News Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Important
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of Karl Rove's alleged leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, connecting it to broader issues of foreign policy and the Iraq war. Several reports highlight how this incident could significantly impact the Republican party's standing, particularly regarding public perception of the Iraq war and the administration's honesty. Participants express concern that the leak represents a betrayal of national interests for personal political gain, with some arguing it reflects a systematic effort to suppress dissenting intelligence that contradicted the justification for the Iraq invasion. The conversation touches on the potential for impeachment based on the severity of the actions involved, comparing them to historical scandals like Watergate. There is a sense of frustration that many Americans may not fully grasp the gravity of the situation, with some suggesting that the administration's actions could lead to long-lasting damage to public trust in government and intelligence agencies. The discussion also raises questions about the motivations behind the leak and the broader implications for democracy and accountability in governance.
  • #101
BobG said:
That would be desperate. If the Bush faction of the Republican Party still controls the party by 2008, the Republican Party wouldn't be worth belonging to, anyway.
Are they really going to close around a 'political consultant' that was groomed by Watergate convictee Donald Segretti and Lee Atwater (the "Happy Hatchetman"), was arrested for his own criminal campaign offenses (the 1970 Dixon campaign, where Rove stole letterheads from the Democratic campaign office and invited the homeless to a Dixon fundraiser), and was even removed from Bush I's staff for attacking a key contributor Rove had a personal vendetta against?
Besides, a significant portion are beginning to close ranks. Only nine Republicans (Allard, Bond, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Inhofe, Roberts, Sessions, and Stevens) voted against McCain's anti-torture amendment to the defense spending bill. Forty-five or about 82% of Senate Republicans closed ranks in spite of the threat of a Bush veto.
Politicians are politicians. They're pretty adept at moving away from a lost position to one with a little more strength. Most Republican Congressmen will be no different, especially with the threat of the 2006 elections looming.


The very best thing Bush can do is to admit he was wrong, and replace all of his ill-advisors. Reagan did this in 85-86 because of Iran-Contra. Reagan also accepted responsibility for his failings either direct or indirect on various occasions. Bush will continue to weaken as long as he maintains the status quoe. He needs to mix things up. He needs to admit error. He won't though IMO so we'll see an increasingly weak president and a congress that is itself in flux (29% approval ratings for congress doesn't translate to relection for members).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
Look what I found. Would the special prosecuter make a web page for nothing or will we see some major things coming down the pipe?

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #103
It seems that the reason for speculation that Cheney may be indicted is that a number of pointed questions from Fitzgerald focused on Cheney - what he knew and when he knew it.

It looks like the the heads are saying Rove for sure, probably Libby, maybe others... There is also growing speculation that this could be 1974 all over again.
 
  • #104
faust9 said:
The very best thing Bush can do is to admit he was wrong, and replace all of his ill-advisors. Reagan did this in 85-86 because of Iran-Contra.
What can Bush do ? He's re-hired all those folks that got fired for involvement in the Iran-Contra affair...
 
  • #105
Gokul43201 said:
What can Bush do ? He's re-hired all those folks that got fired for involvement in the Iran-Contra affair...

I didn't even think of that! Too funny.
 
  • #106
I forgot that too... Man oh man.
 
  • #107
faust9 said:
The very best thing Bush can do is to admit he was wrong, and replace all of his ill-advisors. Reagan did this in 85-86 because of Iran-Contra. Reagan also accepted responsibility for his failings either direct or indirect on various occasions. Bush will continue to weaken as long as he maintains the status quoe. He needs to mix things up. He needs to admit error. He won't though IMO so we'll see an increasingly weak president and a congress that is itself in flux (29% approval ratings for congress doesn't translate to relection for members).
I think we will see more and more signs of his mental instability as the the circle that has protected and manipulated him begins to crack under indictments etc.

The Miers pick has got to be him insisting that he is the President,and will do things his way. The more this administration falls apart the faster it will deteriorate.
 
  • #108
kat said:
What...does whitewater...or anything during the clinton admin have to do with my question? Do you always create commentary to non-existent comments?...hello...?
You mentioned expensive tax-payer financed investigations that lead nowhere. I was pointing out that this one is about national security, not real estate/travel memos/infidelity ad nauseam.

[edit] Just imagine what they could do with a partisan prosecutor and independent council statute. [/edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #109
kat said:
What happens today..if turned around by the time the 2008 election year comes, will have little effect on the elections. Americans have somewhat short term memories and will vote according to how they feel at the time not how they felt a year earlier. Other then that, mentioning Condi was a bit of a jest as I know so many here hate the poor woman.
Other members have already responded on this topic, but I agree about the short-term memory. As BobG noted, however, the 2006 congressional elections are just around the corner. The large number of scandals (which may even increase) and some that will be ongoing for some time will still be in the news as we close in on 2008.

A big factor will be Iraq. I know there are members who are pro-Israel who don't care about the cost in U.S. blood and treasure, and are only interested in attacking Arab enemies at every opportunity, but the majority of Americans are a little more concerned about the loss of life and record deficits.

As for Condi, personally I think she is one of the few intelligent, well-spoken members of the Bush administration. However, at the same time I hold her more responsible for the Dubya disasters because she knows better.
kat said:
The republicans would do well to close ranks and support the president or risk cutting their own throats.
The Republicans are cutting their own throats.
 
  • #110
Judith Miller’s boss says she misled newspaper
Editors should have found out earlier about leaked information, Times says
Associated Press
Updated: 4:16 a.m. ET Oct. 22, 2005
----------
Miller and Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, discussed Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, in three conversations in the weeks before the CIA officer’s status was outed by columnist Robert Novak.
----------
The criticism of the reporter came amid a sign that the prosecutor may be preparing indictments. Fitzgerald’s office set up a Web site containing the record of the broad investigative mandate handed to him by the Justice Department at the outset of his investigation two years ago.

Unlike some of his predecessors who operated under a law that has since expired, Fitzgerald does not need to write a final report, so he would not need a Web site for that purpose.

The criticism of Miller emerged amid new details about how she belatedly turned over notes of a June 23, 2003, conversation she had with Libby.

In her first grand jury appearance Sept. 30 after being freed from prison for refusing to testify, Miller did not mention the meeting.

She retrieved her notes about it only when prosecutors showed her White House visitor logs showing she had met with Libby ...in reviewing her notes, Miller discovered they indicated that Libby had given her information about Plame at that meeting. Fitzgerald then arranged for her to return to the grand jury to testify about it, the lawyers said.

Significant evidence:

The evidence of that meeting has become important to the investigation because it indicates that Libby was passing information to reporters about Plame well before her husband went public with accusations that the Bush administration had twisted pre-war intelligence on Iraq.
----------
Conflicts between presidential aides’ testimony and other evidence could result in criminal charges. The grand jury investigating the matter for the last two years is set to expire next Friday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9778097/
 
  • #111
Gokul43201 said:
What can Bush do ? He's re-hired all those folks that got fired for involvement in the Iran-Contra affair...

Cheney and Rummy go back to Watergate
 
  • #112
kat said:
The republicans would do well to close ranks and support the president or risk cutting their own throats.

"The President" and his kind is how they ended up in the trouble they're in now.
 
  • #113
Ivan Seeking said:
Cheney and Rummy go back to Watergate
You forgot Rove. But wait...it was Rove who hired Bush !
 
  • #114
Interesting perspective - unfortunately, one has to now subscribe for access to the OP-ED pieces at the NY Times ($7.95/mo, $49.95/yr), but its probably worth it.

Hurricane Fitzgerald Approaches the White House
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 25, 2005

It was wrong for prosecutors to cook up borderline indictments during the Clinton administration, and it would be just as wrong now in the C.I.A. leak case.

I would agree with that - it certainly wrong to procecute someone if they did not violate the law.
 
  • #115
Astronuc said:
Interesting perspective - unfortunately, one has to now subscribe for access to the OP-ED pieces at the NY Times ($7.95/mo, $49.95/yr), but its probably worth it.
Hurricane Fitzgerald Approaches the White House
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 25, 2005
It was wrong for prosecutors to cook up borderline indictments during the Clinton administration, and it would be just as wrong now in the C.I.A. leak case.
I would agree with that - it certainly wrong to procecute someone if they did not violate the law.
I agree, if they violated no laws.

Perjury and obstruction of justice violations of the law.

Obstruction of Justice in this case could mean that someone could be getting away with treason. According to George H. W. Bush, former head of the CIA, exposing a CIA operative constitutes treason.

Even though it was a witch hunt and a perjury trap, Clinton did, IMO violate the law. However, because it was purely political the whole country, and even the rest of the world paid a price. The whole affair should have waited until after his term was over. I hope that we have learned a lesson from that experience, but this is in no way similar to the Clinton investigation and impeachment.

Not much here yet, but for anyone interested, here is Fitzgerald's website.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #116
Yes. That's the key difference between Clinton's perjury charge and the potential impending Rove/Libby/Cheney perjury charges. Clinton's perjury occurred during a trial in which the charges were dismissed by the judge due to a severe lack of evidence, and was rather iffy in the first place. (It really came down to Clinton's state of mind at the time of his testimony: did he or didn't he believe that "sexual relations" as Paula Jones' lawyers defined it encompass oral sex? There's more info here.) The perjury of the aforementioned Bush administration officials involved a serious investigation involving a potentially treasonous offense.
 
  • #117
Skyhunter said:
I agree, if they violated no laws.
Perjury and obstruction of justice violations of the law.
Obstruction of Justice in this case could mean that someone could be getting away with treason. According to George H. W. Bush, former head of the CIA, exposing a CIA operative constitutes treason.
Even though it was a witch hunt and a perjury trap, Clinton did, IMO violate the law. However, because it was purely political the whole country, and even the rest of the world paid a price. The whole affair should have waited until after his term was over. I hope that we have learned a lesson from that experience, but this is in no way similar to the Clinton investigation and impeachment.
Not much here yet, but for anyone interested, here is Fitzgerald's website.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html
The NY Times Lead Story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #118
From AP

Cheney's Role Examined in Probe of CIA Leak
White House Sidesteps Questions About Vice President

NEW YORK (Oct. 25, AP) -
The White House on Tuesday sidestepped questions about whether Vice President Dick Cheney passed on to his top aide the identity of a CIA officer central to a federal grand jury probe.

Notes in the hands of a federal prosecutor suggest that Cheney 's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, first heard of the CIA officer from Cheney himself, The New York Times reported in Tuesday's editions.

The Times said notes of a previously undisclosed June 12, 2003, conversation between Libby and Cheney appear to differ from Libby's grand jury testimony that he first heard of Valerie Plame from journalists.
 
  • #119
This just in...

Report that indictment is to be announced against Libby, and request of extension for investigation of Rove.
 
  • #120
What's the big deal? She wasn't undercover---or was she?

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/The-Situation-Room-Larry-Johnson.mov
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #121
SOS2008 said:
Report that indictment is to be announced against Libby, and request of extension for investigation of Rove.
Got a link to a story?
 
  • #122
It maters, it really does. The same serious security briefings that spell out the dangers of terrorism would also doubtless higlight the importance of keeping the intelligence community safe from exposure (and loss of leverage). You can't say that outing an operative is trivial, but then with the same team also bring a vial of anthrax to the UN's general chamber and declare that your intelligence on WMD holds the highest levels of integrity and security. A vial of anthrax for god's sake! (Baking powder and anthrax are legally quite similar when instead of release, you claim the baking powder represents anthrax. The purpose is to cause fear and alarm either way.)
 
Last edited:
  • #123
Skyhunter said:
Got a link to a story?
Originally reported in the NY Times, and repeated on CNN broadcast news, I'm sure this is old news now, but here's a link for today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9837835/

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, is expecting to be indicted for making false statements in the probe, according to White House colleagues.
----------
Possible charges are obstruction of justice or perjury, along with possible violations of a law barring disclosure of the identity of a covert intelligence agent.

Some lawyers have raised the specter of broader conspiracy charges as well.
Regarding Rove:

The New York Times earlier cited sources as saying that Fitzgerald was likely to extend the grand jury investigating the exposure beyond Friday, when its two-year term expires. Fitzgerald was meeting with the grand jury Friday morning.
Bush will wish Rove was being indicted now. If the investigation is extended, Fitzgerald will need to form a new grand jury. This will drag things out further into what's left of the second term—along side the trial for Libby.

Rove has a big smile (like always?) so it seems he not too concerned about it. Bush looks older than his father now. Rove should wipe the grin off his face--him and DeLay. The GOP should run them out of town on a rail.
 
  • #126
alexandra said:
Seems Rove wriggles out of it (as many predicted):
I think that Libby is only the beginning. Fitzgerald just leased office space for 2 years, and if I am not mistaken the Grand jury is not being disbanded. I am a little unclear on the Grand jury, but today was supposed to be their last day. Guess we'll know more Monday.
 
  • #127
I think we call this 'Libby takes one for the team' or 'Libby falls on sword'.
 
  • #128
The investigations are not over, and Rove has not been cleared.

There is still the issue of who violated the 'Identities Act.'

Libby has only been charged with perjury, false testimony (or providing false evidence), and obstruction of justice.

Apparently, and it is not clear to me, the Grand Jury (or a Grand Jury) investigation will continue.

I have to admire Fitzgerald for his discipline and thoroughness.
 
  • #129
Why this is important

The CIA, before Porter let's not investigate Goss took over, asked for this investigation.

This is about national security. Not only does this effect every other operative that she was had contact with, it also renders ineffective Bruester Jennings, the CIA front company and our eyes and ears in ARAMCO.

But even more importantly it does irreparable harm to our intelligence sharing with other nations. You can bet that when the WH exposed Valerie Wilson for political get back, every foreign intelligence agency we conduct business with has done a reassessment on what cooperating with this administration means.

Not to mention that her portfolio, her job, was tracking WMD.

So who has been keeping track of the Saudi money going to fund Wahhabi terrorists?

What weapons of mass destruction have been purchased with Saudi money now that we can no longer keep close tabs.

Remember where Osama is from, and who the hijackers were on those planes on 9/11/2001.

Here's a hint.

They were not from Iraq!

I pray that we can get to the bottom of this before another attack is carried out against America.

If Bush can get another event to spin a war...God help us all.
 
  • #130
Bush has impeached himself--in the witness kind of way--and no longer has credibility. Congress has been at an even lower approval rating throughout, and is not going to take any military action lightly. Even another terrorist attack would have to be handled very differently—knee jerk reaction would be replaced with thorough investigation and clear evidence.

Back to the matter of indictment:
Rove’s lawyer said he was told by special prosecutor Fitzgerald’s office that investigators would continue their probe into the aide’s conduct.
----------
Democrats suggested the indictment was just the tip of the iceberg...

The indictment says a substantial number of people in the White House knew about Plame’s CIA status before the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, including former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.
Good old Ari Fleischer eh?

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said through a spokesman that the Senate won’t investigate the CIA leak.
No, really!? I can't imagine why. Well, that's why we have the FBI, the Justice Department, etc.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9837835/page/2/
 
  • #131
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_investigation;_ylt=AipWzfDYr2Up9vbC39dqn8lqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Bush says Libby entitled to due process.
Bush praised Libby's service and said he is "presumed innocent and entitled to due process."
This from an administration which detains innocent people without charges or trial, or access to a lawyer, and which uses torture and coercion. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #132
Astronuc said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_investigation;_ylt=AipWzfDYr2Up9vbC39dqn8lqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
This from an administration which detains innocent people without charges or trial, or access to a lawyer, and which uses torture and coercion. :rolleyes:
This was an even better (i.e., typically disturbing) quote from the president:
At a brief news conference, President Bush said that while he was “saddened by today’s news,” the indictment would not keep the White House from its work. “We’ve got a job to protect the American people, and that’s what we’ll continue to do,” he said.
That's what the WH work is? Wow, I wouldn't have ever known. :rolleyes:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9837835/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #133
SOS2008 said:
This was an even better (i.e., typically disturbing) quote from the president:
At a brief news conference, President Bush said that while he was “saddened by today’s news,” the indictment would not keep the White House from its work. “We’ve got a job to protect the American people, and that’s what we’ll continue to do,” he said.
That's what the WH work is? Wow, I wouldn't have ever known. :rolleyes:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9837835/
Hey, didn't you know there are a lot more CIA operatives out there that might be Democrats. Gotta protect the American people from them.

It's hard work! That is why Bush is going to Camp David for the weekend.:-p
 
  • #134
You know, I don't see how the perjury charge won't be an open-and-shut case. Would a jury really buy the assertion that all these reporters who will be testifying are lying, just to get Libby in trouble? Will they buy the assertion that Judith Miller, who stayed in prison for several months to protect Libby's identity, was lying?
 
  • #135
Manchot said:
You know, I don't see how the perjury charge won't be an open-and-shut case. Would a jury really buy the assertion that all these reporters who will be testifying are lying, just to get Libby in trouble? Will they buy the assertion that Judith Miller, who stayed in prison for several months to protect Libby's identity, was lying?
Libby's case is open-and-shut. The real investigation into what he was lying to cover-up begins now.

My take on Fitzgerald's comments are that there will be a new Grand jury and the investigation will continue.
 
  • #136
Manchot said:
You know, I don't see how the perjury charge won't be an open-and-shut case. Would a jury really buy the assertion that all these reporters who will be testifying are lying, just to get Libby in trouble? Will they buy the assertion that Judith Miller, who stayed in prison for several months to protect Libby's identity, was lying?
Well it's not only the testimony of others that contradicts Libby's testimony, but written notes that dispute his earlier testimony, and apparently some of his own notes.

In someone's (possibly Fitzgerald) words, Libby lied when he indicated he [Libby] was at the back end of this chain when instead he was apparently at the front end of the process. Libby didn't learn from reporters about Plame's identity, but he learned from someone inside the administration, either Cheney or Rove or someone from the CIA, and he apparently contacted reporters to divulge the identity of Plame.

At this point, there has been no mention of an indictment regarding an actual crime related to revealing Plame's identity. So apparently, Fitzgerald has more work to do.
 
Last edited:
  • #137
Astronuc said:
Well it's not only the testimony of others that contradicts Libby's testimony, but written notes that dispute his earlier testimony, and apparently some of his own notes.
In someone's (possibly Fitzgerald) words, Libby lied when he indicated he [Libby] was at the back end of this chain when instead he was apparently at the front end of the process. Libby didn't learn from reporters about Plame's identity, but he learned from someone inside the administration, either Cheney or Rove or someone from the CIA, and he apparently contacted reporters to divulge the identity of Plame.
At this point, there has been no mention of an indictment regarding an actual crime related to revealing Plame's identity. So apparently, Fitzgerald has more work to do.
They thought they had their bases covered, until Ashcroft had to recuse himself.

Fitzgerald is a serious dude, and they are in trouble now.
 
  • #138
Skyhunter said:
They thought they had their bases covered, until Ashcroft had to recuse himself.
Fitzgerald is a serious dude, and they are in trouble now.
Here's a thought ...

(My role of sarcasm supplier notwithstanding)

In an effort to bring 'truth in government' to the fore, Why don't they just have done with it and rename the post of 'Special Prosecutor' to 'Witchfinder General'?

(Or would that be considered insulting to Mathew Hopkins?)
 
  • #139
Under what circumstances would a high level aide's crimes not require investigation by someone who *appeared* to be witchhunting?

Don't these guys have resources and savvy to cover most of their bases?
 
  • #140
The topic of "witch hunting" has already been attempted. The remarks made by Senator Kay Baily Hutchison (posted in another thread by Skyhunter) were about as much a stretch that one might make, and she retracted her statements yesterday (or clarified, according to her). It would be very difficult to call this a witch-hunt because Fitzgerald is considered to be apolitical and is held highly by all (including Bush) for his thoroughness and focus on the law, not politics. Libby can go to trial denying any wrongdoing, but I’m not likely to question Fitzgerald.
 
  • #141
The Smoking Man said:
Here's a thought ...
(My role of sarcasm supplier notwithstanding)
In an effort to bring 'truth in government' to the fore, Why don't they just have done with it and rename the post of 'Special Prosecutor' to 'Witchfinder General'?
(Or would that be considered insulting to Mathew Hopkins?)
Fitzgerald is not a 'Special Prosecutor'. He is a just a regular federal prosecutor. He has none of the special powers that Kenneth Starr had.
 
  • #142
Skyhunter said:
Fitzgerald is not a 'Special Prosecutor'. He is a just a regular federal prosecutor. He has none of the special powers that Kenneth Starr had.

Who told you this? What powers does he lack?
 
  • #143
faust9 said:
Who told you this? What powers does he lack?
Sorry, I confused the terms.

He is not an 'Independent prosecutor' with the following powers.
The prosecutor, who was appointed by a special panel of the Federal DC appeals court, could investigate allegations of any misconduct, with an unlimited budget and no deadline, and could only be dismissed by the Attorney General or a panel of three federal judges. As the president could not dismiss those investigating the executive branch it was felt that the independence of the office would insure impartiality of any reports presented to Congress. However, there have been many critics of this law including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Many argued the new Independent Counsel's office was a sort of "fourth branch" of government that had virtually unlimited powers and was answerable to no one. However, the constitutionality of the new office was ultimately upheld in the 1988 Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_the_Independent_Counsel
He is a 'special prosecutor' appointed by the office of the Attorney General after Ashcroft recused himself for conflict of interest.
A special prosecutor is a lawyer from outside the government appointed by the attorney general or Congress to investigate a federal official for misconduct while in office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor
 
  • #144
So they got a scapegoat, and how long after the facts?
TSM, we were right about everything on the other thread, but I must confess I was wrong about one thing: I always believed that eventually a vast majority of Americans would not take the bs anymore, but this veaudeville keeps going on and on and most Americans sleep on. If this thing stops with Libby then I am definitively cured from my naivity.
 
  • #145
It’s not important at all. The whole thing is one big non-issue. The only reason we hear about it so much is because the news media/left wants to see the president and/or anyone in the upper leadership of the administration made into criminals. This story is an attempt to prove a false premise. That false premise is the war is about a lie. It’s really quite funny how divorced from reality that premise is, and how despite some are to validate it. I suspect in a few weeks this will be old news, as the media gloms onto the next thing it thinks will bring down the "evil Bush administration".
:rolleyes:
 
  • #146
chaos_5 said:
It’s not important at all. The whole thing is one big non-issue. The only reason we hear about it so much is because the news media/left wants to see the president and/or anyone in the upper leadership of the administration made into criminals. This story is an attempt to prove a false premise. That false premise is the war is about a lie. It’s really quite funny how divorced from reality that premise is, and how despite some are to validate it. I suspect in a few weeks this will be old news, as the media gloms onto the next thing it thinks will bring down the "evil Bush administration".
:rolleyes:
You see? They don't even have scruples about a presidency that does not hesitate to screw one of their own if he does not want to confirm their lies. And some Americans just seem to love to be screwed.
 
  • #147
Mercator said:
You see? They don't even have scruples about a presidency that does not hesitate to screw one of their own if he does not want to confirm their lies. And some Americans just seem to love to be screwed.
For those of you outside the U.S., always consider the source. There are about 20% hardcore Bush supporters who are as you describe, and one should take what they say with a grain of salt.

In fact, that is what this investigation is all about--trying to discredit someone. The irony is they were trying to discredit Wilson primarily with accusations of cronyism (i.e., his wife being instrumental in his selection for the investigation). It is not true--both had job descriptions appropriate for the roles played, and how much a role played by Valerie Plame was exaggerated. But it is really ironic that the Bush administration was trying to use cronyism to discredit Wilson.

Then some like Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas, who has been indicted before) have tried to diminish crimes considered to be felonies. As I’ve stated, anyone trying to discredit Fitzgerald would be a complete idiot. People with some logical reasoning can see that the Bush administration wanted to suppress Wilson's findings. Findings that were clearly in direct conflict with the case they were trying to build for the war--findings found to be correct, and contrary to Bush's speech thereafter, which was incorrect. Those looking for a logical explanation as to why a smart lawyer like Libby got caught in a web of lies, well here is your answer.

This is no big deal? Okay, it's no big deal. :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #148
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #149
chaos_5 said:
It’s not important at all. The whole thing is one big non-issue. The only reason we hear about it so much is because the news media/left wants to see the president and/or anyone in the upper leadership of the administration made into criminals. This story is an attempt to prove a false premise. That false premise is the war is about a lie. It’s really quite funny how divorced from reality that premise is, and how despite some are to validate it. I suspect in a few weeks this will be old news, as the media gloms onto the next thing it thinks will bring down the "evil Bush administration".
:rolleyes:
Patrick Fitzgerald is not a member of the news media/left, and even the Bush administration must think that he is impartial (since he was appointed to the case by James Comey, Deputy Attorney General and Bush appointee). He is in charge of the case, and along with a Grand Jury, decided to indict Libby for committing perjury, a serious crime (and certainly not a non-issue). Sorry, but this is not politically motivated, no matter how you try to spin it.
 
  • #150
Manchot said:
Patrick Fitzgerald is not a member of the news media/left ... Sorry, but this is not politically motivated, no matter how you try to spin it.
Perhaps the Prosecutor is acting in a professional manner, and simply doing his job. I give you that point; however there are far more important issues that should dominate the news cycle. The political aspect of this story is the coverage, and the conclusions some are drawing about the meaning of the indictment.
 

Similar threads

News Matt Cooper on Rove's leaking Plame's name
Replies
7
Views
2K
News Rove talked about CIA Op to Reporters (Article)
Replies
13
Views
3K
News John Bolton Lied to Congress: UN Ambassador Appointment?
2
Replies
62
Views
7K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
Replies
29
Views
10K
News McCain confused about the Iraq war.
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the CIA a Terrorist Organization?
Replies
8
Views
5K
News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence
21
Replies
1K
Views
94K
News Bush made Iraq a very dangerous place
Replies
9
Views
2K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K
News Free Advice to G.O.P. (about Iraq)
Replies
2
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top