Immoral versus illegal
Whether or not Libby is found guilty, the Bush administration needs to lower the bar below a felony indictment to force a resignation. Considering the implications of these charges Rove and Cheney should also resign. Rove because whether or not he lied he should not have discussed Plame with the media and Cheney because he obviously gave the information to Libby that lead to the investigation. Of course neither of them will resign but they should.
Rove has an extraordinary political intellect. Withdrawing Miers prior to embarrassing congressional hearings and nominating a far right activist judge will solidify the right behind Bush. Letting Libby take the fall by pleading guilty and taking a deal will further take the pressure and the spotlight off himself and Cheney. These are predictable tactics but Rove is a master, the public are gullible and we now know the press is corruptible.
Rove has an extraordinary political intellect. Withdrawing Miers prior to embarrassing congressional hearings and nominating a far right activist judge will solidify the right behind Bush. Letting Libby take the fall by pleading guilty and taking a deal will further take the pressure and the spotlight off himself and Cheney. These are predictable tactics but Rove is a master, the public are gullible and we now know the press is corruptible.
posted by mochi at 6:32 PM
17 Comments:
Yeah, an evil genius perhaps, but still evil. It's too bad he used his power for evil instead of good.
Have to agree concerning Libby, but not Cheney or Rove. That's kind of silly. Also, there have been no indictments for the leak itself? Why not? Sounds like to me that its the same thing that happened to Clinton--can't prove the crime so indict for purjury...
Am I wrong?
And Mochi, the allegation against Cheney is completely unfounded.
I do agree though, the whole spotlight will shift when Bush announces his next nomination.
-Jack
Wrong and wrong.
Lieing to a federal prosecutor and the FBI is serious. Look at what Martha got her self into once she opened her mouth.
Do some research, who else would have fed Libby Plame's name? He didn't have direct access to that information, Cheney did.
I can't believe you are still defending these guys. 2,000 Americans dead, what will it take for you to get it? 5,000 or 10,000, maybe 20,000?
No, Mochi, not defending. Just making sense. The left is sounding more and more irrational as time passes--everything a conspiracy and wildly imaginative. Its ok to speculate, thats what we often do, but to state these things like fact is a little far out.
Not disagreeing that purjury is a serious crime--just that when Clinton did it no one thought it that serious--he is still running free after lying to the grand jury and also filing false affadavits. Think that Libby should get the same penalty?
Libby would be privy to a LOT of information--and of course it seems like this information was common knowledge--therefore no idictment for the leak itself. We don't know what information Washington insiders have, Mochi--any theory would be speculation and conspiracy theory. Also, as this affair unfolds we're finding out that it has nothing to do with leaking a "covert" ops name to begin with. Fitzpatrick himself admitted that the grand jury failed to find anything of the sort.
You see, Mochi, the left is losing credibility because it has improper focus. They all chase off down irrelevent rabbit trails that have led and lead no where. Sorry, but this is true. Look to see this whole debacle lead to...zero.
The left needs to get its act together, otherwise its going to lose all credibility with mainstream America.
-Jack
wolnosc does a superb job of making your case. He simply doesn't realize that he does.
Hi WSC!
Good to hear from you.
Purjury is purjury.
In Clinton's case, he was accused by many women of sexual harrassment. It wasn't about a single BJ...but I digress, I'm not really comparing the Libby situation to Clinton, just liberals under each who thought that purjury was minor for Clinton but somehow a big deal for Libby. I try to be consistent.
I listened to Fitzpatrick's conference. The whole thing. Basically he said he had nothing. The whole affair has been a fishing expedition, and they came up short. There is no way they can reconvene the grand jury, and there is no court on earth who would grant them one.
I agree whole heartedly with your last statement!
Take care,
-Jack
Really, Jack, your comparison is inappropriate and your characterizations of the left sound like limbaugh-esque grasping.
First of all, no one on the left is saying that purjery comitted by Clinton is less wrong than by others. The whole point is that this case is about the Bush administration's attempt to blackmail the CIA into keeping their mouths shut about the lies that the Bush regime used to take this country to war. If the tables were turned, the republicans would be impeaching everything in sight. And besides, this thing where, everytime a valid criticism against the Bush government is offered, the defense is "Hey! Clinton was bad!" is laughable.
The left does not lose credibility by pointing out the abominable things that the right does. Maybe the right doesn't like it, but it certainly does not cause the left lose credibility. If anything, the right has lost all credibility by proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are lying, stealing, two-faced, back-stabbing hypocrites, whose goal is to enrich themselves and consolidate their power, no matter who they kill or how horribly the make people suffer. They have no respect for this country or what it once stood for. To them, America and it's citizens are just tools to be used toward their own selfish ends, and they have even less regard for the rest of the world. They are diabolocal murderers. To hell with them.
WSC,
I rarely get "purjury/perjury" right unless I run spellcheck :)
I don't think Libby got us all into this mess though...not sure what he has to do with "as a democracy persecute someone for lying to the populace about a contrived threat, for global and personal gain, and causing the death and destruction of an entire society"
Shea, don't get me wrong, I think that if Libby leaked Plame's name while she was covert the punishment should be just and swift--problem is none of that is being pursued or no indictments were issued for this?
Oh well...
-Jack
New York Times. Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says
By JAMES GLANZ and WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 13, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 12 - In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting
Published today at the New York Times.
_________________________________
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: --Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." --Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert
Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
I'm really getting tired of the whole "Bush lied" thing. Do leftist read the newspaper? --Jack Mercer Nov 2, 2005
All in fun,
-Jack
Specifically adressing the "Bush lied" or "Bush misled" thing, you can copy/paste all the quotes in the world of "liberals" saying Saddam was a threat, it doesn't have anything to do with Bush "misleading" anybody. In fact, it is evidence of his "lie". He (his administration) misled everyone into thinking Saddam was a threat. That's when those quotes were given - during the period in which those people were misled. If they weren't misled then there wouldn't be those quotes.
You lost me, Smorg...
-Jack
What does it mean to be mislead? It means somebody convinced you of something that wasn't necessarily true. The only reason Dems and the American people at large voiced any support for the war is because we were misled.
It still seems strange to me that there's even a debate on the subject. Of course we don't know to what extent the Bush administration willfully misled us, but we have 100% rock solid proof that all of the reasons he gave for going to war are bogus. In other words, we were misled.
Uh, Smorg, take a look at the first few quotes and the dates on which they were made. Yup, before Bush took office. Quite the trick to "mislead" people before he was even in office.
We were not "misled". That's a nice way of saying "lied to". And, as we've gone over before, lies are intentional statements contrary to fact. Bush's statements were based on the best information available. That information was wrong. That doesn't mean Bush lied, it means his decision was based, in part, on bad intelligence.
As for Plame. She could not have been "outed" because, according the the Federal Statute that was supposedly violated, she was not a covert agent. See, according to that statute, the agent had to have been stationed overseas within the last five years. Plame wasn't. Therefore, Bush could have held a press conference and told the world she worked for CIA and the statute would not have been violated.
As for her husband. There's the liar. He claims that his little sojourn into Niger produced evidence of counterfeit documents. The problem is, those counterfeit documents weren't created until about 8 months after his "fact-finding" mission. Can you see the lie? In fact, the 9/11 Commission actually pointed that out - and pointed out that his original report confirmed much of what the Bush administration had asserted. Iraqi officials did make trips to Niger attempting to buy yellowcake. Top that off with the fact that those counterfeit documents were not the basis for the assertion that Iraq was seeking yellow cake, and Wilson becomes pretty much irrelevant.
Bush stated that British intelligence sources indicated Iraq was seeking yellowcake from Niger. Those British sources did not rely on the counterfeit documents which Wilson never saw on his "fact-finding" trip.
But it doesn't matter how many facts are tossed out. People who hate Bush ignore them and choose to believe the lies that support their opinions.
Some of the quotes were before W took office, yes. That is part of my point. He claimed in his State of the Union address that there was an immediate threat - a more dire situation than there had been for the decade or so leading up to then (which was the period some of those quotes were made). We know now that the things he presented as fact in his State of the Union address were completely false.
As I said before, we don't know to what extent he willfully misled us, but we know he did. It's simply a fact. Perhaps he was midled himself, that could be. Never the less, we went to war the wrong way for the wrong reasons, end of story.
Where did he say that Mochi? Because in the State of the Union transcript I read, he said:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
That's the opposite of your portrayal of Bush's words.
The things presented as fact in the State of the Union were tidbits like:
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.
True.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
True.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
True.
Other items in the speech were based on intelligence sources. As noted time and again, because of Iraq's policy of obfuscation, that intelligence was either incorrect or he simply had time to ship off the really nasty stuff to Syria and bury the rest in the desert.
Regardless, bad intelligence does not constitute a lie - or even "willful misleading". It is your opinion that Bush misled us. Of course, that also means the entire Congress - including the Senate Intelligence Committee which had access to the same raw intelligence - also "misled" you. After all, they scrutinized the same info and authorized force.
This whole meme about Bush misleading anybody is old hat, and completely baseless.
Smorg,
You're beginning to sound like your friend Ted!
MR. RUSSERT: You talked about Iraq. There's a big debate now about whether or not the data, the intelligence data, was misleading and manipulated in order to encourage public opinion support for the war. Let me give you a statement that was talked about during the war. "We know [Iraq is] developing unmanned vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents...all U.S. intelligence experts agree they are seek nuclear weapons. There's little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them. ... In the wake of September 11th, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that those weapons might not be used against our troops, against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon. ..."
Are those the statements that you're concerned about?
SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I am concerned about it, and that's why I believe that the actions that were taken by Harry Reid in the Senate last week when effectively he said that we are going to get to the bottom of this investigation, this had been kicked along by the Intelligence Committee, by Pat Roberts for over two years. And Harry Reid did more in two hours than that Intelligence Committee has done in two years. And the American people are going get this information.
And it's important that they get this information about how intelligence was misused because of the current situation. It's important to know where we've been, but it's important to know where we are today, because we're facing serious challenges over in Iran. We're facing serious challenges in North Korea. And we cannot have a government which is going to manipulate intelligence information. We've got to get to the bottom of it, and that is what the Democrats stood for on the floor of the United States Senate last week. That was a bold stroke, one that has the overwhelming support of the American people. It's about time they get the facts on it. They haven't got the facts to date. They deserve them, and they'll get them.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, what the Democrats stood for on the floor of the Senate in 2002--let me show you who said what I just read: John Kerry, your candidate for president. He was talking about a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein. Hillary Clinton voted for the war. John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry. Democrats said the same things about Saddam Hussein. You, yourself, said, "Saddam is dangerous. He's got dangerous weapons." It wasn't just the Bush White House.
SEN. KENNEDY: The fact is--and I voted against the war, because every military--I'm in the Armed Services Committee, and every military leader highly decorated, military leader, said that it was foolish to have a military intervention at that. General Hoar, with the Marines--General Hoar, who has more Silver Stars than you could possibly count said if we go into Baghdad, it'll look like the last five minutes of "Private Ryan," so we know we had enough information to vote against it, I believe.
But the point about this is, we have the 9/11 that talked about the intelligence agencies. The failure of the FBI to talk to the CIA and the rest of it, but they also recommended that we find out how intelligence was manipulated. Now, we are--we had that committee set up under Pat Roberts. It has done virtually nothing. It has done--it's been dismissive. But Harry Reid is going to get them to tell the truth, and the American people will understand it. And then hopefully when we get a clean house in the White House and we get individuals that are going to help this president lead for an openness in government, we can avoid any kind of activity like that in the future.
-Jack
I suppose we're beating a dead horse but, to me, it breaks down to one question and its answer...
Q: Was Iraq somehow MORE of a threat when we invaded than it had been for the preceding decade, the period in which we did not invade?
A: We know with 100% certainty, the answer is no.
We should have listened to the UN, somehow they knew the truth.
We squandered the precious gift of world wide support that we earned with the lives lost on 9/11 for "bad intelligence", "misleading statements", "lies", whatever. I will never forgive my government for that.
Post a Comment
<< Home