From MSNBC (//%22http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479718/%22)
quote:
Libby faced two counts of perjury, two counts of lying to the FBI and one count of obstruction of justice. Prosecutors said he discussed Plame's name with reporters and, fearing prosecution, made up a story to make those discussions seem innocuous.
Key to several charges were Libby's recollections of conversations he had with Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press" and former Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper.
Following are the individual charges and their corresponding verdicts:
* Obstruction of justice: GUILTY
* False statements to FBI investigators (Russert conversation): GUILTY
* False statement to FBI investigators (Cooper conversation): NOT GUILTY
* Perjury to the grand jury (Russert conversation): GUILTY
* Perjury to the grand jury (Cooper conversation): GUILTY
I don't think anyone will be particularly shocked by the verdict.
Especially when you've got one of the best prosecutors in the nation after you.
Libby got thrown under the bus to protect his boss.
This makes it official...the Bush Administration lies.
No, it means someone in the Bush administration was convicted for lying.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
No, it means someone in the Bush administration was convicted for lying.
"someone"...that's rich...you make it sound like its a intern or page.
that "someone" was the veep's chief of staff.
spin much?
Just means members of bush's staff are liars. Just like every other president's staff.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
No, it means someone in the Bush administration was convicted for lying.
Yeah, that's what I said.
IMO, it also points towards how much this administration really really really wanted to go to war. "Evidence be damned, it's go time."
This is a bone for those who are still pissed that Clinton was impeached for perjury.
It was a minion in the administration who was caught lying, not the leader of it.
The actual damage done by Libby's actions are about as innocuous as what Clinton lied about. Yes, Plame had NOC status at the time, but nowhere has it come out that this was a blow to national security.
Ostensibly, the outing of Plame didn't actually break any laws, Libby should have just told the truth.
I don't know that this has much to do with Bush himself, other than the idea that the President should take responsibility for his administration's actions, know what's going on in the administration, and act accordingly.
But, it's been a long time since I was under the impression that Bush is actually a "leader" of the Administration. Most of the time, he seems like more of a "talking head". His Administration more or less seems to run itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
This is a bone for those who are still pissed that Clinton was impeached for perjury.
It was a minion in the administration who was caught lying, not the leader of it.
The actual damage done by Libby's actions are about as innocuous as what Clinton lied about. Yes, Plame had NOC status at the time, but nowhere has it come out that this was a blow to national security.
Ostensibly, the outing of Plame didn't actually break any laws, Libby should have just told the truth.
Your assertion would be laughable if so many hadn't died because of these lies.
I suspect that Scooter lied to protect his boss, VP Cheney.
Somebody (Cheney, Rove, someone else...all of them?), invented a story about Plame "planting" Wilson on a CIA investigative trip to Niger in order to discredit the investigation. That same somebody also "outed" a CIA agent (Plame) in the telling of that story. Scooter lied to the FBI and a grand jury to protect that somebody.
It was a lie covering another lie. Wilson couldn't find evidence of an Iraq/Niger uranium deal because the Italian intelligence for this claim was itself fabricated. Nevertheless,
this lie found its way into a State of the Union speech by the President (the "16 words") and became a cornerstone of the "hyped" intelligence that led us to war in Iraq.
So, let's tally. Scooter lied to protect Cheney's (or somebody else's) lie to protect a third lie that the President, knowingly or not, used to lead us to war.
That's no BJ, man.
The Bush Administration lies.
quote:
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
I remember someone else lying to a grand jury, investigators, and the American people and never going to prison for it.
I dont care if he was 'sacrificed' or however you want to word it, the jury convicted him of obstructing the process he was sworn to uphold and he has -whatever they chose to give him- comin' to him.
quote:
No new taxes.
quote:
It is a priority to see our boys home, from Vietnam
quote:
I am not a crook.
quote:
I will only serve a single term
Hell, we could have a terrific list of bold face lies to the public. But other than our good friend scooter and Slick Willy, I cant think of a politician that lied to a grand jury and got caught. Wonder why only one is going to prison?
<Conan wrote:
The actual damage done by Libby's actions are about as innocuous as what Clinton lied about. Yes, Plame had NOC status at the time, but nowhere has it come out that this was a blow to national security.
<end clip>
Plame's outing wasn't innocuous. It messed up the CIA's Nonproliferation Division, which is designed to keep rogue countries from getting weapons of mass destruction.
Those rogue countries, by the way, include Iran.
But apparently Conan apparently doesn't give a rip of whether rogue nations get nukes. Comparing the outing of a CIA agent in a WMD division to covering up a blowjob is insulting to the intelligence.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
QuoteWonder why only one is going to prison?
Clinton was acquitted by the Senate...Scooter's conviction may yet be tossed by a higher court (less likely)...or he may be pardoned by the President (more likely).
"Your assertion would be laughable if so many hadn't died because of these lies."
Pure hyperbole. Suspicion of buying yellow cake was hardly the only reason we toppled Hussein. It was suspected from the Bush I and Clinton administrations forward that Hussein already had biologial and chemical weapons, as well as the possibility of smuggled nuclear capabilities. Hussein repeatedly refused to allow U.N. inspections to continue un-impeded.
Wilson's report, as were the original reports of sales to Iraq, were reputed to be anywhere from accurate, to suspect, to completely flawed. To this date, no one really seems to be able to state with complete authority whether the sales ever happened or not.
Wilson's investigation, amounted to talking to government officials of Niger ("Uh, sure we sold U.S. public enemy #2 uranium!") and assuming that their own accounting for their uranium was accurate.
What's the point in prosecuting Libby? Other than Democrats being able to say: "Hah, hah!"?It's another waste of taxpayer money just like White Water was.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Pure hyperbole. Suspicion of buying yellow cake was hardly the only reason...
Yes or no, do you believe that the "16 words" in the President's speech contributed to the case for the invasion of Iraq?
Wilson's report is moot. The administration has already admitted that the uranium claim was unfounded and that the "16 words" should not have been in the SOTU. Tenent was booted for it, if you recall.
The "point" in prosecuting Libby is that we cannot have an executive branch that is allowed to lie with impunity. That'd be some other country, not America.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<Conan wrote:
The actual damage done by Libby's actions are about as innocuous as what Clinton lied about. Yes, Plame had NOC status at the time, but nowhere has it come out that this was a blow to national security.
<end clip>
Plame's outing wasn't innocuous. It messed up the CIA's Nonproliferation Division, which is designed to keep rogue countries from getting weapons of mass destruction.
Those rogue countries, by the way, include Iran.
But apparently Conan apparently doesn't give a rip of whether rogue nations get nukes. Comparing the outing of a CIA agent in a WMD division to covering up a blowjob is insulting to the intelligence.
Plame's outing hardly turned the CIA upside down. If it was that big a deal, Armitage would be hanging by his toenails right now, since he's taken the blame for being the primary leak to Novak. He came clean with the investigators right from the git-go. Libby tried to lie his way out of it, that's why he was prosecuted. I stand by my statement of saying that the actions Libby was convicted of were quite innocuous.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Pure hyperbole. Suspicion of buying yellow cake was hardly the only reason...
Yes or no, do you believe that the "16 words" in the President's speech contributed to the case for the invasion of Iraq?
Wilson's report is moot. The administration has already admitted that the uranium claim was unfounded and that the "16 words" should not have been in the SOTU. Tenent was booted for it, if you recall.
Uh, no one died because of Libby's lies.
The "16 words" were *part* of the justification, not sole justification. I would think my saying: "Suspicion of buying yellow cake was hardly the only reason we toppled Hussein." would tell you I consider it part of the sale job for the war.
The Iraq invasion would have happened with or without the yellow cake intelligence.
No, leaders shouldn't be allowed to lie with impunity, but at what cost is it really worth to enforce it?
I'm pissed as hell about government waste, the White Water and Libby investigations have been a total waste of taxpayer funds, so differing factions can play childish politics. [xx(]
I'm going in the other room to take a nap, you guys can sit here and parse words all you want.[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The "16 words" were *part* of the justification, not sole justification.
So, the fake uranium claim was indeed part of the information used to lead us to war.
Perhaps it is an exaggeration to say that Libby's lie caused deaths. It is no less a gross understatement to say that trying to coverup a stack of lies that led us to war is "innocuous".
quote:
The Iraq invasion would have happened with or without the yellow cake intelligence.
Pure conjecture.[;)] And it doesn't support your previous statement. How can the uranium claim be a "*part* of the justification" and irrelevent at the same time?
Nice argument, Mr. Little. Have you been taking lessons from a certain U.S. attorney? [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The "16 words" were *part* of the justification, not sole justification.
So, the fake uranium claim was indeed part of the information used to lead us to war.
Perhaps it is an exaggeration to say that Libby's lie caused deaths. It is no less a gross understatement to say that trying to coverup a stack of lies that led us to war is "innocuous".
quote:
The Iraq invasion would have happened with or without the yellow cake intelligence.
Pure conjecture.[;)] And it doesn't support your previous statement. How can the uranium claim be a "*part* of the justification" and irrelevent at the same time?
Okay, CL, I told you I was taking a nap and you woke me up, damnit! [}:)]
Scooter Libby wasn't in the process of covering up a stack of lies that led us into the war. He was tried for lying to federal investigators about what he said and/or who he told about Valerie Plame's identity in 2003. He wasn't on trial for covering up faulty intelligence, or lies about it. What about the news is so hard to decipher?
I never said yellow cake was irrelevant to the war in the first place, just that it was one component of justification for the war, amongst others.
I've re-read this thread several times and I can't see how you inferred I thought it was irrelevant to justifying the war, I'm just saying it wasn't the sole motivating factor.
It is
wholly irrelevant to Libby's trial, since the trial was about whether or not he lied to the federales about leaking Valrie Plame's identity to the press.
Hell, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq w/o the yellow cake intelligence papers, none of that supposedly happened until 1999. IOW- there was apparently plenty of justification w/o uranium sales.
Bush actually cited British intelligence in the "16 words" and not the CIA documents Wilson was referring to in his op-ed piece. To date, the British intelligence reports have not been recanted by their authors. I'm tired of reading about it. It was an intelligence cluster f*** and no one from either side of that intel issue has ever been able to say for certain whether or not Niger has sold yellow cake.
At very worst, Bush considered the British reports about the yellow cake sales to be valid, and ignored warnings to the contrary from the CIA, though the CIA has never said "without doubt" the allegations of the sales were false, only highly suspect.
I guess he figured it was more prudent to err on the side of what he thought was in the best interests of national security and the security of our allies abroad. If he'd have discounted the reports and all the sudden there were nuclear missiles flying out of Iraq everyone would have said he sat on his butt while Hussein was building nukes.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Nice argument, Mr. Little. Have you been taking lessons from a certain U.S. attorney? [;)]
Hey bud, I
know where you get your hair cut, I might ask him to dip that comb in Nair the next time you go in. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Okay, CL, I told you I was taking a nap and you woke me up, damnit! [}:)]
Scooter Libby wasn't in the process of covering up a stack of lies that led us into the war. He was tried for lying to federal investigators about what he said and/or who he told about Valerie Plame's identity in 2003.
And who was Valerie Plame? Somemone in the Bush administration wanted to refute and/or punish Wilson for calling a lie a
lie.
British intelligence? I call obfuscation.
US intelligence no longer believes that Iraq sought uranium. It was a fake claim that ended up in the most important speech this President has ever made. Maybe he didn't know it at the time. In fact, I hope he didn't.
But five months later, it was becoming obvious that WMD was a dry hole. Wilson happened to be the first to say what everybody else was thinking and
somebody wanted him to pay for it. Libby is going to jail to protect that someone.
quote:
I never said yellow cake was irrelevant...
What you said was, "The Iraq invasion would have happened with or without the yellow cake intelligence." How is that different than saying yellow cake is irrelevent?
Meanwhile, back in the "comfort zone"...
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/fox_libby_not_guilty.jpg)
Found not guilty of lying to the FBI about the Cooper conversation.
Found guilty of lying to the FBI about the Russert conversation.
Found guilty on two counts for lying to a grand jury and for obstructing justice.
Nice try at selective editing there, CL.
You keep trying to make Bush and Cheney the convicted criminals with your comments or at the very least commanders of a vast criminal conspiracy. Sorry that's just not flying with me.
Why do you think the impeachment rhetoric has died down since the mid-term elections? Because the war has been used for political gain on both sides, mainly for a gain of control of the House and Senate by the Democrats. House Democrats have known all along that impeachment talk was nothing more than election rhetoric and hype.
It's not because Ms. Pelosi has put the clamps on Mr. Conyers. It's because House Democrats have known all along that the President has acted within the power granted to him and there is no legal basis for an impeachment. I'll leave you and the other libs to be armchair lawyers and legislators with this point.
I'm not going to say that this war was Bush's best idea nor that we went in with both eyes wide open, but based on information deemed credible at the time- which is also some of the same information deemed credible during the Clinton administration, our leaders did what they thought was best in the interests of national security at the time.
Another convenient fact left out in the wake of the Libby convictions is that Joe Wilson was discredited in a bipartisan Senate sub-committee almost three years ago. He is still being treated as a victim, when in reality this guy was a bungling Inspector Clouseau.
"...The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
CL - Clinton was found not prosecuted in a political body. That has no bearing on his guilt.
He told a grand jury and federal investigator that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Then she produced a dress with his sperm on it. Then he acquiesced and admitted having "relations" with her. So his own admission, Bill Clinton is guilty of the same thing Scooter has been convicted of.
If you dont understand that, then you are really just a democrat on a witch hunt. I am in no way defending Scooter, as I said above he should get whatever is coming. I'm merely pointing out that this "SHOCKING" story isnt exactly a new turn of events in American politics.
and to head you off at the pass on the pardon - didnt Clinton pardon all of his friends that were convicted of fraud, mismanagement, and lying to protect his illegal financial activities? Oh yeah, he did.
Both parties are corrupt and only concerned with their own power. Screw 'em both.
I do wonder how W^2 ('Weesel Wilson') has come this far without being prosecuted. He's admitted to lying twice.
The facts never seem to have gotten in the way here.
Libby did either lie or mis-remember, but so did a lot of other people. I'm willing to let the jurors speak there (though, the one who spoke, if representative, didn't seem to have a clue of what the trial was really about).
What is wrong, however, is for Democrats, and Wilson in particular to take it as validation to everything they've been promoting all along, which has little factual basis.
Listening to Wilson's comments yesterday, he's anything but the patriot he's tried to make himself into.
It's amazing that you guys bring up Clinton, just because your buddies are wrong. "They did something vaguely similar, so it must be ok for our guys to do it".
Here's Clinton's Statements (//%22http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whatclintonsaid.htm%22)
There's a big difference making false statements in a civil lawsuit, and obstructing a federal investigation. You guys are making up a bunch of stuff about this being attached to "Whitewater", and there even being a federal grand jury attached to this. You can claim that the Clinton impeachment was over pergery, but that's basically a lie. Pergury is almost never prosecuted in a civil case. And even if it was a federal case, Clinton had a well staked claim to the interpretation out. It would have been nearly impossible to prosecute.
With Bush, impeachment just isn't likely. The fed has less that two years to investigate everything, the Administration is obstructing justice, changing the rules when necessary, and loading up on plausible deniability. The Democrats aren't on a witch hunt as the GOP was several years ago. It's not likely to happen.
Michael - I appreciate the differences and whole heartedly agree the pergery is rarely prosecuted. Likewise, the Libby thing is in no way connected to Whitewater.
I was merely pointing out that those who are ready to cast a stone at the Bush administration for having a member that lied on the record - should remember that the head of Clinton administration (Clinton himself) was guilty of the same act. While civil pergery is less prosecuted, it is the same act as Libby is guilty of. Both lied to official after swearing to tell the truth.
The difference? Libby lied and deprived the FBI of information and Clinton lied and deprived a citizen of information. Pissing off the government is always more dangerous, but depriving a citizen is also a crime. Just because it isnt prosecuted much doesnt mean the president should partake in it.
For the record, I dont care who gets head in the white house. He shouldnt have lied about it but too much effort was wasted on that which hunt. I am NOT complaining of a double standard because I think what Clinton did was handled well in a civil settlement proceeding later. Libby deserves what he gets so screw him too.
Finally, I only brought up Whitewater because of the talk about pardons that is already circulating. The same people defending the Clinton pardons are likely to be up in arms about this one.
Anywho, thanks for the link to the Clinton statements. I havent read up on that in years. And I agree with you that a witch hunt is unlikely.
It's fun looking over that old stuff ain't it?
Perjury is rarely prosecuted or prosecutable in a civil suit (I don't know of any cases where it was prosecuted in a civil case, I assume it may have happened sometime). Criminal, or Federal, that's completely different.
Democrats general admit that what Clinton said was a lie, or at least misleading. Where the rub with Democrats is generally, is that Clinton was impeached over something that was relatively harmless and virtually unprosecutable. The witch hunt, that began basically as soon as he took office. The GOP claimed Perjury, which he was never charged with. It wasn't prosecutable as Purjury. But the GOP tried very hard to nail Clinton, it was the best opportunity they had. Impeachment should not have been taken that lightly.
I've seen conservative TV guys talk about impeachment, and whether or not it's appropriate for Bush. Some argue that it is. There are bigger issues here, than there were when Clinton was facing impeachment. There will be talk I imagine, but the Democrats aren't going to touch it. The GOP "skinned the cat" one way, but there is another way. If the cat is really that evil, it will skin itself.
How many ways did I spell perjury?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
CL - Clinton was found not prosecuted in a political body. That has no bearing on his guilt.
He told a grand jury and federal investigator that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Then she produced a dress with his sperm on it. Then he acquiesced and admitted having "relations" with her. So his own admission, Bill Clinton is guilty of the same thing Scooter has been convicted of.
If you dont understand that, then you are really just a democrat on a witch hunt. I am in no way defending Scooter, as I said above he should get whatever is coming. I'm merely pointing out that this "SHOCKING" story isnt exactly a new turn of events in American politics.
and to head you off at the pass on the pardon - didnt Clinton pardon all of his friends that were convicted of fraud, mismanagement, and lying to protect his illegal financial activities? Oh yeah, he did.
Both parties are corrupt and only concerned with their own power. Screw 'em both.
Settle down. [V] I was never Bill's biggest fan. I simply responded to your question, i.e., why didn't Clinton go to jail? He didn't go to jail because he was acquitted by Senate, and it absolutely has "bearing on his guilt". I also noted that Scooter could yet be acquitted, or he could be pardoned. I wasn't trying to spin this one way or the other, I was simply answering your question.
I can't spell at all.
Perjury or any other word for that matter. I write on the fly so that doesnt help my cause either.
Except Humuhumunukunukuapuaa. Which, for some reason, I learned how to spell.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I do wonder how W^2 ('Weesel Wilson') has come this far without being prosecuted. He's admitted to lying twice.
The facts never seem to have gotten in the way here.
Libby did either lie or mis-remember, but so did a lot of other people. I'm willing to let the jurors speak there (though, the one who spoke, if representative, didn't seem to have a clue of what the trial was really about).
What is wrong, however, is for Democrats, and Wilson in particular to take it as validation to everything they've been promoting all along, which has little factual basis.
Not following you here. Wilson said that he thought the Niger, Iraq, uranium thing was bogus...turns out now that US intelligence, George Tenent, and the President agree and and that it never should have been in the SOTU speech.
Seems to me that testimony in the Libby trial, along with the administration's confessions about the bogus uranium claim, do indeed amount to a "validation to everything".
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I do wonder how W^2 ('Weesel Wilson') has come this far without being prosecuted. He's admitted to lying twice.
The facts never seem to have gotten in the way here.
Libby did either lie or mis-remember, but so did a lot of other people. I'm willing to let the jurors speak there (though, the one who spoke, if representative, didn't seem to have a clue of what the trial was really about).
What is wrong, however, is for Democrats, and Wilson in particular to take it as validation to everything they've been promoting all along, which has little factual basis.
Not following you here. Wilson said that he thought the Niger, Iraq, uranium thing was bogus...turns out now that US intelligence, George Tenent, and the President agree and and that it never should have been in the SOTU speech.
Seems to me that testimony in the Libby trial, along with the administration's confessions about the bogus uranium claim, do indeed amount to a "validation to everything".
Perhaps if you read this on the 'bogus' claim:
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
Wilson himself invalidated his own claim. Besides being a general PITA.
Those who consider yellow-cake to be the cornerstone for an Iraqi invasion, well, are just wrong.
But, there's really not much sense in going over it all again for those who so closely affiliate themselves with inaccurate information.
FWIW, Libby's trial was about him lying during the course of an investigation, the investigation which, by itself, produced not a single charge.
Libby's personal failing hardly reflects truth to the balance of every claim ever made.
That, or you'd probably more accurately blast on Fitzgerald for the poor job he did in getting to the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I do wonder how W^2 ('Weesel Wilson') has come this far without being prosecuted. He's admitted to lying twice.
The facts never seem to have gotten in the way here.
Libby did either lie or mis-remember, but so did a lot of other people. I'm willing to let the jurors speak there (though, the one who spoke, if representative, didn't seem to have a clue of what the trial was really about).
What is wrong, however, is for Democrats, and Wilson in particular to take it as validation to everything they've been promoting all along, which has little factual basis.
Not following you here. Wilson said that he thought the Niger, Iraq, uranium thing was bogus...turns out now that US intelligence, George Tenent, and the President agree and and that it never should have been in the SOTU speech.
Seems to me that testimony in the Libby trial, along with the administration's confessions about the bogus uranium claim, do indeed amount to a "validation to everything".
Perhaps if you read this on the 'bogus' claim:
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
Perhaps what? Read the concluding paragraph:
quote:
The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.
I've already said that I don't think Bush knew at the time that the uranium claim was bogus. Five months later, after the US had been looking for WMDs in country for over three months, it was becoming clear that the claims about WMDs were "hyped".
Wilson spoke up and said what everybody else was thinking. I surmise that
that is when the administration started telling lies. They wanted to cover up the WMD "intelligence".
Of course, it depends on just what your "bogus uranium claim" and "uranium thing" contentions are (definition of "is" is?).
If these consist of Bush suggesting Iraq had yellow cake (was sold to him by Niger), it's been clearly shown that probably did/has not happen(ed), nor did Bush or anyone else in his administration suggest it had happened. He referenced a British intelligence report which said *they* believed he had *attempted* to obtain yellow cake. At the time, US Intelligence agreed, and Wilson himself reinforced that with his report to the CIA (which he countered in his own OpEd piece, and since with his public persona ungratis).
If your claims are that Bush either knew of, created or used the fabricated counterfeit purchase order discovered by Italian intelligence, you'd be incorrect as well. It was never considered authentic by either Bush or US Intelligence, besides having not occurred prior to the SOTU speech.
Your comment: "Wilson spoke up and said what everybody else was thinking" is absurdly false. Nobody, at least in the public, was thinking anything about yellow cake prior to Wilson's trip. And, when Wilson did speak up, his words were a direct dichotomy to the report he just gave to the CIA. He was lying then, as now.
Your comment: "Seems to me that testimony in the Libby trial, along with the administration's confessions about the bogus uranium claim, do indeed amount to a "validation to everything"." fails to make sense because there was no confession. And, what the Libby trial and "everything" have to do with each other is about the same as whale crap on the bottom of the ocean is to clouds in the sky.
But, then, if you see things this way, then it's really more a matter of perception, comprehension, or shear will.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Of course, it depends on just what your "bogus uranium claim" and "uranium thing" contentions are (definition of "is" is?).
If these consist of Bush suggesting Iraq had yellow cake (was sold to him by Niger), it's been clearly shown that probably did/has not happen(ed), nor did Bush or anyone else in his administration suggest it had happened. He referenced a British intelligence report which said *they* believed he had *attempted* to obtain yellow cake. At the time, US Intelligence agreed, and Wilson himself reinforced that with his report to the CIA (which he countered in his own OpEd piece, and since with his public persona ungratis).
If your claims are that Bush either knew of, created or used the fabricated counterfeit purchase order discovered by Italian intelligence, you'd be incorrect as well. It was never considered authentic by either Bush or US Intelligence, besides having not occurred prior to the SOTU speech.
Your comment: "Wilson spoke up and said what everybody else was thinking" is absurdly false. Nobody, at least in the public, was thinking anything about yellow cake prior to Wilson's trip. And, when Wilson did speak up, his words were a direct dichotomy to the report he just gave to the CIA. He was lying then, as now.
Your comment: "Seems to me that testimony in the Libby trial, along with the administration's confessions about the bogus uranium claim, do indeed amount to a "validation to everything"." fails to make sense because there was no confession. And, what the Libby trial and "everything" have to do with each other is about the same as whale crap on the bottom of the ocean is to clouds in the sky.
But, then, if you see things this way, then it's really more a matter of perception, comprehension, or shear will.
I'm bewildered by your statement:
quote:
If these consist of Bush suggesting Iraq had yellow cake (was sold to him by Niger), it's been clearly shown that probably did/has not happen(ed), nor did Bush or anyone else in his administration suggest it had happened.
Way to cover all the bases there, buddy. Either Saddam had uranium, or he didn't. Either the administration said he had it, or they didn't. Or maybe this isn't what you meant to say.
So, do you believe that Iraq bought, or
even attempted to buy, uranium from Niger? Yes or no. If yes, you are in a very small group. That group
does not include US intelligence or the administration.
I've said,
twice now, that I do not know whether or not Bush himself knew that the uranium claim was bogus at the time of the SOTU. I've also said that I hoped he didn't know. That is not my point.
The Libby coverup began five months later, when it was clear that Iraq did not have uranium. We scoured the country and found no evidence of a nuke program. None.
Lots of folks were beginning to wonder what the h*ll was going on. The whole uranium story was starting to unravel. Wilson saw that his own words were misused to support the bogus uranium claim and so he spoke up in order to set the record straight.
At that point, the administration could have said, "Yeah, I guess you're right. Our bad.", which is what they did in the end, anyway (Tenent was fired for it, remember?) But instead, they cooked up lies about Wilson and his wife. Several administration officials leaked the identity of an agent working on WMDs in the process. They ruined the career of a person whose job was to protect us from WMDs (Plame), and risked exposing all of her contacts. Bonehead stuff.
When the CIA asked for an investigation of the boneheads, Scooter and Rove cooked up alibis to protect themselves and the administration. Who's worse? Scooter for lying, or Rove for lying and then changing his story at the last minute when it looked like he was going to be charged, too? Take your pick.
You keep saying that the Libby trial had nothing to do with the bogus claim, and I keep telling you that it had
everything to do with trying to cover it up. The moment the administration decided to go after Wilson, certain individuals started digging holes for themselves. Libby, couldn't slither out of his hole.
Now, I've just told the whole complex story, as I see it. This is the third time. Saying that Libby's lies had nothing to do with the hyped uranium claims is like saying that Capone's conviction on tax evasion had nothing to do with the fact that he was a bootlegging gangster. People are smarter than that.
Why don't you provide your own story. And when you get to the part where Libby lied, you'll probably have to start backing up. Ask yourself, "Why would he have to lie to the FBI and grand jury in the first place?"