July 3, 2007
On His Last Day in Office, Bush Will Pardon Himself and Cheney (Brent Budowsky)
Congress should devise a set of subpoenas that would call the president and vice president to testify about actions that could constitute violations of law and set the stage for a historic Supreme Court decision that would determine whether any president is above the law.
George H. W. Bush charged that those who disclose the identities of covert operatives are committing the equivalent of treason, while George W. Bush believes that those who lie under oath about such matters should receive less jail time than Paris Hilton.
When the president stated he would not intervene in this case until all appeals had been heard, the president was lying.
A majority of Americans believes George W. Bush does not tell the truth. An overwhelming majority of Americans has come to disrespect and disapprove of this president. Throughout the free world there is revulsion and disgust about what this man has done.
Things are being done in this corrupt and failed administration that should never happen in America and have never happened before, in this way, to this magnitude.
Justice Robert Jackson, in his summation at Nuremberg, spoke at length about the ideals of justice being open, decisions being made in public, charges being filed, the law being respected, right to counsel being provided and the common standards of jurisprudence and civilization behind honored.
Never before in American history has any president so casually claimed the power to violate the Bill of Rights and Constitution through secret acts in violation of commonly accepted law.
Never before has an American president claimed unitary powers to violate statutes though signing statements on such a regular and unprecedented scale.
Never before has an American president tried to impose secret courts, secret trials, secret files and secret charges, using secret forms of what the civilized world calls torture, often without the right to counsel, often imprisoning and torturing detainees without filing charges.
Never before has an American president had a vice president who boasts about working on the dark side, and conducts a virtual super-secret government from the vice president’s office while he desperately tries to keep truth from law, and bullies and intimidates those who disagree.
Never before has an American president named and kept an attorney general who defames the very notions of justice in America, devalues the very ideals that our Founding Fathers held so dear, defrauds the nation in public testimony and destroys the entire upper echelon of the administration of justice in America.
Thousands of Gold Star mothers know the price of these transgressions and the pain that has flowed from these obsessions, lies, frauds and misrepresentations that have led our country into the tragedy of Iraq.
Torture in violation of decency and law, secret eavesdropping in violation of constitutional history beyond the reach of the courts and the Congress, lies under oath, slanders of political opponents, Abu Ghraib crimes and the cover-up charged by the general of such integrity he could stay silent no longer — the list of wrongs is long.
Knowing of these crimes more than our people or our system of justice, fearing the exposure that is ultimately inevitable, and well aware of the legal consequences I expect the president, on his last day in office, to issue a series of pardons that would include himself and the vice president.
These pardons would include a list of those most legally vulnerable to the long litany of wrongs, done in secret, but destined for exposure.
Congress should call the leading constitutional authorities in the nation, and devise a series of subpoenas to directly call the president and the vice president to testify on matters that could involve violations of law. This would lead to a historic test case that would decide, once and for all, whether Thomas Paine was right when he stated that in monarchies the king is law, but in America, the law is king.
74 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
Brent, salivating as usual. Clinton was innocent after being proven guilty, Bush and Cheney are guilty until proven innocent.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 3, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Brent why don't you and Chris Matthews understand that to find someone guilty in this country requires then to do something. To not recall a certain thing at a certain time on a certain day is not guilt. If it was guilt our prisons would be filled with older people.
Get over it, this nothing brought on by nothing as Ms. Plame was not an agent at the time.
Comment by David Hamlin — July 3, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Let's see the Dems call Libby to testify about Cheney's role in Plame's outing
I'd like to see W try to apply "executive privilege" in covering a convicted felon, but if he does, then it's time to zero-out ALL funding for the Executive Branch-Not the agencies, bureaus or departments, just those Presidential and Vice Presidential staff working out of the White House
And to cut off a major loophole, make sure that private donations can't be used to meet those payrolls, if paychecks are issued, let them come out of W's & Cheney's pockets and wallets
While the chief counterargument would be that banning such private donations might be a free-speech violation, since there's nothing in the Constitution addressing such an issue-that I'm aware of, apologies if wrong-and since Congress hasn't spelled out how to address such an issue, this current Supreme Court is of the opinion that for something to be valid, every single "i" must be dotted and "t" crossed
That's exactly why the Court ruled against low-paid health care workers recently, because Congress didn't address those concerns concretely, concerns which the court held allowed those workers to be treated as they were. If the Administration were to actually try and use such private donations, without that ability being spelled out anywhere, this Court would smack them down
This commutation shows that treachery against our Constitution and our intelligence analysts/covert operatives has a thriving community at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and that actually protecting the US public against another terrorist attack on US soil does not factor one bit into the President's or Vice President's decision making, not in the least
But hey, who knows, maybe "commuting" Traitor Libby's sentence will get that US attorney's firing fiasco to go away, or the situation in Iraq to suddenly become much more positive, or get the public to rally around warrantless spying on domestic communications
Let's see if W "has the stomach" to hold a press conference to address why he let Libby off the hook for helping to destroy a career and a vital network of overseas informants and double agents designed to prevent WsMD from falling into the wrong hands
Once again, when W needs to show REAL spine, he instead crumbles completely and decides that "personal accountability" has NO place in his Administration
Comment by KingCranky — July 3, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
And never before has a rubber-stamp congress, with almost unanimous 'opposition' support, allowed a president to get away with all this. It gives democracy a bad name.
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'
Comment by Don Bacon — July 3, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Ah, but Mr. Rosecrans, you overlook one salient fact: Unlike Mr. Clinton — whose ill-advised but completely harmless consensual tryst with a starstruck young social climber was never grounds for impeachment — Mr. Bush is a moron, a fool, a drunk, a sociopath, a traitor and a criminal, among myriad other less-than-desirable character traits. Oh, and he fancies himself a king and a dictator, holy and infallible. He must be impeached. He's lied and lied and lied — and hundreds of thousands have died.
Comment by D.G. Bowman — July 3, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
And Mr. Hamlin: I can only assume tht you're fact-challenged. Ms. Plame was indeed undercover at the time. Her career — and possibly the careers of scores of others — was destroyed by vicious, petty partisans who couldn't stand that her truth-seeking husband blew the whistle on their treacherously dishonest justifications for war with a sovereign nation that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 and was never a threat to us. What is it with you "rule of law" reich-wingers? Thieves and hypocrites and chickenhawks, all of you.
Comment by D.G. Bowman — July 3, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Why do you people on the Right swallow whatever crap your talk radio stations and Fox "News" (fed directly from the RNC) without bothering to check up on the facts? The REPUBLICAN prosecutor Fitzgerald has said that Valerie Plame WAS a covert agent working undercover for the CIA when her cover was blown by Bush and Cheney via their henchmen. It was the CIA that ordered the investigation, not Amb. Wilson! You people will excuse ANYTHING your leaders do even if what they do would be called TREASON for any other person, especially if he or she were a Democrat.
Comment by John — July 3, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Brent: Please reference the crime you are referring to? You say disclosing a covert CIA operative is treason. Yes, but can you tell me what conviction you are referring to? Never before have I seen such partisan salivation on display. Your credibility diminishes with every drop of saliva…
Comment by Rich — July 3, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Robert and David don't seem to quite understand the US legal system. Libby was tried and convicted of a crime. Bush has commuted sentence, essentially overriding the justice system.
Brent suggests he might do it again.
(But…but…) Clinton was tried through impeachment and not removed from office.
No one over rode anything in that case.
Clinton certainly didn't pardon himself.
What I can't understand about conservatives is that, despite being proven wrong again and again and again (WMD's, connections with Al Qaeda, being welcomed in Iraq, Plame's status within the CIA, etc.) They still cling desperately to falsehoods, misdirection and faulty comparisons. Grow up, admit you were wrong, and let's move on and get America back on track.
Comment by MK — July 3, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
And Rich…
Libby's obstruction of justice prevented any conviction for disclosing the identity of a CIA agent. He was convicted of covering up the evidence trail. With the trail obscured, no conviction was possible. However, should he choose to testify honestly, which a prison stint might have motivated him to do, the criminals may yet be revealed.
Comment by MK — July 3, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
MK doesn't understand that the Conservatives are at war. With liberals and progressives. It's a class war, and they've enlisted Dominionists and Right to Lifers and Dittoheads as troops, but somehow progressives seem confused by this war, because it's a cold war.
For conservatives, this is not about the legal system, and it's not about right or wrong. It's about not letting a valient trooper wind up as a POW.
Comment by Willie — July 3, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Isn't president Cheney the worst president we've ever had?
Comment by skyreader7 — July 3, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Brent and all your supporters:
Fact: Armitage was known to be the source of the leak by Fitzgerald before the investigation and the subsequent charges against Libby.
Question: Why the investigation? Why is Armitage not in jail (giving you the point that Plame was covert)?
Opinion: Sandy Berger's offense was much more grave to national security than the whole "Plame Affair" could ever dream of being.
btw, Bet you are happy with the new British Prime Minister telling his gov't not to use Muslim in the description of terrorists and to drop the phrase "War on Terror". I'm sure those Muslim Islamic terrorists will greatly appreciate that and stop blowing up themseleves and women and children everywhere.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 3, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Plame was not covert. Armitage was the "leak". Muslims are the terrorists in the War on Terror. We will not cower to political correctness or the numbness of mind of America's bashers; namely Brent and the left moonbats he represents…Open your mind and develop your own talking points.
Comment by Rich — July 3, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Jon -
The first person to leak it - Armitage - is not the criminal. The criminal in the underlying investigation is whoever orchestrated the leak to the press - not just the first person to talk to Novak. There were multiple leaks, and they all lead back to Libby. The question then is who instructed Libby to do so?
Sandy Berger, the British Prime Minister, and Muslims are completely different and irrelevent matters. I'd suggest focusing your arguments to the matter at hand, instead of changing the subject and making unbased accusations. ("Bet you are happy with" ? "I'm sure Islamic terrorists greatly appreciate"?)
It's debate at a fourth grade level.
Comment by MK — July 3, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Rich-
According to the CIA, who requested the investigation, Plame was indeed covert. According to Bush himself, and just today, Tony Snow, Plame's job should not have been leaked.
Armitage was merely one of several coordinated leakers. It's the coordinator who is the perpetrator, not the people who parroted what they were told.
No one wants you to cower to political correctness, but we do suggest you acknowledge facts and reality. To combine Plame's status, the definition of a terrorist, and America bashing all into one simple thing that you can attack is a bit unsophisticated. I'd suggest opening your own mind a bit, and trying some new sources for your information.
Comment by MK — July 3, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
It is time to take effective action.
Here is what I think should be done.
There is another 'March For Peace' now underway that started in Chicago about a week ago and will finish up in Washington D.C. during the week of 9/11.
http://marchofthepeople.org/blog/?page_id=176
Hopefully, the organizers will provide a location on the Mall for a world's record largest Town Hall Meeting with an open mike so that anyone can express their opinion about what should be done with our federal government employees in Washington who have mutinied against WE THE PEOPLE's mandate.
The problem with the other 'March For Peace' rallies is they ended after only a few hours. This one coming up in September should not end until WE get the results for which we are marching.
This is the perfect time for WE THE PEOPLE to order George Bush and dick Cheney to resign and order Congress to end the illegal occupation of Iraq.
WE THE PEOPLE have a Constitutional right to peacefully assemble around the White House, around Congress, around the Supreme Court and around the Pentagon.
WE THE PEOPLE have the Constitutional right to stay peaceably assembled at those locations as long as we choose and until OUR above orders have been obeyed.
I use the word orders and not the word demands because our representatives in Washington work for us, we don't work for them.
WE THE PEOPLE are the real government in the U.S. Our representatives in Washington are only our employees. WE THE PEOPLE tell them what to do and if they refuse, WE can fire them at any time. WE do not have to wait until the next election.
They must learn once and for all, they are not the boss of us, WE THE PEOPLE are the boss of them!
What is needed right now is for all the bloggers at home and all the progressive talking heads to start writing about this event, and start encouraging everyone to get involved during the week of 9/11 in a revolutionary modern day DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, and reaffirmation of our rights under the U.S. Constitution by WE THE PEOPLE.
Comment by KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA — July 3, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Sorry to see Jon Pemberton quaking in his boots. He's obviously bought into the entire "war on terror" meme that the neocons in the Blight House have so skillfully woven into our daily narrative. Wonder if he noticed that the Brits just went about their business after what Wanton Boy himself called the "amateurish" terror "attacks" in London and Glasgow. The Blight House has pretty much told us to be afraid 24/7 — and then to go shopping. Oh, and to stay in perpetual debt. Grow up, engage your brain and see this whole transparent "war" for what it is: a path to enrich Halliburton and other corporate juggernauts. You can choose to let Wanton Boy and Darth Cheney make you afraid — or you can reject the entire premise. I've chosen the latter.
Comment by D.G. Bowman — July 3, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
The fact is Fitzpatrick knew who the leaker was from the beginning. From that moment on it was a witch hunt. Lot of liberal trolls here.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 3, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
MK,
Guess you missed 4th grade since I OUTLINED and LABELED my fact and question directly related to the topic and my OPINION as to the relevence of the whole topic (witch hunt versus justice).
btw, By the Way, was a smart a?? comment, that is why I prefaced with btw.
Another example of a liberal dishing out condscending names and describing the "stupidity" of those who would disagree with themselves ("4th grade level" "unsophisticated" "open your own mind".
Back to the matter at hand. If there was such good evidence of Libby being the "mastermind" behind the leaking of a "covert" agent, why was he not charged with those offenses? You speak as the evidence to such is incontrovertible, yet he was charged with perjury and obstruction of Justice.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 3, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
MK _ If Plame was covert the entire investigation would have been legitimate. It was never established that anyone knew what her status was (including the CIA's own internal documents) and was considered in the leak. It has never been concluded that she was covert according to the definition in the; Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This entire episode will remain in dispute and will be a bone of contention for years to come. You obviously come from the elitist class so I will bow out knowing your "facts" must not be disputed and your sources of information reign superior…
Comment by Rich — July 3, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Debate at the fourth grade level? That's what they call ignoring serious crimes committed like the one Sandy Berger did while overplaying the drama around Scooter Libby. For all intents and purposes he did the same thing Clinton did. Clinton skated. Where were the moralists then?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 3, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Ah, Robert, Rich and Jon: the holy troika of reich-wing stupidity — at least on this particular board. Up is down, black is white, war is peace. OK, try to follow this: None of Clinton's transgressions dealt with war crimes and national security. With individual exceptions, liberals and progressives deal in truth and facts and the reality of what is truly going on in this crumbling nation. They also see gradation and nuance and shades of gray. They use their brains. They aren't reflexive demagogues and ideologues. Reptilian, mossbacked conservatives — always hostile, always aggrieved, always defensive — traffic in lies, spin, prevarication, obfuscation and, perhaps most impressively and spectacularly, hypocrisy. Who knows where you're trying to drag the country, but it isn't a good place. R.I.P., "party of Lincoln." You've been hijacked by thieves and liars and killers. And with that, I leave you reich-wingers — the real "trolls" here — to stew in your own myopia and dissonance and stupidity. Cheers,
Comment by D.G. Bowman — July 3, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Robert, your ameturish, uninformed blather is embarrassing to us sane Americans. Do you ever think all the crap that Rush jammed in to your half-brain may indeed be CRAP? You might want to postulate the hypothesis (that you have been lied to)to current events and see if it has legs.
Comment by Chris in NM — July 4, 2007 @ 12:55 am
I see Rich (#21 above )has been snorting goof balls. again. Rich, I hear Betty Ford Clinic has some vacancy. I'd advise you to turn off, or shoot, your right wing radio. A mind is a horrible thing to waste.
Comment by Chris in NM — July 4, 2007 @ 12:58 am
For crying out loud, Rich has chimed in four times above. Rich, your gonna get fired for loafing (trolling) around on the net like that, and all.
Comment by Chris in NM — July 4, 2007 @ 1:01 am
Thank god Bush is keeping the terrorists under control. Indeed Brown in England is demonstrating what liberalism taken to it's logical conclusion is: a suicide pact. Plame is doing fine and will get rich off this case. Worry about the terrorists, not Bush who will be gone in a year and a half. Compare the troubles caused by Muslims all over the world with those by Bush and decide whose side you're on and who is more likely to cut your head off.
Comment by Igor R. — July 4, 2007 @ 1:29 am
Cheney was the orchestrator of the leak.
Libby was his willing co-conspirator.
Libby was told to muck up the investigation, which he did willingly for his master.
"Don't worry you will never spend a day in prison…and we will rule forever". (Rove Cheney)
After the 08 election Bush will pardon you.
I promise.
Comment by mikevail — July 4, 2007 @ 2:20 am
Is it your position, Robert, that wrongdoing by one person justifies wrongdoing by another? If so, you're advocating lawlessness.
Today, of course, is the day we celebrate the rule of law, not lawlessness. Today we celebrate our independence from the previous King George.
On January 20, 2009, if not before, we will celebrate our independence from THIS King George.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Comment by Carolyn Kay — July 4, 2007 @ 7:48 am
I wondered how long it would take for someone to bring Bill Clinton into the picture.
Clinton's terms are over. This debate should be about NOW and about our future. We should be discussing what we must do as a unified nation to ensure that NO president can use his office to protect convicted criminals from serving time.
Our system allows the convicted to appeal their sentences. There is no need for a president to interfere in the process we have created.
Comment by Beej — July 4, 2007 @ 9:00 am
The fact that you know Plame and Wilson are one in the same is proof that a crime was committed.
Comment by wwz — July 4, 2007 @ 10:22 am
Carolyn. No, that's not my position. Just that I don't think he should receive a harsher punishment than Clinton did when he did precisely the same thing. Many states have laws on the books which prevent that. Don't blame me for the justice system. I didn't create it. In fact, you could state that what Clinton did was worse in the sense that he was the President and he lied to a federal grand jury. Let me ask you, is it right that two identical crimes receive such completely different responses from the alleged same system? Obviously, something is broken.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 4, 2007 @ 11:54 am
As an observer from outside the USA (Australia)I can tell you that Bush is seen by most other civilised nations as a warmongering buffoon with no respect for the US or International law in any shape or form.
Many pro Bush posters here prattle on about "the terrorists" as though they are the greatest danger the world now faces, and that is simply not true. The truth is that most of the world outside of the USA sees the current US government especially when in concert with Israel, as the most dangerous threat to mankind that the world has ever seen.
You have a President who is a moron, a vice President who is a criminal, an attorney general who is a lapdog to the administration and a disgrace to his office as the premier upholder of US law and the constitution, Scooter (Liebowitz) Libby who lied under oath for his masters in order to cover up the lies they told about Niger Uranium and on and on it goes ad nauseum.
It is so sad to watch the rapid decay of all the wonderful things the USA was renowned for in the past in its position as the premier democracy and an example of freedom to the rest of the world.
It is now viewed as a laughing stock, albeit a highly dangerous one, by almost every civilised nation on earth.
You Americans en masse do not realise this because your major media only reports favourable views for domestic consumption and you are too busy shopping and otherwise consuming to get off your fat arses to find out what is happening to your once proud and great nation.
If you really believe in democracy, freedom and the rule of law you should be arranging for the prosecution,trial and conviction of the gang of war criminals and war profiteers that currently rule your nation.
I despair for you all because you have a castrated parliament which over the years has become hooked on the funds provided by war profiteers and Zionist interests, the two party system is as corrupt as it could possibly be, with some individual and notable exceptions, which are few.
When you think (if you in fact do think ever) about the hoo ha re terrorism this week in UK where seven amateurs attempted to blow up a few cars without any measure of "success" and where the only casualty was one of the alleged "terrorists" and juxtapose this with the media space given to US/NATO forces killing 100 Afghan civilians, women and children included, in a single air raid on a "terrorist position", you should realise that what you see in the US media is nothing but sugar coated versions of what your corrupt government wants you to hear.
Please please please good citizens of America wake up to what is happening to your country and don't fall for being told that it has to happen to all 300 million of you just because your government is in a "War" with approximately 100,000 "terrorists scattered around the globe.
Declare a truce, stop killing other people at a rate 1000 times that of "The Terrorists" and you will find that you can get back to being the free and democratic nation you once were.
Comment by john — July 4, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
we can only pray that the War on Terror, with all these small hiccups, will be as valuable to us all as the War on Drugs has been.
Comment by chris Kanada — July 4, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
I should also say that I am alarmed at the numbers of US citizens who appear to favour a totalitarian state over a true democracy.
One of the "problems" with democracy is that it allows for many viewpoints and opinions and protects the rights of its citizens too have and speak these views. Many here have responded in such a manner as to suggest that they would be happy for the USA to be a facist state with the rulers above the law and all those citizens who refuse to toe the party line should be eliminated.
Poor old America if these fruitcakes with no understanding of the lessons of history get control of your country, I fear they already have.
Comment by john — July 4, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Chris in N.M., I nominate you for uniformed troll of the year. Your childish posts from this moment are being ignored.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 4, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
And the incoming President's first act should be to declare both of them unlawful combatants and disappear them down to gitmo.
Comment by John — July 4, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
The posts that side with Bush and condemn Clinton have all their facts totally wrong. Their sources of information must begin and end with Fox News. The CIA most definitely said that Valerie Plame Wilson was undercover. She made a point of testifying under oath several times that she was. She headed a group in the CIA working on nonproliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran and Iraq (sort of relevent I would say). When outed, her network was destroyed. It was not her decision to send her husband to Niger. He was extremely qualified. Joe Wilson told the truth. The Niger Documents were known to be poor forgeries eleven months before Bush's State of the Union Speech referenced them as a reason for the urgent necessity of an Iraq invasion. The outing of his wife was retaliation for his whistleblowing.
All evidence shows that Armitage was not the sole leaker, but that Cheney coordinated an effort to get anyone and everyone to leak to whomever would listen.
Conservatives are now arguing that if you prevented a prosecuter from getting to the bottom of a crime by perjury and obstruction, that you are innocent. This is bizarro.
Since Clinton used the prosecuter's definition of sexual relations, which did not include anything he and
Monica did, he was telling the truth when he said he did not have sexual relations with her. This is why he was found NOT guilty. A federal judge later ruled that his testimony was immaterial to the Jones case and therefore could not be perjury nor obstruction of justice anyway.
Is adultry really on the same level as many known lies taking us into an illegal, extremely costly (one million lives and $2.3 Trillion), and totally counter-productive war?
Comment by Keith — July 5, 2007 @ 12:10 am
Also bizarro: saying that liberals should not be posting to this article. I guess Brent Budowsky couldn't post to his article since he is liberal!?!
Comment by Keith — July 5, 2007 @ 12:19 am
"john" from Australia, only a vicious anti-semite would bring up the supposed Libby/Liebowitz factoid. Only a terrorist sympathizer would tie the tiny Israel to the greatest threat to mankind. All over the world Muslims are plotting, blowing things up, pressing for Sharia law. From Pakistan to London they demand the end to civil order and the end to anyone's legal ability to criticize their genocidal beliefs. From Southern Thailand to the Philippines to Iraq to Afghanistan they are cutting people's heads off. The new hero of the British people with his confident and stately manner will not allow the use of the word "Muslim" to describe the plotters in the latest attack. It's true they were amateurish, but they meant "well". The 9/11 "heroes" did a little bit more damage. And sooner or later one of the members of your brotherhood "john" will get lucky.
To you "john" it's the Zionists who threaten your brothers all over the world simply because they dare to challenge your supposedly self-evident beliefs and dare to exist on the land that you think belongs to you. When terrorists commit war crimes by hiding among "innocent" civilians and are finally eliminated along with the "innocents" you cry foul. That's how your kind did so well in the last war in Lebanon. Well "john" you're not a typical Australian, I know what real Australians say about people like you. Thank god George Bush will not blink in his fight against the greatest menace today.
Comment by Igor R. — July 5, 2007 @ 1:18 am
Brent beautifully stated. It needs saying again and again.
When a small consensus blind to criminal acts and deeds committed by WH officials believe party loyalty trumps the rule of law suggests the nation's problems are more deeply pronounced than realized. The intensity of unwavering support for men whom abandoned time-honoured traditions, decency, justice, honesty and integrity is mystifying and puzzling. So Iam not sure which is more frightening: Bush & Cheney or those that defend them.
An administration that places politics over policy with abandoned disregard for the law are unworthy of holding office. Our country was hijacked by men with only their own self-interests in mind. Demonstrably Bush & Cheney care little for the rule of law and even less for the checks and balances embedded in our system of government. They show contempt for the Constitution and disdain for the public.
Inarguably Bush & Cheney circumventing the law is indefensible. What they have done to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries is indefensible. What they have done in our name is indefensible. What they've exacted on the world is indefensible. Defending the indefensible prevents the seeds, bearing the fruits of freedom, to take root and lessens the chance for prosperity to bloom for all peoples. That makes it clearly an "American" issue not a partisan issue.
While Bush & Cheney's definition of patriotism is anything but — most Americans are just now waking up to that fact. Blind loyalty and submission to government does not define patriotism; it might, however, better define a society weakened by an authouritarian-style government. A true patriot questions government policies, demands justice and stands up for the Constitution. A true patriot believes in the rule of law judiciously meted out. No one ought to be above the law, NO one. Those bent on defending the indefensible, loyal to an out-of-control administration may come to realize one day this is NOT a partisan issue; it is an American issue. Hopefully that day comes sooner rather than later.
Everyone, at one time or another, has mischaracterized or misjudged another person — especially politicians and presidents. Nevertheless it is up to the people to repudiate politicians who do not serve the nation's best interests regardless of political affiliation.
Today the world community faces an uncertain, turbulent future. During times of uncertainty necessitates using calm reason in measured thoughts and acts. As a nation, we, the people, have the power to restore time-honoured traditions, integrity and decency in the nation's identity. Correcting the affliction of injustice beset the country by men whose agendas are contrary to the nations best interests is predicated on a united citizenry willing to hold Bush and Cheney accountable. Otherwise those refusing to look thru the lens of reality keep the rest of us from holding the most powerful members of our political system accountable. Moreover failing to do so, who or what will stop others from doing likewise, or maybe worse, in the future?
In conclusion the more frightening of the two are those that defend this administration's lawlessness. America once ruled by law is now ruled by men. Absent law a just society becomes chaotic and incapable of functioning properly.
Comment by serena1313 — July 5, 2007 @ 4:54 am
Ah DG Bowman, I never brought up Clinton Dumb A$s so the rest of your post is meaningless. Nice work on the name calling, why argue the facts when name calling will fit.
Armitage was THE leaker. None of any of your other assertions have been proven true. The person who wrote the law about covert agent status testified Plame was NOT covert. (I love where others say "Plame testified she was covert, so she was" ROFLMAO).
So lying under oath is OK, it just depends on what you are lying about. Great logic there.
I came on to try and make a few points and I am personnaly attacked and called names. Nice job.
I have yet to return the favor and probably wont, just went through thios with my 9 year old.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 5, 2007 @ 11:35 am
A future criminal pardoning a present criminal, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and End this madness.
Last link (unless Stark County District Library caves to the gov't and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
Comment by Hal — July 5, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Rich and Mr. Pemberton -
If you boys are still trolling about -
It's hard not to take an elitist attitude when discussing things with informationally-challenged individuals. I apologize, but it gets tiresome refuting the same tired propaganda time and again.
If Plame was not covert, why did the CIA instigate an investigation into her outing? The CIA considered her undercover, she considered herself undercover, and her intelligence network considered her undercover. Whether she in fact met the letter of the specific law in defining a covert operative - and that can be debated - she certainly met the spirit of it. Her job ended when she was outed. The fact that she was Joe Wilson's wife, that she was named Valerie Plame and even that she worked for the government was not the protected information - that she worked in a position of authority for the CIA high enough to supposedly send her husband on a mission requested by the VP is.
Libby was not the source of the leak. He was told to do it, apparently by the VP, based on the evidence of the trial. This however cannot be confirmed due to the refusal to answer questions honestly by Mr. Libby. He has not simply "forgotten" dates, he has told conflicting stories that muddy the waters enough to protect the administration.
I say this without eqivocation because this is what he was convicted of. After a trial. By the American Justice system. Perjury and obstruction of justice.
Now what usually happens when you confront right wing people with facts and evidence, they usually fall back on ad hominem attacks - accusing their opponent of various unsavory things, which is really changing the subject and attempting to force the opponent into defending himself rather than his facts. Another tactic is simply changing the subject, like bringing up Berger or Clinton.
Nevertheless, there are answers to these dodges.
Berger, though tried and convicted by Rush Limbaugh, was never brought up on charges by the Republican administration. The only conclusion I can draw is that they didn't feel they had sufficient evidence to convict.
Clinton went on trial for his offenses, both civilly and through impeachment, and he bore the weight of both situations.
Bringing up your opinion as to which is a worse offense is mildly interesting and informative about your state of mind, but not really pertaining to te subject.
One can be "open-minded" by entertaining all sorts of unlikely possibilities, or one can be "open-minded" by being aware of and allowing facts to have an effect on your opinions and stances. I consider myself to be of the latter.
Comment by MK — July 5, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Igor -
Actually, there are several distictions within Islamic law. Not all sects follow the same belief system. Quite frankly, if Westerners stopped interfering in their politics, they would likely fall to killing each other over nuances of Islamic law. Saving or killing "heretics" from the West is less important to them than "heretics" within.
And, lest you think I'm arguing the savagry of Islam, let it be acknowledged that the worst oppressors and slaughterers of Christians has historically been…other Christians, trying to dominate the religion.
Terrorists are people who kill civilians without warning to achieve a political goal.
They are cowards to be despised, and historically their technique has been a consistent failure.
Unfortunately, just about every side I know of has practiced the technique at one time or another, and no one's hands are clean.
Comment by MK — July 5, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
MK, historically the ancestors of all people were savages. We are of course talking about today. People who unquestionably follow a system of beliefs that does not recognize those with alternate beliefs as worthy of a normal life are dangerous and need to be recognized as such.
Comment by Igor R. — July 5, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
MK,
Let me understand you correctly…So we do not need to support the "letter of the law" only its spirit. I guess that is why no charges for outing Plame were ever levied against ANYONE! The CIA did initiate the investigation and claimed an agent was outed, fortunatley we have the legal system to process under the assumption Innocent until proven guilty. I like how you support your "facts" in this way. "The CIA said so, so it must be true" "Valerie Plame said so, so it must be true". Truly pathetic
You said "Libby was not the source of the leak, ha was just told to do it…" Guess he did a poor job of that unless he commanded Armitage to leak. Did Libby do wrong? yes, but the investigation should have ended the day Fitzgerald KNEW and HAD Armitage's confession to being the source of the leak. Period. We just disagree here.
So Berger was never charged, but he pleaded guilty to a misdameanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents from the National Archives. Lets see how you react to that INCONTRAVERTIBLE fact. I only bring this up because you made such a false statement.
Bottom Line: No one was charged with outing a covert agent. Ms Plame's covert status has not been established in legal context. Armitage was known to be the leaker at the very beginning of the investigation whose purpose was TO FIND WHO LEAKED HER NAME AND POSITION TO THE PRESS. Libby did do wrong, but with all the underlying circumstances, 30 months in jail was not appropriate.
See, I did not insult you or call you a single name.
btw, never listen to Rush though I know of him.But, since you make so many assumptions in your facts I'll let this was slide as well.
btw2: Never brought Clinton up and I do not F'in care about him anymore its been 7+ years. Now, Clinton 2 that would suck.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 5, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Igor, it's only been about 150 years since enlightened Christian America outlawed slavery. About 100 since they allowed women to vote. Less than 75 since they codified civil rights into law.
Of course poeple who are intolerent of other belief systems are dangerous and must be treated as such. We all know this. The question is how to deal with it. Personally, I think the administrations methods are less than productive.
I believe there are some studies that prove that the number of terrorists and terrorist attacks have increased since our little adventure began.
Comment by MK — July 5, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
"Let me understand you correctly…So we do not need to support the “letter of the law” only its spirit. "
That's not at all what I said. I said that Plame was a covert agent at least in spirit. Legal definitions are defined by courts during lawsuits. The language used in laws is often vague and undefined until then.
You yourself wrote "It was never established that anyone knew what her status was" which to me at least suggests covert status. Covert status being…no one knows what your status is.
But that's semantics and not proof. So what do we have on the side of proof, besides Plame's own testimony? (And remember, she has not been indicted for perjury.)
CIA Director Hayden classified her as undercover. Republicans Judge Walton said and Patrick Fitzgerald established her as covert in the court records.
Now, since it's the CIA who determines the status of it's agents, I fail to comprehend how relying on their definitions for their own agents is somehow pathetic. Who's definitions would you prefer?
The fact is that Plame was covert. Her job involved investigating WMD's. The entire US government admits she was covert, including Bush himself.
The only people who claim any question about her status are pundits.
The theory as it stands today is that Cheney ordered multiple and organized leakings of Plame's status. Libby leaked it, Armitage leaked it, and Rove leaked it. These are facts, admitted by all participants. Libby lied about the circumstances of his leak. He still hasn't come clean. The belief is that he's protecting the Vice President.
We don't just disagree, you fail to understand the crime. The first person to speak to Novak is not the criminal. The person who told multiple sources to leak the information to the press is the criminal.
It seem Armitage did it out of ignorance.
Libby and Rove? Who knows?
On to other subjects. Yes, Berger plead guilty to a misdemeanor. My bad. However, the chargers were that he removed copies and no originals. If there was more involved, I imagine charges would have been pressed. He removed papers, and claimed it was by mistake. If there was a case to be made that he intentionally removed documents and destroyed them, don't you think it would have been followed up on? Is the Bush administration protecting Sandy Berger?
At any rate, in each case the legal system ran its course. No one pardoned or reversed the decision on Berger.
Monthes in jail is actually pretty common in perjury cases.
I'm constantly amazed by the conservatives I know who swear they don't listen to Rush or watch Fox News. Especially when they parrot the same disinformation.
Be that as it may, I'll take you at your word.
I still suggest you find better, more accurate sources of information.
But I've enjoyed our chat.
Comment by MK — July 5, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
"People who unquestionably follow a system of beliefs that does not recognize those with alternate beliefs as worthy of a normal life are dangerous and need to be recognized as such."
Comment by Igor
That's what I've been saying about Bush supporters for seven years now!!!
People who think adultery is worse than lying us into an illegal, counter-productive war costing one million human lives and $2.3 TRILLION are really warped!
Also, what about the adultery of Eisenhower, Ron and Nancy Reagan, GHW Bush, Hyde, Livingstone, Giuliani, and Gingrich?
Wilson told the truth—that the evidence for the war was known lies. They punished his wife for that. She worked on nonproliferation in Iraq and Iran Ironic, ain't it?
Susan MacDougal actually served 22 months in prison because she refused to lie about Whitewater (a big non-crime).
Comment by Keith — July 6, 2007 @ 12:19 am
I personally can't wait for hilton to sue the President for allowing 9/11, again. The case was thrown out because it was against a sitting president. Unless Bush banishes congress, like his treasonous directive allows him to do, he will leave office on time and people will sue him until he is blue in the face. Congress is afraid of him, and they are hoping he will leave when his time is up.
If I was Bush I would be afraid Cheney would take me out so that he could take over as dictator. You KNOW he wants to if he thought he could get away with it.
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 6, 2007 @ 12:39 am
Igor, your kneejerk anti-semite accusation is so common and so misused that soon an acusation of anti-semitism will be meaningless. It is trotted out by people like you any time anyone dares suggest that the Zionist movement is anything other than as pure as the driven snow.
Tiny little Israel has one of the best equipped and manned military forces on earth, possesses Nuclear weapons, thanks to US support of several billion dollars annually and is as belligerent to its neighbours to at least the extent they accuse their neighbours of being to them.
I have no issue with jews whatsoever, they are no different than any other people, there are good ones and bad ones just as it is so with Muslims and Christians.
By the way I am an anglo Irish catholic whose only connection with anything Muslim is that I drive past a Mosque on my way to work each day.
My initial posts were concerning the parlous state of government in the USA (it is getting more like that here in Australia too)which has been brought about by a few criminals in the White House and YES I will say again, influence of Zionists/neocons/defence contractors, oil companies etc.
Criticism of Israel and the fanatical Zionist movement should not contstitute anti-semitism. Anti-semitism accusations are now routinely hurled against anybody who criticizes Israel, its powerful US lobby or who questions the loyalty and trustworthiness of anyone jewish or Israeli.
I just loved the way that you turn me from an observer of the state of US politics into a terrorist-hugging Muslim fanatic who would kill and injure anybody of a different viewpoint. All this because I mentioned Leibowitz as Libby's real name.
Yes I did believe it added context to mention his israeli connections and it would not surprise me if he was not an actual undercover operative for the Mossad.
This does not make me anti-semitic nor pro-terrorist. Just as my criticism of Bush and Cheney et al does not make me an anti_Christian or anti-WASP.
The fact that you immediately accused me of anti-semitism and failed to call attention to my criticisms of Bush, Cheney, Gonzales as vicious anti-christianism tells me you are totally out of balance and are not to be taken seriously.
You in fact are one of those responsible, through your tacit support of the status quo, for the destruction of the USA through its mindless support for anything Israel asks.
I support democracy and more importantly, freedom for all people, I believe religious fanaticism of any kind is evil and the cause of most ill will between men.
The woes of the US and Israel are caused by fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Jews. each is as blameworthy as the others.
What gives jews the right to criticise anyone they choose without fear of being branded racist or ant-something, whilst at the same time expecting anyone who criticeses anything vaguely jewish or Israel related to be branded as an anti-semite and put into the same class of hate merchants as the Nazis and Islamo-facist terrorists?
People are gonna get sick of your whining eventually and see people like you for what you are, not jewish but fanatical Zionists who are as dangerous to the world as any other terrorist organisation…remember Zionism was founded on terrorism.
Yes I hate what the Israeli government stands for but I love and admire the jews as a people, many of their Israeli politicians like ours are self-serving despicable people who will stoop to any act of barbarism to get their way.
This I'm afraid disqualifies me for the title anti-semite, terrorist brother and whatever other stupid accusations you have made. Just get it into your thick skull that it is possible to like jews but dislike the Israeli Government just as it is not being anti-american to dislike the current US government….why is only the Israel stuff I mentioned briefly in my first post the only thing you vented your spleen over? Wasnt't my criticism of non jewish/Israeli elements more voluminous and accusatory? Yet all you focus on is the word Liebowitz and or Israel.
I hope you are a citizen of Israel and not of the US.
You know, the US is the only place I'm aware of where members of congress/senate and presidential candidates publicly grovel before a lobby group representing the interests of a tiny foreign nation and a tiny minority of the US population to seek their belessing or endorsement and funding for their election campaigns.
I could not imagine for a moment that Australian Politicians and Prime mintesterial aspirants would publicly and in full glare of major media, be seen to be seeking approval of Fiji or some other "tiny nation" and building their intended policies for governing Australia around the wants, likes and dislikes of that tiny other country. The very thought of it is ludicrous and would even be considered treasonous here and everywhere else in the world except the USA….why is that?
Comment by John — July 6, 2007 @ 1:17 am
To Jon Pemberton: Actually, you did insult MK by characterizing MK's comments as "truly pathetic." But that's not your only error.
As to another statement you made earlier, "Armitage was THE leaker. None of any of your other assertions have been proven true. The person who wrote the law about covert agent status testified Plame was NOT covert. (I love where others say “Plame testified she was covert, so she was” ROFLMAO)."
First off, the Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, a Bush appointee, said that Plame was a covert asset. I think the Director of the CIA knows who his covert assets are. Case closed. Victoria Toensing is the person you alluded to who has claimed she 'wrote' the covert agent status law; she contradicted earlier statements she made about the law in her congressional testimony on Plame. She's also an ardent TV propagandist for the GOP and the White House — you might as well ask Tony Snow to give his unbiased opinion of Bush's presidency.
Secondly, you wrote: "Did Libby do wrong? yes, but the investigation should have ended the day Fitzgerald KNEW and HAD Armitage’s confession to being the source of the leak. Period." Fitzgerald has claimed repeatedly he didn't know who was the source of the leak, but perhaps you can read his mind. Further, if Libby 'did wrong' why shouldn't he be prosecuted for it, even if Fitzgerald did know the source of the leak? Why should Fitzgerald knowing the source of the leak let Libby off the hook for his wrongdoing? That just doesn't make any sense.
Thirdly, others tried to leak Plame's name to reporters besides Armitage. Get your facts straight.
Igor, wipe that foam from around your mouth and stop being so hysterical. (Do you avoid driving a car? You have a much higher risk of death or injury from a car accident than a terrorist attack.) If you're so worried about terrorists, the way to fight them certainly isn't to put your trust in an incompetent oaf like Bush who is making the situation worse and alienating the allies the US needs to ensure its security, as John from Australia has mentioned.
It's also a shame you're so woefully ignorant about Islam: most Muslims, like the majority of people, want to lead quiet lives and they don't care about converting Americans to their religion. They just want us to leave them alone to practice theirs. Let me just guess you've never read the Qu'ran. Of course, even if you had, you would probably misinterpret it as much as Christians misinterpret the New Testament words of Jesus. (What is it about "Love one another" and "Turn the other cheek" that is so hard for the right-wingers to grasp?) I'll venture you didn't know, for instance, that Jesus is held in high regard as a prophet in Islam, and that the Muslim Allah is the same entity as Abraham's Jehovah or St. Paul's God.
Most of the world's billion Muslims, contrary to your fearful references to chopping off heads, do not subscribe to the extremism of Osama bin Laden, nor the strict Sharia law of the Saudi royal family. (You remember them — our 'allies' in the Middle East who have been funding anti-Israeli terrorist groups for decades? Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, incidentally, were from Saudi Arabia.) To say that the nutcase Islam of Al Qaeda motivates most Muslims is the same as saying that most of the Christians in the world obey Pat Robertson's goofy edicts.
As to your accusations that John from Australia is some kind of anti-Semite, I don't think he was using the term Zionism in that sense. Read some of the Israeli newspapers online; most of the Israelis are sick of their own version of our neocons, the extreme right-wing Zionists who want to basically kill all the Arabs. (I have had an Orthodox Israeli tell me that "the only good Arab is a dead Arab.") Prime Minister Olmert is Tel Aviv's version of Bush, down in the polls and his aggressive policies unpopular. Judaism is a religion that preaches peace, honesty, responsibility, justice and intelligence, as does Christianity and Islam, not unending fear, bloodshed and irrationality. As John Adams once said, the teachings of the Hebrews helped civilize our savage world.
Contrary to the misinformed assertions of some on the right, the Prophet Muhammad also preached peace and justice and nowhere did he embrace forcibly converting others to Islam, just as Jesus never ordered up the Crusades. Both were later perversions of each religion, imposed by power-hungry despots with a political agenda.
If you really want to defeat terrorism, the best way would be to show the rest of the world that this country is operated on the principles of seeking peace and dealing with others honestly, responsibly, justly and intelligently; finding solutions to our problems that don't involve invading and occupying other nations and killing innocent civilians. As the Old Testament Bible of Judaism, Christianity and Islam says, violence begets violence, and we are going to reap what we sow — in fact, we already have, and will coninue to, unless we change direction.
Comment by RS Janes — July 6, 2007 @ 11:53 am
MK,
The saddest part for me about only the perjury and obstruction charges being filed is that all these other assertions are and will never be challenged in court. So althought the evidence is out there that may support "Cheney ordered" "Plame was covert AND covered by the law", and the absurd notion that Wilson (Joe) is telling the truth it has not been challenged in court. I would rather have had someone charged with outing Plame so as both sides can be presented in court and let the chips fall where they may.
I do not toe the Republican line (I do watch Fox news, is that bad?) They are wrong on Immigration, Spending, and execution of the War on Terror (yes pretty much all of it).
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 6, 2007 @ 11:57 am
RS Janes,
So you maintain that Fitzgerald did not know about Armitage and his testimony to the FBI before all this started? There is no further point in discussing anything with you then.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 6, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Almost forgot..
With all this evidence that a covert agent was leaked to the press by multiple individuals and was investigated for almost three years and not one person was charged with that crime, what does that actually say about "THE" evidence? hhmmmmm?
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 6, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
John, first of all you posted under "john" and "John" and it's not obvious that those posts are tied together. Second, the Liebowitz angle was irrelevant to the current crime, hence the anti-semitism charge. Third, it's obvious to anyone with any sense of historical perspective that Arabs attacked Israel since 1948 a number of times with the intent to annihilate it. It's also obvious by what happens to captured Israelis (being torn apart limb by limb, castration, mutilation of all sorts) and by the general content of Arab television and the behavior patterns of say Hamas against even Fatah what would happen to the overrun Isrealis.
Yes some Jews, even those not born in Israel, want to live there and not be dominated by Arabs. You may agree or disagree with this ideal, but ALL violence after 1948 was provoked by Arabs. The Jews respond, and in some perverse logic they are labeled as Nazi-like killers. Palestinians smuggle bombs, the Israelis introduce checkpoints. Results: Jews are accused of making Palestinian life difficult. Palestinians smuggle more bombs and kill more innocent civilians, the Jews build a fence. Result: Jews are accused of furthering apartheid. Jews leave Gaza, and everyone knows what happens with the rockets and the internal struggles. Jews leave Lebanon, and you know what happens on the border. I've had enough of these distortions. I apologize for mistaking your religious affiliation, but please go profess your love for the Jews to someone else.
Comment by Igor R. — July 6, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
MK, the Judeo-Christian, British-brand western system in the US is programmed for self-improvment. The static 7th century Islamic systems are programmed for status-quo preservation. These are just basic facts about the two "designs" and these principles work through a number of mechanisms.
9/11 happened before Bush had a chance to put his stamp on things. The number of terrorists was increasing since say 1950s at a steady rate. Everything from the Soviet influence to oil money had an impact. I don't buy the idea that if you don't fight the enemies and talk nicely about them they will be nice back. The British have done more for their Muslim immigrants than anyone else. They can say things in mosques there that are just unbelievable, and overall they are treated with deference and respect. And the good doctors practicing under that system? Why, they drive burning vehicles with the intent to explode. It's all the rage and seething don't you know. Boys will be boys.
Comment by Igor R. — July 6, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
"9/11 happened before Bush had a chance to put his stamp on things."
If Bush had been doing his job — for example reading and responding to the CIA memo of August 6, 2001 entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in United States"– 9/11 might never have happened. He had nine months to 'put his stamp on things' — he held no meetings on the threat of terrorism and ignored the warnings of his White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke.
"I don’t buy the idea that if you don’t fight the enemies and talk nicely about them they will be nice back."
I don't either, but a bad way to fight terrorists is to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 nor Al Qaeda, and make more enemies for the US to fight. It also doesn't help to make enemies of all Muslims; if nothing else, we can't fight a majority of the billion Muslims in the world if they decided to go to war against us. It's also not true that all Muslims want to remain in the 7th century — that is a small faction of the Islamic world, just as the Christian fundamentalists in America are a small faction of the Christian world.
"…and the absurd notion that Wilson (Joe) is telling the truth it has not been challenged in court."
So, Jon Pemberton, Joe Wilson lied? He said the Iraq/Niger uranium story the Bush Administration was pushing to get us into war wasn't true, and it wasn't. What did Wilson lie about Jon, and please give some reputable sources?
Actually, you've contradicted yourself since you want a court trial to determine who is lying. Why would you need that if ou already know Joe Wilson is lying?
Were you aware that the Wilson's are suing Cheney, Rove and other members of Bush's cabinet? They apparently want a day in court to clear the air too — these don't seem to be the actions of people who are lying.
However, public servants, like, say. Vice Presidents, who refuse to testify in open court and under oath might be suspected of having something to hide.
"So you maintain that Fitzgerald did not know about Armitage and his testimony to the FBI before all this started?"
That's what he maintains the investigation was about: who leaked Plame's name and why. If you have information to the contrary, where did it come from?
"There is no further point in discussing anything with you then."
Good strategy to gracefully bow out when you're losing the argument on the facts, Jon.
Comment by RS Janes — July 6, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Personally I think putting the blame on Libby and making him do jail time would be like, well…prosecuting Osama Bin Laden's chauffer for 911. Oh wait…we did that too, or at least we're trying to do that.
Turn loose Libby and the Chauffer and bring the American people Cheney and Bush's heads on a silver platter!!
Comment by Julia Wisdom — July 6, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Igor, it is not anti-semitism to be against radical Zionism. I am half Jewish. See http://bgamall.stumbleupon.com and read the pinned post. I support peaceful leaning Zionists, but not those radical Zionists who push the envelope. They are also American imperialists, if they are PNAC Zionists, and they went into Iraq to gain oil and power. They have trampled international law and they are liars. They probably set up 9/11 as well, making some of them murderers.
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 7, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Gary, you have to realize that every time you claim that PNAC Zionists set up 9/11 you sound insane. Not because they could never attempt it, but because it's impossible to keep the people needed to set up a conspiracy like this from talking in the modern United States of America. And let me tell you this: if the Palestinians stopped fighting "occupation" like it's the only thing that matters to them, there'd be a lot more reasonable Zionists.
Comment by Igor R. — July 8, 2007 @ 1:12 am
RS,
Try these and get back to me.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle
You miss even the most simple things in this case.
btw, Please take your "liberal" blinders off before you read the above two articles which took exactly 47 seconds to find (yes I timed it).
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 9, 2007 @ 11:26 am
RS,
Also, The August 2001 memo "Bin Laden determined to attack the US".
Good one, and I am sure the memo said when and where as well and Bush just ignored it. Give me a break..
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 9, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Jon, I read the FactCheck article. It mentioned that the GOP-dominated U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, headed by Bush lapdog Sen. Pat Roberts came to those conclusions, not that those conclusions were necessarily correct, and it refers to a 1999 meeting that is far out of the purview of what Bush was talking about in his SOTU, and partly was based on the impression of one Iraqi that he and Wilson were discussing yellowcake urianium in the 1999 meeting. Wilson never mentioned uranium in that conversation.
Incidentally, contrary to the assertions of some Republicans, the findings of the Senate Intel Committee were not 'bipartisan' — some Dems had reservations about the findings of the report. In the final paragraph of the Washington Post link it says: "The panel said it still has 'not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa.'"
And the quote from Wilson had to do with who inserted the infamous 16 words in Bush's speech as the liar, "They need to point the finger at the person who inserted the 16 words, not at the person who found the truth of the matter."
Ask yourself, if the CIA went along with the Niger/Iraq uranium story, why didn't Bush simply quote them? Why quote the British?
In any event, as the White House has admitted, the story was bogus and Wilson was right.
As to the Washington Post article, no one is denying that Valerie Plame recommended her husband to go to Niger — he had experience in the region and knew the culture. However, she did not SEND him there; that was not her job. The CIA's Director of Operations, or a deputy, sent Joe Wilson to Niger and, BTW, it was the CIA who asked for the leak of Plame's identity to be investigated by the DoJ.
And, while your at it, you might actually read the articles you use to bolster your argument:
"Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name."
So, this WP article says Valerie Plame was, indeed, a classified operative of the CIA working in the area of nonproliferation. Wasn't that claim disputed by some on this thread?
Finally, here's some more information as to Plame's covert status and who leaked her name, excerpted from the sentencing memo and other court documents:
1. Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA officer up until Robert Novak's column blew her cover. She had seven undercover trips abroad in the five years before the leak, and the CIA continued to take active measures to protect her identity. She was the chief of a unit of the Counterproliferation Division of the Directorate of Operations "with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq." [Appendix A, p. 2.]
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_070525_Sent_Covert.pdf
.".. it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent …"
[Sentencing Memorandum, p. 12.]
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_070525_Sentencing.pdf
2. Scooter Libby was not the source of that story, which came from Richard Armitage and Karl Rove. [Memo, pp. 11-12]
3. But Libby had earlier unmasked Wilson in two conversations with Judith Miller and two separate conversations with Ari Fleischer and Matt Cooper [Memo, p. 10].
Nice try, Jon.
Comment by RS Janes — July 10, 2007 @ 8:03 am
"Also, The August 2001 memo “Bin Laden determined to attack the US”.
"Good one, and I am sure the memo said when and where as well and Bush just ignored it. Give me a break.."
No, it didn't say when and where, but it did mention terrorists hijacking airliners. Bush couldn't be bothered to interrupt his vacation to tighten security at airports and notify the airlines. In fact, he did nothing even after he returned from vacation.
Some might call this a definition of criminal negligence in a president.
As we've seen after six years of Bush, he often ignores that which he should pay attention to — it's practically his trademark by now. This is a man who didn't know until two weeks before the Iraq invasion the difference between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites.
Calling him imcompetent is a gross understatement.
Comment by RS Janes — July 10, 2007 @ 8:11 am
RS,
I assume you own/read Joe Wilson's book where he emphatically stated that his wife "had NOTHING to do with his trip to Niger."
So the committee was partisan in its findings, I'll be sure to apply the same standard to the current Congress's committee findings, I'll just dismiss them. nice.
Again if Plame was covert and it was illegal to "out" her and you think you have such strong evidence, why was NO ONE CHARGED WITH THAT??
Oh you mean this memo..
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
(even used CNN link instead of Fox because I did not want to provide you your easy out
Where it states two things in relation to hijackings
First:
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Second:
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Yep those are real actionable items there. Remember at this time hijackings did not equate to FLYING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS.
Question for you, how many flights in US each day from how many airports?
Which measures should Bush have put into place based on the "memo?
Would those measures have prevented the terrorists from boarding those planes?
btw, I know you look forward to 18 more months of investigations on Bush et al. It certainly will play better than universal BS health care, Tax the rich and open-the-borders for more dem-voters..
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 10, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
"I assume you own/read Joe Wilson’s book where he emphatically stated that his wife 'had NOTHING to do with his trip to Niger.'"
Nope, never read Wilson's book, but I have seen him several times say that while she may have suggested him, it was a lie to say that she sent him. That was not her decision.
So this one sentence out of context is what you base your whole 'Wilson is a liar' screed on? That's truly pathetic. And you didn't post anything concerning what exactly Plame lied about. Say, Jon, maybe you'll find out she lied about her age or something. Stop being such a Luntzhead — these cheap pettifogging tactics don't work anymore.
Joe Wilson got up before Congress the other day, in public and under oath, and answered all questions put to him by both Dems and Republicans, as did wife Valerie Plame. Meanwhile, Cheney, Miers and others cower behind executive privilege, afraid to testify under oath and in public. At Libby's trial, the 'innocent' man who had done no wrong refused to take the stand to testify on his own behalf. Makes it look like they have something to hide in a case where, supposedly, no crime was committed.
"So the committee was partisan in its findings, I’ll be sure to apply the same standard to the current Congress’s committee findings, I’ll just dismiss them. nice."
Don't worry, when a Congressional committee does something you don't like, you will.
"Again if Plame was covert and it was illegal to “out” her and you think you have such strong evidence, why was NO ONE CHARGED WITH THAT??"
As Fitzgerald has said, Libby did such a good job of lying and obfuscating that it was difficult to discover who had committed the original crime. Even if it was originally Richard Armitage, as you have stated, by what right does an employee of the State Department leak the name of a CIA covert operative and for what purpose? Aside from that, if Fitzgerald believed Bush or Cheney was ultimately responsible, he couldn't prosecute them — it would be up to Congress to impeach them. Incidentally, I understand Fitzgerald's documentation has been subpoenaed by Congress so that may be in the offing soon.
"Oh you mean this memo..
"http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
(even used CNN link instead of Fox because I did not want to provide you your easy out
"Where it states two things in relation to hijackings
"First:
"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
"Second:
"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
"Yep those are real actionable items there. Remember at this time hijackings did not equate to FLYING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS."
The French had already warned us of a terrorist plot to fly jets into the Eiffel Tower that they had broken up; Richard Clarke, Bush's chief White House Counter-Terrorism expert, had been warning of these kind of attacks during the spring and summer, but no one in Bush's entourage could be bothered to hold a serious meeting on the subject; and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft had been warned not to fly commercial airliners in the summer of 2001. On Sept. 11, 2001, the CIA had been scheduled to run simulations of terrorist air attacks against US landmarks, including the WTC, so the hijacked-airliners-used-as-bombs scenario was out there, it's just that the White House, as usual, wasn't paying attention.
"Question for you, how many flights in US each day from how many airports?"
"Which measures should Bush have put into place based on the “memo?"
It doesn't matter how many flights — Bush should have warned the airlines to take precautions, as well as the WTC officials, since the WTC had been attacked in 1993 and bin Laden had vowed to attack again. Would this have been too much of a strain after a hard day of clearing brush for photo-ops and playing golf?
"Would those measures have prevented the terrorists from boarding those planes?"
Yes, they very well might have. 3,000 of your fellow Americans might still be with us if your president had been doing his job.
"btw, I know you look forward to 18 more months of investigations on Bush et al."
I'd much rather see them impeached for violating their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and obvious rank incompetence, but, perhaps you think we should have a 'unitary executive' monarchy that doesn't have to respond to the will of the people and operates in secret without oversight by Congress or the judiciary. If that's the case, you're in the wrong country, Jon — that was the government Saddam had in Iraq but, since he's gone, you'll just have to move to Saudi Arabia or Communist China — both nations ruled by the iron fist of despotism.
"It certainly will play better than universal BS health care, Tax the rich and open-the-borders for more dem-voters."
Jon, I can only wish that you lose your health care coverage and have to go as an average peon to an ER with a serious illness or injury, it will quickly enlighten you to the benefits of 'universal BS health care' which is, incidentally, popular with the American majority and the other industrialized nations that have it; further, I hope you have to pay the taxes that will be borne in the future by the struggling middle-class to pay off the soaring debt Bush has incurred by giving his own family and his wealthy friends extravagant tax cuts; finally, maybe someday you'll actually meet one of these hard-working Mexican families you're trying so hard to demonize with GOP talking points — better yet, maybe they'll all be deported so you'll have to pay a fair wage to an American to clean your hotel room, bus your restaurant tables, tend your lawn, and wash your clothes; then you can cry about that.
And have you read the latest AP story? Bush now admits that someone in his administration leaked Plame's name. True to course, he didn't keep his promise to find out who and fire them.
"Bush admits administration leaked CIA name"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19728346/
Comment by RS Janes — July 12, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
The only thing to do is to fix the loop holes Bush is handing us. It's like the ACLU sueing everytime, rightly or wrongly, when civil liberties are challenged! They may defend the wrong person this time, but they are setting precedent in an area not yet discovered. Apply this rational to the Bush administration-Cheney decides that the vice president's office is not part of the executive branch, well bring to court and clear it up!! He doesn't have to provide checks and balances on how to handle classified information, bring it court and close the loop hole. The president has the authority in times of war to do anything he damn well pleases, bring it court and close the loop hole!!
Comment by mvansome — July 13, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Wow. Dismiss Joe Wilson primary example of lying. You did not even look the quote up from HIS book yet you say I used it out of context. Nonetheless we should agree to disagree as neither one of us is going to move from their respective position. See btw at the bottom.
Richard Clarke ROFLMAO Why don't you link to the final report on Terrorism of the Clinton Administration from December 2000 and we can progrees from there on the events that led up to 9/11.
I think all kinds of people contributed to the failures that led to the 9/11 attack including CIA, FBI, Bush, Clinton…. Its absurd and completly partisan to lay the blame only on Bush. The facts do not support that and you know it.
I think you are a little paranoid about the "unitary executive" or at the least you do not even know what the term means. (think of "one person" is in charge of the Executive Branch, not the country…lol)
So you wish ill upon me and my family. All five of us thank you for that. If I lost health care insurance from either of our employers, I would purchase some on my own which I can do for $600.00 per month. Maybe if people would budget their money for essentials rather than two car payments, $200 cell phone bills, $125.00 Cable TV / Internet, Xbox/PS3 and all the other things families seem to like to have.
Some stats on the uninsured: (47 million)
20% Earn $50,000/Year
20% Earn $75,000/Year
40% are aged between 18-34 and choose not to buy healthcare 20% are Illegal Immigrants
and they all get free Healthcare in Emergency Rooms ITS FEDERAL LAW!!!!
Tax Cuts for the wealthy… "There you go again" RR.
Here is a little tool you can use that will show you the Federal tax rates and a neat little table the shows that the "Tax cuts for the rich" are a myth.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
I know I know the Capital gains rate was reduced to 15% and only rich people invest in the stock market. No, only smart people invest in the stock market to go along with their 401K, 501's, IRA, Real Estate, Certificates, and so on. Its called a portfolio. I spend a lot of time making my limited resources work for me (3 kids in Souther CA is expensive) I do not rely on the government to bail me out in rough times (and yes I have had some, and may have more since you wished them upon me).
Did I mention I live in Southern CA? Yes, so I actually have some firsthand experience with illegals. Here is my position which is actually different than the one you provided for me.
First and foremost Secure the Border Build a fence and double the Border Guard. When that is COMPLETED. Develop a Guest Worker Program and allow all those that are currently here to enroll. No one gets deported unless they came here illegally AFTER these are in-place.
I would also like to see the born here = Citizen modified to exclude illegal residents.
We already know Armitage was first, followed by Novak.
btw did you ever research the history of Plame's "cover" it was transmitted openly to an embassy overseas in the 90's. She listed it as her employer when she made a contribution to Gore in 99. And if you looked up the address the building was empty. Quality cover there. Did Joe Wilson become an advisor to the Kerry Campaign BEFORE his article in 2003? Why yes he did… Was Valerie PLAME listed in the "Who's Who" volume from 1999 - 2005? Why yes she was. There was plenty of outing before we get to Libby, but you will just dismiss all of it.
Comment by Jon Pemberton — July 13, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Jon, you wrote: "Wow. Dismiss Joe Wilson primary example of lying. You did not even look the quote up from HIS book yet you say I used it out of context. Nonetheless we should agree to disagree as neither one of us is going to move from their respective position. See btw at the bottom."
Unless it was the only line in the chapter, then there were other words surrounding it that might modify the comment; that's known as 'context.'
Read this: "Over the past months, however, the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD) — not by his wife — largely because he had handled a similar agency inquiry in Niger in 1999."
– Washington Post, Aug. 10, 2005.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918.html)
"Richard Clarke ROFLMAO Why don't you link to the final report on Terrorism of the Clinton Administration from December 2000 and we can progrees from there on the events that led up to 9/11."
Which report would that be?
"I think all kinds of people contributed to the failures that led to the 9/11 attack including CIA, FBI, Bush, Clinton.. Its absurd and completly partisan to lay the blame only on Bush. The facts do not support that and you know it."
Bush was president on Sept. 11, 2001, and he had been in office for nine months. If the FBI and CIA were at fault, why weren't Tenet and Mueller fired, nor any other senior staff? For that matter, why did Bush wait for over an hour after the first two planes had struck the WTC to give a shoot-down order? If he had responded quicker, the airliner that struck the Pentagon could have been stopped. I guess you're saying that, in Bush's case, the buck doesn't stop with him. More lame excuses for failing to hold Bush accountable for his failures. What happened to the days of Republican personal responsibility?
"I think you are a little paranoid about the "unitary executive" or at the least you do not even know what the term means. (think of "one person" is in charge of the Executive Branch, not the country.lol)"
Before Bush there was never any quesion that the president was in charge of the Executive Branch of the government. In fact, the Unitary Executive theory says that, during a time of war especially, the president can suspend or ignore laws that he believes interfere with national security, without consulting Congress. As conservative Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein has said, it is essentially giving the powers of a monarch to the president.
"So you wish ill upon me and my family. All five of us thank you for that. If I lost health care insurance from either of our employers, I would purchase some on my own which I can do for $600.00 per month. Maybe if people would budget their money for essentials rather than two car payments, $200 cell phone bills, $125.00 Cable TV / Internet, Xbox/PS3 and all the other things families seem to like to have."
You can get full comprehensive health insurance for a family of five for $600.00 a month, including dental and eye care? Good for you. Aside from that, what if your insurance company refused to cover one of your family members who developed a chronic illness? What if you lost your job and were unable to pay $600.00 a month for insurance? Would you just say to your loved one, "Sorry you're sick, but the profits of the health insurance industry are more important than your health." BTW, I don't wish ill on you or your family, I just wish you'd grow a brain.
"Some stats on the uninsured: (47 million)
"20% Earn $