crimes. There was no espionage crime committed by Libby against Plame. Not in the eyes of the law, in any event.

Which brings me to one more thing. Libby is going to have the hubris to actually plead not guilty! No bargains, no pleas of 'no contest', just a real plea of not guilty. I guess that means he doesn't think you can be indicted for memory lapses, either.Being indicted or held even when the evidence is found wanting? Surely only democrats would do something like that to their fellow human beings...

Being indicted or held even when the evidence is found wanting? Surely only democrats would do something like that to their fellow human beings...


You're being deliberately obtuse. Now you're trying to blur what he WAS indicted with versus the crime of the leak itself.

Nor, might I add, has he been "held" in any way shape or form.

You're being deliberately obtuse. Now you're trying to blur what he WAS indicted with versus the crime of the leak itself.

Nor, might I add, has he been "held" in any way shape or form.And you missed the obvious link: Evidence found wanting.

And you missed the obvious link: Evidence found wanting.

Evidence found wanting on the leak itself does not indicate that the evidence was found wanting on what he WAS charged for.

Hey, it's what got Martha Stewart sent to the can.....

You're seriously comparing a blowjob to leaking classified information?

Lemme pluck it apart for you. One is a personal matter that concerns the ones involved and their relatives. One is a very serious matter of national security.

I let you choose which is which.

You're seriously comparing a blowjob to leaking classified information?

Lemme pluck it apart for you. One is a personal matter that concerns the ones involved and their relatives. One is a very serious matter of national security.

I let you choose which is which.

If the Fundie Busheviks (the ones who shot down Miers in favor of Scalito) had their way, a blowjob would be a national security concern.

If the Fundie Busheviks (the ones who shot down Miers in favor of Scalito) had their way, a blowjob would be a national security concern.

If that's what's leaking there is a threat to national security... well, maybe in China with its overpopulation issues...

Because damaging national security during a time of war is one hell of a punchline!!

Then I guess you found the Washington Post story outing all of the secret CIA prisons a real hoot yourself.

Considering how few people actually know the details of that system, and considering that that information is most certainly top secret information, and the Washington Post admits that they obtained this information from some of those very few officials with first hand knowledge, that sounds like a massive leak to me.

While Valerie Plame hasn't been an agent for over six years (and thus not falling under the definition of an agent in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act), I'm sure that the Washington Post article has given enough information to supply terrorists with places to start looking - either to kill CIA agents or to liberate their detained comrades.

If you're going to be consistent, you should be calling for the jailing of the Washington Post reporters until they reveal the names of the leakers - and you should be calling for an independent investigation of the leaks of the information about the prison system.

If the Fundie Busheviks (the ones who shot down Miers in favor of Scalito) had their way, a blowjob would be a national security concern.

Conservative Republican opposition shot down the Miers nomination in reality.

If the Fundie Busheviks (the ones who shot down Miers in favor of Scalito) had their way, a blowjob would be a national security concern.

I believe the offense in question was perjury, not a blowjob.

Of course, if you don't want perjury to be a crime, either, we can let Libby off the hook right now.

I believe the offense in question was perjury, not a blowjob.

Of course, if you don't want perjury to be a crime, either, we can let Libby off the hook right now.

Oh excuse me, which party made a national event out of trying to prosecute on perjury- AFTER they couldn't find any evidence connecting the defendant to a real estate scam?

Oh excuse me, which party made a national event out of trying to prosecute on perjury- AFTER they couldn't find any evidence connecting the defendant to a real estate scam?

And now, in the interest of fairness, we'll have a prosecution on perjury where they couldn't find any evidence that a CIA agent was outed in violation of the existing statutes.

Maybe you should read Fitzgerald's public statement - he's not going to investigate any of the things the Democrats are really interested in, nor is he going to charge anyone with outing an agent.

Must be really disappointing to you.

And now, in the interest of fairness, we'll have a prosecution on perjury where they couldn't find any evidence that a CIA agent was outed in violation of the existing statutes.

Maybe you should read Fitzgerald's public statement - he's not going to investigate any of the things the Democrats are really interested in, nor is he going to charge anyone with outing an agent.

Must be really disappointing to you.

Not at all :D

It would be nice to get Bush out of office before any more damage to America is done, but I'm not weeping over this like you probably were when Clinton didn't get connected to Whitewater.

Not at all :D

It would be nice to get Bush out of office before any more damage to America is done, but I'm not weeping over this like you probably were when Clinton didn't get connected to Whitewater.

Unfortunately for you, Fitz said that his grand jury is never going to investigate anything related to the intelligence that led to the war in Iraq - so this isn't going to be a fishing expedition into impeaching Bush.

As a result, the playbook cited in the Rockefeller Memo was attempted last week (the closed session stunt), which only resulted in an agreement to review an investigation - a review that was already agreed to and was scheduled to start next week in any case.

I'm not weeping at all, btw. If Bush wanted to stop this in the conspiratorial way you probably dream of, all he has to do is pardon Libby. The trial would stop immediately.

Unfortunately for you, Fitz said that his grand jury is never going to investigate anything related to the intelligence that led to the war in Iraq - so this isn't going to be a fishing expedition into impeaching Bush.

As a result, the playbook cited in the Rockefeller Memo was attempted last week (the closed session stunt), which only resulted in an agreement to review an investigation - a review that was already agreed to and was scheduled to start next week in any case.

I'm not weeping at all, btw. If Bush wanted to stop this in the conspiratorial way you probably dream of, all he has to do is pardon Libby. The trial would stop immediately.

Unfortunately for me? You make this sound like I have a vast stake in seeing the Bush Administration crumble. Not that it's not doing a fine job of that on its own as the bodycount in the Middle East rises steadily and we see how we're not really that secure. Again, it's nice to see the mistake corrected before the damage becomes irreparable, but I'm not losing any sleep.

And while you might do a Loyal Bushevik Monkey Dance in celebration now, keep in mind Al Capone got nailed on tax evasion too. Find something that does stick out and nail that down. Oh wait, that's what the Republicans tried with Clinton. What goes around comes around so don't play sanctimonious.