Fitz!

But omigosh, what if these creeps are trying to get a mistrial declared?

If Fitz is as smart as everyone thinks he is, wouldn’t he have seen what the typical tactics might be that Team Libby would follow, including this leaking?

And wouldn’t he have prepared for it?

And answering my own question with another question, didn’t he do just that by charging Libby with what he did and specifying just how narrow the charges are?

A note on comments — we welcome people from all sides of the discourse here to express their opinions. The minute it turns into nothing more than taunting and ad-hominum attacks however, particularly directed toward other commenters here, we’re going to be very firm about showing people the door. It doesn’t further the conversation to have it sidetracked by people chucking large objects at each other and I would ask everyone to refrain from doing so.

Drivel drooler Cumstock a leaker?

thanks, Jane– happened to me the other nite and I thank you for it. This aspect of civil discourse makes FDL unique, imho.

Good luck with getting the Libby Defense Fund sources.

But it would be very interesting!

Fitz is more than as smart as everyone says he is. And he is on the mission of his lifetime.

Help out, it’s a bigger job than just the Justice Dept… They need to hear people screaming:

http://tinyurl.com/a6erq

LOUD

The correction letter was blogged BEFORE it was ECF’d. Are you sure?? Please be wrong, just this once.

Jane, the way ECF works is different than the way “service” of process used to work. You don’t “serve” your opponent and then “file” the document with the court with and affidavit of service.

With an ECF case you essentailly post your document online with the court and your opponents are served by the computer when they get an ECF “bounce”.

On the last thread, someone had a comment exchange with (I think) Clarice, where she said her only source was being signed up at the courthouse.

With ECF anyone with a PACER account can sign up to be included on the “bounce” list.

Now, in Fitz’s defense, he may have sent his opposition courtesy copy or a draft (I am assuming that correction was the result of a negotiation between them) and they could have leaked the preview, but if so, I’m guessing that’s the last time they will see such an accomodation from Fitz.

I just don’t want to see evidence that the letter was leaked before it was filed, it lets them spin. Freakin tit for tat. This is not game!

We know that the Libby Defense Fund includes at least:

Mel Sembler
Lawrence Bathgate II
Mercer Reynolds
Sam Fox
Wayne Berman
Jean Kirkpatrick
Spencer Abraham

According to Slate.

From today’s press baffling:
Q When did the administration become aware of the Pentagon report that talks about mobile trailers?

MR. McCLELLAN: The only update I have on that matter is what the Pentagon said yesterday. The Pentagon put out a statement and talked about how that was a preliminary report from a DIA — meaning Defense Intelligence Agency — sponsored technical exploitation team, and that information was sent to the DIA. And then they said that the CIA-DIA joint white paper that was released publicly on May 28th reflected the position of the intelligence community at the time, and that the findings that you’re bringing up were vetted with other intelligence analysts during the summer of 2003. So that’s a statement from the Pentagon, and that’s the only update I have at this point.

Q So if it had been vetted then would you have known about them by, say, September 2003?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you’ll remember, the view of the intelligence community was expressed in the white paper that was released on May 28th. It was a joint white paper by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. And that’s what the President’s comments were based on. I know that there were still — and that view prevailed for quite some time period. You can go back and look at that time period, because there’s a lot of discussion about it. And then you had the Director of the CIA talking as late as February, saying that there was not a consensus on this issue — February of the next year. And these findings were incorporated into the Iraq Survey Group, which completed a final report in September of 2004.

So that was a year later, more than a year later when the Iraq Survey Group completed that report. And if you go back to, I think, October of 2003, David Kay was still saying that it wasn’t exactly clear, or something along those lines, in terms of what these might be used for.

Q Well, the report had said it was absolutely clear what these could and couldn’t be used for, that they couldn’t be used for —

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I just pointed out that at the time there was a preliminary report coming in from the field, and that it was evaluated and assessed over a period of time.

Q When was — one second one. When was Congress briefed on the contents of this?

MR. McCLELLAN: You might want to talk to the Defense Intelligence Agency. It was in the Iraq Survey Group report, which was a public document incorporated into the bipartisan Robb-Silberman Commission report which looked at the intelligence relating to Iraq, and then made recommendations about how to improve our intelligence.

Q The Vice President, as late as January 2004, was still stating that they were weapons labs.

MR. McCLELLAN: There were a number of people who were still talking about that issue for quite some time.

Does this have anything to do with the NYTimes “Correction” — I’d be interested to know whose phone calls and email messages we were talking about here:
Although Mr. Fitzgerald formally filed his corrective yesterday, accounts of it were provided to some news organizations on Tuesday night, and were the basis for news articles yesterday. The Times did not publish one, as other organizations did, because a telephone message and an e-mail message about the court filing went unnoticed at the newspaper. An article on the filing appears today, on Page A17.
So who telephoned and emailed?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2....._0413.html

Link to Raw Story– Clusterfuck has hired and trained TERRORISTS to create chaos in Iran..

Now wait a minute–so now there are “good” moslem terrorist groups and “bad” moslem terrorist groups. Got it?

Why has the press continued with Fudgie McLellan? He is a proven liar. That ends the covenant in my books.

Boycott Snotty Scott

-GSD

RWCole,

That Whitehouse is leaking mighty bad these days. Old Larry Wilkerson is right..looks like drowning by a thousand leaks.

-GSD

rwcole– I linked that earlier– acc to Larry Wilkerson in his speech at MEI yesterday, the MEK is on par with Al Quaeda. This to me is one of the biggest stories to come out and I will link to more when appropriate.

Angie–Oops- I didn’t know that you were already on it. Sorry.

Thanks, MK. I’ll put that up.

but … but … but those Iranian freedom fighters are Marxist Muslims on Rumsfeld’s side ! They aren’t terrorists - they just believe in “the propaganda of the deed” such as assassinations and explosions ! Sorta like Tim McVeigh but using the Koran and Das Kapital… but they are are on the Preznit’s side!

Has any reporter asked President Bush if he will unequivocably assure the American people that he will not pardon Scooter Libby? I would like to see how Bush would respond to that question.

It makes sense that the leaker of the correction letter was Team Irving b/c the leak benefitted them and they couldn’t wait to jump on it in their footnote.

Yet, do we have, or does Pat have a paper trail from Team Irving to the pre leak?

can’t wait for those April 21 filings. I guess no Easter vacation for either side!

Jane, on the civility thing. Yes. I used to hang out on Yahoo boards. They have long since become a stinky sewer of nothing but crude excrement tossing. Then I moved to HuffPo (which is what hipped me to FDL, one of your posts there). It too has now been afflicted with the same sort of drivel. I have had the concern that that sort of crap would come to dominate FDL as well. Were it to, adios.

Alvord says:
April 13th, 2006 at 1:47 pm

Has any reporter asked President Bush if he will unequivocably assure the American people that he will not pardon Scooter Libby? I would like to see how Bush would respond to that question.

***

“…cannot comment on a serious ongoing legal proceeding.”

rwcole– oh my gosh– no oops needed. I am glad you are on it too! I just tried not to obsess about it on these other threads as I am wont to do ;) I have been privately obsessed and furious all day.

Jane I have to go pick up my son in a moment,

But do you really think the people who donate to a defense fund should be made public? I can think of plenty of reasons that individuals — or organizations — ought to be able to seek anonymous help with defraying the massive costs of litigation.

I do think the very public, on-line nature of his defense committee makes this slightly different, but I am a bit hesitant to call for disclosure. I have represented some very unpopular people and I am glad individuals could support their legal costs without fear of retribution by angry police, victims, politicos, etc.

I am sorry if this has already been posted here, but I find this quote on Raw Story by Colin Powell to be simply astounding. If this is truly what Powell believed, why the dog and pony show at the UN? Where are his principles? And why hasn’t he joined in with the 4 retired Generals who have come out in the last few days calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation?

“The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,” Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush’s State of the Union speech? “That was a big mistake,” he said. “It should never have been in the speech. I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it.”

timewarp:

http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....real-hero/

wrt the MEK story, there was an article in the Guardian Monday citing Vince Cannistraro on covert military Ops using Baluchi Sunni guerrillas.

timewarp - I think it’s 5 retired generals as of today.

immanentize — the relevance of a donor list (and $ amounts) has to do with the fact that it is an effort by the GOP to pay Scooter off for his silence. I think it’s an absolutely appropriate — nay, obligatory — question for the press to be asking.

timewarp -

Yep. Been a LOT of posting about that. Tens of thousands of people are now dead or maimed, billions have been squandered (along with our moral stature in the world), because Powell kept quiet. Shameful. Impossible to overstate the shamefulness of it.

Thanks Dr. Bong - I guess I somehow missed that one!

JWR - 5 generals is it now? Hopefully we will be seeming some newly retired generals speaking out in the near future, like Sy Hersh suggested was likely to occur if things go along as they have been at DOD.

immenatize (24) — in a case of a public official charged with committing a crime against the public, it would seem to me that donations to a defense fund are comparable to a campaign fund. If the person charged succeeds, they could keep their tenure and could be rehired into their role as a public servant, yes? As a member of the public who’s been wronged by the crimes charged in this case, I think I’m owed information about who is defending wrong-doing against me.

the sanctity of donor lists was tested by the NAACP in the South years ago. We are asking for Libby’s List to inform the public - not demanding it as a right by law. What are they trying to hide? Let them defend the secrecy… the whole case is about secrecy and lies : who is paying to defend such behavior by government officials?

Sid Blumenthal snip from Salon.com:

—

The slow-motion trap

His presidency was built on secrecy and, we now know, on lies. The more Bush struggles to free himself, the more his past deceptions bind him.

April 13, 2006 | President Bush has been in search of himself for two and a half years. His voyage of self-discovery began on Sept. 30, 2003. Asked what he knew about senior White House officials anonymously leaking the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, he expressed his earnest desire to help special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald ferret out the perpetrators. “I want to know the truth,” he said. “If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.”

Bush didn’t stop there. He issued an all-points bulletin requesting help for the prosecutor. “And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information — outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.” The day before, the president had sent out his press secretary, Scott McClellan, to announce that involvement in this incident would be a firing offense: “If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.”

Last week, however, in a filing in his perjury and obstruction of justice case against I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, Fitzgerald revealed that Libby had been authorized by the president and vice president to leak parts of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to reporters.

The White House’s initial response was for an anonymous “senior administration official” to leak to the New York Times that Bush had played “only a peripheral role in the release of the classified material and was uninformed about the specifics,” as the Times reported. The White House source, trying to remove the president from the glare, fingered Cheney as the instigator.

On Monday, Bush appeared at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, where a graduate student asked him about his role in the leak of classified information. The president, who had once perplexedly said, “I want to know the truth,” replied, “I wanted people to see the truth and thought it made sense for people to see the truth.” Was blind but now he sees? Grace (or Patrick Fitzgerald) had led him home.

Bush acted in the beginning as an innocent injured party. He pretended to be utterly baffled by events. His feigned unawareness was intended to deflect attention from himself. His call to find those responsible was to ensure that the facts would never be known. When he was exposed, he donned a new guise. Instead of the seeker of truth, he became the truth teller…

OT but I followed the NYT link and found this correction as well: “An article on Tuesday about an effort to defeat Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut referred incorrectly to his support by the state Democratic Party leadership. Although Nancy J. DiNardo, chairwoman of the Central Committee, supports him, the committee itself has not taken a formal position.” heh.

BobbyG - I saw the NY Times report that he had spoken to 3 reporters, but this is really something.

And yeah, he can’t even resort the lame defense that he was mislead or he didn’t know. His silence in the lead up seems to clearly fit the defintion a “high crime.” Don’t Cabinet Officers have to swear some sort of loyalty oath (I would love to find a copy of it)? Not to mention the officer’s code - to always be truthful and all that.

But then again, this is a guy who got his start covering up a war crime - Mai Lai.

[Bush] issued an all-points bulletin requesting help for the prosecutor. “And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it.”

Bush and OJ, teaming up on the nation’s fairways, to hunt for the real leaker and real killer.

I wonder if Bush wants to nuke Iran this year so he can be sure to be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize
for brining peace to the ME before 2008.

On the civility subthread: thanks, Jane. I read the virulent comment in the last thread. You and Christy must be hitting some deep nerves. I’m with BobbyG, in that I can’t stand reading the virtual road rage that passes for commentary in some places, regardless of whether it’s left or right. The folks who have been dumpster diving for the wingnut project have stronger stomachs than I do.

rwcole– now that I see Dru is here and can thank her for this article she sent me re Iran and the MEK and too much to mention, but all of it scary. Read it and weep– some excerpts:

The M.E.K., demonstrating its long-honed talent, was wresting opportunity from this latest misfortune. Having lost its Iraqi patron, narrowly escaped annihilation by U.S. forces, and come close to being delivered into the hands of its bitterest enemy, it was promoting its candidacy as an agent of regime change. In Camp Ashraf, M.E.K. fighters being interviewed by American intelligence officials struck consistent themes, according to a former U.S. military officer. First, they should be taken off the F.T.O. list. Their forces could then assist the Coalition Provisional Authority, patrolling the border between Iraq and Iran. And, more broadly, this former officer continued, “they saw themselves as the equivalent of the Iraqi National Congress, the Chalabi group that was used so heavily in prewar planning. They wanted to be like that, and part of the solution of a new Iran.” A person close to the M.E.K. said that it offered to provide intelligence, both on Iran and on Iranian activity in Iraq.

An Iranian-American political activist told me, however, that the N.C.R.I.’s intelligence had actually come from Israel. This person said that Israel had earlier offered it to a monarchist group, but that that group’s leaders had decided that “outing” the regime’s nuclear program would be viewed negatively by Iranians, so they declined the offer. Shahriar Ahy, Reza Pahlavi’s adviser, confirmed that account-up to a point. “That information came not from the M.E.K. but from a friendly government, and it had come to more than one opposition group, not only the mujahideen,” he said. When I asked him if the “friendly government” was Israel, he smiled. “The friendly government did not want to be the source of it, publicly. If the friendly government gives it to the U.S. publicly, then it would be received differently. Better to come from an opposition group.” Israel is said to have had a relationship with the M.E.K. at least since the late nineties, and to have supplied a satellite signal for N.C.R.I. broadcasts from Paris into Iran. When I asked an Israeli diplomat about Israel’s relationship with the M.E.K., he said, “The M.E.K. is useful,” but declined to elaborate.

http://www.iran-interlink.org/.....060306.htm

“The more Bush struggles to free himself, the more his past deceptions bind him.”
Sounds like Devil’s Snare which also thrives in dark damp places… more cleansing sunlight, please!

Shorter judge; Step off biaotches.

timewarp - Oops, maybe. Batiste came out yesterday, so it may still be only four. My Apologies.

Jane (28 - 2:06 pm)

While I have a moment (I’m almost through with tax returns and want to take a break from them), let me look at Scooter’s defense fund from another point of view. Even if the defense fund’s contributors were trying to buy Scooter’s silence, weren’t there other ways for Team Fitz to obtain the information it needed without Scooter?

Others have mentioned that the defense fund’s contributors have more in mind than defending Scooter, who could not on his own defray the legal expenses that would have to be incurred to discover information about inculpatory actions of others. If the defense fund is not solely for Scooter’s benefit, what conflicts of interest will arise?

OT - best overall bio on Abrahmoff. From HS bribes to congressional lobbying. Did you know about his South African connections and routing money to Jesse Helms? I didn’t either…

http://www.rollingstone.com/po.....layer=true

anytime,angela- see ya later!

Everyone sold themselves on the cheap. They apparently got Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), and many others in the House, to lie back and open their legs all the way for a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions. In the Third World, corrupt politicians at least get something for selling out the people — boats, mansions, villas in the south of France. If you offered the lowest, most drunken ex-mobster in the Russian Duma $5,000, $10,000, $15,000 in soft money for his vote, he would laugh in your face; he might even be insulted enough to shoot you. But Jack Abramoff apparently got any number of congressmen to play ball for the same kind of money.

Stephen Parrish — absolutely. They’re buying themselves a firewall. And reporters should be sticking their nose right in the middle of it.

dead last 46 — It still astounds me how cheaply most members of Congress can be bought — AIPAC can get every pro-Israel vote it ever dreamed of for less than $3000, for example — though their ability to raise substantial sums against congresscritters they don’t like is quite well known (ask Pete McCloskey, Earl Hilliard, Paul Findlay or Cynthia McKinney — who is already seeing major fundraising against her re-election).

Jane (47 at 2:44 pm) -

Do you suppose that the bus they’re trying to throw each other under is big enough to demolish the firewall? Will external events, over which they have no control, breach the firewall? Please stay tuned…

Stephen Parrish
I made the same conflict of interest observation on the last Libby thread.

You and Jane are right on the money. (Ooops, no pun intended).

Despite the fact that legal defense funds are not usually subject to public disclosure, I think pressure could be brought to bear by a functional press that Team Irving should voluntarily disclose.

Reporter - Jay Carney(?) - just mentioned Libby’s defense fund donors on Hardball - are they now wondering whether they’re getting their money’s worth? Because it has traditionally been “a republican party thing” and now Libby is looking like he’s just defending himself at the expense of the president and the vice president.

Interesting that he broached the subject.

Here is what State Dept has to say about MEK..

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/mek.html

I guess they must be a “good” terrorist org.

Larry– linky no worky :(

Re; larry 52

bad link sorry…. here it is

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/mek.htm

Everyone sold themselves on the cheap. They apparently got Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), and many others in the House, to lie back and open their legs all the way for a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions. In the Third World, corrupt politicians at least get something for selling out the people — boats, mansions, villas in the south of France. If you offered the lowest, most drunken ex-mobster in the Russian Duma $5,000, $10,000, $15,000 in soft money for his vote, he would laugh in your face; he might even be insulted enough to shoot you. But Jack Abramoff apparently got any number of congressmen to play ball for the same kind of money.

That is the thing that makes little sense to me. These guys sold out for cheap. There has to be something more like off-shore accounts or something.

Thank you Larry.

‘No nation can negotiate with terrorists. For there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.’

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
April 4, 2002

really?

everhopeful,
They are trying to innoculate the Team Irving lawyers of charges of conflict of interest.

[Hi, Ted, Glad to know you are lurking here! Nice to see ya’ big guy. How’s things?]

Gotta gove them credit. Folks start talking about confilct this AM and they have someone shilling for them on Tweety in the PM. They are fast.

[Ted, old man, these are not fraternity pranks. Stop fooling around with the showboating and start a serious search for the truth..Do right by your client, not by the folks paying your bill.]

Great pickup, Everhopeful.

Billmon mentions Jane’s smackdown on Newt, but he thinks the Newtser has not reformed, but is trying to get out in front of the Cheney Administration’s declare-victory-cut-and-run maneuver.

http://billmon.org/archives/002381.html

I think Newt has either heard or strongly suspects that the rumors are true: The Cheneyites have decided on a major troop withdrawal, and have managed to convince President Bruce Almighty that this can be done without endangering the march to final victory in Iraq.

(In a sense, they would be correct. Now that the war has spun into Lebanon-style sectarian free-for-all, nothing can endanger Bush’s strategy for victory. That kind of victory now exists only in his head, where it is completely invulnerable to any setbacks on the ground.)

OT re: Lieberman Lamont Another NYT correction today: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04.....ref=slogin

===Correction: April 13, 2006

An article on Tuesday about an effort to defeat Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut referred incorrectly to his support by the state Democratic Party leadership. Although Nancy J. DiNardo, chairwoman of the Central Committee, supports him, the committee itself has not taken a formal position.===

ck– well is the RBC cut and run victory stratergery directed right over the border to Iran?

everhopeful,

“Reporter - Jay Carney(?) - just mentioned Libby’s defense fund donors on Hardball - are they now wondering whether they’re getting their money’s worth? Because it has traditionally been “a republican party thing†and now Libby is looking like he’s just defending himself at the expense of the president and the vice president.”

Part 2 - And as such, those contributing to Libby’s defense or thinking about it might be reluctant to do so now ; )

Im startin’ to get that Bill Murray “Groundhog Day” feelin’…

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) — Iran has agreed to increase cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog but did not commit to halting its uranium enrichment program, an agency spokeswoman said Thursday.

The announcement came after International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei met Thursday in the Iranian capital with two of Iran’s top nuclear officials.

“I don’t think the issue of enrichment right now, emotional as it is, is urgent,” ElBaradei said. “So, we have ample time to negotiate a settlement by which, as I said, Iran’s need for nuclear power is assured and the concern of the international community is also put to rest.”

But U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking in Washington at a joint news conference with Canadian Foreign Minister Peter McKay, said Iran “continues to defy” international demands.

The United States is still committed to diplomacy, she said, but the Islamic republic must agree to stop uranium enrichment before the Security Council takes up the issue at month’s end.

Rice added that Iran has done nothing to indicate it will do so, and unless Tehran adheres to the demands of the international community, “There will have to be some consequences for that action and that defiance.” …

GeeW: “we gave ‘em a chance to disclose and disarm, but they refused…”

Everhopeful at 51,
Libby is supposed to be defending himself, by any legal and ethical means. If donors to the defense fund were actually PO ‘d that he is doing just that, the clear implication is that they expected Libby’s lawyers to breach their ethical duty to their client.

To say that they are PO’d is an attempt to spin the latest developments to make it seem that Team Irving is really fefending Libby and not just a stalking horse for the Bush/Cheney mafia family.

#58 ck: If political anarchy and civil violence provices an excuse to keep troops in gigantic garrison airbases scattered over Iraq was the real reason for the invasion in the first place, then they have achieved their victory. So why not keep most of of the troops as possible safe: home or stationed inside their forts?

I didn’t used to be so cynical, but I am now.

It seems to me something interesting has occured in recent Iraqi coverage, that indicates to me complete orchestration by administration of major national outlets. It was Bushco who first pressured for another PM. I have not heard this fact reported once in naitonal TV or radio news broadcasts. After factions in Iraq started pressuring for new PM, then national news broadcasts reported this, framed as “it is time that Iraqi factions learn to compromise in order to form new government. Par of this process is finding a PM acceptable to all.” It has been reported purely as internally generated Iraqi issue. That is not true at all. Role of BushCo has not been reported. I saw a report that BushCo’s desire for new PM is driven by Jafaarii considering asking US troops to leave on a very quick timetable after government formed -it has nothing to do with compromise getting Iraqi government at all. I am looking for this report -I should have saved it when I first saw it.

Juan Cole’s blog has more complete story, and some mention of complete story gets out in media interviews, and commentaries by some of the more honest media house experts. But headline news seems completely manipulated, whether willingly or not, I don’t know.

New post by RH

Stephen Parrish,

There are many ethical rules that apply to third-party payor/control of litigation. In short, it is prohibited by lawyers’ ethical codes. And that is just for the reason you suggest — in case the third party is trying to support litigation for reasons other than the benefit of the client like to prevent negative information about them coming to the surface.

To solve these problems, defense funds operate as truly blind (not Frist-style blind) trusts. Although as everyone here knows, I am in total agreement with your sentiments, motives, and purpose — all of your and Jane’s arguments are exactly the same made to disclose donors to unpopular litigation causes:

What are they hiding?
What are their ulterior motives?
Who is really behind this expensive lawsuit?

It just makes me feel hinky because it completely legitimizes the same arguments in very different contexts. But perhaps we can live with that political/situational distinction?

they went and cut and ran from Afghanistan declaring victory, yet the Taliban is resurging with the everloving support of the Pakistanis; then on to shocked and awed and failed miserably in Iraq and then they declare it a hopeless civil war and somebody else’s fault, then on to Iran and Syria……they must be stopped. arrrghhhhhhhhh!

How many dead?

Absolutely and completely OT. found this at Corrente. Take a break from serious stuff and check it out.
http://highclearing.com/index......04/07/4991

angie 60 –

Sort of — pulling out of Iraq restores the neocons ability to invade other countries, but Iran is not one of them — that glorious victory will be achieved from the air. Billmon also wrote:

“the neocons withdrawal isn’t a way to cut their (and our) losses, and it’s certainly not any kind of backhand admission that the Iraq invasion was a mistake. Rather, it’s a necessary step to restore strategic freedom of action for the next phase of Operation Gotterdammerung. As I wrote some months back, failure in Iraq is an option, because even if that battle has been lost, the war will still go on.

Unfortunately for us – and by that I mean the world – the war the neocons and their Manchurian president have in mind isn’t the struggle against Al Qaeda, or even against terrorism broadly defined. It’s the campaign to eliminate any government in the Middle East that might conceivably pose a threat (broadly defined) to the United States or to Israel. Whether the underlying motive is fear of a nuclear-armed Iran or just a determination to dominate the Middle East oil fields is irrelevant, at least in terms of current U.S. intentions.”

Cozumel at 61

Part 2 - And as such, those contributing to Libby’s defense or thinking about it might be reluctant to do so now ; )

Did they really say that? Or is that some Coz snark?

Reason I ask: If they actually suggested that (damn, still at office, no Tweety on here) it makes me wonder if this is not pushback for the “don’t make me go all abramoff and rat on all you guys” theme in the reply papers.

Is this a threat to all those very expensive law firms that if they are getting squeamish about the ethics of using their client as a stalking horse for Bushco, that the nice flow of legal fees they were counting on COULD stop quite suddenly.

Note about big firm economics. For a case like this, they would have estimated the billing and the lawyer time needed and adjusted both their staffing and the hunt for new business acoordingly. Firms have growth strategies. Ordinarily, they want the amount of work to be just slightly larger than capacity, but close to capacity. (I know this is not laways the case, I said ordinarily).

They would have slowed the hunt for new business in the relevant department to preserve sufficient capaicty to adequately staff this one.

Also, B/C the trial date was set so far out, they would have bugeted this money into 2007 or probably 2008. To have the defense fund dry up overnight puts a serious hole in the cash flow for the affected litigation departments.

In some firms, an individual partner’s compensation is directly realted to how much business HE/SHE does. If you have a big case just disappear overnight, your own personal bottom line can be very negatively impacted.

Worse, is having taken on the client, and swaggered and boasted, it would be a huge blow to prestige to suddenly down staff and start counting the pennies every time you want to make a motion.

Libby can’t afford the phalanx of expensive suits that trots around with hime every time there is a court appearance.

Good golly, this could change everything, but don’t think it is the last word. I think it’s just another shift in the sand and we will see yet another countermove and countercountermove and so and so on.

wespgc 64 –

It was Bushco who first pressured for another PM.

On NPR Fresh Air on 4/12/06, Sy Hersh said the reason BushCo wants to dump the leading candidate for Iraq PM is that he is committed to calling for a US withdrawl.

Bush is all for democracy, as long as he gets to be dictator.

well, ck, they are attempting that old empire theme. Failed before and will fail again… we are doomed as a country and world if we do not stop them.

Regarding additional names of financial contributors to the Libby Legal Defense Fund…

Behind the NYTimes’ “TimesSelect” wall, i found this Eric Lichtblau piece titled ” Top Names Aid Fund for Libby “:

The group includes some of the Republican Party’s best-known leaders, including two former presidential candidates, Jack F. Kemp and Steve Forbes. Others include former Senators Fred Thompson of Tennessee and Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, and Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the ambassador to the United Nations under President Ronald Reagan.

Bernard Lewis, the Princeton scholar who is a historian of the Middle East, and R. James Woolsey, who served as director of central intelligence under President Bill Clinton, have also joined the group.

[SNIP]

She (Barbara Comstock) said the supporters would serve on an advisory committee for a private group organized to aid in Mr. Libby’s defense, to be known as the Libby Legal Defense Trust.

The supporters are most likely to assist in both organizing the fund-raising drive and providing money themselves. Among others who have committed to the effort are Howard Leach and the lobbyist Wayne Berman, who were fund-raisers for President Bush’s political campaigns; Bill Paxon, the former Republican congressman from New York; former Ambassadors Mel Sembler and Dennis Roth; Richard Carlson, president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from 1992 to 1997; the magazine publisher Philip Merrill, who is also a former president and ex-chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

Gen. Riggs makes 5!

VALERIE PFLAME WAS WORKING ON THE IRANIAN WEAPONS AND PROLIFERATION. RECALL? GEE, SHES’ NOT ANY MORE… I SUPPOSE NONE OF HERE CONTACTS ARE EITHER. PROSSIBLY, THEY ARE DEAD AND PERHAPS A FEW HAVE GONE UNDERGROUND YOU THINK. HOW CONVENTIENT NOW TO NOT HAVE ANY INSIGHTS INTO THE IRANIAN’S NUCLEAR ADVANCES. HOW VERY HANDY TO HAVE IT SHUT OFF QUITE SOME TIME BACK… BEFORE THIS SABRE RATTLING COULD GROW TO SUCH HEIGHT OF FRIGHT…AND ANOTHER STRIKE IN THE MIDDLE EAST OIL FIELDS. GOD, THATS SO CO-INCIDENTAL. YOU THINK SO? SO MANY DISTRACTIONS — ROVE MUST BE CLOSE TO BEING TIRED. WONDER WHAT HIS CHART BOARD LOOKS LIKE ?

The MEK is really old news.

Francis Fukuyama said, on book tv (c-span) a few weeks ago, that he contributed to libby’s defense fund… being a close friend and all… he was compelled.

angie at 2:23 pm

What are the chances of MEK having a handful of agents infilitrating al-Queda say in the ’90s to preform some unknown actions for their handlers in the early years of the 21st century? Or am I better off not knowing?

Jane - I’m almost positive you’re right, and York posted his bit on NRO about the correction well before Gerstein at the Sun or the WaPo. York’s time was 7 p.m. on the dot, if I recall correctly. It’s possible that the correction letter was emailed out to all the press outlets at the same time, and York is just more vigilant about checking his email, or happened to be around when it arrived, and didn’t have to write a story about the whole thing, so he was able to get his post up sooner than others. But it’s also quite possible the Comstock pipeline was turned on to him sooner than others. If it was Team Libby that sent out word on Tuesday evening. Here’s something weird. The first report I saw today on Walton’s order and pique, which came from the AP, was unequivocal:

Walton appears upset over the release Tuesday night of a letter from Fitzgerald to the judge correcting one sentence in a prosecution filing from a week ago.

Libby’s defense team released the letter to reporters via e-mail Tuesday night. The letter didn’t show up on the court’s docket until Wednesday afternoon.

But the Post and the Times for tomorrow are much less clear on the source of the letter, and in fact if anything appear to suggest it came from Fitzgerald rather than Team Libby. It’s easy to imagine Fitzgerald might have wanted to get word out to the press outlets that had written unintentionally misleading stories asap, though I sort of doubt he would circumvent normal procedures that way. It’s also easy to imagine Team Libby wanted to get this out asap and first to the more friendly outlets. Especially since today’s York story seems so obviously written at Comstock’s bidding, to reassure Cheney that he is not in danger from Libby and is not deserving of suspicion.

I was surprised to see my innocent question to clarice described in the previous thread as a punking. It was just genuine curiosity.

Who decides who our heroes are and on what basis? Some of us couldn’t see Powell as a hero of any stripe but, because of his hero status, we did believe he would have made a huge impact if he had resigned instead of sending the country further down the road to the Iraq war with his UN drivel. His loyalty, like the retired generals who are now speaking out against Rumsfeld, was to himself and not to the country or troops he, and the generals, solemnly swore to defend. What utter nonsense for the active duty brass to say they have to respect their civilian leadership and not speak out against incompetent policies. Respect works both ways, generals. And then we have hero McCain, but that’s another sad story.