Oh oh. It looks like when this trial finally gets going it might be shining some bright lots on some previously shady areas…
Libby Trial May Be Embarrassment for Bush http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak
[i]
WASHINGTON - Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide are signaling they may delve deeply at his criminal trial into infighting among the White House, the CIA and the State Department over pre-Iraq war intelligence failures.
In a prelude to a possible defense, the lawyers for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby also are suggesting that the State Department - not Libby - may be to blame for leaking the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media.
Court papers filed late Friday raise the possibility a trial could become politically embarrassing for the Bush administration by focusing on the debate about whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
[/i]
I’ll be curious to see who gets snared and how high up this thing goes… today I was reading that Stephen J Hadley was involved (Condi Rice’s #2).
I don’t know if this was discussed here already, but Plame was a specialist on Iran’s nuclear capabilities… not exactly the type of person the administration should be sabotaging.
Oh well, Bush promised to fire anybody who was involved in this, and everyone knows he is a man of his word. (Can he fire Dick Cheney?)
[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh oh. It looks like when this trial finally gets going it might be shining some bright lots on some previously shady areas…
Libby Trial May Be Embarrassment for Bush http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak
[i]
WASHINGTON - Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide are signaling they may delve deeply at his criminal trial into infighting among the White House, the CIA and the State Department over pre-Iraq war intelligence failures.
In a prelude to a possible defense, the lawyers for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby also are suggesting that the State Department - not Libby - may be to blame for leaking the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media.
Court papers filed late Friday raise the possibility a trial could become politically embarrassing for the Bush administration by focusing on the debate about whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
[/i][/quote]
OOOO Vroom, the Administration must be shaking in its boots…
…you wish!
Worry about your own corrupt liberal system “up yonder” and stop trying to badmouth the U.S. Remember, without us you’d still be wearing buckskin and hunting moose!
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
OOOO Vroom, the Administration must be shaking in its boots…
…you wish!
Worry about your own corrupt liberal system “up yonder” and stop trying to badmouth the U.S. Remember, without us you’d still be wearing buckskin and hunting moose![/quote]
[Is this guy joking or what?]
Steveo,
What the hell are you talking about. I’m sure you have forgotten that this is a politics forum generally geared towards a US audience?
I’m not trying to badmouth the US at all you dolt!
Anyway, considering that the approval ratings for the administration are at their lowest and that this is simply going to drag extremely damaging issues out for discussion, I’ll bet someone is shaking in their boots.
Clue for you. While it isn’t the administration, there are other people who are going to be facing elections in the future…
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Oh oh. It looks like when this trial finally gets going it might be shining some bright lots on some previously shady areas…
Libby Trial May Be Embarrassment for Bush http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak
[i]
WASHINGTON - Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide are signaling they may delve deeply at his criminal trial into infighting among the White House, the CIA and the State Department over pre-Iraq war intelligence failures.
In a prelude to a possible defense, the lawyers for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby also are suggesting that the State Department - not Libby - may be to blame for leaking the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media.
Court papers filed late Friday raise the possibility a trial could become politically embarrassing for the Bush administration by focusing on the debate about whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
[/i]
OOOO Vroom, the Administration must be shaking in its boots…
…you wish!
Worry about your own corrupt liberal system “up yonder” and stop trying to badmouth the U.S. Remember, without us you’d still be wearing buckskin and hunting moose![/quote]
How exactly did the United States “modernize” Canada?
Or, do you not know what the fuck you are talking about?
I think some of us, who were accused of being “shills” for the administration, have stated from the get go that this seemed likely to have stemmed from the State Dept./CIA feud, and that it looked as if the “malicious leak” was from State, which was “leaking” to make fun of the CIA and show what a joke its investigations were.
Amazing how that is now going to be “embarassing for the administration.”
BTW, the best speculation I’ve seen, which is old, is that it was Richard Armitage who “leaked.” Such a big kerfluffle over nothing – Plame wasn’t undercover, no national security interest has been harmed (surely not anything near the national security interest in keeping the NSA program and the black-prisons program secret). But, oh, some evil person must have leaked her name to get back at the oh-so-previously-relevant Joe Wilson.
You are funny Boston. Do you realize you hit just about every single Republican talking point there is on the subject?
[/quote]
Amusing that the old “Republican talking points” are seemingly proving correct, or amusing that all the speculation about Cheney and Bush “authorizing the leak” was a bunch of crap? 'Cause both are kind of funny…
But for the sake of memory lane, here’s an old post I linked to last year about just how covert was Valerie:
And here are a few interesting articles on the latest with Scooter – surprisingly(?), given all the posturing at the beginning of this, particularly the beginning of the special counsel, still not much on the national-security implications:
If Libby lied under oath, of course it’s a problem – but it’s not a national-security problem. The special prosecutor here was ginned up to investigate a national-security problem, not to investigate inter-bureaucracy feuding. And let us not forget: It’s pretty hard to prove someone lied, which requires scienter, versus the defense of “I forgot.” Essentially, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t a case of forgetting, which is no mean feat when you’re isolating statements from someone very busy.
I’m not surprised that things are “moving on” like that – why would anyone want to think about the original reasons proferred for all this nonsense anyway?
I think you missed my sarcasm – or maybe not – anyway, the point was that the source of this current event was a bunch of ridiculous speculation that is now apparently being “moved on” from.
By the by, I love how the press keeps trying to find a way to write a negative story on the administration on this. Just how speculative is that lead: “And maybe, just maybe, the focus will go back on WMD, so we in the press can trot our our favorite anti-administration storytelling skills.” Whatever happens, we know they won’t focus on the merits of the trial, or the actual pleadings and filings.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
By the by, I love how the press keeps trying to find a way to write a negative story on the administration on this.[/quote]
Yeah, damn liberal media. Why don’t they ever cover the POSITIVE side of this story?
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
By the by, I love how the press keeps trying to find a way to write a negative story on the administration on this.
Yeah, damn liberal media. Why don’t they ever cover the POSITIVE side of this story?
(Just what is the positive side here?)
[/quote]
Just what is the story here? And what was the national-security issue that demanded the creation of a special prosecutor at the beginning?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Just what is the story here? [/quote]
Cheney’s #2 man Libby is accused of:
Lying to FBI agents- 2 counts
Lying under oath - 2 counts
Obstruction of justice
Not serious enough crimes for you?
Plame was undercover as recently as 1999 and specialized in middle-east nuclear capabilities. I don’t see how her job was insignificant. Whether Plame was still undercover in 2003 at the time of the leak is irrelevant.
Anyway, the GOP has set new standards for special prosecutors when they spent (what, 70 million in taxpayer dollars) investigating Clinton’s alleged illegal activities in Whitewater, and when that came up totally empty, sending Ken Starr on a fishing expedition looking for whatever else he could find. Don’t start crying about runaway special prosecutors now. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Anyway, don’t you trust the US Dept. of Justice?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Oh oh. It looks like when this trial finally gets going it might be shining some bright lots on some previously shady areas…
Libby Trial May Be Embarrassment for Bush http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060318/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak
[i]
WASHINGTON - Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide are signaling they may delve deeply at his criminal trial into infighting among the White House, the CIA and the State Department over pre-Iraq war intelligence failures.
In a prelude to a possible defense, the lawyers for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby also are suggesting that the State Department - not Libby - may be to blame for leaking the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media.
Court papers filed late Friday raise the possibility a trial could become politically embarrassing for the Bush administration by focusing on the debate about whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
[/i]
OOOO Vroom, the Administration must be shaking in its boots…
…you wish!
Worry about your own corrupt liberal system “up yonder” and stop trying to badmouth the U.S. Remember, without us you’d still be wearing buckskin and hunting moose!
How exactly did the United States “modernize” Canada?
Or, do you not know what the fuck you are talking about?
Again.
[/quote]
You are a disgrace to the teaching profession! If I were your principal and you spoke like this, I would have you in the office filing papers until you retire – anyting to keep you from the kids.
The fact that you know what a “tautology” or whatever that is doesn’t matter because your consistent use of profanity shows someone who is a pathological vulgar individual.
