Comments on: Good Point, Harry http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/ Firedoglake weblog Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:49:02 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: GaryM http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-66285 GaryM Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:52:16 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-66285 <p>Well, sean, the intentional NIE leak was uncovered during investigation of the Plame affair simply because it involved the same Administration players acting to accomplish the same general goal as the Plame leak served. It only came to the public attention because Fitzgerald used this information to bolster his arguments to deny one of the motions made by Libby’s attorney. As far as I know, it isn’t under investigation as a criminal matter (no one lied under oath about it), although it reeks of poor ethical behavior. So much of what we may learn about the inner White House political machinery will actually be these incidental tidbits.</p> Well, sean, the intentional NIE leak was uncovered during investigation of the Plame affair simply because it involved the same Administration players acting to accomplish the same general goal as the Plame leak served. It only came to the public attention because Fitzgerald used this information to bolster his arguments to deny one of the motions made by Libby’s attorney. As far as I know, it isn’t under investigation as a criminal matter (no one lied under oath about it), although it reeks of poor ethical behavior. So much of what we may learn about the inner White House political machinery will actually be these incidental tidbits.

]]> By: sean http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-66166 sean Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:54:53 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-66166 <p>Here’s something I’m just not understanding about this whole thing. Libby was indicted for OoJ and lying with regards to the outing of Plame, no? Was that information in the NIE? Isn’t the NIE “declassification” at least two levels removed from Plame? I mean, from a legal standpoint how is it relevant, except to show a pattern. Not that I’m complaining, let’s nail everything we can to this administration, “here dubya, hold this anchor”. But seems to me the NIE leak should be a seperate, additional investigation.</p> Here’s something I’m just not understanding about this whole thing. Libby was indicted for OoJ and lying with regards to the outing of Plame, no? Was that information in the NIE? Isn’t the NIE “declassification” at least two levels removed from Plame? I mean, from a legal standpoint how is it relevant, except to show a pattern. Not that I’m complaining, let’s nail everything we can to this administration, “here dubya, hold this anchor”. But seems to me the NIE leak should be a seperate, additional investigation.

]]> By: slicey http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-66108 slicey Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:15:00 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-66108 <p>Christopher Hitchens is a NeoFacist Drunken piece of Conservative crap.<br /> He is totally worthless.</p> Christopher Hitchens is a NeoFacist Drunken piece of Conservative crap.
He is totally worthless.

]]> By: CEO http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65921 CEO Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:24:22 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65921 <p>Harry,<br /> Find some other words than “I was deeply disturbed”.<br /> How about “George you ignorant slut”.</p> Harry,
Find some other words than “I was deeply disturbed”.
How about “George you ignorant slut”.

]]> By: LMAO http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65716 LMAO Thu, 13 Apr 2006 04:50:45 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65716 <blockquote cite="Jane Hamsher"><p>But Reid raises an excellent point, and my enquiring mind for one would like to know the answer.</p> <p>So hey, George, whaddup? </p></blockquote> <p>So do we all start calling the White House? I mean I know Bush doesn’t care what the people think, but maybe a few thousand phone calls saying “I want to see the testimony too” will upset the cronies.</p>

But Reid raises an excellent point, and my enquiring mind for one would like to know the answer.

So hey, George, whaddup? 

So do we all start calling the White House? I mean I know Bush doesn’t care what the people think, but maybe a few thousand phone calls saying “I want to see the testimony too” will upset the cronies.

]]> By: owlbear1 http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65691 owlbear1 Thu, 13 Apr 2006 04:29:01 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65691 <p>I think what that MSNBC poll tells us more than anything else is Bushie sycophants aren’t paying attention to anything but Faux anymore.</p> I think what that MSNBC poll tells us more than anything else is Bushie sycophants aren’t paying attention to anything but Faux anymore.

]]> By: Dilbert http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65661 Dilbert Thu, 13 Apr 2006 04:01:30 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65661 <p>Seems to me that Fitz would have asked Bush to keep his “interview” details to himself. And that releasing the transcript might actually be a crime. </p> <p> First, because it could harm ongoing investigations against other people. Second because releasing details could be construed as obstruction. Third, considering the far from strict legalistic interpretation Libby and his cronies use, the release of the interview could provide pretext for Libby to sue the government if he is later found not guilty. </p> <p>I think the press corps should simply ask Chimpy or Scotty:</p> <p> “Did Mr. Fitzgerald place a gag order on the President?”</p> Seems to me that Fitz would have asked Bush to keep his “interview” details to himself. And that releasing the transcript might actually be a crime.

First, because it could harm ongoing investigations against other people. Second because releasing details could be construed as obstruction. Third, considering the far from strict legalistic interpretation Libby and his cronies use, the release of the interview could provide pretext for Libby to sue the government if he is later found not guilty.

I think the press corps should simply ask Chimpy or Scotty:

“Did Mr. Fitzgerald place a gag order on the President?”

]]> By: George A. http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65631 George A. Thu, 13 Apr 2006 03:38:28 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65631 <p>Kathi/Nanakat #43 says:<br /> I think we should start calling Snotty “Baghdad Snotty!!â€<br /> Remember Good ol’ “Baghdad Bob?â€</p> <p>I said that many times say Bagdad Scott and no one has made any comments to doing that. After all he is a joke as was Baghdad Bob.</p> Kathi/Nanakat #43 says:
I think we should start calling Snotty “Baghdad Snotty!!â€
Remember Good ol’ “Baghdad Bob?â€

I said that many times say Bagdad Scott and no one has made any comments to doing that. After all he is a joke as was Baghdad Bob.

]]> By: George A. http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65629 George A. Thu, 13 Apr 2006 03:37:18 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65629 <p>Kathi/Nanakat says:<br /> I think we should start calling Snotty “Baghdad Snotty!!â€</p> <p>Remember Good ol’ “Baghdad Bob?â€</p> <p>I said that many times say Bagdad Scott and no one has made any comments to doing that. After all he is a joke as was Baghdad Bob.</p> Kathi/Nanakat says:
I think we should start calling Snotty “Baghdad Snotty!!â€

Remember Good ol’ “Baghdad Bob?â€

I said that many times say Bagdad Scott and no one has made any comments to doing that. After all he is a joke as was Baghdad Bob.

]]> By: jim preston http://firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65527 jim preston Thu, 13 Apr 2006 02:25:16 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/12/good-point-harry/#comment-65527 <p>Thanks for putting Harry’s letter out there Jane. Harry is no slouch. He puts it out there in pretty plain language (just like Feingold does). “Tell the truth, and then we can talk about it.” Just the way you have to deal with rotten children like GWB, Dick C., and Rummy.</p> <p>While we’re on the topic of those three, I would like to point out a passage early in “Cobra II”. One of the first briefings about the Iraq invasion took place when Tommy Franks briefed Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld over a videoconference. Bush was in Crawford, Cheney was at his ranch in Wyoming, and Rumsfeld was at his spread in Santa Fe, NM. No kidding folks, those three were planning the fucking war from their VACATION HOMES! ON TAXPAYER-FUNDED SECURE VIDEOCONFERENCE SETUPS!! </p> <p>I am not making this up.<br /> peace,<br /> jim</p> Thanks for putting Harry’s letter out there Jane. Harry is no slouch. He puts it out there in pretty plain language (just like Feingold does). “Tell the truth, and then we can talk about it.” Just the way you have to deal with rotten children like GWB, Dick C., and Rummy.

While we’re on the topic of those three, I would like to point out a passage early in “Cobra II”. One of the first briefings about the Iraq invasion took place when Tommy Franks briefed Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld over a videoconference. Bush was in Crawford, Cheney was at his ranch in Wyoming, and Rumsfeld was at his spread in Santa Fe, NM. No kidding folks, those three were planning the fucking war from their VACATION HOMES! ON TAXPAYER-FUNDED SECURE VIDEOCONFERENCE SETUPS!!

I am not making this up.
peace,
jim

]]>