Scooter Libby found guilty

[Banquo's Ghost]

It appears that Vice-President Cheney's ex-chief of staff has been convicted (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/07/wlibby07.xml) of perjury and obstruction of justice.

What does this mean in the wider context for American's perception of the White House and the reasons for going to war?

Apparently some jurors wondered why he was left as the fall guy and officials closer to the president weren't indicted. Is this fair?

Some commentators seem to think that Mr Libby may be pardoned. Is this possible, and if it happened, what would be the reaction?

Finally, I read that Mr Libby published a novel called "The Apprentice" which was apparently described by the publishers as "an everyday tale of bestiality and paedophilia in 1903 Japan... [and] packed with sexual perversion, dwelling on prepubescent girls and their training as prostitutes".

I do recall that we had a discussion as to how this kind of writing disqualified a liberal from office, but were we outraged at this publication too? :wink:

Blow to Bush as Cheney aide guilty of perjury

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 10:42am GMT 07/03/2007

Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney until he was charged last year, faces up to 25 years in jail. He was found guilty of offences linked to the White House's attempts to undermine the credibility of critics of the Iraq war but, by the end of the trial, jury members openly wondered why officials closer to Mr Bush had not been charged.

Dana Perino, the deputy White House spokesman, said that Mr Bush watched the verdict on television in the Oval Office and was "saddened for Scooter Libby and his family".

Libby is due to be sentenced in June but Ted Wells, his lawyer, said he would request a retrial and lodge an appeal against sentence if that was denied, insisting that his client was "totally innocent" and "did not do anything wrong".

The case grew out of the unmasking in 2003 of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative. She is married to Joseph Wilson, who had been sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate claims of uranium yellowcake being supplied to Iraq.

Mr Wilson found no evidence of the supply and became a vehement public critic of Mr Bush's Iraq policy. White House aides, including Libby, were authorised to brief the press in an attempt to discredit the former ambassador. A special prosecutor was appointed to investigate whether a crime of deliberately leaking the identity of a covert operative had been committed. He found no firm evidence of such crime but Mr Libby was charged with lying to the FBI and a grand jury about his conversations with reporters.

As the trial drew to a close, the defence decided not to call Mr Cheney to testify on Mr Libby's behalf.

The prosecution said in court that a "cloud" hung over Mr Cheney while the defence argued that Libby was a scapegoat sacrificed to protect Karl Rove, President Bush's closest aide, who had also talked to reporters about Miss Plame.

Democrats were delighted by the verdict. "It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics," said Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader.

Mr Libby had been convicted but "his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair". He added: "President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, said: "The testimony unmistakably revealed - at the highest levels of the Bush administration - a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq."

[BDC]

Some commentators seem to think that Mr Libby may be pardoned. Is this possible, and if it happened, what would be the reaction?

It would make it look rather like Bush was helping out his mate he told to lie. Not that he'd care too much as he doesn't need to get reelected.

I'm still confused why Clinton is regarded as evil because he lied over a blowjob, yet somehow Bush is getting away with his close officials revealing an undercover agent's identity.

[KukriKhan]

Affairs like 'Scooter-gate', that would routinely bring down governments in parliamentary democracy, get filed for later action over here - particularly in wartime-like environments.

It's the only reason Bush and Cheney are still in office; they may be goons, but during a crisis, they're OUR goons, so they get a jaundiced-eyed pass - the theory being that we can later un-do any real damage they do, as long as they deal adequately with the perceived foreign threat.

So Bush/Cheney's task is to constantly play up the foreign threat, knowing that, over time, fewer & fewer citizens believe them.

This entire 8 years of GWB is gonna make one helluva program on the History Channel some day, once all/most of the behind-the-scenes info gets revealed.

[ShadeHonestus]

I'm still confused why Clinton is regarded as evil because he lied over a blowjob, yet somehow Bush is getting away with his close officials revealing an undercover agent's identity.

You need to look at the history of leakage a little more and the reason the "blowjob" was an issue is not because it was THE issue, its what the public focused on...the president lying under oath didn't help.

One cursory source of leakage...


After watching without complaint as the Clinton administration attempted to destroy one political opponent after another by illegally leaking damaging material to the media, Democrats are now outraged that an avowed enemy of the Bush administration claims he received the same treatment.

Dems are howling for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate the dubious charge that by publicly identifying the wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson as a CIA analyst, somebody in the White House broke the law.

While it's nice to see that Democrats have finally recovered their outrage over White House violations of privacy, they have a lot of catching up to do before we take up the issue of whether Mrs. Wilson was the target of an illegal political attack.

Perhaps they can start with Paula Jones, whose tax returns were illegally leaked in Sept. 1997 to New York Daily News columnist Lar Erik Nelson. Nelson promptly detailed the material in his column, arguing that Jones deserved to be audited by the IRS because of the way she reported contributions to her defense fund.

Nelson, who has since died, insisted at the time that Jones' returns were given to him, not by the Clinton White House, but by one of her friends. Some friend.

Democrat interest in getting to the bottom of the illegal IRS leak: Zip.

Then there was Linda Tripp, whose Pentagon personnel file was illegally leaked in 1998 by a Clinton Defense Department flak to New Yorker Magazine writer Jane Mayer, who promptly splashed details of Tripp's shoplifting arrest as a teenager across its pages.

The Clinton Justice Department investigated the charge, and came up, not surprisingly, completely empty. Democrat outrage over the obvious cover-up: Bubkiss.

And where were our self-appointed guardians of privacy when the White House decided that the best way to discredit Clinton sexual assault accuser Kathleen Willey was to release her personal correspondence to the press.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth later ruled that the shabby manuever was a criminal violation of the Privacy Act. Democrats, however, stayed mum.

And what about the mother of all White House privacy violations, Filegate. Over 1100 FBI files on Republicans were dispatched into the custody of bar bouncer-turned-White House security chief Craig Livingstone.

The request for the files came on memos from the office of then-White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, a Hillary Clinton appointee. Nussbaum told FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene that Livingstone had been hired on Hillary's recommendation.

And according to Linda Tripp, the office of Mrs. Clinton's former law partner, William Kennedy, who served as Associate White House Counsel, was crammed with stacks of the illegally obtained files.

When President Clinton proclaimed that the largest invasion of privacy in White House history was merely "a bureaucratic snafu," Democrats agreed nearly unanimously.

Of course, the Bush leak scandal is much more serious, Democrats now argue. After all, if Wilson's wife was operating covertly [a fact that has yet to be established], blowing her cover could have cost lives.

Leaving aside the fact that Mr. Wilson admitted Monday that he never felt his wife was in danger, it's instructive to note Democrat reaction when one of their own leakers apparently did get somebody killed.

"Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, inadvertently disclosed a top secret communications intercept during a [1985] television interview," reported the San Diego Union-Tribune in a 1987 editorial criticizing Congress' penchant for partisan leaks.

"The intercept, apparently of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's telephone conversations, made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered American citizens," the paper said, adding, "The reports cost the life of at least one Egyptian operative involved in the operation."

If newly outraged Democrats want to do something about a national security leak that really did turn deadly, perhaps they should start with Sen. Leahy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Affairs like 'Scooter-gate', that would routinely bring down governments in parliamentary democracy, get filed for later action over here - particularly in wartime-like environments.

It's the only reason Bush and Cheney are still in office; they may be goons, but during a crisis, they're OUR goons, so they get a jaundiced-eyed pass - the theory being that we can later un-do any real damage they do, as long as they deal adequately with the perceived foreign threat.

So Bush/Cheney's task is to constantly play up the foreign threat, knowing that, over time, fewer & fewer citizens believe them.

This entire 8 years of GWB is gonna make one helluva program on the History Channel some day, once all/most of the behind-the-scenes info gets revealed.

If US administrations resigned over every malf-up or minor scandal, we'd be on the 243rd POTUS already.

The "jaundiced eye" comment has some truth to it. Not the way I think of these things myself, but this is an interesting take.

The Bush Admin's tendency to be secretive about everything -- up to and including the brand of T.P. in the White House -- does leave lots of folk wondering how decisions are made and how the deals are done.

I wonder if the post-admin "tell-all" books will be written, or if, as with the Clinton Administration, relatively little such will be published.

[Lemur]

What does this mean in the wider context for American's perception of the White House and the reasons for going to war?
The average American's perception of the White House is already quite low at this late date. I don't know anyone who's defending this administration with much energy anymore.

The rhetoric coming from the administration is all about moving the goalposts. The latest quip I heard from a Republican was about how nobody liked Truman much during his administration, which implies that we'll all feel great about Bush in forty years — not a meaningful metric.

As for the "reasons for going to war," again, I'm not sure anybody really cares anymore. Some hard-core leftists can't get over the fact that they were lied to, but they're a vocal minority. I think most moderates are more concerned with (a) what are we doing over there? (b) is it effective? and (c) is there any way we can get out without creating a failed state?

The level of incompetence and corruption exhibited by this administration is setting a new standard, unseen for at least the last hundred years. In other news, it turns out that Bush's cronies were firing their own appointed U.S. attorneys (http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2007/03/07/week_in_review/news/wednesday/news11.txt) for not playing politics with their corruption prosecutions. These were men and women they had hand-picked for the posts, and they were hanging them out to dry when they wouldn't play favorites. I'm waiting to see if this will create any outrage among the general public.

ShadesHonestus, thanks for yet another "Clinton was worse" bit of rhetoric. I never get tired of those. It would be helpful if you could provide a link, or at least a citation, so we know who the source is.

[Xiahou]

What does this mean in the wider context for American's perception of the White House and the reasons for going to war?I fail to see where it has any impact.

[drone]

NEXT!



The sooner our beloved AG gets put away, the happier I will be.

[Xiahou]

Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602020.html) is a pretty good Washington Post editorial on the matter.

The serious consequences of a pointless Washington scandal

Wednesday, March 7, 2007; Page A16

THE CONVICTION of I. Lewis Libby on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice was grounded in strong evidence and what appeared to be careful deliberation by a jury. The former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney told the FBI and a grand jury that he had not leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to journalists but rather had learned it from them. But abundant testimony at his trial showed that he had found out about Ms. Plame from official sources and was dedicated to discrediting her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Particularly for a senior government official, lying under oath is a serious offense. Mr. Libby's conviction should send a message to this and future administrations about the dangers of attempting to block official investigations.

The fall of this skilled and long-respected public servant is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance. It was propelled not by actual wrongdoing but by inflated and frequently false claims, and by the aggressive and occasionally reckless response of senior Bush administration officials -- culminating in Mr. Libby's perjury.

Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had "twisted," if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq. In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.

A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.

The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.

It would have been sensible for Mr. Fitzgerald to end his investigation after learning about Mr. Armitage. Instead, like many Washington special prosecutors before him, he pressed on, pursuing every tangent in the case. In so doing he unnecessarily subjected numerous journalists to the ordeal of having to disclose confidential sources or face imprisonment. One, Judith Miller of the New York Times, lost several court appeals and spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify. The damage done to journalists' ability to obtain information from confidential government sources has yet to be measured.

Mr. Wilson's case has besmirched nearly everyone it touched. The former ambassador will be remembered as a blowhard. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were overbearing in their zeal to rebut Mr. Wilson and careless in their handling of classified information. Mr. Libby's subsequent false statements were reprehensible. And Mr. Fitzgerald has shown again why handing a Washington political case to a federal special prosecutor is a prescription for excess.

Mr. Fitzgerald was, at least, right about one thing: The Wilson-Plame case, and Mr. Libby's conviction, tell us nothing about the war in Iraq.

[ShadeHonestus]

Mr. Libby's conviction should send a message to this and future administrations about the dangers of attempting to block official investigations.


If its an adminstrative failure than the Bush administration didn't learn from the Clinton administration. How quickly the article puts this case as landmark.

Hell, Clinton's own aides didn't learn from his own administration's failure.



WASHINGTON — For months, he called it an honest mistake.

But on Friday, Sandy Berger (search) pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in federal court. Berger, who served as President Clinton's national security adviser, is acknowledging that it wasn't an honest mistake and that he intentionally took and destroyed copies of classified documents from the National Archives (search) and cut them up with scissors.

Berger acknowledged to U.S. Magistrate Deborah Robinson that he intentionally took and deliberately destroyed three copies of the same document dealing with terror threats during the 2000 millennium (search) celebration. He then lied about it to Archives staff when they told him the documents were missing.

"Guilty, your honor," Berger responded when asked how he pleaded.

Robinson did not ask Berger why he cut up the materials and threw them away at the Washington office of his Stonebridge International consulting firm. Berger, accompanied by his wife, Susan, did not offer an explanation when he addressed reporters outside the federal courthouse following the hearing.



misdemeanor...laughable

If any of you have a spare 50 grand, lets go burn some classified NA documents.

[Xiahou]

Well, it's something of a different topic- but yes, Sandy Burglar got off way too easy for what he did. He deliberately stole and destroyed classified documents and the guy barely even gets a slap on the wrist. :no:

[Lemur]

What does this mean in the wider context for American's perception of the White House and the reasons for going to war?
To answer this a touch more seriously, from the WaPo (http://tinyurl.com/2fbmfn):


Americans' mood about the conflict hasn't improved since Mr. Bush announced his new policy of sending another 21,500 troops to improve security in Baghdad and the rest of the country. Just 20% of respondents characterize themselves as "more confident" the war will conclude successfully, while 69% say "less confident"; that's essentially unchanged since January.

Nor are Americans feeling positive about the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Just 28% say that conflict is going well, while 69% say it isn't.

Yes, I'm a poll smoker. And yes, it's all Clinton's fault.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Thank you (particularly Xiahou and Lemur) for your insights.

:bow:

[ShadeHonestus]

Well, it's something of a different topic.

Both acts supposedly blocked official investigations.

[Papewaio]

Should a President be able to pardon someone who does criminal acts in the Whitehouse during their tenure? Surely there should be some distance between the pardoner and the pardoned... at least another president to come to office. Otherwise its a free pass to some quite horrendous acts.

[ShadeHonestus]

Should a President be able to pardon someone who does criminal acts in the Whitehouse during their tenure? Surely there should be some distance between the pardoner and the pardoned... at least another president to come to office. Otherwise its a free pass to some quite horrendous acts.


Good question and perhaps for a thread all its own. Marc Rich comes to mind...

[KukriKhan]

In practice here, Presidential pardons are done either by the next Prez, or by the outgoing guy, on his final day of office.

We should start a pool. 100 squares, 1 (fake) OrgEuro per square...

[Devastatin Dave]

Didn't reagan pardon Ollie North? Every President has a long list of Pardons, just not too many pardons are made 2 years before they leave office. I think Libby will get pardoned, it just won't be anytime soon. I would suggest that the Bush administration start going after leakers (Both Dems and Repugs) to the media and really hammer them. I doubt it would happen since its a "Washington thang". :no:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Libby has fallen on his sword, like a good soldier for Rove and Cheney. He'll do a little time, if any at all, at some swank spa. Be like a two year vacation, don't expect to see him on a chain gang. Then of course the book deals, talk show circuit, lobbyist employment.......ah the simple life.

[Xiahou]

Libby has fallen on his sword, like a good soldier for Rove and Cheney. He'll do a little time, if any at all, at some swank spa. Be like a two year vacation, don't expect to see him on a chain gang. Then of course the book deals, talk show circuit, lobbyist employment.......ah the simple life.
It's tough to see who loses in that case. Plame/Wilson already making millions with lectures, book deals, movies, ect. I guess, as usual, the tax payer loses. :sweatdrop:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What a sad state of events. There never even should have been an investigation. If anyone belongs in jail Its Wilson.

[Tribesman]

If anyone belongs in jail Its Wilson.
True , Wilson was well out of order by saying publicly that the administration was pushing to start a war over a pile of lies .
What is the world coming to when people can just turn roud and say to the press that the people are being sold a pile of crap ...jail Wilson NOW .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

True , Wilson was well out of order by saying publicly that the administration was pushing to start a war over a pile of lies .
What is the world coming to when people can just turn roud and say to the press that the people are being sold a pile of crap ...jail Wilson NOW .

Wilson lied to congress and thats what got this whole ball of wax rolling. There was never any crime committed unitl the investigation started. From the first day the prosecutor knew who the leaker was. It was a witch hunt pure and simple. On top of that Plame was not covered under the statute this is all about. She was not a covert operative and her husband leaked the fact she worked for the CIA long before any of this. Its a travesty.

[Tribesman]

Straight from townhall .com eh Gawain:dizzy2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Straight from townhall .com eh Gawain

Havent even been there in almost two years. Been to busy lately playing MTW2. Its my own opinion.

[ShadeHonestus]

Straight from townhall .com eh Gawain:dizzy2:

Does that mean there is point of fact rebuttal for what Gawain said or just that ^^^^. Just curious.

[Papewaio]

Havent even been there in almost two years. Been to busy lately playing MTW2. Its my own opinion.

And I hear you are getting very good at it... something about an all archer army?

[Hosakawa Tito]

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/20070309BN1AP-ScooterFall.jpg

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Its a travesty.

No, its business as usual in Washington D.C. -- at least since the 1970s and Watergate. The party out of power attempts to slime the ones in power so that they must resign or lose face and can't accomplish squat. Every tawdry item of one's past or anything salacious that might make "Mrs. Grundy" titter and look down her nose. Both parties have been fairly successful, which is why we generally accomplish squat.

Basically, both parties spend most of their time proving the other party is unfit to govern -- and both succeed.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Yep, political parties should be outlawed.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And I hear you are getting very good at it... something about an all archer army


Nah only 17 archers.:laugh4: Unfortunatly someone stole my brand new pc so it will be a while till I return.


No, its business as usual in Washington D.C

Cant argue that. Its the old Gotcha game.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Nah only 17 archers.:laugh4: Unfortunatly someone stole my brand new pc so it will be a while till I return.



Cant argue that. Its the old Gotcha game.

Bless you compadre -- crime has touched your life far too much.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Nah only 17 archers.:laugh4: Unfortunatly someone stole my brand new pc so it will be a while till I return.



Cant argue that. Its the old Gotcha game.

Stole your new pc? Man that's a crime akin to the 19th century version of stealing your horse. Hanging's too good for him. Send him to Shock Incarceration, I'll take care of his problem behavior.

[Lemur]

It sounds as though our beloved Gawain is laboring under an ancient gypsy curse. Not fair, not fair at all.

[Tribesman]

Does that mean there is point of fact rebuttal for what Gawain said or just that ^^^^. Just curious.
Yep , can you prove that one or any of the CIA operatives actions were not covered by the secret CIA opertives actions within the timelimit set out by the legislation ?
If not then the claim tht under cover work was not carried out within the timelimit is no more than conjecture , in this case conjecture because the husband of the person concerned went on record saying the administration was talking rubbish .

[Navaros]

A pointless conviction.

If he "stays" guilty then he will be pardoned anyway. Been listening to a lot of powers that be refusing to answer questions about if he will be pardoned, because they know he will be. Why even bother putting a man on trial when if convicted he is just going to get a pardon anyhow. :idea2:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

A pointless conviction.

If he "stays" guilty then he will be pardoned anyway. Been listening to a lot of powers that be refusing to answer questions about if he will be pardoned, because they know he will be. Why even bother putting a man on trial when if convicted he is just going to get a pardon anyhow


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Its a travesty.

Seamus Fermanagh
No, its business as usual in Washington D.C. -- at least since the 1970s and Watergate. The party out of power attempts to slime the ones in power so that they must resign or lose face and can't accomplish squat. Every tawdry item of one's past or anything salacious that might make "Mrs. Grundy" titter and look down her nose. Both parties have been fairly successful, which is why we generally accomplish squat.

Basically, both parties spend most of their time proving the other party is unfit to govern -- and both succeed.

He says it better than I ever could.

They acomplished their mission. Its all just a game of politics.

[Lemur]

Good news, 18% of Americans believe that Scooter should receive a pardon (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/poll-69-percent-oppose-pardon-for.html). That's practically a majority.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He says it better than I ever could.

To be fair, I have to acknowledge that my last quip is paraphrasing the words of H.L. Mencken -- one of our most brilliant political curmudgeons.

[KafirChobee]

It's a give me that Scooter will be pardoned. Regardless, by not prosecuting him would have been a true crime.

He (through the obvious direction of CHeney, alias "Satan") outted not just a CIA operative, but the entire cover operation of she and her fellow agents. The man created an act of treason, 2 years in a white crime penal intitution isn't enough.

To justify such behavior by using previous cases that weren't prosecuted is tossing the remainder of the Constitution in the trash along with the Bill of Rights ignored by the present administration.

IMPEACH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL!!!:inquisitive:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

He (through the obvious direction of CHeney, alias "Satan") outted not just a CIA operative, but the entire cover operation of she and her fellow agents. The man created an act of treason, 2 years in a white crime penal intitution isn't enough

And what operation would that be Duh?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And what operation would that be Duh?

I believe he is referring to the entire "covering" process in place for CIA operatives as a whole. The multi-year lag time between their return from the "field" and the open acknowledgement of their agent status is supposed to provide distance and deniability for any contacts who may still be in place. As a concept, this is valuable.

Given the relatively loose lips of Richard Armitage and of Joe Wilson himself, I suspect that in this instance her "cover" could have been penetrated by a newlie operative from any of the D.C. embassies, but that doesn't invalidate the principle itself.

Libby was caught in falsehoods during an FBI/Grand jury inquiry. The fact that the inquiry itself was more of a political "witch-hunt" than a serious means to address the larger concerns about our policies in Iraq is tangential to his guilt.

The sadder fallout from this is that the only rational response by any administration operative (and not just in the Bush admin.) is going to be complete non-cooperation. There's already enough of that, but if you believe yourself to be targeted in the fashion that Libby was, you're only rational choice will be to resign, take the 5th, and SAY NOTHING.

What will NOT happen is what the crusaders want to have happen. Future administration operatives will not, for fear of Libby's fate, greet the FBI investigators with an immediate:

"We wanted to hammer Wilson for being a jerk about our policy in Iraq, so we leaked some of that information to help discredit him. Oh, and yes I was operating at Cheney's verbal orders on behalf of the President in doing so."

This is the kind of admission hoped for by those who pushed for the investigation in the first place. Kafir' and others -- who believe this to have been more-or-less exactly what happened (to be fair, it is at least a possibility) -- are firmly convinced of the basic duplicitousness of virtually all of the key personnel in the current administration in addition to disagreeing with them on virtually every aspect of foreign and economic policy. They would have been ecstatic to see Bush, Cheney, Rove, & Rumsfield forced to resign (or at least forced to not run for re-election) and would have been more than willing to end up with a President Hastert instead.

This kind of admission, however, is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN -- regardless of which administration is in the cross hairs. If anything, this episode will make future investigations MORE combative and less readily productive.

After all, what really counts to the local players -- if not the people they claim to represent -- is fornicating with the hopes and dreams of the other players in their little game.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I believe he is referring to the entire "covering" process in place for CIA operatives as a whole. The multi-year lag time between their return from the "field" and the open acknowledgement of their agent status is supposed to provide distance and deniability for any contacts who may still be in place. As a concept, this is valuable.


No he calling Libby a traitor and that he outed not only Plame but a secret CIA investigation, Thats bunk. Meanwhile the NY Times gives out all sorts of top secret leaks and Ill garuntee you Kafir calls them a patriot for it. Did Libby do wrong? YES. Should he go to jail? YES. Was it a witch hunt ? YES.

[KafirChobee]

No he calling Libby a traitor and that he outed not only Plame but a secret CIA investigation, Thats bunk. Meanwhile the NY Times gives out all sorts of top secret leaks and Ill garuntee you Kafir calls them a patriot for it. Did Libby do wrong? YES. Should he go to jail? YES. Was it a witch hunt ? YES.

Valrie Plame, "was one of the elite clandestine spies -- an officer with nonofficial cover who works overseas in business or other jobs and has no diplomatic protection if detected or arrested." By outting her they also put indanger all her former contacts and her family. Is that, or is it not treaon? She worked undercober for a company called Brewster Jennins & Associates that had been a CIA front for years (specifics can be found below).

Me thinks my dear Gwain, that you may have bought into the administrations propaganda as opposed to the truth. Still, old friend, here are a few places to check out - and no doubt there are an equal number of disinformation sights. One thing is certain, why have the CIA placed a "cone of silence" over her and not allowed her to discuss her doings in the CIA - if in face she was a CIA nobody?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR20005102801172.html?nav=hcmodule - Mar 15, 2007
Go to the history files of Post, won't come up other wise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennins_%26_Associates

for what ever reason this doesn't post right up, but click on any of the references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_scandal_timeline

It was treason, by all involved. IMO.

[ShadeHonestus]

Can't wait for the movie, I wonder if Iran will protest it.