
In Hubris, David Corn and Michael Isikoff talk a bit about what sources told them about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in the CIA's counterproliferation division of the DO. From Hubris, page 285:
She [Valerie Plame Wilson] picked weapons and requested an assignment in the DO's new Counterproliferation Division, a unit Congress had pushed the CIA to create to address concerns about the spread of weapons of mass destruction….
After maternity leave, Valerie Wilson returned to the CIA's Counterproliferation Division in the spring of 2001. She was given a choice: she could work on North Korea or Iraq. She selected Iraq and became one of the two operations officers working for the CPD's rather modest Iraq branch. But within months, it would expand into the Joint Task Force on Iraq and assume one of the agency's most important missions: the search for intelligence on Iraq's WMD's. (She also assisted on operations related to Iran.) (emphasis mine)
Corn further elaborated in a story for The Nation thusly:
Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher. She was an operations officer working on a top priority of the Bush Administration. Armitage, Rove and Libby had revealed information about a CIA officer who had searched for proof of the President's case. In doing so, they harmed her career and put at risk operations she had worked on and foreign agents and sources she had handled….Come the spring of 2001, she was in the CPD's modest Iraq branch. But that summer–before 9/11–word came down from the brass: We're ramping up on Iraq. Her unit was expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of 9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placed in charge of its operations group.
There was great pressure on the JTFI to deliver. Its primary target was Iraqi scientists. JTFI officers, under Wilson's supervision, tracked down relatives, students and associates of Iraqi scientists–in America and abroad–looking for potential sources. They encouraged Iraqi émigrés to visit Iraq and put questions to relatives of interest to the CIA. The JTFI was also handling walk-ins around the world. Increasingly, Iraqi defectors were showing up at Western embassies claiming they had information on Saddam's WMDs. JTFI officers traveled throughout the world to debrief them. Often it would take a JTFI officer only a few minutes to conclude someone was pulling a con. Yet every lead had to be checked.
"We knew nothing about what was going on in Iraq," a CIA official recalled. "We were way behind the eight ball. We had to look under every rock." Wilson, too, occasionally flew overseas to monitor operations. She also went to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence officials who had intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes heading to Iraq that CIA analysts were claiming–wrongly–were for a nuclear weapons program. (The analysts rolled over the government's top nuclear experts, who had concluded the tubes were not destined for a nuclear program.)
The JTFI found nothing. The few scientists it managed to reach insisted Saddam had no WMD programs. Task force officers sent reports detailing the denials into the CIA bureaucracy. The defectors were duds–fabricators and embellishers. (JTFI officials came to suspect that some had been sent their way by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, an exile group that desired a US invasion of Iraq.) The results were frustrating for the officers. Were they not doing their job well enough–or did Saddam not have an arsenal of unconventional weapons? Valerie Wilson and other JTFI officers were almost too overwhelmed to consider the possibility that their small number of operations was, in a way, coming up with the correct answer: There was no intelligence to find on Saddam's WMDs because the weapons did not exist. Still, she and her colleagues kept looking. (She also assisted operations involving Iran and WMDs.) (emphasis mine)
With everything that we know about the Bush Administration's proclivity for overlooking the truth in favor of false inferences that could get them closer to their ultimate goal of invasion and occupation of Iraq (Condi's mushroom cloud, anyone? WHIG sales jobs to the media?), how is it that we are to now trust the intelligence that the Cheney cabal within the Bush Administration is pimping to the media about Iran?
Especially given that they had no compunction whatsoever about outing a CIA agent — and her entire network of CIA agents with whom she had worked abroad and at home in the US, and in the State Department through the years, as well as her role as a private citizen going about her "energy business" cover and every single foreign asset that she and her agents had so carefully recruited and tried to protect through the years — for political payback without so much as a second thought to the long term consequences to the security of this nation?
Were I a big name journalist with access to all the right people in Washington, here's the question I'd be asking myself and a number of them: just how, exactly, am I to trust your word on this, when you blithely put the lives of our national security agents and all of their hard-won allies who risked their own lives and the lives of their families to get information to the US about Iran's WMD programs, only to have that service thrown back in their faces at your convenience?
And another question: was this payback for Joe Wilson alone, a message to others who might speak out against the Bush Administration's false public claims, or was this something beyond that — a message to those within the CIA who would find information contrary to what those in the Vice President's office so desperately wanted to make their case publicly…on Iran?
Before we all tra la down the road to war again with the neocon-men, oughtn't we ask ourselves just how little we know about what is honestly going on within the Administration with regard to facts versus the fictions that they tell themselves in order to face the day? Because, honestly, there has been far too much fiction flung around the power circles (h/t SusanG) without requests for documentation and proof — and without any fear of accountability being demanded (until the elections in November 2006, one hopes, at least, since the rubber stamp Republican Congress is no longer a functioning parliamentary "yes man" to the Cheney cabal and the more-than-willing King George).
I was talking with TRex earlier, and he made an analogy that is particularly apt regarding the CIA leak investigation. Scientists can drill through the arctic ice and pull a core sample that shows the history for thousands and thousands of years in one, long block of frozen time. This leak investigation does the same for the Bush Administration: the focused wrath of Dick Cheney, the marching orders to his chief deputy and enforcer Scooter Libby for payback to Joe Wilson — something that Murray Waas captures so well in his most recent article.
For the Bush Administration, the message and the reality that they have created for themselves is everything — outside criticism is ignored or squashed as needed. Over and over again. Critics are silenced by any means necessary, and the consequences be damned. That Valerie Plame Wilson's network of agents and assets working on Iraqi and Iranian WMD matters was collateral damage? Well, that's the price to pay for political vengeance, now isn't it?
This is who is running our nation. This petty, vengeful, nasty cabal of neocon-men headed by Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, David Addington, Karl Rove, the rest of the WHIG, and George Bush. Take a good, long, hard look at them square in the face of who they truly are through the lens of this single case — and then sit back and wait for the testimony to put an even more dismal picture into play.
This is about to be one helluva trial. But before we even get to it, shouldn't we all start asking all of the questions that we failed to ask in the run-up to Iraq before we get started on a war without end with Iran? Here, I'll start: is this a good idea for the long-term interests of the United States? If not, then why are we even thinking about it?
Answer? Well, I'll fall back on what Scooter Libby said about Dick Cheney's thought process in the Plame outing:
"OK," the prosecutor said, before asking, "And can you tell us why it would be that the Vice President read the Novak column and had questions, some of which apparently seem to be answered by the Novak column, would go back and pull out an original July 6th op-ed piece and write on that?"
"I'm not sure…," Libby answered, "He often kept these columns for awhile and keeps columns and will think on them. And I think what may have happened here is what he may have — I don't know if he wrote, he wrote the points down. He might have pulled out the column to think about the problem and written on it, but I don't know."
Libby then added: "You'll have to ask him."
Isn't it about time that Dick Cheney was asked a whole lot of those questions, along with every other member of the White House Iraq Group and the neocon cabal? They are supposed to be working for us, not themselves and their cronies — and it is about damn time that someone reminded them of that fact.
Related posts:





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Christy! Mouse!
Isn’t it about time that Dick Cheney was asked a whole lot of those questions, along with every other member of the White House Iraq Group and the neocon cabal?
Time and then some!
Oh, I have so much Fitzmas spirit!
I feel Like it’s time to bake the Fitzmas cookies and stuff the Fitzmas goose.
Or at least hope that Scooter’s goose will be cooked.
Assuming there is no pardon and that Libby is convicted, what then would the sentence (and fine) range be?
lhp – left you a question down below.
How does one get EPU’d on a thread where EPU actually appeared?
Life is full of odd questions.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 4
Fitz, from his 10-28-05 presser:
“I believe the obstruction count has a maximum penalty of 10 years. The perjury counts and the false statements counts each have a maximum penalty of five years.
So there’s four five-year counts and one 10-year count.
Now, for a layman, I would step back under these guidelines called the sentencing guidelines that take certain offenses and they are now nonbinding on the federal judges. But they would take into account all sorts of factors about the offense, the circumstances, the person who committed it, if the person were convicted.
And I don’t want to jump past — there’s a trial there. But if they were convicted, the judge would look to the sentencing guidelines for guidance as to what actual sentence would be imposed.
So plenty of room, but there’s no mandatory minimum. It’s zero to 50 years, and that would be a judge’s decision.”
Don’t know if anything has changed since then…
OT Condoleezza Rice in Egypt today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w…..htm?csp=24
So Rice has had preliminary talks on preliminary talks concerning preliminaries to a process still in its preliminary stages that is supposed to lead to a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Call me cynical but all this leaves me terribly unimpressed.
Whenever an administration is feeling the heat (as this one surely is), there is a tendency to attempt to deflect attention away from its other problems by announcing a new Middle East (read Israeli-Palestinian) peace initiative. These invariably disappear into the ether, run out of time, or are derailed by subsequent events. Basically, it comes down to this. If you can attach “preliminary” to any part of the initiative, then you know that it’s all atmospherics. The reason for this is that the content of a final peace settlement has been known for years. The Oslo Accords, after all, were finalized in August 1993 and their content was not exactly revolutionary. Most of what they contained had been on the table for 5 to 10 years.
On the other hand, Condi is in Luxor. Maybe she can do some sightseeing and shoe shopping so it won’t be a total waste.
Hang em High?
Seems that the most recent Iraqi hangings went awry again- no news that the condemned were harrassed or anything- but one of em had his head pop off during the punishment…YEAH- IT JUST POPPED RIGHT OFF!
A few thousand more hangings and they’ll get this thing down!
I am a little disturbed there hasn’t been some kind of expose regarding brewster jennings and assocciates
there has been SO little research done in that area, I have to believe whenever inroads are made the cia requests that person to stop
that is my speculation, I believe the bj&a exposure was an enormous squander of assets
from wikipedia;
[edit] Company name
The front company likely took its name from the late Brewster Jennings, a president and founder of the Socony-Vacuum company, which would later become Mobil Oil, and then merged to become part of Exxon-Mobil.
[edit] Physical address
101 Arch St. is a multi-tenant, class A, high rise, 21-story, 389,000 square foot (36,000 m) office building located in the Boston financial district that houses a number of law firms, though there was no visual indication of Brewster Jennings being centered there. “All it was was a telephone and a post office box” a former intelligence official was quoted as saying [3], although the company was listed in an online database of law firms
While only tangential to your argument, there’s a lot in a very few words related to Valerie Plame’s change of assignment as it fits into a general timeline of administration actions.
Spring, 2001. Well before 9/11, the administration, through a National Security Council which is dominated and browbeaten by Cheney’s people, decides to focus on Iraq. Valerie Plame ends up front and center in that quest to validate a view contrary to the facts.
The prevalent information found is that there is no evidence. August 6th rolls around, and Bush sneers at a CIA briefer warning of al-Qaeda, “okay, you’ve covered your ass now.”
Could it be that the briefer was bringing the wrong information compared to what was desired?
Was Bush, through that remark, expressing displeasure with the lack of results on another front?
Were these people so single-minded that they excluded everything that didn’t fit their plans? Would that be criminal negligence?
rwcole @ 8
…and they videotaped it
i guess you hit the ground runnin’.
welcome back, general, ma’am!
Clusterfuck is goin ta send some hangin experts from Halliburton over ta school the Iraqis on executions. Ya can’t be a proper democracy until ya can hang people properly!
A couple of billion will pay for the lessons.
ok – I’ll bring it up here – I’m sure that Christy can address it as well as could lhp:
jayt says:
January 15th, 2007 at 11:10 am
looseheadprop says:
January 15th, 2007 at 10:29 am *
Normally, cross examination is limited to the subjects covered on direct. Two major exceptions: 1) when the witness is on both witness lists, then it’s kinda a free for all;2) when the witness says something on direct that “opens the door” to a new subject matter.
I’ve never done a crim trial in fed court. I’m a state guy. But my witness list always includes “and any witness that the State calls”. Therefore, at least here in Marion County, Indiana, cross is so incredibly wide open that you would think that judges never before heard the objection that “Your Honor, that’s beyond the scope of Direct” (although I’ve certainly made it)(and I’ve gotten away with an amazing variety of “cross”-exam’s)
I see Cheney’s testimony as being small and tight – and essentially nothing more than a lay witness memory argument.
Am I wrong?
Is it going to be done live, or is it on Memorex?
Do Fed crim trial lawyers put that little catcha-all “and any witness the other side may call” on their witnesss list so as to be able to cross as to anything their little hearts so desire?
How tightly do Fed judges pay attention to this, as opposed to what they do here, which is essentially a time-saving measure so as
a) just get it out of the way, so that
b) the witness will not have to be brought back into court again, at some later date?
So I guess my question is – how wide open is cross in a Fed crim case?
Sparkles the Iguana @ 6
Thanks!
Was Rice ever relevant?
OT – Christy! It’s so good to see your name again! Waiting w/ bated breath for your postings from the courthouse.
I’ll be at work, as today, so just have to “drive-by” for quick checks, and leisurely reading in the evening. Have fun!
Saddam was their thug; Bush is our thug.
Condi Nasty travels the world. How soothing.
rwcole @ 8
Awesome….I’m amazed the third guy’s genitals weren’t accidentally lopped off during his hanging.
And one of the articles had an Iraqi official claiming that international human rights organizations had approved that particular gallows, or something. Really?? Do human rights organizations go around certifying the humaneness of gallows, electric chairs, syringes, firing squad ranges, etc.??
Hugh @ 7
Can we just start calling her Secretary of Vacation?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 16
Condi’s Diary
Sparkles- Yeah ya have to post the OSHA certification for the gallows in a conspicous place– so that those getting punished know that it’s safe.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 16
she was probably an adequate university provost – should have stayed in an ivory tower on the Farm (Hoover Institute at Stanford).
The Iraq Gamble
At the pundits’ table, the losing bet still takes the pot
http://www.radaronline.com/fea…..iraq_1.php
Pun
Any evidence that she was “adequate”?
Of course administrators in Universities have a great reputation for Clusterfucking- so it’s natural that she got her start there.
Glorfindel @ 19
And Hillary is on a fact-finding mission. Double soothe.
What exactly does a ‘provost’ do?
montag @ 10
you know, I’ve speculated uncovering valery was not to get back at joe, it was to punish valery herself, joe was just a bonus to them
Oklahoma kiddo @ 16
No, but as a convenient face to cover incompetence whether as National Security Adviser or as Secretary of State, her participation in and facilitation of disaster certainly is.
rwcole @ 8
I’m obviously no expert, but the laws of physics still obtain. I recall a discussion of the practice that went into the need to account for the variables,i.e., drop distance, weight of the “subject”, placement of the knot, and others. The ideal is to snap the neck at the end of the drop. Too short a distance and the result is strangulation. Too long a rope and the head comes off.
Nothing like a new war to change the subject. Aside from overshadowing the failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the new war coverage will quite probably overshadow the pardon granted to Mr. Libby. POOF…ask me no questions, I’ll tell you no lies. And so it goes, one problem disappears in the turmoil created by ever bolder exploits. Wasn’t it in Dr. Strange Love that Slim Pickens rode the bomb? Superimpose the face of Cheney…….he’ll ride that sucker to oblivion. No more problems.
I eagerly await the time when Cheney must answer some questions. I just hope that the prosecution team has the proof that his answers are lies.
-P
Oklahoma kiddo @ 28
The opposite of the antivost.
twolf1 @ 22
Nora Ephron. ;)
Here’s a verse for Patrick Fitzgerald:
The Rune of St Patrick
At Tara to-day in this fateful hour
I place all Heaven with its power,
And the sun with its brightness,
And the snow with its whiteness,
And the fire with all the strength it hath,
And the lightning with its rapid wrath,
And the winds with their swiftness along their path,
And the sea with its deepness,
And the rocks with their steepness,
And the earth with its starkness
All these I place,
By God’s almighty help and grace,
Between myself and the forces of darkness.
Hugh @ 34
Well… that certainly clears that matter up. ;)
jayt @ 5
I’m no expert here, although I have been EPU’d many times, but it would seem to me that should EPU himself show up, all of the previously EPU’d comments are “pardoned”, as it were. And thusly, become un-EPU’d.
Of course, the last omniscent word will be EPU’s.
rwcole @ 26
nothing specific – she didn’t get run out of there for trashing the place (unlike the fate she deserves for her role as W enabler).
here’s a Google-found puff piece fron back then.
provost = university preznit?
provost is the title of a senior academic administrator at many institutions of higher education in the United States and Canada, the equivalent of Vice-Chancellor at certain universities of the British Isles such as UCL, and the head of certain colleges (e.g. in Oxbridge: Worcester College, Oxford, in Ireland: Trinity College Dublin). Even within these different types of appointments, the precise role of a provost varies from institution to institution.
Hugh @ 34
lobbyist for Vladivostok
1,406 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Hardin Smith and the Firepup Patriots:
“Isn’t it about time that Dick Chaney was asked a whole lot of those questions…”
Do we know when the testimony is gunna be taken, that is, will it take place in the sequence of the trial that it would have if it were done live? Is Chaney scheduled as a defense witness, what if they decide not to call ‘im?
Is Judy Miller scheduled as a prosecution witness? I reiterate my concern about how easy it might be for the defense attorney to impeach her testimony by simply proving she lied on another occasion in deposition or before the Grand Jury on some other topic not brought forth on direct examination. Doesn’t Fitz risk a lot by usin’ Miller at all, if she can easily be shown to be unreliable in other matters?
I’m with you Madam Counselor…I want all of the bastards to be held accountable at the bar of justice, especially Cheney, but even more importantly, I want ALL the horrible details of the lies and conspiracies to come to light and if that means that some of the perps don’t get undressed in public…well so be it.
KEEP THE FAITH, REMEMBER IF THE COURT DON’T GET ‘EM THE DEVIL IS WAITIN’ TOO!!!
provost-alone cheese
the hostess with the vostest
P.S.
That’s “CHENEY”…I picked it up later in the post…
Perris @29
“you know, I’ve speculated uncovering valery was not to get back at joe, it was to punish valery herself, joe was just a bonus to them.”
I have also thought that while Joe was a natural (and most qualified) choice to send to Niger, perhaps why Valerie suggested Joe was that she had been dealing with the Administration’s manipulation of intelligence for sometime at that point, as well as pressure from the Cheneyites to produce the intel that justified their desired ends.
Thus, the suggestion of Joe for the trip was what got her in Cheney’s crosshairs (figuratively here), perhaps Cheney had a stoodge in the mold of Michael Brown to go to Niger. And I agree, Joe was just a bonus.
I’m worried that people are expecting too much from the Libby trial. Fitzgerald’s a skilled prosecutor, and his job is to get a conviction. Why wouldn’t he try to make the trial as narrow as possible, excluding a lot of the issues we’d all like to know about from the trial? It would seem that the quickest path to conviction would be to prevent anyone from introducing any issue in the trial other than “Libby swore to X, X is false, Libby knew it was false.”
I’m afraid that if we want to get to the bottom of the Plame matter, this trial isn’t going to do it; we can hope for a Libby conviction and that’s about it.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 6
Nothing has changed since then. After the verdict, maybe the ladies willlet me do a post about the guidleines calculation for the counts which recieved conviction.
That would be a fun post to do and most lay people would have as hard a time with a guideleines calcualtion as hey do with the IRS Code
jeffreyw @ 31
Two botched executions, Saddam and now these guys Barzan Ibrahim (Saddam’s half-brother) and Awad Hamed al-Bandar. That the government of Iraq can’t organize something as simple as this without screwing it up tells you everything you need to know about the likelihood of it being able to fulfill its part in the new Bush
fantasyplan or becoming a functioning government anytime soon.NorskeFlamethrower @ 42
Yes, Judy (we assume, based on media reports) will testify for the prosecution.
MSNBC – First surge troops arrive(d) in Iraq today
Condi Nasty: pro vost right wing conspiracy
Sparkles the Iguana @ 50
Suite: Judy Blew Lies
jayt @ 14
Unfortunatley, this is the weenie answer. 1) it depends on the personality of the judge, 2) in a bench trial almost anything goes as long as you don’t waste a lot of time, 3) defense always gets more latitude in this kind of stuff it seems to me (EPU may disagree)4) it depends a lot on how hard the other side fights it
President Bush is a monster.
The Iraqi hangmen screwed up the conversion from english to metric- too many variables!!
Provosistan: Where flower petals fly and sugarplum fairies pump oil.
Joe Buck @ 47
I think you’re right. He does want to make it as narrow as possible. I keep thinking of what Fitz said to Viveca Novak’s lawyer before he took her testimony: he wasn’t on a fishing expedition; he wanted to “remove the chicken bone without disturbing the body.”
Of course we all have fantasies about Fitz ravaging and pillaging the chicken body, but we must understand this will not happen.
provosticate: to spin hot air while eyeing expensive shoes
LEAK, LEAK, LEAH, ARRGHH!
Friends,
Allow me please to vent on a personal pet-peeve. I cringe at every mention on the evening news of the “CIA Leak Case”
“Today, informed sources familiar with the leak investigation/trial/matter told your correspondent that etc. . . .”
This trial is NOT ABOUT A LEAK.
A mere “leak” is not illegal. “Leaks” are usually not immoral, and frequently they are not even unethical. Often so-called “leaks” contain information about something “bad” that someone “really bad” does not want otherwise good people to know. Typically it is information we need to and have a right to know. Think FISA felonies committed by high-ranking administration officials. When someone cries leak, be careful they’re not protecting themself from a much needed whistle blowing.
This is a trial built on the well acknowledged acts of espionage that outed Valerie Wilson. Labeling the “espionage” a “leak” — even though that flawed terminology is sadly burned into the national dialogue — diminishes what the White House conspirators did and what they continue to get away with.
We need to keep reminding everyone that the crime of espionage was committed against the United States of America. The FBI does not investigate “leaking.” It will, however, investigate the illegal dissemination of national security information, which is (and was in this case) a form of espionage.**
When Scooter Libby and his other conspirators gave away (regardless of the reasons) classified information about Valerie Wilson, they committed the crime of espionage.** The objstruction of justice grew out of an objstruction into the investigation of “ESPIONAGE” not out of an investigation of “LEAKING.” Calling it a leak investigation as the media has all along defines down the severity of the evil.
Unfortunately, the perpetrators of the crime of espionage have not, and likely will not, be charged. That is the reality we face. The obstruction of justice indictment, however, makes clear which “crimes” were included in the special prosecutor’s investigation. It also makes clear (as does the fact that we read about Valerie Wilson’s non-official cover in every paper in the country by reporters who acknowledged receiving the information from administration officials) that the crime of espionage was committed.
The criminal investigation strongly suggests as does the language of the indictment that the United States of America came very close to indicting Scooter for a violation of Intelligence Identities Protection Act as well. The intentional passing of classified information by political appointees to destroy valuable national security resources was not merely a quotidian act of pedestrian “leakage” — it was espionage.
The crime of espionage was committed and investigated. The espionage investigation was frustrated and now there will be a trial because the government is alleging that Scooter Libby obstructed justice and perjured himself. The result of the obstruction of justice is that the goals of the initial criminal investigation were frustrated beyond repair, i.e. determining who committed what crime(s). There is no serious debate that the crime of espionage was committed. The issue is that the serious investigation into who did it and whether there was a case against specific individuals was prevented, according to Libby’s indictment, by perjury and obstruction of justice.
If anyone is still reading, here is where I need help. Can I humbly suggest a better way to couch the genesis of these events and also ask for, perhaps, better snappier descriptions as well?
For instance: refer to it as the “perjury trial into Scooter Libby’s knowledge of the White House espionage conspiracy”
– too long
Libby’s criminal trial into “whether he obstructed the White House espionage investigation”
– still too long.
The federal perjury trial into “obstructing the FBI espionage investigation.”
Any thoughts? I’d like to re-burn terminology into the public’s (or at least the media’s) mind that reminds folks that 1. White officials conspired to and in fact did commit, at a minimum, espionage;
2. White House officials illegally prevented the criminal investigation from proceeding; and
3. Scooter is on trial relative to the obstruction of the White House espionage conspiracy.
thoughts,
cl
** among acts comprising violations of the federal “Espionage” statute, include: “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession [of] information, relating to the national defense, willfully communicates . . . or causes [the information] to be communicated to any person not entitled to receive it” shall be guilty of espionage and subject to 10 years imprisonment.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/…..mp;sec=793
The indictment lays a fairly objective case of “espionage,” which has a lower culpabilility threshold then the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
No argument from me as to your point. I notice that various state governments here in the good ol’ USA are having some problems re executions, as well.
So are we surgin’ yet? This is gonna be FUN!!! Get out the hand grenades and the automatic rifles- we’re gonna kick some Iraqi ass- YAAA–HOOOOOO! If ya get any blood on yer rifle- clean it off quickly- it ruins the finish!
Bush would say: I am not the Provokerer.
Fellow travelers,
Apologies for the long post, above, and for my first post ever with a footnote.
slainte,
cl
jeffreyw @ 61
Like the Decider always says: It’s Hard work!
punaise @ 24
She wasn’t adequate even at that. A friend of a friend was on staff there when she was there, and apparently she (unsuccessfully) tried to eliminate some interdisciplinary programs because she liked having an org chart where everything was under one “boss.”
In an administration that appointed people based on qualifications rather than connections and brown-nosing, this might have predicted how she’d be an absolute failure running the NSC, whose entire purpose is to coordinate multiple agencies, while being the boss of none of them.
*sigh*
1,404 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen shooogarp:
“…the suggestion of Joe for the trip is what got her in Cheney’s cross hairs…”
No, I think that once Wilson was known to be goin’ public with the info, it became very important to silence Brewster Jennings so they didn’t lose the “Iran has nukes” line. In addition, exposin’ Valery put a burning cross message on the lawn of all CIA analysts who might be thinkin’ of droppin’ the dime on Cheney’s goblins.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THESE ARE TRAITORS WE’RE TALKIN’ ABOUT
Joe Buck @ 47
We can always hope but I tend to agree with you. Fitzgerald strikes me as someone who goes after what he can get and stays narrow and focused. I’m interested in where his investigation goes after this trial. Is it the first with others to follow or is it a one off?
When the surgin gets hot and heavy- we’re gonna have dead Iraqis fillin the fuckin streets- this is the sort of thing that we need embedded reporters for- so that americans can SEE what they Kill!
SURGIN!!!
Caoimhin Laochdha @ 60
Oh, well done, very well done. I totally agree. The live blogging puts FDL at th eepicenter of framing this case. By choice of terminology, FDLs in courthouse blogging will determine HOW America and the world talk about this case.
CL is right, thought must be given to HOW it is described. This is a great start
ENCORE!
I lost interest in the Libby case when Fitzy discovered that Rove was innocent (or at least not prosecutable)- despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Caoimhin Laochdha @ 64
Great post
NorskeFlamethrower @ 67
Excellent analogy, Norske. And I think the US Attorney ‘resignations’ are the same.
NorskeFlamethrower @ 67
Good points. However, I would like to know how many times Valerie’s group butted heads with the WHIG, before Joe went to Niger.
i.e. Was there some prior anamosity towards Valerie before the Niger trip?
Oh yeah. KEEP THE FAITH.
rwcole @ 72
ONLY Rove’s lawyer has said that.
rwcole @ 56
Sadly, this would not even surprise me.
Hugh @ 68
LHP asnwered this one a couple of days ago, she said that if Fitz finds further criminal activity he can pass it on or pursue it himself, if he wishes. Of course, if he is asked to resign, then this case is all we get.
Hugh @ 68
Yeah, I think the hope for this trial is that it opens up a can of worms, not that it finishes off everything.
Whoever hangs Cheney will have to be VERY careful with the calculations- no way his pencil neck can support his fat ass for very long!
LHP
Ya think Fitzy’s still got Rove in the cross hairs?
The Bush so called “Road Map”, is a fraud. Reminds me of the ‘Win-Win’ (Ford) and “The Thousand Points of Light” (Bush 41) sh’t.
Rice said that the U.S. intends to deepen its involvement in the peace process, aiming to restart it on the basis of the road map
Following their meeting in Ramallah on Sunday, Abbas announced that he would not agree to a Palestinian state within temporary borders, as is proposed in the second stage of the road map. “We do not consider this possibility a realistic one that we can build on,” the Palestinian leader said.
Other Palestinian officials also voiced their opposition to such an arrangement, saying that it would stymie progress toward a final settlement.
Redshift @ 79
absolutely. I also agree with Caoimhin that this is about espionage. Treason, too.
I was wrong to accuse Cheney of having a pencil neck- it’s actually a lard neck.
rwcole @ 81
I personally believe rove rolled over and is cooperating
empty wheel came up with some great reasons why that is not the case but I think that’s the only way he avoided indictment
jeffreyw @ 61
That is a very good point. The difference is that the executions in Iraq are political events with international repercussions managed by a government struggling to establish its credibility as a government. However poorly our own government, state or federal, operates, it has at least passed this bar. We recognize that we have bad government now with Bush but we still have some belief in our government or we wouldn’t be discussing this here and now at fdl.
A joint execution of Cheney and Hastert would rock the world- literally!
rwcole @ 80
OMG, I was just thinking the same thing!
And if Tim Russert is sent to the gallows, what will happen to his enormous pumpkin head??
A tight focus and a clean unambiguous conviction of Scooter doesn’t mean that there won’t be tracks leading to other interesting people.
And I think that honest folk everywhere are pushing back. Lots of people like us who are doing what they can, and some of them are in the govt. Didn’t Christy say that there’s a feeling that the Pentagon is — and word is that the Pentagon is
(from Christy’s comment to cbl on the MLK thread)
FYI: Just got off the phone with a reporter from the BBC’s World Today. I’ll be interviewed live around 6:20 pm ET this evening regarding the Libby case.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 90
hooray– Christy gets to share her wisdom with a lot more of the world!
Does Libby still have his sympathy crutches?
Is it possible that Rove already pled (pleaded?) guilty to a lesser charge in return for cooperation in Fitz’s investigation? (I know, it’s wishful thinking.)
Irv Libby is an attorney. Attorneys are in the habit of reading and absorbing every word that passes their eyes. Unless he can prove dementia, he’d better cough up. Perjury’s an affront to the legal system and is punished accordingly. The rest could get the “from” instead of the “to” of the sentences he earns.
looseheadprop @ 76
I don’t think Fitz’s letter to Luskin was ever released, but according to Luskin it said Fitz “does not anticipate seeking charges” against Rove. Leaves a teeny, tiny bit of wiggle room.
looseheadprop says
January 15th, 2007 at 11:59 am*
jayt @ 14
4) it depends a lot on how hard the other side fights it
Thank you. That answers my question, I believe (at least for the purposes of Scoot’s trial)(I believe I have stated here before that I don’t believe that PJF wants, in this trial, to have Cheney being seen as *his* witness).
I really only bring it up as a matter of wondering how PJF gets into evidence the Wilson op-ed w/ Cheney’s handwritten notes on it – and just who, exactly, is going to verify that those notes are, indeed, the handwriting of Richard Bruce Cheney.
Contrary to what I said to EW the other day – Scoots MUST testify – and I believe that, once on the stand, Scoots can be forced into verifying the annotated op-ed, because of the extent to which he is familiar with Cheney’s handwriting, etc.
That one’s gonna leave a mark.
ooohhh – almost forgot – still interested in the “is it gonna be live or Memorex” question.
Any clues?
rwcole @ 81
I have no clue
Hugh = Preacher
Me = Choir
Clusterfuck claimed on 60 minutes that he has a “tough hide” so hangin him ain’t gonna be a picnic either!
looseheadprop @
73
As was Christy’s essay. She carried a couple of snips from Murray Waas’s National Journal article. I read his entire article and the other links in Redd’s post, and they’re all well worth reading.
This is cool – Reddhedd, looseheadprop, Caoimhin Laochdha, Murray Waas!
I hope Dick Cheney doesn’t read this post. I’m hoping he’ll save his coronary for the trial itself, but if he reads this thread, his ticker’s gonna be toast….
rwcole @ 87
I think you’d need a special bariatric gallows for Hastert.
rwcole @ 99
he said clear as day he is going to disregard congress, he has set the stage and demanded congress impeach
I await the time palosi exercises her oath of office
sonate @ 93
Unlikely. If you enter into a cooperation areement, you usually keep the defendant “on the hook” until you are finished using his cooperation. Then and only then do you allow him to plead to the lesser charges. If his cooperation is not up to snuff, he loses his deal.
The indictment hangs like the Sword of Damocles over his head until you are finshed using him.
LHD, thanks and I’ll add, for the trusty courthouse bloggers whom we rely upon to commit serious acts of journalism in an environment full of journalists committing serious acts of obfuscation:
Libby’s on trial for:
obstructing the White House espionage investigation — or
lying about his knowledge of the White House espionage conspiracy — or
lying about which White House staff compromised national security secrets — or
lying about which members of the Bush White House committed national security felonies.
I’ll keep working on the replacement phrase, but the folks here at FDL are the pros. I just go batshit at the thought of this trial being labeled as innocuously as a “leak trial.”
Consider. O.J. didn’t have a familial dysfunction trial, he had a murder trial.
Before Watergate became a noun/verb/adjective and a partial suffix, congress did not investigate: “partisan allegations of an unauthorized condominium entry,”
rather, congress investigated AND THE COUNTRY WAS REMINDED EVERY DAY that it was investigating “Nixon’s Involvement in the Watergate Break-In.”
They did not sugar coat it during the Watergate era even though it was basically an unauthorized condo entry. Nobody denied that the Watergate break in occurred. The issue was who knew about the crime, who conspired to commit it, and why did they do it.
Similarly, we all know from the front page and uncontroverted admissions by several nationally known (reviled) journalists and commentators that, at a minimum an act of espionage, i.e. the “leak,” occurred. So let’s talk about what was obstructed and the topic of Scooter’s lies.
This criminal trial needs to be about Libby’s obstruction of the investigation into the White House’s espionage conspiracy.
The media’s keeps reverting to the “no crime was charged, it’s only a leak” as in, “oops, something slipped.” That is what I want to combat.
slainte,
cl
There is so much criminality permeating the Bush Administration. It is almost beyond belief.
sonate @ 93
Well, there is that mysterious USA vs. Doe, 2006-cr-00227, that Reggie Walton is also the judge on. They had a status conference on 12/15/06.
rwcole @ 87
In that – the ultimate question of w/n I believe in the death penalty, I still say no.
Even if you were to exchange Bush for Hastert – nope.
angie @ 91
not only that, she gets to share her wisdom with a part of the world which can recognize wisdom when it sees it, rather than kill the wise messenger. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be interviewing her.
sorta Catch 22esque, this trial and the coverage, eh?
Sparkles the Iguana @ 95
I’m working from memory here, but I beleive Luskin said “does nto anticipate seeking charges at this time”
Although Luskin has always tried to spin it that Rove was in the clear, whenI first read it, I thought it merely meant that Rove was not going to be indicted at the close of the first GJ along with Libby.
angie @ 91
ReddHedd,
BBC Newshour or World Today/update?
cl
Ed*ard Teller @ 107
true, that… *sigh*
;)
Jayt
I don’t approve of it either- but it’s the law of the land- so what ya gonna do? Hang em high I guess!
rwcole @ 99
Maybe we can get access to that special Iraqi sharp rope that helps the head to just “pop” off!
cl – espianoge? treason?
yup.
jayt @ 106
folks, pun-ninny request: can we steer clear of this direction please? gets into Secret Service territory.
jayt @ 96
Somebody put on the thread, and it sounds likely to me, that Cheney will testify live via video feed from a remote location. This will save the courthouse from a security nightmare.
I would not be surprised if the Op Ed with Cheney’s handwriting was stipulated to by the defense.
Clusterfuck is pissed at the botched hangins- “Gives capital punishment a bad name”
Ed*ard Teller @ 100
The undead don’t have beating hearts
check out this batch of headlines at Raw Story:
okay Pun, you’re right. I’ll stifle my darker humor (shuffles feet on ground)
***********************************************
Official notification of sock puppet namechange
***********************************************
This is to notify the bloggers of FDL that I am changing my screen name from billyboy to
NapaValleyguy.
***********************************************
As a lifelong Napa valley guy I thought the name appropriate..Hopefully this doesn’t get me banned…
A little background.. Lifelong democrat and a strong liberal. College? Well it only took 7 years to obtain a B.S. which goes to show you that free wine and college doesn’t mix that well. I have strong, honest opinions I will express here with your permissions……
***********************************************
Everyone is excited about this trial with scooter tuesday, as am I. But somehow I think Bush will pardon libby like Ford pardoned Nixon.( It’s like finding Kraft cheese in the can in your best friends cabnet..you know an intervention will happen, but when?)
I think a pardon is coming..gag..
Answer me one thing my friends..
Why is it that justice denied the american people by the Ford pardon HEALED america?
Sorry Jerry, try that line down at the courthouse daily with victims of crime and see how that is received..Just because MSM says it is so doesn’t make it so..How would a legal trial in the american courts ruin america? HUH?
Maybe ruin that republican party but you reap what you sow…
Look forward to read what Jane blogs about this week and next….
rwcole @ 111
I guess I don’t agree with the law of the land.
From the day I was born – I was disqualified to be a judge – because I’m just a guy – I’m not God nor would I ever pretend to be.
I could never sentence another human being to death.
I’ve been expecting a pardon too- but it’s gettin pretty late- if he was gonna do it- seems that he woulda done it already- say Christmas time..
The main question is whether they can keep Cheney out of it- if it looks as if he won’t take any major whacks- then there is less motivation to pardon.
jayt @ 121
That is a very principled approach. I hate it when people run for jobs and then say they won’t do some part of their job because it conflicts with their private morality. TAHEN DON”T SEEK THE DAMN JOB.
You sir, have some ethics. Probably why you habg out here
Oh I fully expect Libby will do a little time before the pardon comes. By the time he goes through trial and exhausts appeals, it’ll only be a few months before Bush leaves office.
It’ll be that last minute pardon that’ll free him.
Now that I’m done blinking, I’m off to adjust some track lights.
rwcole @ 122
If Daddy’s pardons are any indication, Poopy pardoned Caspar Weinberger just before the start of trial, but left the small fry until just before he left office.
If there is a pardon, I want to see if Cheney has the chutzpah to rehire Scooter….
sonate @
93
Both “pled” and “pleaded” are correctly used as the past tense of “plead.”
lexicologically yours
cl
montag @ 127
one reason we night not see a pardon is that means a person cannot invoke the 5th amendment
I don’t think it’s likely cheney is gonna want scooter to testify under those circumstnaces
according to ford, accepting a pardon is the same thing as admitting guilt
A mere “leak” is not illegal.
I think you have to be very very careful in how you interpret and apply the Espionage Act or you can, indeed, end up with some precedents that would allow many “leaks” to be treated as illegal. If you look at the existing AIPAC lobbyists case, the judge’s decision in that case specifically says that based on his interpretation and application of the Espionage Act in that case, if Gov had come to him (the judge) with a claim arising out of the Pentagon Papers publication, or even transfer of info without publication, he’d be putting the journalists and publishers in jail.
It’t not as ez as it seems on its face and IMO the correct focus was on the Intel Ident. act instead. fwiw and apparently most people’s miles vary from mine on this one.
If there is a pardon, I want to see if Cheney has the chutzpah to rehire Scooter….
He’d only do that if he offered something he couldn’t get elsewhere. And I suspect sicko=phants are available on the discount racks of every Goodwill in DC.
Naw…. Cooter Libby won’t work directly for Boss Hawg no more.
CL at 110 — World Today, as I understand it, which airs on my local NPR station here in WV live.
RBG @ 125
ever the killjoy… :~)
Caoimhin Laochdha @ 127
no, no, no: it’s plaid
dreaded men don’t wear plaid.
Caoimhin Laochdha @
128
cl – you’re priceless! or, to be precise, your humour is…
Caoimhin Laochdha @
110
Here’s the program’s site: http://www.theworld.org/
Mary @ 130
Hi Mary.
Brings a smile to my face to see you here. :)
perris @ 128
But, if there’s a pardon, there’s no point in a trial, and Judge Walton would very likely terminate the proceedings rather than occupy the court’s time with a mooted decision.
Moreover, the 5th amendment issues only apply to the nature of the pardon. It can be commutation of sentence–in which case the 5th amendment considerations apply only to the charges as described. A general pardon for all crimes would, of course, mean broader 5th amendment exemptions.
And Ford doesn’t know what he’s talking about (nothing new there)–some pardons have been issued to correct travesties of justice in which the person involved was wrongly accused and convicted. Ford said a lot of things at the time of Nixon’s pardon to make it seem like he was doing the right thing….
almost as if they knew a nice provocation would come along and give them an excuse for the war and climate of fear they were planning for.
hmmmm…
better watch out for another conveniently timed false flag attack to serve as a pretext for the neo-cons next war….
Mary @
130
Mary,
Good point.
I agree that the correct focus, as you point out, was and should have been on the Identities Act.
Also, I footnoted (can you believe it, in a blog comment no less) the operative definitional language of espionage to show what the term can mean under federal law.
I do not subscribe to the view that the FBI should be using extremely loose criminal statutes in any complex situation. However, I do think it is important to clarify that this is not just another “everybody talks to reporters in D.C.” type of leak.
From a strict definitional standpoint and from a traditional notion of what is traitorous to our country, I think “treason” is at the low end of the totem pole of culpability for these guys.
My issue ultimately goes to framing the political aspect of this trial, which has and will continue to subsume the criminal aspect of it.
slainte,
cl
“Secretary of State” Condi Rice is upset at the ‘lack of decorum’ in the executions of Saddam’s henchmen.
She’s such a kind soul…
God – I hate these people.
hmm… “espionage” may be a specific legal term, but the outing of Wilson certainly had that effect in a regular world kinda way.
urban pirate @ 137
And I agree with that too.
cl
Christy – could you give us a link to an audio feed of your interview when it is available, please?
Let me add to what I wrote earlier: The World is a joint production of WGBH and the BBC. Is that the program you will be on this evening? Or will your interview be available as an audio feed on the BBC’s site?
Clusterfuck says that he watched Saddam’s execution- but didn’t want to see ALL of it–squeemish? Who’d a thunk it?- or just tryin ta appear human following the great flood of tears the other day?
Quite an actor ol Clusterfuck!
montag @ 137
Thank you Montag..I couldn’t have said it better..I believe there is a difference between healing america and saving a corrupt political party…But that’s just me…
sporkovat @
139
Although I’m convinced the official “9/11″ story isn’t the truth, I’m not convinced Bush’s itch to get at Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001 is an indicator of foreknowledge on his or any other administration principal’s mind or actions.
punaise @ 118
They also have video of a local news (the Minneapolis Fox affiliate) showing Obama footage over a story about a convicted sex offender…..
http://www.rawstory.com/showar…..228812.php
Ed*ard Teller @
135
Way too kind,
thanks
cl
Stephen at 144 — Okay, now you guys are confusing me. *g* The fellow with whom I spoke was in Britain, and said the program would air live their time around 11 pm. I’ll be interviewed for a short period around the 6:20 pm mark ET here in the US, which will be 11:20 there (since there is, I believe, a 5 hour time difference from here). In the original contact, the reporter with whom I spoke identified himself as being with the BBC’s World Today — but portions of their broadcast, as I understand it, are used for The World Today (I think I’m right on this). The best bet, though, would be to check on a potential live feed from the BBC site — I’ll see if I can find a link.
Mary @ 129
There’s also an appeal consideration which the good judge T.S. Ellis is ignoring, intentionally, I believe.
When the Espionage Act was being debated, the Wilson administration specifically asked for news people to be included in the language, and out of First Amendment concerns (and institutional memory of the expired Sedition Acts of 1798), the Congress rejected that request.
The status of news people was left undefined (no specific First Amendment exemptions), but the legislative history remains. Ellis is free to ignore that at the trial level, but, I think, it would be a consideration that higher courts would likely have to make on appeal.
Cheers.
new thread
fresh thready goodness upstairs – some hippie named Howie*g*
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..-the-dccc/
Have any conservative blogs turned over their editorial space to Ben Dommenech so that he can opine about that noted “communist” Martin Luther King?
-GSD
oh GSD – exxxcellent !
Just back, EPU-ed no doubt, but isn’t this all of a piece? Plame outing, now the gutting of USAs… the pattern stays true to form.
Why does the Bush Administration hate America and democracy?
OT- I just have to say that Sparklehorse the Iguana is the most kickass screen name ever.
Christy Hardin Smith @
150
Thanks for the update. I’ll wait for a link.
Where I live the only way I’m able to hear this stuff is via the web. It’s not as if I need an exact time/frequency to crank-up my shortwave.
cl
RE: Condi and her performance as Provost at Stanford. I remember reading that she didn’t do such a hot job cause she’s not a good administrator. She’s only good at being the star.
Posted on CNN.com a few minutes ago:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Potential jurors in the perjury trial of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby likely will be asked their opinions of the Bush administration, political scandals and the Iraq war Tuesday, foreshadowing the political tenor of a lengthy trial.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01…..index.html
Stephen — here’s where the link that he sent me goes to — looks like it is the PRI program. HTH!
Haven’t the actions (that we know about) of the Bush/Cheney regime over the last several years demonstrated that they are not internally constrained by anything?
why imagine that they wouldn’t do such a thing? out of their inherent goodness?
a bit of research into the phrase ‘false flag terror’ will show that this is a tactic that governments have used against ‘their’ people throughout history.
GREAT THREAD! Good stuff cl.
rwcole @ 145
Sounds like smoking pot without inhaling.
shooogarp @ 154
Thanks.
- Sparklehorse
OhioBlue @ 156
See Bob Novak’s column of a few days ago – the State Department is in meltdown because she sucks so bad at managing people.
cl – My issue ultimately goes to framing the political aspect of this trial
I agree with you on the political framing aspects and on the underlying notion of spy v. spy, with the twist here of Gov v itsownspy – kind of like 24 last night, if Jack had been turned over, not to stop attacks on men, women and children by bombers, but to stop an attack on a poltical machine’s veracity by someone who could prove they were lying. Probably wouldn’t have gotten Jack so revved up to be tortured to death if it was more a matter of making Cheney look good than saving the world, or at least US portions thereof.
ok – that was schmaltzy but I watched 24 last night for the first time in a couple of years so I just had to work it in. *g*
**********
Also, I footnoted (can you believe it, in a blog comment no less)
I found this impressive beyond belief – EPU once challenged me to footnote and I think I retired from the field without even embarassing myself in an attempt.
I do not subscribe to the view that the FBI should be using extremely loose criminal statutes in any complex situation. However, I do think it is important to clarify that this is not just another “everybody talks to reporters in D.C.” type of leak.
You are right, it was more and it is different and can be distinguished. I just get very nervous when I see the very open language of the Espionage Act and people wanting it applied aggressively – that they sometimes don’t realize the box being opened has pandora written all over it.
Even pandora’s box needs to be opened sometimes – or else they wouldn’t have gotten those nasty little critters locked safely away to start with – but it all needs a lot of care.
montag – I hope so. The lobbyists case is a very tough one for me, bc I think the FBI and DOJ really did what needed to be done on this one and that they pulled it off is something pretty slick. OTOH, it worries the snot out of me – how far it could go with the wrong judges, wrong prosecutors, wrong turn of phrase in an opinion, etc.
Major investment bank issues warning on strike against Iran
Inside Bob Gates’s Flying Fortress
…and more here
The Rude One: Why Martin Luther King Would F@#k Bush’s Sh*t Up (2007 Edition)
Mary @ 167
It’s a valid concern. WRT the lobbyists, that’s an exceedingly gray area which depends almost entirely upon the perceived status of the lobby–if they are actually what they say they are, the decision is pretty crucial. If the decision hinges upon some other status, that they are de facto agents of a foreign government, that changes some aspects of how future decisions might impinge upon both the press and whistleblowers.
What has always struck me as odd in this is who’s prosecuting. McNulty used to be one of the good guys and the tendentiousness of this particular case wrt the press is troublesome to me.
Frankly, I wish something truly substantial comes from this trial.
I love the entertainment aspect of it as much as the next FDLer, but if this amounts to nothing it will be remembered as but a SideShow in the Descent of Man. IMHO, this trial is it, a large ‘tipping point’ for Democracy in the US as we know it.
This is for the Cookie Jar Fitz.
We are looking over the edge of the Abyss and are at a similar point as when the ‘powers that be’ knew they had to get rid of Nixon.
They sure as shit were not going to impeach Nixon only to have Spiro ascend to the throne.
Big Dickhead Cheney is a Monster.
He is a sick excuse for a mammal, much less a human.
If it didn’t make me sound like a nazi, I’d refer to Dick Cheney as subhuman filth.
He has no soul.
There is always an exception to every rule. Cheney is the exception to the rule that everyone is deserving of divine redemption. He is not. He is Unforgivable.
This is the ONLY chance left to tar this fiend and save what’s left of the Republic before things turn truly ugly, on a wide spread national level.
The US is Not above having it’s own Civil War at this point in history, right here folks, right now.
You let these sociopaths of the NeoConvict Movement skate on Libby and they will rally back like Dracula and drive a stake through the Heart of the Progressive-sphere with their media whores.
What will follow us back from the Middle East is not terrorists, but a breakdown of our own society as a result of attacking Iran and having the world economy collapse into a far larger, deeper chaos than the 1930’s Depression, as $100 a barrel oil destroys the housing bubble, and car sales, and just about anything you can name.
I was extremely disappointed that the whole Fitz grand jury thing only yielded up Scooter.
Better score a slam dung on this one Fitz, there is not enough time left to start another investigation of this scope before the war with Iran consumes the world.
I agree with Perris @ 29. Valerie could upset the neocon’s plot much more than her husband. But why not take both down–”heh heh.” B**tards!
Sparkles the Iguana @
165
Any chance that State is in meltdown because they might be a major part of the upcoming trial?
Christy,
Thank you for your observations. I have indeed been looking forward to this for a long time.
rumi @ 174
I would think those two things are fairly unrelated.
ET- re: Bush’s foreknowledge (or not)- doesn’t mean he wasn’t being manipulated by others with greater knowledge.
Check out Glenn Greenwald’s take on what a cornered and mortally wounded Bushite presidency would pose.
Cheney is the Lynch Pin in this whole criminal enterprise.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot…..poses.html
Gentleman Jim @ 178
I would completely agree. Cheney is indeed behind these crimes. I have long thought that this particular case would prove the undoing of Cheney which I view as essential in also ridding ourselves of Bush.
Thanks montag – I know shield legislaton is on the table in Judiciary too. It’s a complex issue and these are the kinds of times that show some validity in many different povs.
Someone was asking earlier for a simple way to refer to the current WH scandal, lying America into the current Iraq war and burning a CIA officer’s identity with the help of the mainstream media:
What about Bush Administration Revenge Scandal, or “BARS” for short–rhymes with “SARS” and is just as deadly. The acronym suggests an appropriate punishment.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 20
Yeah, they do. But informally.
“Mind if I take a look at that rope you’re about to put around that guy’s neck?”
” Sure, Look ok to you?”
“Yep, Let’er rip.”
For some reason, I find it difficult to argue with the logic of an iguana named Sparkles.
It doesn’t stop until Bush is impeached.
I know Fitzgerald will keep the focus narrow, so as to get the conviction (and we wouldn’t want it any othe way). But, the question I’d like to have answered is to Libby himself: “Sir, we know you leaked the Plame identity. What we need to know is if President Bush himself authorized it. Did he?”
That would blow the lid off a cooker.
Is it possible that in a Machiavellian way that the true target of the leak was Plame herself? That her husband’s trip provided the vehicle to get her out of the picture because she wasn’t coming up with the answers they desired? That, as in all other things these clowns have tried, it backfired? Think about it. Wilson was just an annoyance, easily dismissed by saying our allies have learned , like Bush said in his speech, but Plame was another matter entirely. The head of the joint task force wasn’t cooperating? How could the neo-clowns go to congress when the head of the CIA agency charged with finding WMDs couldn’t find any?