Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.





I am not sure what about the Plame case you are claiming is a lie.
Please don't tell me that you believe that there were actually wmd's.
Maybe you don't believe that her name was leaked to discredit her husband for exposing that the Bush people manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq?
If that's it then I must ask why?
T-10. There WERE wmd programs in Iraq. Just no finished products and Saddam certainly behaved as though he had them. Today, there is little doubt that Bush relied on lousy intel. The same lousy intel the British, French and Germans had.Nobody was saying it was erroneous at the time. Some, questioned the gravity of the threat to US and whether invading ( as opposed to blockading ) was necessary.
Wilson has been shown to be disingenuous by the Senate Intelligence Commitee Report. His Times Op-Ed piece was shown to be a crock. Iraq DID try to buy yellow-cake in Niger ( the deal never went through .) He WAS recommended to go to Niger by his wife, a wmd specialist at the CIA. If his wife was so "covert" WHY did she pose in Vanity Fair and become the media darling she is now. REAL spies don't do that. And btw, NOBODY was indicted for leaking her name. Libby was indicted for allegedly lying about some conversations he had with reporters.
What Wilson most definitely is NOT is some sort of a hero and painting him as such in a FILM is just more Hollywood agitprop.





On the matter of 'truth' about Iraqi WMD programs (and I say truth in quotes because until somebody actually digs up Iraqi WMD's buried in the Syrian desert there are those who will still insist there is no truth one way or another) and the 'truth' of Joe Wilson's accusations ...
"" The 2004 British Butler Commission report stated "It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999" and that "the British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium".
After his junket to Niger, Joe Wilson himself reported to CIA employees that the former prime minister of Niger told him an Iraqi delegation had proposed "expanding commercial relations" with Niger. Since Niger's only major export is uranium, anyone who discusses "expanding commercial relations" with Niger is talking about buying uranium.
The Senate Intelligence Committee heard testimony from a CIA official who told the committee that it was Wilson's wife who had 'offered up' Wilson for the Niger trip. The committee also obtained the memo from Valerie Plame recommending her husband for the assignment. In the memo, Plame notes that her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possible shed light on this sort of activity". Joe Wilson's response to the production of his wife's memo was "I didn't see it as a recommendation to send me".
The New York Times reported "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former US ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In february 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was unequivocably wrong and that the documents had been forged.
After massive investigations in this country and in Britain into the uranium claim, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in 2004 that Wilson had never even seen the forged sales records. The forged documents did not even arrive at the CIA until eight months after Wilson's Niger trip.
In response to questions from committee staff, asking Wilson how he could have known about the forged documents when he had never seen them, Wilson said he may have 'misspoken' to reporters.
Journalist Robert Novak revealed in his July 14th 2003 syndicated column that Wilson did not go to Niger on a high-level CIA mission for Vice President Cheney, as Wilson had implied. Wilson spoke with no expertise, he was not a "CIA man", he was not sent by Dick Cheney, no one in the white house was ever told of Wilson's make-work 'report'. He had been sent by his wife, Valerie Plame, a chair-warmer at the CIA who apparently wanted to get him him out of the house. Wilson had never even filed any written report, but gave an 'oral report' to a few CIA bureaucrats who came to his house. In response to Novak's column, Wilson accused Karl Rove of outing his wife as an undercover 'spy' to get her killed and retaliate against him.
When special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald , who was investigating the 'leak' of Plame's name, announced his indibtment of a lone assistant to Cheney for perjury, he never even mentioned the law about releasing the names of covert agents. To the contrary, Fitzgerald went out of his way to avoid calling Plame 'covert", instead saying her employment status was 'classified' - which would only be relevant to the 1917 Espionage Act.
This was a fact that the media seemed studiously uninterested in pursuing: Wilson's inadvertent admission that he had begun advising the Kerry campaign one month before he started making his outlandish claims against the Bush administration. In October 2003 the Associated Press reported that Wilson said he had been 'advising Kerry on foreign policy for about five months'. That means he started working for Kerry in May 2003 - a month before he wrote his New York Times op-ed titled 'What I Didn't Find in Africa'. ""
excerpted from Ann Coulter's 'Godless' chapter 5
My reason for posting this particular thread about an upcoming Wilson / Plame movie really has little to do with any wish to reargue the Wilson claims. The reason centers around the larger point that, when it comes to politics, the 'objective truth' actually seems to matter very little. What DOES appear to matter is how often a particular 'story' is told by mainstream media, versus how much or how little opportunity is provided for rebuttal / debunking of that 'story'. Unfortunately, where the Wilson / Plame matter is concerned, four years later Scooter Libby is still awaiting the jury's verdict ...
~
Last edited by Melonie; 03-03-2007 at 06:14 PM.
The Downing Street Memo clearly states that, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Please note the part about intel being fixed. In other words it was being for all intensive purposes made up or in not so nice and terms it was a lie.
classified documents appearing to depict an Iraqi attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger had allegedly been suspected to be fraudulent by some individuals in U.S. intelligence, according to news reports. According to further news accounts of the situation, by early 2002 investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate.
in March 2003, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released results of his analysis of the documents. Reportedly, it took IAEA officials only a matter of hours to determine that these documents were fake.
Note the part that explains that the whole yellow cake thing was not true. The claim of Iraq and yellow cake was based on falsified classified documents initially revealed by Italian intelligence.
You are free to believe whatever you wish but forgive me if I can't help but be reminded of the term "drinking the kool-aid" when I read comments such as those you wrote today.
I really worry about you people who all these years later still believe in the whole wmd thing because doing so is nothing short of![]()





Then I'm sure that you consider the following as falling in the same category ...I really worry about you people who all these years later still believe in the whole wmd thing because doing so is nothing short of ...
and the latest ...
I'd also add an appropriate *smiley*, but there doesn't seem to be a graphic with it's head buried in the sand.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 03-03-2007 at 08:50 PM.
T-10- First of all, I don't like Bush. Never did. Secondly, I OPPOSED invading Iraq at the time for a number of reasons: It was not clear Saddam had wmd's and IF he did; they were no IMMEDIATE threat to us. To Iran, to ISRAEL yes, but not the USA. I advocated a total BLOCKADE of Iraq to force Saddam to re-open ALL his facilities to full and complete inspection. Secondly, I predicted that removing Saddam would create a power vacuum and that Iran and Syria would fill the void. Third, that Iraq would form a rallying point for Al Queda and Hezbollah and look what has happened. We should learn to make it a point to stay out of artificial countries composed of groups that hate each other.
I have been highly critical of Bush on numerous fronts. First, because he failed to punish ANYONE who was negligent in their duty prior to 9/11- (it's a long list) and more importantly because were are probably no safer today than we were prior to 9/11. The FBI has not reformed. There is a grand total of 13 - THIRTEEN ! Arabic speaking agents in the entire bureau and there are STILL hundreds of cartons of intercepts and other documents yet to be translated.
Nonetheless, facts are facts and Bush's decision making while admittedly flawed afaic was done AT the time with intel existing THEN. His CIA Director ( whom he inherited from guess who? ) was telling him that: " wmd's were a slam dunk ."It IS a FACT that Iraqi agents had visited Niger and DID make inquiry about purchasing yellow-cake. What do YOU think they were doing there ? Stockpiles of unenriched uranium were found in Iraq. Who's science project was that supposed to be for- Uday or Qusay's ?
Some think that Dick Cheney visited Langley to "pressure" CIA analysts to tailor their reports to support the wmd rationale for invading. Cheney says he went there to hear first hand from those responsible what the true state of affairs was. The only one who claims that Cheney supervised the manufacture of intel is Richard Clarke but his scenario holds very little water. First of all, Clark was NOT
at the CIA at the time having already left the Administration. Secondly, he does not cite a single source for his "Cheney did it " theory meaning that it's nothing more than surmise and conjecture on his part. More importantly, no one at CIA has come forward and said anything remotely resembling : "Cheney leaned on me" to justify what their sit-reps said. A LOT of other intel agencies were also guilty of over-estimating Iraqi wmd programs. Hans Blix has said Iraq HAD wmd programs. To date, not a single member of Congress privy to those Intel reports has said that they knew they were not accurate at the time. Likewise, not a single member of the Bush Admin. has said: " I told Bush but he wouldn't listen."
Even the chief N.Y.Times reporter in Iraq has admitted that our troops WERE greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people. They SAW it. The reason Iraq became the quagmire it is NOW is because the occupation was botched so badly. Read FIASCO which details the laundry list of serious and inexcusable errors made by Bremer and the U.S. Military after Saddam was toppled and hiding in his rat-hole.
That is where the REAL questions lie and it's irrelevant how and why we decided to invade. You may regard it as sophistry but I think it's much more accurate to say the Bush team lacked foresight and a serious appreciation of Iraqi history and Persian Gulf politics than that "they lied" or that they made up the intel as they went along.
That would make a great addition to the smiley list. I would have used it in place of the one I added to my previous reply had I been given the opportunity because it would better represent my opinion of your position on the current topic.
Eric,
I am afraid we just don't agree on various points regarding this subject matter.
You have your perspective and I have my own. I am sure you think you are correct just like I think I am correct. I doubt either of us will change the others mind. Maybe in the future more evidence will be available but unless that happens further debate between us is probably not useful.
T-10 - Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. The facts are the same for ALL of us. What interpretation or "spin" we prefer is a matter of opinion.
To date, there is NO EVIDENCE that Bush or Cheney deliberately lied or intentionally falsified intel. There just isn't. People are free to SUSPECT that such things occurred but so far, there is nothing remotely resembling a "smoking gun". Were they presumtuous and impatient ? ABSOLUTELY ! Were we adequately prepared ? ABSOLUTELY NOT ! Was it unwise to have invaded Iraq ? Of course.
Has Bush been absurdly stubborn ? You bet. Was he well served by Rummy and his other advisors ? Definitely not.
The existing facts are more than bad enough to call Bush's temperament, judgement and decision making ability into serious question and thus imo it is simply not necessary to try and question his motives or make reckless unsupported allegations.
Eric,
I would just like to add a final comment in responce to your position of "there is NO EVIDENCE that Bush or Cheney deliberately lied or intentionally falsified intel."
I feel that the Downing Street Memo is the 'smoking gun' evidence that intel was deliberately falsified. I understand you don't feel the same and thus we must agree to disagree.
Also I would like to thank you for being civil in our discussion. ArmySGT could learn a few things from your fine example.
Take care![]()
T-10 . You're very kind and I must say that I appreciate your civility as well.
As far as the Downing Street Memo is concerned, it constitutes TRIPLE HEARSAY ! It is a recollection of what the British Foreign Secretary
reportedly said about what various American officials reported to him what they were told and /or his IMPRESSIONS of what they
reported that someone else said.
Was Bush pre-disposed to go into Iraq ? No doubt. Did he want to depose Saddam ? It seems very clear. Did he have an ulterior motive ?
Highly probable. Bush made no secret that he wanted to get even with Saddam for trying to (or plotting to) kill his father. Were both the American and British Gov't's seeking sufficient justification or excuse to invade ? Even without the Memo that would appear obvious and would simply make sense. Blair would have to justify it to His Cabinet, Parliament and the British public just as Bush would to Congress and the American Public. Many analysts think ( and I tend to agree ) that Bush and Blair WERE intent on invading Iraq thinking the world and region would be "safer" without him and effectively laid a trap for Saddam using the U.N. Resolutions and deadlines. Remember it was Saddam's failure to comply with the U.N. Resolutions and his defiance of the deadlines that provided the real political cover for both Bush & Blair AT THE TIME ! It's also possible that both deliberately pushed Saddam to a point where they KNEW he would not go and thus his defiance of the U.N. became effectively a self-fulfilling prophecy and DELIBERATELY so on the part of Bush and Blair.
Again, the hardball power politics of Bush and Blair do not constitute phony intel. It simply shows that they played the game better than
Saddam did. Few question the fact that Saddam made a horrible mis-calculation and there was no one in his inner circle who accurately
reported to him what was really going on in Washington. For MONTHS prior to the actual invasion Pat Buchanon, Bob Novak and others
were consistently reporting that the decision to invade had been made and that "we're going". (Even Saddam supposedly watched CNN.) For some reason he apparently didn't believe it or didn't want to believe it. He wouldn't back down and we're all worse off as a result. Assuming of course that Saddam ended up where I hope he did if there even is such a place.
Last edited by Eric Stoner; 03-05-2007 at 02:35 PM.
T-10 - Assuming the Downing Street memo is genuine and it probably is, the accuracy and veracity of it's contents are certainly open to question. The word that Bush & Blair critics have been harping on is " FIXED". Fixed can mean "immovable ; set ; settled ; final; REPAIRED ;" as well as "worked" or " tinkered with" or even "manipulated.
When I said it was "TRIPLE HEARSAY" I meant just that. The British Foreign Secretary repeating what someone else told him = hearsay. Someone writing down what he said someone else told him = DOUBLE hearsay and in the case of The Memo it was someone writng down what he said American officials had told him what they were told = TRIPLE HEARSAY and obviously as you get further away from the actual and original source of the info it's accuracy and thus it's veracity suffers for obvious reasons.
If, IF a CIA analyst came forward and said: " Cheney or Tenet ordered me to change my analysis" ( take something out; put something in ) THAT would be a "smoking gun" and would be clear evidence of manipulated intelligence.
We have yet to see any such thing.





So the subject is lies and Valerie Plame?
Libby found guilty in CIA case
A Washington jury on Tuesday found Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former chief of staff of Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, guilty on four out of five counts of obstruction of justice and perjury.
Mr Libby faces years in prison and the ignominy of becoming the highest-serving Bush administration official to face jail. But unlike Mr Cheney and the president’s chief political adviser, Karl Rove, who have also been named in connection with the case, Mr Libby was not a well-known figure until his indictment, and any public relations damage will be limited.
The case goes back to a New York Times article from July 2003 by Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador. The piece described how he found no evidence in Niger that Iraq was seeking uranium for weapons of mass destruction. The Niger claim had been a critical part of the case for war in President George W. Bush’s State of the Union speech in 2003 and the White House and the vice-president’s office, furious at Mr Wilson’s article, became determined to rebut the man who had challenged their credibility.
Mr Cheney’s scribbled question on a copy of the New York Times article was the most controversial part of the rebuttal. “Did his wife send him on a junket?” Mr Cheney had written. Mr Wilson’s wife was Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, and, in rebutting the New York Times article, administration officials – including Mr Rove, the former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and Mr Libby – mentioned her to reporters.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/05a4021c-cc0...b5df10621.html
While I am glad Libby was found guilty on 4 out of the 5 charges, I do feel he is a bit of fall guy. I think higher level people should also have been charged and faced a jury trial.
One thing this verdict does is start to give our nation back a small amount of integrity that has been tossed into the trash over the past several years.
dlabtot and T-10- Libby's conviction relates to this thread, how ? All he was convicted of was lying to the FBI & grand jury about conversations he had with reporters. NOT for outing Valerie Plame. He was never even charged with that.
Libby should have done what Ari Fleischer did. As soon as the Novak column appeared outing Plame he ran and retained a lawyer and he told the truth to investigators and to the Grand Jury. So did everyone else, except Libby.





^^^ actually, as soon as Richard Armitage was found to be the source of the Plame 'leak', Patrick Fitzgerald should have closed the Plame 'leak' investigation ... such that Scooter Libby would never have been requestioned thus never indibted !
Whatever one's politics or opinions, this is supposed to be a country where trials are based on actual crimes being committed and actual evidence being presented against the accused, with the accused allowed full resources in his own defense. Instead, our legal system is degenerating into a mechanism by which 12 (in this case 11) angry jurors can attempt to extract 'revenge' or send a 'political message' when allowed to do so by a co-operative judge.
As far as the jury's verdict, all I can say is that this is what happens when you shop for a court where it's logistically impossible to select a supposedly impartial jury (i.e. Washington DC !) and where liberal journalist Denis Collins can be selected as a juror ! This conveniently brings us full circle right back to the original topic of this thread.One thing this verdict does is start to give our nation back a small amount of integrity that has been tossed into the trash over the past several years.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 03-06-2007 at 04:47 PM.





Melonie --- LOL, thanks for the schadenfreude





Liberals don't have a monopoly !!! Regardless, the Scooter Libby case will either be retried or appealed on the grounds that the prosecutor and judge allowed the trial to be transmuted into a trial of Dick Cheney and George Bush by proxy. Again, regardless of personal opinions on the need for such trial by proxy of Dick Cheney and George Bush, it was Scooter Libby sitting in the defendant's chair.





And her former colleagues at the CIA weigh in:
Agents See Dangerous Precedent in Plame's Outing
Morning Edition, March 7, 2007 · The verdict in the trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby is attracting attention among Valerie Plame's former colleagues at the CIA.
Among intelligence insiders, there's concern that nearly four years after the CIA called for an investigation into the leak of Plame's name to reporters, no one has been charged for what they see as an unpardonable crime: outing an undercover operative.
Valerie Plame belonged to that secretive circle of spies who spend most of their careers — in some cases, their whole lives — operating undercover. Within that circle, there appears to be mostly relief at the verdict. Larry Johnson, who was in Plame's CIA class and has remained a close friend, calls it "wonderful news."
Johnson adds, "I think there was a general perception that this government could get away with anything. With this verdict, the answer is, 'No it can't.'" Johnson sees the decision as a moment of vindication for his friend. But he says it shouldn't be the end of the Plame story — that more officials should be charged.
That's a view shared by Robert Richer, former No. 2 in the CIA's clandestine service.
"Someone made a conscious decision to disclose the identity of an operative working undercover," Richer says. "And I think that they should be held accountable. It is a criminal offense."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=7748554





^^^ if Valerie Plame was in fact a covert agent as defined by the Intelligence Identies Protection act, then why has there been no prosecution of Richard Armitage ? - the person who prosecutor Fitzgerald KNEW was the actual source of the Plame leak which resulted in the Robert Novak column which supposedly 'outed' Valerie Plame
Judge Tatel himself based his analysis on the following statement from prosecutor Fitzgerald ...
(snip)"Given that "the record omits specifics about Plame's work," Tatel based his analysis on a footnote in an August 27, 2004, affidavit submitted to the court by Fitzgerald. That document, too, was released last week. In the footnote, Fitzgerald wrote:
If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered "information respecting the national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work."
That is the entire text upon which Tatel based his conclusion. Was Fitzgerald saying that he knew in fact that the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal Plame's identity and that she had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years? Or was he simply reciting the requirements for prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? It's not entirely clear. The only fully clear part of it is that Fitzgerald had no direct evidence that Libby knew Plame was covert.
Later, in a letter dated January 23, 2006, Fitzgerald refused to say whether he knew if Plame had been an undercover agent during the five years preceding her exposure. Referring to a 1963 Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to turn over evidence that might point toward the defendant's innocence, Fitzgerald wrote, "We do not agree that if there were any documents indicating that Ms. Wilson did not act in an undercover capacity or did not act covertly in the five years prior to July 2003 (which we neither confirm nor deny) that any such documents would constitute Brady material in a case where Mr. Libby is not charged with a violation of statutes prohibiting the disclosure of classified information."(snip) from
Unless there is a reading comprehension problem, prior to his closing statement during the trial at least, the prosecutor is on record that there was no basis to charge Scooter Libby with any crime related to the supposed 'outing' of Valerie Plame. This is a 'red herring' issue from a legal standpoint, pure and simple.
I'm not denying reality ... I'm embarrassed by it. The reality is that the judge and prosecutor were willing to proceed with this trial with a sitting jury member who was A. a professional journalist B. who was a colleague / acquaintance of Watergate Bob Woodward and C. who was a bar-b-cue buddy of Tim Russert - who were two potential key witnesses in this trial where the verdict would be based on a credibility contest of who said what about who ! Impartial jury indeed.
This same professional journalist juror is now enjoying star status at the Huffington Post, making no bones whatsoever about the political intent of this trial. This is what I find to be very embarrassing, because the American justice system was supposed to be 'above' this sort of thing.
And as for prosecutor Fitzgerald ...
(snip)"Let's see - Richard Armitage read about Ms. Plame in a document marked "Top Secret" and leaked it to Bob Woodward and Robert Novak. After the Novak column came out, Armitage confesssed to that but "forgot" to mention the Woodward leak, and kept on forgetting until the term of the grand jury had expired and Libby had been indicted. At Woodward's urging he then came forward, secretly.
Not indicted. Not even investigated - the AP filed a Freedom of Information Act request and found the Woodward appointment right there on Armitage's calendar for June, but Fitzgerald apparently never did. Walk on by.
When FBI investigators came calling former Presidential press spokesman Ari Fleischer took the Fifth and held out for a "use immunity" grant, which he got in Jan 2004 from Fitzgerald. He then confessed to leaking to John Dickerson and David Gregory but denied leaking to Walter Pincus; he also claimed to have learned about Ms. Plame during a lunch with Libby, as well as on Air Force One a few days later while paging though some classified documents.
Pincus contradicted Flesicher's claim, as did Libby; Dickerson contradicted it in print, but was never asked to testify; Gregory has not been asked to testify and has been silent on his role (until today?).
Not indicted. Walk on by.
And this, from his press conference today, is a howler:
I would say this. It's not the verdict that justifies the investigation. It's the facts. And if people would step back and look at what happened here. When the investigation began in the fall of 2003, and then we got appointed to the special counsel at the end of December 2003. What is now clear is what we knew at that time. By that point in time we knew Mr. Libby had told a story. That what he had told reporters has come not from other government officials, but from reporter Tim Russert.
It's also now public that by that point in time the FBI had learned that in fact Tim Russert did not tell Mr. Libby that information. In fact, Tim Russert didn't know it, and Tim Russert could not have told him.
In Jan 2004 Fitzgerald learned from Ari Fleischer that David Gregory had received a leak on the morning of July 11, which certainly gave Russert time to chat with Gregory and then with Libby.
Did Fitzgerald call Gregory to verify Fleischer's testimony? No. Why not? Ask Fitzgerald. But my guess is that he figured that Gregory would only undermine the case he was constructing against Libby, and building that case was more important than learning the truth.
Fitzgerald abused his office and his public trust."(snip)
Finally, as proof of the actual 'truth seeking' motivation of the DC federal court, and their determination to research leaks, I offer ...
~
Last edited by Melonie; 03-07-2007 at 05:47 PM.





It's like watching a bug squirm under a magnifying glass....





keep in mind that the magnifying glass of media attention / disinformation could be pointed in different directions, although it has been very seldom pointed towards Democrats in negative ways ... which conveniently brings us back to the topic of this thread, again !
nobody spews Conservative Schadenfreude like Ann Coulter !
I hate agreeing with Ann Coulter. I always feel like taking a shower when I do BUT she's right. There's a media double standard in dealing with Republican vs.Democrat wrong-doing. In the cases of both Libby and DeLay there are serious questions whether there was ever an underlying crime. Armitage was the original "leaker" about Plame who hadn't been "covert' for what was it ? seven (7) years prior ? The prosecutor of DeLay had to shop for a grand jury to indict him. Why isn't Sandy "Burglar" in jail ? Some of the documents he stole have NEVER been recovered because he DESTROYED them !
What really gets me is the way the mainstream press rooted for Fitzgerald and selectively tried to stand on their First Amendment rights. Russert, Novak and Cooper spilled their guts about private "off the record" conversations and only the reporter from the Times stood her ground and went to jail ( thanks to Fitzgerald )until her source "released" her from her promise of confidentiality. I haven't heard ANYONE in the mainstream press with any appreciation for the terrible precedent that's been set in this case. Now, any reporter can be threatened with jail unless they agree to give up their sources and testify under oath. And all for WHAT ? Where was the underlying crime ? The New York Times reveals a Top-Secret program for tracking actual,real terrorist monetary transactions that directly results in Al Queda changing their methods and does NOT get prosecuted or criticized by the media. And there were other examples of secret anti-terrorist monitoring programs being leaked and reported on and those do NOT get investigated. Go figure.
Libby has at least two (2) very strong grounds for appeal- the journalist juror who KNEW Russert PERSONALLY should NEVER have been seated and I'm amazed the judge didn't know better. Even Fitzgerald ought to have recognized the basis for appeal and excused him in order to have a "clean" trial. Likewise, Fitzgerald's repeated mentions of Cheney tainted the whole trial ; had no probative value and obviously generated undue prejudice. The Appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and I haven't got the faintest
idea what they're going to do. Numerous Reagan and Bush appointments have changed it from a wildly liberal court to a fairly conservative one. This will cut both ways for Libby as they are not anywhere near as solicitous of the rights of the accused as they used to be but on the other hand they might view him more favorably than someone like Skelly- Wright and other departed liberal jurists.





^^^ and there is the basic point that I have been trying to make from the beginning. The existance of an underlying crime which justified the original investigation and the appointment of prosecutor Fitzgerald was based on a mainstream media 'lie' that the 'outing' of Valerie Plame's CIA employment constituted a criminal offense (which even prosecutor Fitzgerald himself eventually stated it did not !). Furthermore the grand jury's indibtment of Scooter Libby and the trial jury's conviction of Scooter Libby (based on Juror #9's Huffington Post report anyhow) were based on a second mainstream media 'lie' that the source of the leak was the White House (when in fact the source of the leak was the Colin Powell State Department via Richard Armitage).
I also find Ann Coulter irritating. However, she does have a penchant for including 'inconvenient truths' i.e. facts in her arguments and comparisons, rather than feelings or suspicions or media 'lies' !
~
Last edited by Melonie; 03-08-2007 at 05:28 PM.
Bookmarks