Warning:
Before any liberals come on here and say Bush was wrong for doing this, make sure you condemn the list below first:
Oh wait...I just read Hillary said this:
"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
What about Marc Rich?
In 1983, Marc Rich was charged with conducting the largest tax evasion scheme in U.S. history. He fled to Switzerland to avoid trial and has avoided extradition ever since. Over the following seventeen years, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, contributed over $1 million dollars to the Democratic Party and $450,000 to Clinton’s presidential library in Little Rock. In addition, she pledged to raise $1 million for the library when she spoke with Bill Clinton during one of her several calls.
What about FALN terrorists?
Bill Clinton pardoned sixteen members of the FALN organization. These men belonged to a Puerto Rican freedom terrorist group, which was responsible for planting over 130 bombs in public places in the U.S. They killed six people and injured seventy. (Genovese and Almquist, 83) The FALN represented the single largest terrorism campaign in the U.S. “Yet Clinton’s clemency released individuals from prison after serving less than twenty years of terms running from fifty-five to ninety years.”
So rationalize those first, then bitch about Libby.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Bush Commutes Libby Prison Sentence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
57 comments:
Marc Rich, interestingly enough, was pardoned at the behest of his lawyer as well as by the Israelis, because Marc Rich had used his wealth - some surely ill-gotten, to be sure - to rescue Israelis living in Palestine who had been targeted for assassination.
The lawyer who worked so hard to secure that pardon? Oddly enough - Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Anyway, it's all irrelevant. I didn't support Clinton's pardons then (although the Marc Rich pardon is arguably defensible) and I don't support Bush's commutation, now.
Astoundingly he didn't even have the balls to pardon. Instead, what Bush said is that yes Libby lied to a grand jury; yes he obstructed justice and derailed an independent investigation into the disclosure of the covert status of a major CIA operative; yes he committed a major felony, but no, he definately should not be held to the same standard of justice as any other American convicted of the same crime.
Celebrity justice. Perjury - IOKIYAR!
Neither Rich nor the FALN were convicted of obstruction of justice having to do with possible crimes committed by the man who is [supposedly] second in command to the man who commuted the sentence of the guilty man.
Bush commuted the jail term for Libby so that Libby won't have to be in jail while he appeals his case. Note that the commutation occurred on the day that the appeals court denied Libby's request to remain out of jail during the appeal.
Once all of Libby's appeals are exhausted without success, on January 20th, 2009, Bush will indeed pardon Libby so that the won't have to pay the $250,000 fine and face disbarment.
And speaking of unseemly pardons, George W. Bush's father pardoned 6 former government employees involved in the Iran-Contra scandal in which Bush 41 himself was implicated. NICE!
He also pardoned Orlando Bosch who was linked to the bombing of Mackey Airlines in Ft. Lauderdale.
Chet does say he didn't support Clinton's pardons...Jim?
Chet does say he didn't support Clinton's pardons...Jim?
"Clinton did it" - especially when he didn't - isn't much of a defense, Game. If you can't defend Bush on his own merits, then you can't defend him at all.
Was it right for Bush to say that it's ok to lie to federal investigators? Answer the question.
Republicans always love to point out how corrupt and evil Clinton was, but apparently the same behavior is excusable when done by republicans
but apparently the same behavior is excusable when done by republicans
IOKIYAR!
This is great tripe today,wonderful to chuckle first thing in the morning.Its great to see a team of players try to find a topic they think is only slanted and "real" to one viewpoint.
Chet,
There is something seriously wrong with your sense of proportion if you think COMMUTING Libby's sentence is as bad or worse than Clinton Pardoning Henry Cisneros and his 18 felony convictions and Clinton pardoning the terrorists that actually attacked Congress while in session with guns and bombs.
Chet you want to explain yourself?
Phil and Jim, you two are just Democrat hacks to be dismissed out of hand to begin with.
PCD, Sheriff Baca is a Republican
There is something seriously wrong with your sense of proportion if you think COMMUTING Libby's sentence is as bad or worse than Clinton Pardoning Henry Cisneros and his 18 felony convictions and Clinton pardoning the terrorists that actually attacked Congress while in session with guns and bombs.
Funny - I don't see any place where I said that it was.
Try to grapple with my actual arguments, ok? And try to remember that "but Clinton did something" isn't a defense. Clinton hasn't been president since 2000.
When did Bush "say that it's ok to lie to federal investigators?" Really, I don't recall this. I know he did say he felt the sentence inappropriate. And isn't that what a pardon does in effect? At least, thus far, Bush hasn't touched the conviction and the rest of the sentence. How is that a bad thing compared to full pardons? Despite the judge's opinion of overwhelming evidence, I don't think that there is much to accuse Bush over for simply disagreeing, even if he eventually grants the pardon. In every presidential pardon, or even a governor's pardon, there will be those who disagree. Full agreement isn't a requirement of a pardon, only the judgement of the pardoner(sic). So disagree all you want. It might be cronyism, it might be something else, but the president is within his power to pardon or commute sentences. It's kinda silly and a bit hypocritical to make noise about his "lack of respect for the rule of law" when it is by law that he has the power to commute or pardon. Respect THAT!
Which law did Bush break?
Libby isn't even pardoned, unlike the terrorist Clinton PARDONED...
And forget about Clinton, Bush did nothing wrong...and he could have flat out pardoned Libby
When did Bush "say that it's ok to lie to federal investigators?" Really, I don't recall this.
When he commuted the sentence of, but did not pardon, Scooter Libby. I'm surprised that I have to explain this to people who aren't children.
If he didn't think Libby actually lied, then he would have pardoned Libby.
But he didn't. He didn't object to the conviction; he just felt that any jail sentence for making false statements to Federal investigators was "excessive" - even though that was well within Federal sentencing guidelines.
Clearly, then, that's a statement about what punishment Bush thinks is appropriate for lying to Federal investigators. Clearly, Bush doesn't think it's that big a deal.
I know he did say he felt the sentence inappropriate. And isn't that what a pardon does in effect?
I don't see how. Executives are supposed to pardon when they feel that the conviction was arrived at wrongly, via a miscarriage of justice. A pardon expunges the conviction; guilt is changed to innocence.
Here, Bush clearly felt that Libby was guilty - but that he just didn't deserve to spend any time in prison for committing a federal felony.
It might be cronyism, it might be something else, but the president is within his power to pardon or commute sentences.
I agree, but there's an argument to be made that the power to pardon seems to be being misused. The power to pardon and commute is supposed to represent a failsafe against extreme miscarriages of justice; but at least since Nixon it appears to be solely a power executives exercise on behalf of their cronies and contributors. And, yes, I include Clinton in that. I think there's an argument here for amending the Constitution to eliminate the power to pardon altogether.
Bush did nothing wrong...and he could have flat out pardoned Libby
If Libby really was wrongfully convicted, why didn't he? If Bush did not intend to affirm the conviction and only dispute the sentence, why didn't he issue the pardon?
Because, this way, Libby still retains his 5th Amendment privileges, which protects Dick Cheney from investigation. It's a cynical ploy to cover the Vice President's ass from disclosures from the guy who knows where all the bodies are buried - not the rectification of a failure of justice.
If Bush really believes that several years in prison is too harsh for people who lie to investigators, then let him change the guidelines. Otherwise it's just special treatment for his buddies - when everyone is supposed to be equal under the law.
Incidentally:
"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own," - George W. Bush on why he signed death warrants for 152 inmates as governor of Texas.
The quote is from his own book, "A Charge To Keep."
Bush vs. Bush
Chet--
I don't believe Ken Starr had any business digging in Clinton's personal life during the 1990s. Libby's situation was the same-- he was falsely brought to trial in a bogus political witchhunt.
The record of the Clintons is relevant, given Hillary **will** be the Democrat nominee in 2008. WJC cynically pardoned 16 FALN terrorists in 1999 so his carpetbagging wife from Illinois could suck up to Puerto Rican New Yorkers.
I don't know why Democrats are arguing that we should send patriots to jail for political charges, but release terrorists and murderers. They just want somebody's head for the non-crime in the Valerie Plame case. (Armitage was the actual leaker.)
(Armitage was the actual leaker.)
Armitage was a leaker, but not the only leaker. Libby and Rove both told at least two reporters who chose not to print the information.
Jay,
Fitz's mandate was to find and prosecute the leaker. Armitage confessed to Fitz 2 days before Fitz' investigation started that he was the leaker. In light of his mandate, why wasn't Armitage indicted and tried? Could it be because Armitage was a Democrat and that no law was broken in that Plame was not covert?
Second, if Libby and Rove leaked, why weren't they indicted and tried for it?
Jay, you are such a partisan chump.
Libby was only convicted of lying to investigators, Obstruction of Justice, not leaking a covert agent's name.
Now, factor in that Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer and Rich was prosecuted by Fitz. Could there be some revenge in Fitz's decision to go after Libby?
pcd: Oh. My. God. You may very well have just written the worst post ever. Anywhere. By anyone.
Fitz's mandate was to find and prosecute the leaker. Armitage confessed to Fitz 2 days before Fitz' investigation started that he was the leaker.
You're using the wrong article. Armitage was a leaker, not the leaker. Libby and Rove and at least one other member of the administration passed along Plame's name to the press in addition to Armitage.
Further, Fitzgerald was given--by the Bush Justice Department--"the power and authority to make whatever prosecutive judgments he believes are appropriate, without having to come back to me or anybody else at the Justice Department for approvals" and "the mandate [given] to Mr. Fitzgerald is significantly broader than that that would go to an outside special counsel."
Don't try to minimize what Fitzgerald was tasked with just to satisfy your messed-up worldview.
In light of his mandate, why wasn't Armitage indicted and tried?
Well, Fitzgerald has answered this: To prosecute under IIPA, specific criteria must be met. Fitzgerald's explained that Armitage did not necessarily have intent, and that Libby's own lying was what kept Fitzgerald from getting to the bottom of whether all the other leaks (see above) were done as part of a conspiracy.
Of course, you could believe that the Bush-appointed Fitzgerald is lying, and the Bush-appointed judge Walton swallowed it. But then you'd have to doubt Bush, and I think that would make your head explode.
Could it be because Armitage was a Democrat and that no law was broken in that Plame was not covert?
Armitage is not a Democrat. His first political job was with Bob Dole, then Reagan, then Bush I, and then he showed up as part of the neocon PNAC with such arch-conservatives as Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz. Then as soon as a Republican president was back in power, he was back in government. How the frick do you get "Democrat" out of all that?
Of course, given your apparent confusion about LA County Sheriff Lee Baca, I suppose this kind of mistake should be expected.
And as for Plame's covert status, riddle me this: If she were not covert, why would the CIA have asked the DoJ to investigate the outing under IIPA? You think the CIA runs around filing frivolous complaints for the hell of it? And why does the man who directed the CIA when she was outed insist that she was covert? Why does her employment dossier state that she traveled abroad in the last five years under official and non-official cover, under aliases and with a fake job?
Second, if Libby and Rove leaked, why weren't they indicted and tried for it?
See above. Libby's obfuscations--you know, the stuff he was convicted for--prevent Fitzgerald from doing his job. That's generally what obstruction of justice means.
Jay, you are such a partisan chump.
So? You're a liar. I'd rather be a chump than a liar.
Libby was only convicted of lying to investigators, Obstruction of Justice, not leaking a covert agent's name.
This may be the only wholly accurate sentence in your whole comment.
Now, factor in that Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer and Rich was prosecuted by Fitz. Could there be some revenge in Fitz's decision to go after Libby?
Really, pcd: Crack kills. Give it up now. Rudy Giuliani prosecuted Marc Rich. In 1983. When Fitzgerald was still in law school.
Libby's situation was the same-- he was falsely brought to trial in a bogus political witchhunt.
There was nothing bogus about the trial - Plame was a protected, covert agent under the IIPA, and the release of her status jeapordized intelligence assets and derailed a major anti-proliferation program.
Plame's disclosure put weapons in the hands of terrorists. It's just that simple. The Republican DOJ felt it necessary to appoint Republican Patrick Fitzgerald as special prosecutor, and the evidence he presented was sufficient to convict Libby of several counts of felony obstruction of justice, to which he was sentenced by a Republican-appointed judge to the federally recommended prison term.
There was nothing political about the prosecution; that's a myth conservatives continue to propagate but it's just not supported by the facts.
I don't know why Democrats are arguing that we should send patriots to jail for political charges, but release terrorists and murderers.
It's a bit of a stretch to portray Libby as a "patriot." He's just an administration lawyer who ran interference against the special prosecutor, and now he's recieved his administration reward.
The commutation is politics. The prosecution was anything but.
Chet and Jay, well done! I feel like I'm on vacation since you're here.
Sorry, realism. I should include you, too!
Let's see if pcd has the guts to respond today.
PCD will respond to you Jay as soon as work eases a bit. You lefties' double standard in the application of the law and comparing accusations of Republicans as a conviction in your minds vs. the dismissal of similar allegations against Democrats such as Murtha.
Again, NO ONE WAS TRIED OR CONVICTED FOR OUTING A COVERT AGENT. Get that straight.
PCD - Lee Baca AND Richard Armitage are republicans.
Once again, you have proved that you are a wingnut apologist of the lowest sort, who is unwilling to accept any facts or evidence that conflicts with your demented worldview.
Therefore, anything you say can safely be ignored as nothing but lies and propaganda.
Phillip,
You are a 1st class jerk.
You didn't get "Fitzmas". YOU can't show any convictions for outing a covert agent. YOU got nada, so you revert to your base personality which is a jerk.
Since the good sister did all the work, I'll post her URL for anyone to peruse. I know the left wing whack jobs Jay, Jim, Phillip, and Chet won't confront that. They are too busy with their strawmen and being partisan hacks.
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/07/03/reax-to-the-commuting-of-libbys-sentence/
PCD, did anyone claim that Libby was tried and convicted for outing a covert agent? I didn't think so. Your efforts to run circles around the fact that Fitzgerald, a prosecutor held in high esteem by President Bush himself, repeatedly stated that Libby's obstruction of justice thwarted his investigation are comical.
Strawman and partisan hacks....regular features of your arsenal.
Again, NO ONE WAS TRIED OR CONVICTED FOR OUTING A COVERT AGENT. Get that straight.
I have that straight. I've had that straight all along. When you said that in your comment that was otherwise all lies all the time, I told you that was the truth.
It's everything else you said that was wrong.
Everything.
Andy,
You sure have collective vision. Jim, Jay, Phil, and Chet have all leather lunged about different aspects of Libby got caught, but ROVE and CHENEY were behind the outing when NO ONE was charged and convicted of an outing. Armitage came forward first, yet he isn't charged with anything. That says alot to all but those suffereing from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
So, don't try to palm off that you Democrats are trying to make up something that isn't there.
Jay, You are the worst. You can't understand that once something is common knowledge that it can't be leaked. The whole WH press corps knew about Plame long before Libby and Rove were questioned by Novak and the other reporters about it.
Jay, Get YOUR story straight. No Fitzmas for you!
PCD,
Your ad hominem attacks are comedic. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
As has been stated before, Fitzgerald asserted that Libby's obstruction of justice prevented his investigation into the leak.
Dance around that all you want.
Andy,
Libby wasn't the choke point. There was no case. Especially since Armitage went straight to Fitz and told him everything BEFORE Hitz started in on ROVE and Libby. Rove was the target all along, and through Rove the Democrats thought they could impeach Bush and Cheney. It was their plan all along. You can read it in Kos archives, if not MoveOn's and Think Progress' archives.
Andy, you are the clown here.
But, I can't for the life of me understand why you left wing whacko Democrats think that commuting the sentence of a Perjurer ranks anywhere near Clinton pardoning Terrorists who attcked Congress. How do you whackos square that? Are you all that deranged???
PCD, put the pipe down. No one here is making an attempt to compare the two or somehow excuse President Clinton's actions through Libby.
As far as clowns go, your use of the word 'patriot' to describe a perjurer ranks pretty high!
pcd, don't dodge. You're a liar.
You can't understand that once something is common knowledge that it can't be leaked.
Plame's covert status--and even her CIA employment--was not common knowledge. Her neighbors didn't know. Her family didn't know. Her friends didn't know.
The Washington press didn't know, either. The Bobs (Woodward and Novak) didn't know before Armitage told them. The press who tesified at Libby's trial (Russert, Cooper, Miller) didn't know before Rove and Libby told them. Other reporters (Pinkus, Van de Hei, and Kristoff, to name three who have covered the story) didn't know.
You're a liar. An inveterate, implacable, caustic liar.
Jay,
Ben Bradlee's wife knew it. Wilson went all over DC bragging about his CIA wife. You are the delusional one. Get psychiatric help Jay. The others are lost causes.
Oh, Jay, when are you going to apologize to the game for lying about the Democrats not intending on seeking tax increases after the election? Talk about chutzpah.
when are you going to apologize to the game for lying about the Democrats not intending on seeking tax increases after the election?
When someone tells me where I made such a statement. I never did. Perhaps you're forgetting thet you are the liar.
Like this:
Ben Bradlee's wife knew it. Wilson went all over DC bragging about his CIA wife.
Ben Bradlee's wife would be Post socialite Sally Quinn, who has never anywhere, according to my googling, said she knew Plame was CIA. I found multiple references to the Wilsons' having been at the Bradlee/Quinn holiday party in 2003--after the outing--but nothing about Quinn's knowing before Novak's column. (It also sounded like Bradlee didn't know before Novak's column, for that matter.)
Well, that's not quite true: This story notes that the Wilsons attended a Bradlee/Quinn soiree, but it ambiguously does not denote the year. So it's possible that the Wilsons went before her outing.
The focus of that article? How no one knew she was CIA.
And the only people who say that Wilson bragged about his wife's CIA work are the people trying to discredit Wilson. Not. One. Person. who knew the Wilsons has come close to that.
The most serious charge of such a thing seems to come from a FOXNews commentator Major General Paul E. Vallely, who seems to have shut up about it once threatened with a libel suit.
And, in my googling, I came across yet another lie of yours, pcd:
Clinton pardoning Terrorists who attcked Congress
Admittedly, FALN was working in the 70s, when I was in diapers and we only had three branches of government.
But I kind of thought I would have remembered reading something about a terrorist attack on Congress somewhere in my adult life. And, aside from the British sacking of the White House during the War of 1812, I can't think of anything similar.
So I looked up those FALN terrorists Clinton pardoned. Now, if anyone would note that they had attacked Congress, it would have been Dan Burton, the Republican bulldog who investigated the pardons in 2001. Read Burton's report. It makes a persuasive case that the 16 FALN terrorists should not have been pardoned.
However, it also makes clear that none of the 16 had been convicted of killing or injuring anyone. All of the 16 had spent 19 years in jail for their crimes. And none of them had "attacked Congress."
Here is a google search for FALN attack Congress. Can you point me to the result that shows that FALN did that?
I did find this essay complaining about the pardons, and noting that Jimmy Carter had pardoned people who shot five members of Congress at the capitol in 1954. The four who did it sought the same goals as FALN, but FALN had not yet been formed.
So, another post, another untruth told by pcd. Is anyone surprosed about this anymore?
BREAKING NEWS!!!
PCD IS A LIAR
In other news, earth continues to rotate on its axis.
PCD, you make me chuckle every time. You are nothing but a dishonest chump sidekick. You're the Ed Norton to Game's Ralph Kramden, the Millhouse to his Bart Simpson, the Flavor Flav to his Chuck D.
You are pathetic. And I mean that in the most literal sense of "deserving or inciting pity".
You consistenly use the most easily disproved lies as the foundations of your arguments, and then refuse to admit when you are wrong.
Phillip,
While you and your fellow travellers are always wrong, hurt people wholesale, yet live your superiority complexes are any better?
Again, Clinton did pardon terrorists. You want to exalt the the Peanut Farmer? Is pardoning terrorists who fired on Congress less grievous than commuting Libby's sentence?
Oh, how is Berger's sentence more appropriate than Libby's? You jerks invite derision.
AND not one of you refuted anything from the Sister Toldjah post. Says a lot about how you have to nit pick to have any victories at all.
While you and your fellow travellers are always wrong, hurt people wholesale, yet live your superiority complexes are any better?
What the hell does that gibberish even mean?
Is english not your native tongue?
thanks for the laugh.
BTW, Baca and Armitage are republicans.
AND not one of you refuted anything from the Sister Toldjah post.
Uh, I'm not sure if you realize this, PCD, but this is Game's blog, not sister toldjah's.
If I want to discuss one of her posts, I will visit her website.
AND not one of you refuted anything from the Sister Toldjah post.
"Sister Toldja" doesn't have any credibility, nor any originality. I guess if I wanted to grapple with stale GOP talking points, I'd hang out over at JayReding.com; at least he's someone who I used to know.
Phil and Chet,
Keep running. When you run from a cite and refuse to discuss it, then you also give up having any of your cites discussed. It cuts both ways. Oh, I forgot, liberals only have credibility to discuss anything. what classroom Hitlers.
When you run from a cite and refuse to discuss it, then you also give up having any of your cites discussed.
What was cited, exactly? Your link doesn't go anywhere.
Oh, I forgot, liberals only have credibility to discuss anything. what classroom Hitlers.
Can we call Godwin's law, now? Or is your self-evident idiocy sufficient to finish the debate with you?
Chet,
All is did was highlight it, Ctrl-C, then Ctrl-V it into the address field of my browser and voila I went right to the post. Here it is again for your discomfort:
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/07/03/reax-to-the-commuting-of-libbys-sentence/
The link works, Chet.
Here you go, pcd. I propose a contest:
I have documented, in this one thread alone, eleven different falsehoods from your keyboard. Note:
• "Clinton pardoning the terrorists that actually attacked Congress while in session with guns and bombs."
• "Fitz's mandate was to find and prosecute the leaker."
• "if Libby and Rove leaked, why weren't they indicted and tried for it?"
• "Armitage was a Democrat"
• "Plame was not covert"
• "Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer and Rich was prosecuted by Fitz."
• Plame's CIA status was "common knowledge"
• "The whole WH press corps knew about Plame long before Libby and Rove were questioned by Novak and the other reporters about it"
• "Jay, when are you going to apologize to the game for lying about the Democrats not intending on seeking tax increases after the election?"
• "Ben Bradlee's wife knew" Plame was CIA.
• "Wilson went all over DC bragging about his CIA wife."
• Plus one classic: Your claim that LA County Sheriff Lee Baca is a Democrat.
All of these are false. All of them. And you, my anonymous friend, have yet to acknowledge that you awere wrong in almost all of those instances. (Your "peanut farmer" crack still lacks an admission of error on your part.)
The terms of the contest are simple. You are welcome to search the internet for everything I've written, and try to find twelve total falsehoods from my keyboard. Four+ years of my blogging and commenting all over the intertubes are available to you at the mere search for the screen name "folkbum." Go for it.
The prize? If you, looking at my entire net history, can discover the same number of lies from me that you laid down in this one thread, I will stop coming here to comment. You seem so concerned with the liberal takeover of this blog; here's your opportunity to purge it.
Deal? Just tell me how long you think you'll need.
The link works, Chet.
It still doesn't. It's too long; blogger truncates the end. All I get is
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
Try using TinyURL.com.
Jay,
A couple of points:
"Fitzgerald's explained that Armitage did not necessarily have intent," why would that matter? I went to the link you provided and it says right at the top that his purpose was in finding the leaker. He had him. What difference would Armitage's intent make? Particularly if he was the first who leaked the name, then any subsequent mention would not be a leak.
"and that Libby's own lying was what kept Fitzgerald from getting to the bottom of whether all the other leaks (see above) were done as part of a conspiracy." ---and this part is especially troubling, and I questioned it (without getting an answer thus far) at another blog. Isn't part of the job of a cop to wade through the "lies" to get to the truth? How could one "lie" from one man derail an investigation, particularly one with the resources Fitz had for the asking? Couldn't he talk to anyone else regardless of whatever testimony Libby gave him?
" why would the CIA have asked the DoJ to investigate the outing under IIPA?" ----Cheney's no fan of the CIA after repeated intelligence failures resulted in terrorist attacks on US interests. Conversely, the CIA isn't particularly fond of Cheney who pushed for improvements and changes to prevent further failures.
"You think the CIA runs around filing frivolous complaints for the hell of it?" ----I have to say that I find it a bit inconsistent to have assumed such evils of the Bush administration, but the thought that perhaps the CIA bigwigs might be less than honest is in no way possible? Shame on you. Are they so angelic that there's no way they didn't falsify Plame's dossier? (Not saying it happened, just remarking on the one-way suspicion.)
Keep in mind--In order to investigate the story of Iraqi attempts to secure yellow cake from Niger, they sent the unqualified Joe Wilson to investigate. He spends a few days by the pool interviewing a few people. "Did any Iraqis try to buy Uranium from here?" "No." "OK, cool. Have another drink and try the little sausages." Then he comes home and writes a story for the NYT that a bi-partisan commission determined was crap. The White House wishes to highlight the fact the tale was crap as well as to highlight the crapper. Yet, while feelig pretty good about Wilson being made out by others to be the liar he is, we're supposed to believe that Cheney decided to emmerse himself with f**kin' with some low level CIA employee. So then Armitage leaks the name, an investigation begins, Libby's questioned about something so insignifcant and because his story differs from the scratchy notes of interrogators, he's convicted of perjury for lying about something no one gets prosecuted for. Where is this version wrong?
Now, one other thing. Bush stated he doesn't want to get in the middle of the legal process. (I don't care when he said it, its been used against him regarding this case.) Well, to that end, commuting allows Libby to appeal from outside prison, a stay at which would interfere with the process (he ain't no flight risk, is he?) Yet that doesn't mean he WON'T interfere, as in a pardon. But if Libby's appeal is strong, he'll secure something better than a pardon or commutation. He'll have the charges against him dismissed. From what I've been reading from articles by some like Clarice Feldman, he has a real good chance of succeeding on appeal. Will you guys accept that as you demand we accept his "conviction"?
Particularly if he was the first who leaked the name, then any subsequent mention would not be a leak.
Only if the original leak was proliferated and made generally known. We know this is not the case. We know that Miller and Cooper FIRST heard about Plame from Libby, and that they heard about it BEFORE Plame's identity was first made public by Novak.
This nonsense about once Armitage told one person about Plame that Libby, Cheney, et al are somehow not involved in the leak is just that, nonsense.
Particularly if he was the first who leaked the name, then any subsequent mention would not be a leak.
If he leaked, but nobody knew he leaked, then subsequent leaks could still be leaks.
Novak didn't publish the column based on Armitage's leak until well after Libby had leaked. So I don't see how Armitage's leak is exculpatory.
How could one "lie" from one man derail an investigation, particularly one with the resources Fitz had for the asking?
Did you forget how much time Judith Miller spent in prison? People were stonewalling on this thing left and right; very suspicious behavior for a situation with "no underlying crime" according to conservatives.
Then he comes home and writes a story for the NYT that a bi-partisan commission determined was crap.
Did you even read the 9/11 Commission Report? Because they vindicated Wilson in basically every way. Niger's uranium mining operation basically makes it impossible for them to sell any yellowcake to Iraq. Wilson knew it, said so, and as a result - the administration set out to destroy him.
Where is this version wrong?
Top to bottom, pretty much. How many times do you have to be educated on this issue?
From what I've been reading from articles by some like Clarice Feldman, he has a real good chance of succeeding on appeal.
Oh, you've got to be kidding me. His appeals won't go anywhere. If a judge won't grant a stay on the prison term - which he didn't - that's a pretty obvious sign that Libby's appeals are pretty specious.
His conviction will be upheld, and Bush will pardon him. That's how quid pro quo works.
Couldn't he talk to anyone else regardless of whatever testimony Libby gave him??
Not if, like Cheney, they refused to talk.
The CIA falsified Plame's dossier? You have GOT to be freaking kidding me. And you question our suggestion of a White House conspiracy?
they sent the unqualified Joe Wilson to investigate.
Unqualified?
* 1976–1978: General Services Officer, Niamey, Niger
* 1978–1979: Administrative Office, Lomé, Togo
* 1979–1981: Administrative Officer, U.S. State Department, Washington, D.C.
* 1981–1982: Administrative Officer, Pretoria, South Africa
* 1982–1985: Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM), Bujumbura, Burundi
* 1985–1986: Congressional Fellow, offices of Senator Al Gore and Representative Tom Foley
* 1986–1988: DCM, Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo
* 1988–1991: DCM, Baghdad, Iraq
* 1992–1995: Ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and PrÃncipe
* 1995–1997: Political Adviser to Commander in Chief U.S. Armed Forces, Europe EUCOM, Stuttgart, Germany
* 1997–1998: Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton and Senior Director for African Affairs, National Security Council, Washington, D.C.
Marshall, much of what you asked was handled already, But here's some more:
commuting allows Libby to appeal from outside prison, a stay at which would interfere with the process
Are you suggesting that criminals be allowed to remain out of jail while they pursue all of their appeals following a conviction? Because that's a massive departure from the way our system works now. I don't think you're going to change many people's minds on that one.
Also, google up the IIPA, and you can find the clauses about intent. I didn't write the law, I just report what Fitz says. Same for Fitz's statement that Libby's obstruction prevented Fitz from getting at the whole truth.
Which is kind of odd: I googled up Henry Cisneros last night (all the talk of pardoning people from your own administration and all), and found that after $21+ million and a decade of investigation, the special prosecutor in Cisneros's case released a final report with this note:
fter a thorough reading of the Report it would not be unreasonable to conclude as I have that there was a coverup at high levels of our government and, it appears to have been substantial and coordinated. The question is why? And that question regrettably will go unanswered.
So, yes, while everyone hopes every prosecutor will eventually be able to untangle the webs of lies that often accompany criminal activity, it doesn't always happen, even with $21 million and a decade to unravel them.
As for the CIA-Cheney spat, I don't doubt that career officers at CIA hated Cheney, the way career bureaucrats all across the Executive Branch have hated the way this administration has politicized that which should not be politicized. I firmly believe that when Cheney set up his own intelligence shop to give him the analysis he wanted (which the CIA wouldn't do), the CIA was furious. But you'd have to believe that when Tenet handed the Plame case over to DoJ that CIA knew that Libby would be the one to take the fall. Consider that the other learkers, including Rove and Armitage, didn't work for Cheney at all. You'd have to think that Tenet was some kind of a future-predicting oracle to place this all on CIA's spat with Cheney. I don't buy that.
I also don't buy the idea that the CIA would doctor Plame's jacket to make it look like she was covert when she really wasn't. That's because all of the other pieces of evidence (like the CIA's refusal to admit that she even worked there before 2002, even though people who worked with her in CIA in the 80s have since come forward) (or like the fact that friends, family, neighbors didn't know where she worked) point to the fact that she really was covert.
However, Marshall, this is probably my biggest complaint here:
[Wilson] spends a few days by the pool interviewing a few people. "Did any Iraqis try to buy Uranium from here?" "No." "OK, cool. Have another drink and try the little sausages."
This is not at all what Wilson said in his op-ed. That op-ed is everywhere on the internet, and it never ceases to amaze me that some people are willing to mischaracterize it no matter how easy it is to fact-check them. And by some people, I mean you. Wilson never claimed that no one tried to buy uranium; Wilson claimed that "it was highly doubtful" that Iraq had bought uranium and "there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired."
This is how it's been for three years now: People like you (and everyone up to the vice president, apparently) just make up what you think Joe Wilson said, and then call him a liar based on your imagination. (See, for example, Cheney's vehement denials that he'd ever met Wilson or personally picked him to go to Niger--Wilson never claimed that to be the case.)
Same with this:
[Wilson] writes a story for the NYT that a bi-partisan commission determined was crap.
Um, no. The SSCI didn't call his report--or his op-ed--crap. (The report never actually mention his op-ed.) The SSCI pointed out the the CIA didn't interpret his report the way Wilson did. When Wilson confirmed that a 1999 meeting had taken place (at which, apparently, neither the Iraqis nor the Nigerians spoke the word "uranium," and which the Nigerians cut short because they didn't want to violate international sanctions against Iraq trade), the CIA saw that as strengthening their case against Hussein. This despite a report from the actual ambassador to Niger who also said that, whatever Iraq wanted from Niger, it wouldn't matter because there's no way any uranium could change hands.
In other words, the SSCI didn't say it was "crap"; the SSCI reported that CIA used one part of Wilson's report in a way that Wilson (and the Nigerian ambassador) didn't agree with.
Stop making up crap, Marshall. You're not pcd.
I guess pcd really only does post from work.
Post a Comment