Full Version: 5 felony indictments- yet no outrage?
One of the great turning points in my life politically was the continueing and ongoing witchhunt by Ken Star and Rush Limbaugh and right wing radio and TV. It really disgusted me- and disgusted me even more that we spent 88 million dollars to find out that Clinton lied about sex- big whoop. When you mention this to somebody that really gets worked up about Clinton- they always wring thier hands and cry "it is about sullying the office, it is about lying"-
Well, here we have 5 FELONY indictments dealing with actual TREASONOUS things like outing a spy! Hello- how much worse could it actually be than lying about sex?
Yet- all the moralizers of the Clinton era are strangely quiet about calling for impeachment against GW and Cheney, and all too willing to wait for the trial to play out etc- something they were absolutely NOT willing to do with Clinton.
Carlitoesway said this in fact- in a tongue in cheeck quote that shows how unconcerned he was about the whole thing "The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation. "
Not near as bad as lying about sex eh? LOl
So my question is this:
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
Well, here we have 5 FELONY indictments dealing with actual TREASONOUS things like outing a spy! Hello- how much worse could it actually be than lying about sex?
Yet- all the moralizers of the Clinton era are strangely quiet about calling for impeachment against GW and Cheney, and all too willing to wait for the trial to play out etc- something they were absolutely NOT willing to do with Clinton.
Carlitoesway said this in fact- in a tongue in cheeck quote that shows how unconcerned he was about the whole thing "The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation. "
Not near as bad as lying about sex eh? LOl
So my question is this:
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
I've been wondering about this myself, and I'm uncertain as to why no one seems to be getting frantic about the charges being brought against Scooter Libby (or what ever his name is)
It could be a case of 'oh no, not again', or it could just be that the left wing supprters do not feel the need for mass hysteria but are content to let the investigators do their job without whipping up a lynch mob atmosphere to influence the outcome unfairly.
On the other hand, the democratic party seems to me to be so lame that, like the conservatives in Britain, they are powerless to even raise a whimper of protest after so much defeat at the hands of an uncaring populace... ?
Most likely though, its because Karl Rove does not work for the democrats...
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
Easily.
Conservative pundits are nearly always hypocrites. It is beyond their political ideology to to able to forgive, regardless of what ever religious convictions they might have. I've already seen a conservative commentator, interviewed on BBC world who when asked about the current case, soon slipped into attacking Clinton...
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
Well this isn't directed at me, but...
I think a lot of right wingers hate Clinton so much because for all his short comings, he was in fact far better at the job than any other president (in my life time)
This, plus the fact that Clinton himself didn't seem to hate any one, and I'm sorry to say this, but I find a LOT of hatred on the conservative side of politics. Opponents of GW Bush often accused of hating him, and thats probably accurate, but it seems to me that a sizable portion of conservatives don't just hate Clinton, but they hate any one who supports him!
I don't see that level of animosity, or anything like it from the left.
It could just be that I am biased by my own political leanings, which tend to veer towards the left on most issues but I have never seen a left wing politician demonstrate the aggressive attitudes I regularly see from right wing politicians. An example of what I mean is the near xenophobic nationalist parties of Europe. They are ALL right wing conservative parties.
I've been wondering about this myself, and I'm uncertain as to why no one seems to be getting frantic about the charges being brought against Scooter Libby (or what ever his name is)
It could be a case of 'oh no, not again', or it could just be that the left wing supprters do not feel the need for mass hysteria but are content to let the investigators do their job without whipping up a lynch mob atmosphere to influence the outcome unfairly.
On the other hand, the democratic party seems to me to be so lame that, like the conservatives in Britain, they are powerless to even raise a whimper of protest after so much defeat at the hands of an uncaring populace... ?
Most likely though, its because Karl Rove does not work for the democrats...
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
Easily.
Conservative pundits are nearly always hypocrites. It is beyond their political ideology to to able to forgive, regardless of what ever religious convictions they might have. I've already seen a conservative commentator, interviewed on BBC world who when asked about the current case, soon slipped into attacking Clinton...
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
Well this isn't directed at me, but...
I think a lot of right wingers hate Clinton so much because for all his short comings, he was in fact far better at the job than any other president (in my life time)
This, plus the fact that Clinton himself didn't seem to hate any one, and I'm sorry to say this, but I find a LOT of hatred on the conservative side of politics. Opponents of GW Bush often accused of hating him, and thats probably accurate, but it seems to me that a sizable portion of conservatives don't just hate Clinton, but they hate any one who supports him!
I don't see that level of animosity, or anything like it from the left.
It could just be that I am biased by my own political leanings, which tend to veer towards the left on most issues but I have never seen a left wing politician demonstrate the aggressive attitudes I regularly see from right wing politicians. An example of what I mean is the near xenophobic nationalist parties of Europe. They are ALL right wing conservative parties.
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
The right never admits that it was or is wrong. It's got to be one of their party commandments.
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
Do you think? Gee, and they use to knock liberals over the head about relativistic moralism.
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
Who is Clinton? I don't remember that name. It was so long ago, and so much was going on. I just don't recall.
The right never admits that it was or is wrong. It's got to be one of their party commandments.
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
Do you think? Gee, and they use to knock liberals over the head about relativistic moralism.
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
Who is Clinton? I don't remember that name. It was so long ago, and so much was going on. I just don't recall.
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
The talk about returning honor and dignity to the White House during the first presidential campaign was only talk, or it was not perceived as an obligation extending to the cabinet and the other administration employees.
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
I guess they figure that if it doesn't have to do with illicit s-e-x, that situation ethics is perfectly okay, e.g., outing a CIA agent to get back at her husband for contradicting what the President said about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger.
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
I was for Clinton. This present situation is an outrage. But realistically, what can be done? We're stuck with these bozos for three more years, regardless of what goes on, short of Bush & Company getting caught red-handed on television committing murder or something.
So, an increasing number of Republican Congressmen and administration officials don't practice what they were preaching to distinguish themselves from the "sinner" Democrats, President Clinton in particular. Libby, Frist, Delay et al. are showing areas of tarnish that before shone in the eyes of the Religious Right that helped put them in office. Karl Rove escaped indictment for now--but he is still under investigation.
I just hope that come the next election, voters will remember how the facade of moral superiority crumbled for the GOP, and that their feet are made of clay the same as everyone else's.
The talk about returning honor and dignity to the White House during the first presidential campaign was only talk, or it was not perceived as an obligation extending to the cabinet and the other administration employees.
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
I guess they figure that if it doesn't have to do with illicit s-e-x, that situation ethics is perfectly okay, e.g., outing a CIA agent to get back at her husband for contradicting what the President said about Saddam seeking uranium from Niger.
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
I was for Clinton. This present situation is an outrage. But realistically, what can be done? We're stuck with these bozos for three more years, regardless of what goes on, short of Bush & Company getting caught red-handed on television committing murder or something.
So, an increasing number of Republican Congressmen and administration officials don't practice what they were preaching to distinguish themselves from the "sinner" Democrats, President Clinton in particular. Libby, Frist, Delay et al. are showing areas of tarnish that before shone in the eyes of the Religious Right that helped put them in office. Karl Rove escaped indictment for now--but he is still under investigation.
I just hope that come the next election, voters will remember how the facade of moral superiority crumbled for the GOP, and that their feet are made of clay the same as everyone else's.
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
The problem here is that the right and the left define what constitutes sullying the office in different ways.
I think the right tends to see ends as justifying means, so if there is a political goal that they support (for example the Iraq war) there is a tendency to forgive, or just ignore, any tactic that facilitates the acheivement of the objective, whether or not that tactic is moral and/or legal. On the other hand, personal moral rectitude is seen as a different thing. Behaving in a shabby way in this area is seen as reprehensible, especially if you're caught red-handed and then you lie about it.
The modern left, on the other hand, tend to be socially quite libertarian. It doesn't much matter what people do with their private lives, as long as they don't transgress in public life, they (we - I am on the left myself) think.
So, on one level, I don't think it's entirely fair to criticise the right for being hypocritical by not being outraged over the current crop of indictments. In their own moral universe, they are not being hypocritical. Ends justify means, remember? Getting caught is not a matter of immorality, merely a matter of clumsiness.
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
No. As I've said, I think the right's morality is being consistently expressed, but it's just a somewhat different morality from the left's. Many on the right just don't think that the shenanigans of Libby et al are as morally indefensible as those of Clinton. So their lack of outrage is maintaining their morality.
(And before the rightwingers here pile on, I'm not naive enough to think that the left does not similarly have it's own somewhat selective moral definitions about what is and isn't acceptable or, as in this case, tolerable for what are seen as higher ends.)
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
I wasn't but I'd explain it the way I have done.
The overall lack of outrage is less an indication of the moral hypocrisy of the right, and more at the lack of wide and deep popular support for the left in America.
The mass media will not make a big thing of it on behalf of the political left, the way they did on behalf of the political right over Clinton's scandals, because they themselves tend to be somewhat right-leaning (if only in ownership - I don't want to open up the issue of media bias for debate here). However, they are commercial organisations. If there was a truly widespread revulsion and a paradigm shift in the population back toward the centre-left, the media would be falling over themselves to condemn the Bush administration's many flaws. If they thought it would capture the public imagination, the schedules would be rammed solid with talking heads calling for impeachments and trials and indictments and so on.
My point is, I don't think that America has quite reached its tipping point. It could still shift back into supporting Bush and rejecting pretty much the whole of the left's agenda. However, I think the next few months will be the critical period during which America will decide it's future direction (after which the politicians on all sides will need to play catch-up), and I'm optimistic that it might shift back towards the poltical centre, which from where it currently is must mean a significant move to the left.
The problem here is that the right and the left define what constitutes sullying the office in different ways.
I think the right tends to see ends as justifying means, so if there is a political goal that they support (for example the Iraq war) there is a tendency to forgive, or just ignore, any tactic that facilitates the acheivement of the objective, whether or not that tactic is moral and/or legal. On the other hand, personal moral rectitude is seen as a different thing. Behaving in a shabby way in this area is seen as reprehensible, especially if you're caught red-handed and then you lie about it.
The modern left, on the other hand, tend to be socially quite libertarian. It doesn't much matter what people do with their private lives, as long as they don't transgress in public life, they (we - I am on the left myself) think.
So, on one level, I don't think it's entirely fair to criticise the right for being hypocritical by not being outraged over the current crop of indictments. In their own moral universe, they are not being hypocritical. Ends justify means, remember? Getting caught is not a matter of immorality, merely a matter of clumsiness.
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
No. As I've said, I think the right's morality is being consistently expressed, but it's just a somewhat different morality from the left's. Many on the right just don't think that the shenanigans of Libby et al are as morally indefensible as those of Clinton. So their lack of outrage is maintaining their morality.
(And before the rightwingers here pile on, I'm not naive enough to think that the left does not similarly have it's own somewhat selective moral definitions about what is and isn't acceptable or, as in this case, tolerable for what are seen as higher ends.)
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
I wasn't but I'd explain it the way I have done.
The overall lack of outrage is less an indication of the moral hypocrisy of the right, and more at the lack of wide and deep popular support for the left in America.
The mass media will not make a big thing of it on behalf of the political left, the way they did on behalf of the political right over Clinton's scandals, because they themselves tend to be somewhat right-leaning (if only in ownership - I don't want to open up the issue of media bias for debate here). However, they are commercial organisations. If there was a truly widespread revulsion and a paradigm shift in the population back toward the centre-left, the media would be falling over themselves to condemn the Bush administration's many flaws. If they thought it would capture the public imagination, the schedules would be rammed solid with talking heads calling for impeachments and trials and indictments and so on.
My point is, I don't think that America has quite reached its tipping point. It could still shift back into supporting Bush and rejecting pretty much the whole of the left's agenda. However, I think the next few months will be the critical period during which America will decide it's future direction (after which the politicians on all sides will need to play catch-up), and I'm optimistic that it might shift back towards the poltical centre, which from where it currently is must mean a significant move to the left.
I am going to jump up and stick my neck out here and play devils advocate. 
Please understand that I will be exaggerating for effect and so this is not an attack on you Cruising Ram! 
So what's your point? It doesn't matter what he lied about the fact is that he lied under oath!
Oh my gosh! That is so terrible. It is so much worse than what Clinton did!!!! And yet . . .
Your losing me here. First you say that this treason thing is so much worse than what Clinton did and then you bring Bush and Cheney into this. ...Why?
Oh I get it. You were talking about LIBBY. . . How is what Libby did an impeachable offence? He wasn't elected president. You can't impeach him.
On a more serious note, (again apologies to CR. Wasn't attacking you.)
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
I would have to say that there isn't outrage at sullying the office in this case because it was not done by the person in the office. George Bush did not lie under oath and is not accused of "5 FELONY indictments dealing with actual TREASONOUS things," Libby is. And at that he is just accused. Granted there was a lot of outrage when Clinton was just accused, and yes a lot of that was probably partisanship, but the investigation proved that he was guilty and so the outrage was justified, to a certain degree anyway.
Are they simply far to partisan to maintain thier own sense of morality?
Yes. No. Maybe. I am sure that there were some people who were gleefully outraged that the Democrats President was taking the heat. I myself was upset that he had lied under oath. Whether or not the whole thing was simply a witch hunt didn't matter. The problem was that he was found guilty as charged. Bush 1. hasn't been charged with anything and 2. hasn't been found guilty.
Then again I really don't care for the type of people who call in to the Rush Limbaugh type talk shows for the most part. I enjoy listening to Rush when there aren't any callers, mainly because, right or wrong, he is entertaining. I don't agree with a lot of what he says but it does let me get another point of view to ponder before I make up my own mind.
Let me also say I enjoy a lot of talk radio but I hate all of the call in portions. I always switch the dial for those because it always seems like a lovefest and then a rerun. (Oh Rush I love your show you are so awesome etc. I agree with what you said earlier [repeats the whole point] Anyway thanks for taking my call.) The few that aren't and are someone trying to disagree or provide a different point of view get ragged on and run off the air. Thanks but no thanks.
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
I was very anti-Clinton from that point of view that he lied under oath. And yes it was about sex. While I am not sure that the whole affair (pun intended) should have been investigated in the first place the indictment was not for the sexual activities but for the lieing under oath.
Now before you (in general not CR in specific) start spouting off about how Bush has lied about WMD in Iraq and all sorts of other things please remember that he has not been accused (officially that is not simply smeared in the press, press releases etc) and so any thing you say is simply innuendo.
You don't KNOW that he lied about that. You believe (and in some cases STRONGLY believe ) that he did. Remember one of the fundamental rights that we have is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I believed that Clinton was guilty and favored the investigation (into the allegations that he had lied). However I did not approve of the "trying him in the media" that was going on at the time. I liked the discussions about it from a academic point of view but I didn't think the heated arguments were accomplishing anything.
Knowing the partisanship of the Senate and House I fully believe that if they had a Democratic majority that there would be an investigation right now. Just listen to Kennedy and others who spout off about how bad Bush was in getting us into war. Well that is true but only if he lied. You voted for the war as well based on the same intelligence information he said he had.
It is easy to throw out accusations as Kennedy is doing now when you know that you don't have to back them up. Without a majority the Democrats can accuse all they want and don't have to back it up with an investigation. They can sit back and imply that they would have an investigation but the Republicans would block it so it's the Republicans fault.
That of course assumes that they don't have information that indicates that Bush did lie. If so though, why not bring that out?
Anyway. Rambling. Back to the point. I am not outraged at the indictments in question because they aren't against Bush or Cheney. If it comes out that Libby did what he is accused of because he was instructed to by Bush or Cheney then I might be Outraged. But as things stand now:
1. Innocent until proven guilty.
2. Pres is not indicted so no Clinton-esque outrage at all.
Please understand that I will be exaggerating for effect and so this is not an attack on you Cruising Ram! QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 29 2005, 06:07 PM)
It really disgusted me- and disgusted me even more that we spent 88 million dollars to find out that Clinton lied about sex- big whoop. When you mention this to somebody that really gets worked up about Clinton- they always wring thier hands and cry "it is about sullying the office, it is about lying"-
So what's your point? It doesn't matter what he lied about the fact is that he lied under oath!
QUOTE
Well, here we have 5 FELONY indictments dealing with actual TREASONOUS things like outing a spy! Hello- how much worse could it actually be than lying about sex?
Oh my gosh! That is so terrible. It is so much worse than what Clinton did!!!! And yet . . .
QUOTE
Yet- all the moralizers of the Clinton era are strangely quiet about calling for impeachment against GW and Cheney, and all too willing to wait for the trial to play out etc- something they were absolutely NOT willing to do with Clinton.
Your losing me here. First you say that this treason thing is so much worse than what Clinton did and then you bring Bush and Cheney into this. ...Why?
QUOTE
Carlitoesway said this in fact- in a tongue in cheeck quote that shows how unconcerned he was about the whole thing "The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation. "
Oh I get it. You were talking about LIBBY. . . How is what Libby did an impeachable offence? He wasn't elected president. You can't impeach him.
On a more serious note, (again apologies to CR. Wasn't attacking you.)
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
I would have to say that there isn't outrage at sullying the office in this case because it was not done by the person in the office. George Bush did not lie under oath and is not accused of "5 FELONY indictments dealing with actual TREASONOUS things," Libby is. And at that he is just accused. Granted there was a lot of outrage when Clinton was just accused, and yes a lot of that was probably partisanship, but the investigation proved that he was guilty and so the outrage was justified, to a certain degree anyway.
Are they simply far to partisan to maintain thier own sense of morality?
Yes. No. Maybe. I am sure that there were some people who were gleefully outraged that the Democrats President was taking the heat. I myself was upset that he had lied under oath. Whether or not the whole thing was simply a witch hunt didn't matter. The problem was that he was found guilty as charged. Bush 1. hasn't been charged with anything and 2. hasn't been found guilty.
Then again I really don't care for the type of people who call in to the Rush Limbaugh type talk shows for the most part. I enjoy listening to Rush when there aren't any callers, mainly because, right or wrong, he is entertaining. I don't agree with a lot of what he says but it does let me get another point of view to ponder before I make up my own mind.
Let me also say I enjoy a lot of talk radio but I hate all of the call in portions. I always switch the dial for those because it always seems like a lovefest and then a rerun. (Oh Rush I love your show you are so awesome etc. I agree with what you said earlier [repeats the whole point] Anyway thanks for taking my call.) The few that aren't and are someone trying to disagree or provide a different point of view get ragged on and run off the air. Thanks but no thanks.
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
I was very anti-Clinton from that point of view that he lied under oath. And yes it was about sex. While I am not sure that the whole affair (pun intended) should have been investigated in the first place the indictment was not for the sexual activities but for the lieing under oath.
Now before you (in general not CR in specific) start spouting off about how Bush has lied about WMD in Iraq and all sorts of other things please remember that he has not been accused (officially that is not simply smeared in the press, press releases etc) and so any thing you say is simply innuendo.
You don't KNOW that he lied about that. You believe (and in some cases STRONGLY believe
) that he did. Remember one of the fundamental rights that we have is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I believed that Clinton was guilty and favored the investigation (into the allegations that he had lied). However I did not approve of the "trying him in the media" that was going on at the time. I liked the discussions about it from a academic point of view but I didn't think the heated arguments were accomplishing anything.Knowing the partisanship of the Senate and House I fully believe that if they had a Democratic majority that there would be an investigation right now. Just listen to Kennedy and others who spout off about how bad Bush was in getting us into war. Well that is true but only if he lied. You voted for the war as well based on the same intelligence information he said he had.
It is easy to throw out accusations as Kennedy is doing now when you know that you don't have to back them up. Without a majority the Democrats can accuse all they want and don't have to back it up with an investigation. They can sit back and imply that they would have an investigation but the Republicans would block it so it's the Republicans fault.
That of course assumes that they don't have information that indicates that Bush did lie. If so though, why not bring that out?
Anyway. Rambling. Back to the point. I am not outraged at the indictments in question because they aren't against Bush or Cheney. If it comes out that Libby did what he is accused of because he was instructed to by Bush or Cheney then I might be Outraged. But as things stand now:
1. Innocent until proven guilty.
2. Pres is not indicted so no Clinton-esque outrage at all.
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
In this case it appears Libby is charged with crimes that less to do with the initial investigation and more to do with his apparent disregard for the truth. I discuss this further here. If convicted he should go to jail. This shares a lot in common with Clinton (who by the way didn’t resign).
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
My views on this are the same. If you commit perjury and obstruct justice (regardless of reasons) you should go to jail. Ask Martha Stewart. The only person that seems to have escaped prosecution is Clinton. Members of that grand jury have stated they would have indicted him for the same charges again Libby.
Despite all the attempts to make this into a huge issue, it appears some on the left are disappointed the investigation hasn't turned up anything on the supposed "outing" of a CIA agent. This charge is basically a result of the investigation.
My question is this... Will Bush end up pardoning Libby, and also, will anyone care?
In this case it appears Libby is charged with crimes that less to do with the initial investigation and more to do with his apparent disregard for the truth. I discuss this further here. If convicted he should go to jail. This shares a lot in common with Clinton (who by the way didn’t resign).
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
My views on this are the same. If you commit perjury and obstruct justice (regardless of reasons) you should go to jail. Ask Martha Stewart. The only person that seems to have escaped prosecution is Clinton. Members of that grand jury have stated they would have indicted him for the same charges again Libby.
Despite all the attempts to make this into a huge issue, it appears some on the left are disappointed the investigation hasn't turned up anything on the supposed "outing" of a CIA agent. This charge is basically a result of the investigation.
My question is this... Will Bush end up pardoning Libby, and also, will anyone care?
First, although I disapproved of Clinton and generally support Bush, I need to set the record straight. Clinton was NOT convicted of perjury. Telling the grand jury he didn't have sex with Lewinsky was technically accurate under the ridiculously restrictive definition of "sex" that the prosecutor had agreed to.
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
I am moderately outraged but it's apples and oranges. Libby isn't Bush, and furthermore what really created the outrage in the Clinton case was when he wagged his finger in the face of every American and delivered a bald-faced LIE. That isn't the case here.
Along with that ...
No, Bush will not pardon Libby. I'll bet a case of pistachios on that one with anyone who cares to take me up on it.
Are they simply far to (sic) partison (sic) to maintain thier own sense of morality?
No. If you lie, you resign and face the consequences. That's the way it should be and that's the way it's happened so far. ... And, technically, Libby remains innocent of lying.
In addition, I don't see the Bush folks trashing Fitzgerald the way Clinton supporters smeared Starr. IMO this is how the process should play out.
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
As noted, the obvious difference is that these allegations are against the VP's chief of staff, not against the president (can anyone even name Gore's chief of staff?)
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
I am moderately outraged but it's apples and oranges. Libby isn't Bush, and furthermore what really created the outrage in the Clinton case was when he wagged his finger in the face of every American and delivered a bald-faced LIE. That isn't the case here.
Along with that ...
QUOTE(nemov @ Oct 30 2005, 11:23 AM)
My question is this... Will Bush end up pardoning Libby, and also, will anyone care?
No, Bush will not pardon Libby. I'll bet a case of pistachios on that one with anyone who cares to take me up on it.
Are they simply far to (sic) partison (sic) to maintain thier own sense of morality?
No. If you lie, you resign and face the consequences. That's the way it should be and that's the way it's happened so far. ... And, technically, Libby remains innocent of lying.
In addition, I don't see the Bush folks trashing Fitzgerald the way Clinton supporters smeared Starr. IMO this is how the process should play out.
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
As noted, the obvious difference is that these allegations are against the VP's chief of staff, not against the president (can anyone even name Gore's chief of staff?)
QUOTE(nemov @ Oct 30 2005, 08:23 AM)
Despite all the attempts to make this into a huge issue, it appears some on the left are disappointed the investigation hasn't turned up anything on the supposed "outing" of a CIA agent. This charge is basically a result of the investigation.
No matter how many times you repeat this in whatever topics you choose to type it in that doesn't make it true. Read the indictment. This isn't the end of this, this isn't even the end of the charges for Libby. If you listened to Fitzgerald's press conference you would have hear these exact questions asked and you'd hear in plain words directly from the only man that really knows anything about this case that it isn't over. You can find links in the other thread.
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
Guilty until proven innocent. And this is far more complicated than Clinton's "situation" which was an outright lie to the American people. Of course there's also the question of the outing anyway. Since Fitzco has gone this far we must assume she was a "spy" but Scooter isn't being charged with outing a spy. He's being charged with perjury.
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
Well this isn't a moral issue. This is a legal, militaristic and possibly treasonous issue. Therefore treating it like a moral issue would do it great disservice.
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
This is an entirely different case. Frankly sex is, well, sexy. This is not sexy. If it happened the way you think it did then it is treason. If it happened another way it may very well be a non-issue.
Guilty until proven innocent. And this is far more complicated than Clinton's "situation" which was an outright lie to the American people. Of course there's also the question of the outing anyway. Since Fitzco has gone this far we must assume she was a "spy" but Scooter isn't being charged with outing a spy. He's being charged with perjury.
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
Well this isn't a moral issue. This is a legal, militaristic and possibly treasonous issue. Therefore treating it like a moral issue would do it great disservice.
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
This is an entirely different case. Frankly sex is, well, sexy. This is not sexy. If it happened the way you think it did then it is treason. If it happened another way it may very well be a non-issue.
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now? Are they simply far to partisan to maintain their own sense of morality? If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
Sullying which office? Chief of Staff for the Vice President? There is a scale difference between who is charged here and the Chief Executive of the United States.
The outrage I had with regard to Clinton (and it has tempered with time) was that he came on TV, pointed the finger at the camera, and said he didn't do it. Later, physical evidence in the form of the blue dress proved him wrong. I was outraged that he would lie to us and lie right to our faces like that. Every press conference or appearance after that, I looked at Clinton as "that liar" and he has not shaken the moniker "Slick Willy" with me ever since.
Libby is also a liar, but he never lied to me, to my face, the way Clinton did. So the outrage is less.
Libby is still a liar and will be prosecuted and (in all likelihood) go to jail. Just as he should.
I think there are different lenses that different people view this through. Some look at what Bush said about Libby and read that he is backing Libby. In fact, Bush said no such thing. He thanked Libby for his past service, but he did not say that Libby would be cleared. He gave no indication that he believed the charges were somehow trumped up.
I think most people believe that Libby is guilty of what he is charged with, lying to investigators and to the grand jury. In fact, the evidence to this point seems pretty clear that it was Libby who spread the connection between Plame and Joe Wilson.
Fitzgerald, when I watched his press conference live, did leave the door open for future charges, but only a crack it seemed to me. He did not promise further indictments. In fact, he was careful to say that we should not expect anything other than getting to the truth.
Sullying which office? Chief of Staff for the Vice President? There is a scale difference between who is charged here and the Chief Executive of the United States.
The outrage I had with regard to Clinton (and it has tempered with time) was that he came on TV, pointed the finger at the camera, and said he didn't do it. Later, physical evidence in the form of the blue dress proved him wrong. I was outraged that he would lie to us and lie right to our faces like that. Every press conference or appearance after that, I looked at Clinton as "that liar" and he has not shaken the moniker "Slick Willy" with me ever since.
Libby is also a liar, but he never lied to me, to my face, the way Clinton did. So the outrage is less.
Libby is still a liar and will be prosecuted and (in all likelihood) go to jail. Just as he should.
I think there are different lenses that different people view this through. Some look at what Bush said about Libby and read that he is backing Libby. In fact, Bush said no such thing. He thanked Libby for his past service, but he did not say that Libby would be cleared. He gave no indication that he believed the charges were somehow trumped up.
I think most people believe that Libby is guilty of what he is charged with, lying to investigators and to the grand jury. In fact, the evidence to this point seems pretty clear that it was Libby who spread the connection between Plame and Joe Wilson.
Fitzgerald, when I watched his press conference live, did leave the door open for future charges, but only a crack it seemed to me. He did not promise further indictments. In fact, he was careful to say that we should not expect anything other than getting to the truth.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 29 2005, 07:07 PM)
Well, here we have 5 FELONY indictments dealing with actual TREASONOUS things like outing a spy! Hello- how much worse could it actually be than lying about sex?
Yet- all the moralizers of the Clinton era are strangely quiet about calling for impeachment against GW and Cheney, and all too willing to wait for the trial to play out etc- something they were absolutely NOT willing to do with Clinton.
Carlitoesway said this in fact- in a tongue in cheeck quote that shows how unconcerned he was about the whole thing "The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation. "
Not near as bad as lying about sex eh? LOl
Yet- all the moralizers of the Clinton era are strangely quiet about calling for impeachment against GW and Cheney, and all too willing to wait for the trial to play out etc- something they were absolutely NOT willing to do with Clinton.
Carlitoesway said this in fact- in a tongue in cheeck quote that shows how unconcerned he was about the whole thing "The Libby indictment is serious, but a little Martha-Stewart-ish. Couldn't get him for 'outing a CIA agent' but he lied during the investigation. "
Not near as bad as lying about sex eh? LOl
I'm not making any connection to Bill Clinton, but since you bring it up...
Scooter Libby is accused of lying. He has resigned. He will go to trial.
Bill Clinton lied. He did not resign. He was impeached. He was disbarred as part of a plea bargain to avoid a trial.
What is your point?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 29 2005, 08:07 PM)
So my question is this:
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
Where is the outrage at sullying the office from the right now?
If you hadn't noticed, conservatives don't act quite the same as liberals. Our response to charges are trials and punishment, if convicted. Largely we are less prone to the ballistic knee-jerk responses that I see comeing from the left.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 29 2005, 08:07 PM)
Are they simply far to partison to maintain thier own sense of morality?
Nope
, If he did something wrong, he should go to jail, period. Funny, I look at it the other way. Scooter is charged with lying to a grand jury. Isn't that the same thing Slick Willie did? The 'outed a spy' don't hunt. Her husband outed her - 'my wife the CIA agent', all her neighbors apparently knew it, as well as a Vanity Fair spread....Pretty dumb for a spook in my book.QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 29 2005, 08:07 PM)
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
No outrage is called for, just a matter of a little thing called a trial. Trying to recall conversations that happened a couple years ago would be troublesome for most of us, it could quite easily have been a matter of recollection. Time will tell. If he's guilty, he should go to jail. If not, I'll be waiting to see apologies posted here and on the media.
I'm tired of the sterile arguments comparing Clinton's gross behavior and lying about sex with the current situation. The current situation involves the core issue of going to war under false pretense and is infinitely more serious. It is even more serious than Watergate.
Any fair minded person would have to conclude that Libby lied repeatedly for a purpose. The exact purpose remains unclear but it is reasonable to conclude that it involved an attempt to coverup previous attempts to conceal false intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people. Much of the information necessary to form such a conclusion is available in the indictments. However, there is a lot more relevant evidence including the Downing Street Memos that included the statement, "we are fixing the facts around the policy."
We should all be outraged, those who supported the war no less than those who opposed it. After all, it is they who were thoroughly deceived. Here is an article in which a former federal prosecutor lays out the story pretty clearly.
I don't expect a Republican Congress, more interested in defending its ideological goals than in recognizing the constitution crisis represented by this abuse of presidential power, to begin an impeachment process or even to honestly complete the second portion of the prewar intelligence report. Nevertheless, we can all keep making the case in letters to Congress and to our local papers.
Any fair minded person would have to conclude that Libby lied repeatedly for a purpose. The exact purpose remains unclear but it is reasonable to conclude that it involved an attempt to coverup previous attempts to conceal false intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people. Much of the information necessary to form such a conclusion is available in the indictments. However, there is a lot more relevant evidence including the Downing Street Memos that included the statement, "we are fixing the facts around the policy."
We should all be outraged, those who supported the war no less than those who opposed it. After all, it is they who were thoroughly deceived. Here is an article in which a former federal prosecutor lays out the story pretty clearly.
QUOTE
The evidence shows, then, that from early 2002 to at least March 2003, the President and his aides conspired to defraud the United States by intentionally misrepresenting intelligence about Iraq to persuade Congress to authorize force, thereby interfering with Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations, all of which violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
I don't expect a Republican Congress, more interested in defending its ideological goals than in recognizing the constitution crisis represented by this abuse of presidential power, to begin an impeachment process or even to honestly complete the second portion of the prewar intelligence report. Nevertheless, we can all keep making the case in letters to Congress and to our local papers.
TedN5,
Even if we allow for what Fitzgerald hinted at (that the outing of Valerie Plame seriously undermined the national security of the US), the rest of what you just said does not follow.
This is not about the motives for war, or covering up for it. If anything, it is a case of political revenge, which is certainly not new or shocking.
British intelligence stands by their assertion that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. The conclusion that Joe Wilson made from his trip differs from the CIA's interpretation of the same facts.
Nothing here can be spun into an attempt to impeach Bush. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush was involved in this.
Even if we allow for what Fitzgerald hinted at (that the outing of Valerie Plame seriously undermined the national security of the US), the rest of what you just said does not follow.
This is not about the motives for war, or covering up for it. If anything, it is a case of political revenge, which is certainly not new or shocking.
British intelligence stands by their assertion that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. The conclusion that Joe Wilson made from his trip differs from the CIA's interpretation of the same facts.
Nothing here can be spun into an attempt to impeach Bush. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush was involved in this.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Oct 31 2005, 02:57 PM)
I'm tired of the sterile arguments comparing Clinton's gross behavior and lying about sex with the current situation.
So let me get this right, lying to a grand jury about sex is ok, but other lies are not? Is there a list somewhere to make sure which lies are ok, or is this dynamic?
Maybe it's just who said it...
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Oct 31 2005, 02:57 PM)
Any fair minded person would have to conclude that Libby lied repeatedly for a purpose.
As I see it, any "fair minded person" would want the facts to be brought to a jury who can decide guilt. As far as I know, the testimony up to this point is sealed, and the only knowledge we have are from "leaks".
I think leaks, from anyone, should be viewed with suspicion, as they're trying to advance some agenda...
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Oct 31 2005, 02:57 PM)
We should all be outraged, those who supported the war no less than those who opposed it. After all, it is they who were thoroughly deceived....
Shall we throw in global warming and Halliburton too?
I would paint this with too broad of a brush.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 29 2005, 07:07 PM)
If you were one of those folks that was so anti-Clinton, how do you explain your lack of outrage now?
Well, I'll address this one in it's entirety as it basically will sum up the whole argument.
1. Clinton was dis-barred as a result of lying under oath in front of a Grand Jury. This is why impeachment was called for. What does it have to do with morality? Everything, but little to do with sex. It had more to do with lying under oath and the all-encompassing embarrassment the American people were subjected to as a result of the fiasco over that period of time.
2. If the men are guilty (which is yet to be seen), they will be sent to jail and/or subjected to numerous other financial and long-term penalties. Many people in the US believe that men are innocent until proven guilty, and even some have made the argument that these indictments are part of liberal witch hunts directed at discrediting conservative leadership... but of course the verdict is still out on that one as well.
3. The outrage for many conservatives about Bill Clinton stem from his history of back-door/shady dealings to include:
Whitewater
The death of Vince Foster
missing Rose gate documents
Pardons
Use of the WhiteHouse for fund raising
Losing the nuclear launch codes
Sex scandal on top of sex scandal
Lying under oath
stealing whitehouse furniture
etc, etc, etc...
It really was never one isolated incident, but yet seemingly a legacy of immorality...not necessarily that he ever did anything illegal (that we can prove), but yet more that a portion of the American public seemingly idolizes a man with such a sorted history. Like I've said before... I'd probably enjoy drinking a beer with the man, but would never want anyone like him to be the leader of the free world...
Most true conservatives are not big GW fans either, but our disdain for Bush is a completely different animal.
QUOTE
(Amlord)
Even if we allow for what Fitzgerald hinted at (that the outing of Valerie Plame seriously undermined the national security of the US), the rest of what you just said does not follow.
Even if we allow for what Fitzgerald hinted at (that the outing of Valerie Plame seriously undermined the national security of the US), the rest of what you just said does not follow.
Of course it doesn't follow from the limited evidence submitted with the indictments but, in public debate, we are not confined to just the evidence the prosecutor has submitted thus far. Did you read the article? Do you really think Libby was throwing sand in the umpire's eyes to cover up a case of political revenge? Isn't it obvious from the Downing Street memos that the administration set out from the beginning "to fix the facts around the policy." That is, to cook the intelligence to support a public case for war. We saw a pattern of aluminum tubes, Niger Uranium, Atta meetings with Iraqi intelligence, mobile bio-weapons labs, and al Qaeda connection to Iraq that all proved to be bogus and all of which were questioned by some elements of the intelligence community but dismissed by the war hawks. We also witnessed a parade of talking administration heads (including the President) threatening use with mushroom clouds over American cities.
All of this isn't proof of guilt but it is certainly prima facia evidence requiring an independent commission investigation or, at the least, a comprehensive non-political investigation by Congress. If it is determined that the administration was guilty of massive misuse of intelligence to take us into war, then the impeachment process should begin.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Oct 31 2005, 05:47 PM)
QUOTE
(Amlord)
Even if we allow for what Fitzgerald hinted at (that the outing of Valerie Plame seriously undermined the national security of the US), the rest of what you just said does not follow.
Even if we allow for what Fitzgerald hinted at (that the outing of Valerie Plame seriously undermined the national security of the US), the rest of what you just said does not follow.
Of course it doesn't follow from the limited evidence submitted with the indictments but, in public debate, we are not confined to just the evidence the prosecutor has submitted thus far. Did you read the article? Do you really think Libby was throwing sand in the umpire's eyes to cover up a case of political revenge?
He was "throwing sand in the eyes" to confuse his role in the Plame outing. That's what I got out of the Fitzgerald press conference.
Fitzgerald cannot determine if the outing was a crime because he could not figure out Libby's motives or knowledge at the time, which are key pieces of evidence. Without this knowledge, the underlying crime cannot be prosecuted.
Fitzgerald was very careful to say that this investigation had nothing to do with the motives for war. He was very careful to expressly state that those who were for the war OR against the war should not use this case to argue their side. This case was about finding the truth and had little to do with the war in Iraq.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 31 2005, 03:10 PM)
Fitzgerald cannot determine if the outing was a crime because he could not figure out Libby's motives or knowledge at the time, which are key pieces of evidence. Without this knowledge, the underlying crime cannot be prosecuted.
Fitzgerald was very careful to say that this investigation had nothing to do with the motives for war. He was very careful to expressly state that those who were for the war OR against the war should not use this case to argue their side. This case was about finding the truth and had little to do with the war in Iraq.
Fitzgerald was very careful to say that this investigation had nothing to do with the motives for war. He was very careful to expressly state that those who were for the war OR against the war should not use this case to argue their side. This case was about finding the truth and had little to do with the war in Iraq.
That is an accurate reading of the press conference Amlord and it is good to see that Fitzgerald is making every effort to stay impartial here. However you speak with a tone of finality. Fitzgerald stated that the investigation will continue under a new grand jury. He stated that he doesn't yet have all the answers and intends to find them. That doesn't sound like the end to me.
Rove's lawyer has stated he is still under investigation. The underlying assumption here is that Libby could face additional charges depending on what Fitzgerald finds out. Additional people in the White House could also be charged. Who knows, time will tell.
The one thing that is certain is that this is far from over.
QUOTE
(Amlord)
He was "throwing sand in the eyes" to confuse his role in the Plame outing. That's what I got out of the Fitzgerald press conference.
Fitzgerald cannot determine if the outing was a crime because he could not figure out Libby's motives or knowledge at the time, which are key pieces of evidence. Without this knowledge, the underlying crime cannot be prosecuted.
Fitzgerald was very careful to say that this investigation had nothing to do with the motives for war. He was very careful to expressly state that those who were for the war OR against the war should not use this case to argue their side. This case was about finding the truth and had little to do with the war in Iraq.
He was "throwing sand in the eyes" to confuse his role in the Plame outing. That's what I got out of the Fitzgerald press conference.
Fitzgerald cannot determine if the outing was a crime because he could not figure out Libby's motives or knowledge at the time, which are key pieces of evidence. Without this knowledge, the underlying crime cannot be prosecuted.
Fitzgerald was very careful to say that this investigation had nothing to do with the motives for war. He was very careful to expressly state that those who were for the war OR against the war should not use this case to argue their side. This case was about finding the truth and had little to do with the war in Iraq.
What I got out of his statement was that he couldn't determine the extent of the crime because "sand was thrown in his eye." Who else was involved? What was their motive? You have never answered the question, why would a skilled lawyer like Libby take the perilous path of lying to investigators and the grand jury just to protect himself from being implicated in a crime that conventional wisdom implies would be difficult to prosecute? My answer is that he was protecting others and trying to keep the entire scheme, of managing intelligence to promote that war followed by attacking critics like Wilson, from coming unravelled.
Of course Fitzgerald was careful to state the limits of his investigation. He was hired to investigate the Plame outing and attempts to hide it. It would exceed his authority if he went beyond that, unless he had clear evidence of a conspiracy and evidence he could clearly tie to a motive.
However, there is lots of other public evidence beyond Fitzgerald's initial indictments that justifies drawing logical conclusions. To suggest that the public's outrage should be limited to the narrow confines of Fitzgerald's statement is ludicrous! We are witness to a clear pattern of false and hyped administration statements leading up to the war, we have seen the British secret Downing Street memos which clearly state what the administration was up to in the build up to war, and we now even have administration insiders like Wilkerson calling the Cheney/Rumsfeld axsis a "cabal" that shut others in the bureaucracy out of decision making and left them confused when trying to carryout decisions that were made. All or us should be outraged and demanding a serious impartial investigation of the uses and misuses of intelligence prior to the preemptive invasion.
Edited to add article link that details the same conclusion.
Act for Change Article
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 29 2005, 08:07 PM)
Well, here we have 5 FELONY indictments dealing with actual TREASONOUS things like outing a spy!
It should be apparent to anyone who has read up on this that she was no more "outed" by Scooter than I could "out" Ellen Degenerate.
Given the months they have been investigating, I have to believe they would have charged him if they could. But when your face is plastered on the front of a magazine with, at least national, circulation, it's pretty tough to convince anyone you are "under cover". It's also been reported that investigators talked to her neighbors, and that they all knew. Likewise, her husband introduced her at parties as his "CIA wife".
Pretty soon I expect to start seeing posts about Rove in the Grassy Knoll, he has spent some time in Texas after all....
If he lied to the grand jury, he should be punished. It will very likely be more than Clinton did. A lie is a lie is a lie, and it's wrong, and it's illegal when you are under oath. At this point, it's all he's being charged with.
QUOTE(Yogurt @ Nov 1 2005, 01:07 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 29 2005, 08:07 PM)
Well, here we have 5 FELONY indictments dealing with actual TREASONOUS things like outing a spy!
It should be apparent to anyone who has read up on this that she was no more "outed" by Scooter than I could "out" Ellen Degenerate.
Given the months they have been investigating, I have to believe they would have charged him if they could. But when your face is plastered on the front of a magazine with, at least national, circulation, it's pretty tough to convince anyone you are "under cover". It's also been reported that investigators talked to her neighbors, and that they all knew. Likewise, her husband introduced her at parties as his "CIA wife".
Pretty soon I expect to start seeing posts about Rove in the Grassy Knoll, he has spent some time in Texas after all....
If he lied to the grand jury, he should be punished. It will very likely be more than Clinton did. A lie is a lie is a lie, and it's wrong, and it's illegal when you are under oath. At this point, it's all he's being charged with.
Arrgh. I've been listening to this conservative talking point for almost a year now. If outing Plame was not a breech of security than why did:
A.) Karl Rove lie about doing it?
B.) Dick Cheney lie about knowing who did it?
C.) Scooter Libby lie about doing it?
(You can insist that this is just an "indictment" but I think we all know lying occurred, we're just trying to figure out if it's 'criminal' lying.)
D.) McCellan say if someone in Bush's staff was involved in outing Plame they would be ousted from the White House?
Because they like committing perjury and lying to the American Press Corp?
Yes there are different degrees of lies. Clearly, outing an undercover to the national press is signficantly more severe of a lie when we're talking treason, than lieing about sexual liasons in the Whitehouse.
QUOTE(smorpheus @ Nov 1 2005, 03:48 PM)
If outing Plame was not a breech of security than why did:
A.) Karl Rove lie about doing it?
B.) Dick Cheney lie about knowing who did it?
C.) Scooter Libby lie about doing it?
(You can insist that this is just an "indictment" but I think we all know lying occurred, we're just trying to figure out if it's 'criminal' lying.)
D.) McCellan say if someone in Bush's staff was involved in outing Plame they would be ousted from the White House?
The preceeding is speculation. What follows is fact:A.) Karl Rove lie about doing it?
B.) Dick Cheney lie about knowing who did it?
C.) Scooter Libby lie about doing it?
(You can insist that this is just an "indictment" but I think we all know lying occurred, we're just trying to figure out if it's 'criminal' lying.)
D.) McCellan say if someone in Bush's staff was involved in outing Plame they would be ousted from the White House?
A.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Karl Rove of lying about anything. Nor has Rove been proven guilty of having done so. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.
B.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Dick Cheney of lying about anything. Nor has Cheney been proven guilty of having done so. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.
C.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Libby of "doing it" (violating law protecting covert agents). He has accused (indicted) Libby of obstucting justice by misleading investigators and lying to a grand Jury about from whom he first heard her name and identity. Libby has not yet been proven to be guilty of those charges. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.
D.)Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) anyone in the White House of being "involved" in unlawfully revealing the identity of a covert agent. Nor has anyone in the White House been found guilty of unlawfully revealing the identity of a covert agent.
I can only speculate that the reason "why" McClellan anounced that anyone in the administration found guilty of being "involved" in the unlawful revealing of the identity of a covert agent would be "ousted", is that Presidents usually don't like to keep convicted felons on the payroll. It's just bad PR! Or perhaps it was just meaningless rhetoric....are convicted felons even legally allowed to remain in office in the executive (or any other) branch of the Government?
QUOTE(Argonaut @ Nov 1 2005, 09:22 PM)
What follows is fact:
A.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Karl Rove of lying about anything. Nor has Rove been proven guilty of having done so. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.
B.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Dick Cheney of lying about anything. Nor has Cheney been proven guilty of having done so. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.
C.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Libby of "doing it" (violating law protecting covert agents). He has accused (indicted) Libby of obstucting justice by misleading investigators and lying to a grand Jury about from whom he first heard her name and identity. Libby has not yet been proven to be guilty of those charges. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.
D.)Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) anyone in the White House of being "involved" in unlawfully revealing the identity of a covert agent. Nor has anyone in the White House been found guilty of unlawfully revealing the identity of a covert agent.
A.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Karl Rove of lying about anything. Nor has Rove been proven guilty of having done so. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.
B.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Dick Cheney of lying about anything. Nor has Cheney been proven guilty of having done so. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.
C.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Libby of "doing it" (violating law protecting covert agents). He has accused (indicted) Libby of obstucting justice by misleading investigators and lying to a grand Jury about from whom he first heard her name and identity. Libby has not yet been proven to be guilty of those charges. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.
D.)Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) anyone in the White House of being "involved" in unlawfully revealing the identity of a covert agent. Nor has anyone in the White House been found guilty of unlawfully revealing the identity of a covert agent.
Well put, the only thing I might add is the only proven liar (by his own words) are her husband. As Max Boot put it:
QUOTE
The problem here is that the one undisputed liar in this whole sordid affair doesn't work for the administration. In his attempts to turn his wife into an antiwar martyr, Joseph C. Wilson IV has retailed more whoppers than Burger King.
The least consequential of these fibs was his denial that it was his wife who got him sent to Niger in February 2002 to check out claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later stated, in a bipartisan report, that evidence indicated it was Mrs. Wilson who "had suggested his name for the trip." By leaking this fact to the news media, Libby and other White House officials were merely setting the record straight — not, as Wilson would have it, punishing his Mata Hari wife.
(Empasis added)The least consequential of these fibs was his denial that it was his wife who got him sent to Niger in February 2002 to check out claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later stated, in a bipartisan report, that evidence indicated it was Mrs. Wilson who "had suggested his name for the trip." By leaking this fact to the news media, Libby and other White House officials were merely setting the record straight — not, as Wilson would have it, punishing his Mata Hari wife.
Joe Wilson Outed
QUOTE(Argonaut @ Nov 1 2005, 05:22 PM)
A.) Fitzgerald has not accused (indicted) Karl Rove of lying about anything. Nor has Rove been proven guilty of having done so. We can't know "why" someone did something when it has not been proven to have been done.
My point must have been missed in your reply. Even if you honestly believe that these people haven't been lying about outing Plame, if outing Plame is not an issue as Yogurt has repeatedly argued in this thread, than why are reporters going to jail? Why has Fitzgerald been working two years on this case? Simple government incompetence? Investigation into nothing?
Why have McCellan and Bush both acknwoledged that outing this person is a bad thing?! Please, just stop implying that this is a minor incident. If any of these people were in fact involved in the ousting of Plame, they will no longer work in the White House, and they know it.
I hesitate to bring this up, but we have an actual covert CIA operation exposed on the front page of the Chicago Tribune, NY Times and Washington Post today. To borrow a phrase, where's the outrage?
Add to this the earlier reports that "outed" private air carriers who were used to render Al Qaeda dudes from Europe to Gitmo, and one could get the idea that sometimes "outing" CIA operations is good, but other times bad? Either way, their sources were leaking classified data, right?
Add to this the earlier reports that "outed" private air carriers who were used to render Al Qaeda dudes from Europe to Gitmo, and one could get the idea that sometimes "outing" CIA operations is good, but other times bad? Either way, their sources were leaking classified data, right?
I think that one would have to be delusional to think that this investigation is ONLY about the outing of Plame and Libby's indictment. There is clearly a depth to this investigation that has not been made public yet. Fitzgerald had a whole team of investigators in Italy and they are still working there as far as I know.
In this transscript there are a few interesting points made.
Apparently it is possible that more people have already been indicted:
Either way there is clearly a bigger agenda here than the last indictments.
If we had ONLY the fact that the grand jury was extended on this case we would be able to reasonably assume that there is more to come. A judge would not let Fitzgerald extend this thing based on "gut feeling" or a "deep desire to nail the Republicans". There is substance propping open this door. If you don't believe so then you don't believe in our legal system.
More about the Italian/Niger connection in that transcript:
Italy's Prime Minister recently denied that meeting happened.
Let's look at another article to clear up some other confusions:
Yes, it has been said in this thread that the UK still backs its claims about the yellowcake in Niger. However, those claims were based upon the forged documents!
This was a brilliant, underhanded way of skirting responsibility. Bush can shrug his shoulders and say, "But they told me so" if he is ever called into a grand jury. Way to be responsible for your actions. I thought he was a Republican..you know..pull yourself up by the bootstraps and all....
I'm also tired of the beating of this dead horse. YES, Plame did suggest her husband could help in Niger!!! But she did not have the authority to send him there or even give him the job. She happened to be married to a former ambassador to the place who had lots of old connections that were unavailable to the more recent ambassador. I don't believe it was even a paid position. Perhaps it was a devious, anti-American plot for the Wilson's to acrue frequent flyer miles on the government's dime?!?!
Finally, there is at least ONE solid piece of evidence leading toward a possible indictment of Rove and possibly Ari Fleischer. In this article you wil lfind that, seven days before the "outing" Ari Fleischer and Colin Powell were known to have read a memo about Wilson and Plame. The memo was marked "secret". Fleischer denies having seen the memo despite the fact another ex-staffer testified that he was seen reading it on Airforce 1.
Anyway, read at least the last linked article, or search for yourself in order to find a list of contradictions and unanswered questions from the White House. There is definately a scourge in the House of Denmark. I think Fitzgerald is looking for mroe than a few charges on one official. Whether or not he gets them is another thing..but there are certainly crimes that need punishing.
In this transscript there are a few interesting points made.
Apparently it is possible that more people have already been indicted:
QUOTE
JUAN GONZALEZ: But how would it be possible to have sealed indictments? Would the actual people indicted be notified, or even they would not know that they had been indicted?
SCOTT HORTON: They would not be notified of the fact that they’d be indicted, and neither would the public.
SCOTT HORTON: They would not be notified of the fact that they’d be indicted, and neither would the public.
Either way there is clearly a bigger agenda here than the last indictments.
If we had ONLY the fact that the grand jury was extended on this case we would be able to reasonably assume that there is more to come. A judge would not let Fitzgerald extend this thing based on "gut feeling" or a "deep desire to nail the Republicans". There is substance propping open this door. If you don't believe so then you don't believe in our legal system.
More about the Italian/Niger connection in that transcript:
QUOTE
we find out that the head of Italian military intelligence came to meet with a White House official, which is very unusual. He met with Steve Hadley, who has also been someone who has been identified as part of a kind of alleged conspiracy in the White House to eventually out Joseph Wilson's wife to the media as a C.I.A. operative, kind of as retaliation for Joseph Wilson pushing back on these false Niger uranium claims.
Italy's Prime Minister recently denied that meeting happened.
Let's look at another article to clear up some other confusions:
Yes, it has been said in this thread that the UK still backs its claims about the yellowcake in Niger. However, those claims were based upon the forged documents!
QUOTE
The same forgeries in turn became the basis for a British intelligence report that credited the belief Saddam was trying to buy uranium. (The British government has never publicly conceded that its report was based solely on the forgeries from Italy, but when the International Atomic Energy Agency asked for copies of whatever else it had to document Saddam's shopping spree, not a single document was forthcoming.) The UK report was the one that George W. Bush cited in his State of the Union address, and thus did the administration skirt, barely, any citation of the forged documents themselves.
This was a brilliant, underhanded way of skirting responsibility. Bush can shrug his shoulders and say, "But they told me so" if he is ever called into a grand jury. Way to be responsible for your actions. I thought he was a Republican..you know..pull yourself up by the bootstraps and all....
I'm also tired of the beating of this dead horse. YES, Plame did suggest her husband could help in Niger!!! But she did not have the authority to send him there or even give him the job. She happened to be married to a former ambassador to the place who had lots of old connections that were unavailable to the more recent ambassador. I don't believe it was even a paid position. Perhaps it was a devious, anti-American plot for the Wilson's to acrue frequent flyer miles on the government's dime?!?!
Finally, there is at least ONE solid piece of evidence leading toward a possible indictment of Rove and possibly Ari Fleischer. In this article you wil lfind that, seven days before the "outing" Ari Fleischer and Colin Powell were known to have read a memo about Wilson and Plame. The memo was marked "secret". Fleischer denies having seen the memo despite the fact another ex-staffer testified that he was seen reading it on Airforce 1.
Anyway, read at least the last linked article, or search for yourself in order to find a list of contradictions and unanswered questions from the White House. There is definately a scourge in the House of Denmark. I think Fitzgerald is looking for mroe than a few charges on one official. Whether or not he gets them is another thing..but there are certainly crimes that need punishing.
QUOTE
(carlitoswhey)
I hesitate to bring this up, but we have an actual covert CIA operation exposed on the front page of the Chicago Tribune, NY Times and Washington Post today. To borrow a phrase, where's the outrage?
Add to this the earlier reports that "outed" private air carriers who were used to render Al Qaeda dudes from Europe to Gitmo, and one could get the idea that sometimes "outing" CIA operations is good, but other times bad? Either way, their sources were leaking classified data, right?
I hesitate to bring this up, but we have an actual covert CIA operation exposed on the front page of the Chicago Tribune, NY Times and Washington Post today. To borrow a phrase, where's the outrage?
Add to this the earlier reports that "outed" private air carriers who were used to render Al Qaeda dudes from Europe to Gitmo, and one could get the idea that sometimes "outing" CIA operations is good, but other times bad? Either way, their sources were leaking classified data, right?
This is old ground. You brought up a similar point under another topic. I pointed out then that there was a huge difference between someone sworn to uphold government secrets and secret personnel leaking information to deliberately reveal the identity of a covert person for political gain and a news outlet or human rights group carefully investigating and revealing something they considered nefarious that they weren't sworn to protect.
That they considered the information something that the government shouldn't be doing and therefore worthy of exposure is obvious in the article.
QUOTE
It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA's internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing.
Host countries have signed the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as has the United States. Yet CIA interrogators in the overseas sites are permitted to use the CIA's approved "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," some of which are prohibited by the U.N. convention and by U.S. military law. They include tactics such as "waterboarding," in which a prisoner is made to believe he or she is drowning.
WA Post Article. Host countries have signed the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as has the United States. Yet CIA interrogators in the overseas sites are permitted to use the CIA's approved "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," some of which are prohibited by the U.N. convention and by U.S. military law. They include tactics such as "waterboarding," in which a prisoner is made to believe he or she is drowning.
This is precisely the kind of activity that the McCain Amendment is trying to reestablish as illegal. Just how do you expect a democracy to function if there is no way of finding out what our government is doing.
Here is more fuel for thought.
I will be interested to see how this is spun politically. Maybe no one will even care. The “alleged” crimes can be used poltically long after anyone even cares about the truth anymore.
QUOTE
Both Woodward and Downie said they are not sure that The Post could have done anything with Woodward's 2003 conversations because they were conducted on an off-the-record basis. Woodward said the unnamed official told him about Plame "in an offhand, casual manner . . . almost gossip" and that "I didn't attach any great significance to it."
Woodward said he had passed along a tip about Plame to Post reporter Walter Pincus, who was writing about Wilson in June 2003, but Pincus has said he does not recall any such conversation.
Woodward said he realized that his June 2003 conversation with the unnamed official had greater significance after Libby was portrayed in an indictment as having been the first administration official to tell a reporter, the Times's Miller, about Plame. Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak disclosed Plame's CIA role on July 14, 2003.
Woodward said he had passed along a tip about Plame to Post reporter Walter Pincus, who was writing about Wilson in June 2003, but Pincus has said he does not recall any such conversation.
Woodward said he realized that his June 2003 conversation with the unnamed official had greater significance after Libby was portrayed in an indictment as having been the first administration official to tell a reporter, the Times's Miller, about Plame. Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak disclosed Plame's CIA role on July 14, 2003.
I will be interested to see how this is spun politically. Maybe no one will even care. The “alleged” crimes can be used poltically long after anyone even cares about the truth anymore.
I hope everyone is still keeping an eye on Fitzgerald's investigation. Here is an article that discusses Rove's continuing jeopardy, the role of Viveca Novak (the reporter working for Time Magazine who recently became another witness in the case), and speculation on other issues surrounding the investigation.
QUOTE
But the fact remains, several sources close to the investigation said, that Rove is in serious legal jeopardy. According to sources, Fitzgerald is expected to decide before the end of the year whether to seek an indictment against Rove for obstruction of justice and making false statements to Justice Department, FBI investigators, and the grand jury on three separate occasions, for failing to disclose a conversation he had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003 about Plame Wilson.
According to these sources, unless Novak, who is scheduled to testify before a grand jury this week about her conversation with Luskin in 2004, provides evidence that can convince the grand jury that Rove genuinely forgot he spoke with Cooper in July 2003, and that only when Novak "casually" told Luskin a year later that Cooper obtained his information about Plame Wilson directly from Rove did Rove remember, the man known as the "architect" will most likely find himself facing a criminal indictment.
According to these sources, unless Novak, who is scheduled to testify before a grand jury this week about her conversation with Luskin in 2004, provides evidence that can convince the grand jury that Rove genuinely forgot he spoke with Cooper in July 2003, and that only when Novak "casually" told Luskin a year later that Cooper obtained his information about Plame Wilson directly from Rove did Rove remember, the man known as the "architect" will most likely find himself facing a criminal indictment.
This debate is funny, on one side you have all the conservatives like "whatever dude" and then the anti conservatives like "feed him to the lions man"
Sorry, I just could not help but to notice that.
I think one of the reasons this case will take so long is because of the people involved. Far be it from me to say power can have an effect on your ability to break laws and get away with stuff, but for what I have witnessed and read about, bias can exist in our legal system in regards to people with power breaking laws, then who is on the ball to capture the people. Like Clintons adultery was the most awesome crime of the century to many conservatives that hated him, its just politics.
Another aspect of this organism may be you don’t really make charges like that against people in the positions they are unless you have something to run on, it could ruin many peoples lives if it was all bogus, plus something like this could really drag on in regards to obtaining the truth, so many variables to consider in regards to obtaining any truth on it all.
Personally, I hope rove gets busted, and anyone else involved. If they broke the law, it would just speed up to me the removal of an administration I certainly hate, for my own reasons, like no more religious reich, I mean right.
Sorry, I just could not help but to notice that.
I think one of the reasons this case will take so long is because of the people involved. Far be it from me to say power can have an effect on your ability to break laws and get away with stuff, but for what I have witnessed and read about, bias can exist in our legal system in regards to people with power breaking laws, then who is on the ball to capture the people. Like Clintons adultery was the most awesome crime of the century to many conservatives that hated him, its just politics.
Another aspect of this organism may be you don’t really make charges like that against people in the positions they are unless you have something to run on, it could ruin many peoples lives if it was all bogus, plus something like this could really drag on in regards to obtaining the truth, so many variables to consider in regards to obtaining any truth on it all.
Personally, I hope rove gets busted, and anyone else involved. If they broke the law, it would just speed up to me the removal of an administration I certainly hate, for my own reasons, like no more religious reich, I mean right.
QUOTE
(TedN5 Dec. 4, 2005)
I hope everyone is still keeping an eye on Fitzgerald's investigation. Here is an article that discusses Rove's continuing jeopardy, the role of Viveca Novak (the reporter working for Time Magazine who recently became another witness in the case), and speculation on other issues surrounding the investigation.
I hope everyone is still keeping an eye on Fitzgerald's investigation. Here is an article that discusses Rove's continuing jeopardy, the role of Viveca Novak (the reporter working for Time Magazine who recently became another witness in the case), and speculation on other issues surrounding the investigation.
The wheels of justice do grind exceedingly slowly but it looks like the "frog march" is about to begin.
QUOTE
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.
During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
(See Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators).
During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
CLOSED.
This topic a bit dated. Let's start something fresh if we're going to continue debating it. Thanks
This topic a bit dated. Let's start something fresh if we're going to continue debating it. Thanks
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.