-- Modified on 7/3/2007 10:29:02 PM
Bush betrayed 2-3 principles with this one. He seems to have only one principle, really. Trust and stand by his friends. Even Putin.
Libby's sentence was too harsh? How? I'll say it's a betrayal of the Republicans Law & Order agenda. It certainly does put the death seal on the poor and minority vote. Nobody who has a relative in prison for the next 30 years can like that reasoning. Conservatives are tough about crime, enact mandatory minimum sentences till a rich white guy-friend has to serve one. That's when Bush's compassion is aroused. Thirty months in a minimum security prison does not sound too bad to me considering the crime.
Republicans have a hard time defending this. Listening to a talk show, I was stunned at the fact that defenders of Libby still say that Valerie Plame wasn't covert. By now, that is simply a lie. How many times does this assertion have to be disproved?
How many people did Bush allow to be executed in Texas? Including ones who had DNA testing showing they weren't the culprits?
Yes, Bush sticks to his principles. So do Republicans. The first principle is that you stand by and help your friends: who happen to be as wealthy as you are. If this happened Thailand or Italy we would regard it as cronyism. As it is, we're in the USA.
It's remarkable how we have changed. Instead of leading the world, we are being led.
How consistently are my lowest expectations of conservatism are being confirmed. It's also why liberals need to get liberal, and not allow the Clintons to get in again. It's shameful enough that Hillary and Kennedy are in the Senate.
I totally disagree. Even if she was, Libby's trial had nothing to do with her.
For those that aren't blinded by their hatred of Bush and Cheney, the entire invesitgation was clearly a witch hunt.
"How many people did Bush allow to be executed in Texas? Including ones who had DNA testing showing they weren't the culprits?"
Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
In this condemnation of Bush the author appears to have had a bull dog thoroughness and no where does he mention ANY exculpatory DNA evidence.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm
There are countless traits much less desirable than loyalty. Bush had NOTHING to gain personally with this move (unlike Clinton's seedy pardons).
-- Modified on 7/3/2007 10:28:18 PM
-- Modified on 7/3/2007 10:29:02 PM
In the investigation of the Plame outing, that was the first thing that was checked!!!!!!!!!! In the Libby trial, Plame's status was the first thing Fitzgerald had to address.
If this were a murder investigation, do you think a prosecutor would investigate a case where nobody was dead? Do you think a judge would entertain a case like that? They won't even do that in Texas.
Here's the source, quoted from EXHIBIT A in the Libby trial:
"On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the chief of a CPD component which responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.
"While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity– sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias–but always using cover–whether official or non-official cover (NOC)–with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.
"At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship which the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."
END QUOTE
Libby's high-priced attorney was unable to dispute that, because it is indisputable. There's no argument with this.
The CIA retired her from her "desk job" because she was no longer any good for them-- on her temporary duties, I will add. Those temporary duties, without question, were her real job.
If you can, read through the entire Exhibit A.
-- Modified on 7/3/2007 11:53:29 PM
-- Modified on 7/4/2007 12:07:04 AM
I guess your right. Must be true then. NOBODY ever fudges the truth during a trial, right? Especially not parts of a CIA that dosen't like Bush and was pissed at him for a WHOLE variety of reasons. Plus, whatever they don't want to be questioned about simply becomes classified.
I'm not disputing that she was covert, but her whole neighborhood knew she worked for the CIA, so this whole bit about official vs unofficial covertness has just too much "hinkyness" to it.
I'm no conspiricy theorist but I think Joe Wilson set the whole thing up.
Official cover is when a member of the CIA travels to other countries as a diplomat. They work in other countries at the US embassies and they carry diplomatic passports. In effect, they are in other countries in an OFFICIAL capacity. There is nothing secret about these travels, everything is on the up-and-up.
Non-official cover is when a member of the CIA travels to other countries in disguise. They are still working for the CIA, but when they enter the foreign country, they are listed as working for a private company as either a business-person or a scientist. Sometimes, the companies they work for are CIA fronts. These members of the CIA do not carry diplomatic passports and are not protected by diplomatic immunity. These people are the ones who carry out the secret missions.
As for nobody ever fudging the truth during trial. I hope you have evidence of this because accusing someone of perjury falls under the definition of libel.
As for her whole neighborhood knowing that she worked for the CIA, cite your source.
I'd call that a more far-fetched conspiracy. Wilson made Cheney and company out his wife? Didn't Valerie have something to say about that? Ruining your wife's career seems like something that lands you in divorce court.
I've never seen anything to verify that the "whole neighborhood" knew she worked for the CIA. That seems to be a statement that gets passed around in political circles, occurring repeatedly, never verified, like a virus.
Working for the CIA and being an agent are two quite different things.
What Libby did wasn't just a "fudging" of the truth, here. It was something that obstructed the actual investigation.
In Exhibit A, first thing Fitzgerald did was demonstrate this "employee" of the CIA was a covert agent, that there was a real investigation, and though nobody was indicted, that investigators couldn't know that at the time.
Fiztgerald ALREADY knew that Dick Armatige was the leaker by the time that Libby comitted perjury (I never said Libby fudged the truth).
I undertand the whole official vs non-official operative. So several non CIA employees knew she worked for the CIA (but not as an operative), yet, in her cover she passes hereself off as an employee of a private energy compny using what name? Why, Valarie Plame of course.
It doesn't add up.
Let's just agree that neither of us are objective on this one.
-- Modified on 7/4/2007 10:14:13 AM
Armitage was investigated.
No, I don't agree that neither of us are objective on this one. Objectivity does not equate to being inconclusive.
has absolutely nothing to do with a revelation that HE was the leak.
Fitzgerald was looking for a conspiricy of leakers. He wanted Cheney.
"Objectivity does not equate to being inconclusive." What for God's sake does this statement have to do with a judgement about objectivity? Lots of things relating to judgement and conclusions can have nothing to do with objectivity.
That's a little less opaque than the Kennedy assassination conspiracy, I'd say, which is far more likely than Joe Wilson's conspiracy to out his own wife. Or maybe it was the Wilson-Fitzgerald conspiracy to get Cheney by means of making Valerie's desk job look secret, which was blown when Richard Armitage gossiped about that bombshell of a clerk at the CIA instead...
Instead of trying to fill in the Wilson conspiracy, isn't it much easier to simply presume that Cheney got pissed at Wilson and wanted to do something underhanded to get back at her?
And do you know anything about Cheney? Have you researched this guy's background?
And no, Richard Armitage was not the leaker. Exhibit A deals with that too. It's pretty complete.
Maybe Fitzgerald wanted Cheney because Cheney was guiltier than sin? You seem to think that such intrigues can't happen with the good guys. At least I can confirm for you that the Clintons pretty seedy.
Fitzgerald couldn't get Cheney for two reasons: 1) Cheney makes sure that everything he does is stamped Top Secret, and 2) Hearsay isn't admissible.
As for your two quibbles, do you really think any judge would entertain the case if Armitage had really been the source? There's no way. And even if there were some "conspiracy," why entertain it in a case against Libby?
Finally, I'll quote you quoting me: "'Objectivity does not equate to being inconclusive' . . . Lots of things relating to judgment and conclusions can have nothing to do with objectivity."
You said let's admit that we're both not objective. To make it clearer to you then, I admit no such thing. IMO, your statement presumed that a really objective observer would come up with a different conclusion than either of us, or would come to no conclusion at all.
If I believed the former, I'd have a different opinion about the Plame outing than I do now. If I believed the latter, then I wouldn't be at a conclusion.
But we do bring into this our own inferences based on experiences and expectations about the world, and the word "objective" itself needs a tight, agreed definition for any meaningful discussion about that.
RU wants to believe all the rightwing spin and propaganda. No matter what facts you put before him, he will deny them. You can't win this argument using facts with these guys -- they don't car about facts. I am convinced many of these rightees don't even know how to sort through the logic in order to discern facts from propaganda.
And they wonder why we think they are stupid.
before they quit talking to you? Maybe that's your plan.
I did a little survey on the number of times that you called someone stupid during the last 365 days. You are quickly approaching Blender's mark.
1) “we think they are stupid”
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&Search=stupid&SearchType=1&Author=stamina&DayFrom=365&DayTo=0&MessageID=47864&frmSearch=1
2) “How stupid can you rightees be”
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&Search=stupid&SearchType=1&Author=stamina&DayFrom=365&DayTo=0&MessageID=43890&frmSearch=1
3) “most of you are either stupid”
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&Search=stupid&SearchType=1&Author=stamina&DayFrom=365&DayTo=0&MessageID=36925&frmSearch=1
4) “You ARE STUPID”
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&Search=stupid&SearchType=1&Author=stamina&DayFrom=365&DayTo=0&MessageID=36916&frmSearch=1
5) “You are all weak and stupid”
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&Search=stupid&SearchType=1&Author=stamina&DayFrom=365&DayTo=0&MessageID=35972&frmSearch=1
6) “you are all either stupid”
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&Search=stupid&SearchType=1&Author=stamina&DayFrom=365&DayTo=0&MessageID=32811&frmSearch=1
And that was only the direct attacks and did not include variants such as idiot, etc.
-- Modified on 7/4/2007 5:45:32 PM
Is that all the number of times I called ya'all stupid?
Wow, I thought is was more than that! I shoulda called ya stupid a lot more than that! You deserved it a lot more that is for sure.
-- Modified on 7/4/2007 10:46:22 PM
The testimony showed that Armitage was not the only leaker. Novak has said that Rove was his second source for the leak.
Of course the CIA was pissed at Bush. His administration had just publicly disclosed an undercover WMD tracking operation that had taken 10 years to set up and establish sources. I'd be pissed too.
His friend Cheney had something to gain-- and it has already been demonstrated how Bush is about helping his friends.
I'll add, from what I've heard about Libby, he's a very good guy. Not good enough to have his sentence commuted. I just think he became too much of a team player and too committed to covering for his superiors. It's exactly the kind of guy Bush and Cheney needed. The sort of guy Bush likes anyway.
But this "band of brothers" mentality resembles the same morality as The Godfather.
My memory of previous elections did not serve right. No DNA proof associated with Bush.
He did grant a delay on a single execution during his first presidential campaign in 2000. He granted it to a guy, Ricky Nolen McGinn, who seemed guiltier than the Prince of Darkness and the DNA test confirmed that. The fact that it was perfectly timed to deal with criticism of Bush's contentment as governor the most defiantly corrupt, incompetent and bloodthirsty execution system in the country seems to have been a coincidence.
(The resemblance to the Iraq fiasco is also a coincidence, except for Bush's contentment about it.)
I'm not a total disbeliever in the death penalty. So I'm dumbfounded at the lottery winner for Bush's mercy. Here's the lucky winner who had his death sentence actually commuted under Bush. Henry Lee Lucas:
http://www.crimemagazine.com/lucas.htm
Too bad Lucas died in 2001. Maybe Bush had him in mind to head Iraq.
-- Modified on 7/3/2007 11:55:10 PM
You know, if you keep telling yourself this lie you might actually start to believe it.
is given ahead of 4000+ criminals who have requested it and waiting. If you want to perpetrate serious crime in the future, first hook up with your well connected friends.