Powered by TypePad

« Fitzgerald's Future In Stand-Up | Main | Media Matters Counterspin »

March 06, 2007


Jim E.

And while the White House is at it, they ought to voluntarily release the tapes/notes of the interviews Bush and Cheney did with Fitz.


I'll bet there is no mention of the IIPA in the referral and there is only boiler plate language about classified information..indeed as azaghal noted the other day the very odd parsing of the Comey referral suggests that.


Whew...when H&R said I was in lights in the new thread, I had visions of one of my beer posts being displayed for all the world to see. Thank goodness it was one of my more benign remarks.


Yeah, come to think of it, if Clinton had still been in charged, Plame's employment status would have been leaked to the public first thing, especially if there was anything embarrassing about it.


The WSJ calls for an immediate pardon
"Mr. Bush will no doubt be advised to wait for the outcome of an appeal and the end of his Administration to pardon Mr. Libby. We believe he bears some personal responsibility for this conviction, especially for not policing the disputes and insubordination in his Administration that made this travesty possible. The time for a pardon is now. "



Is there any spine at all in the White House?

I have my doubts about that, too. But, if Bush is harboring any thoughts at all of pardoning Libby, he is going to have to shut down the covert operative meme. And the only way to do that is to declassify the information.

Libby would have been better served had he been on trial for the actual leak. The bigger case might have saved him.


Why would they want to do that?

Plame's status wasn't relevant to the Libby prosecution except for evidence of Libby's state of mind in respect to his motive to lie. Given the obvious culpabilities of the VP arising from Libby's conviction and the facts now enshrined in the record of that proceeding, I'm quite sure that the WH is not anxious to add more fuel to the fire at this point. We can probably expect more 'not able to comment on an ongoing legal matter' type statements rather than any challenges to wet the appetites of Congress or God forbid Fitzgerald.

No spine, just quivering jelly.


I bet the WH just wants this to go away.


The White House has wished too many things to just go away. Now they are being hit head on and broadsided everyday. After hearing Bush say he "accepts the verdict" and then hearing Reid and Pelosi demanding that he not offer a pardon????


Can anybody give me examples of the House and Senate leadership making demands of the President like this? Seems a little presumptuous to me.



The Libby prosecution was not relevant to any of this except that it worked well as political retribution. This whole thing has been a farce.


Is there any spine at all in the White House?

Bush has been trying to portray himself as the first gentleman president. He treats Bill Clinton like royalty and does not react when he is stabbed in the back by the bent one. Sandy Burglar gets to walk stealing classified papers while Libby will do time in a case when there was no real crime. The NYT spills the beans on classified programs to protect the American public, including those working at the NYT, and Gonzales does nothing. It is a sick joke to suggest this WH has spine.


In an interview today, when asked about a pardon for Libby, Wilson said he believed in the Constitution, and the President's right to pardon as he sees fit.


"Is there any spine at all in the White House?"

If there was, the Libby trial would have never occured and Fitzgerald would have been sent back to Chicago a long time ago.

In short, an emphatic "NO".


Going to put this in again. Now that the trial is over, the CIA can NOW answer without hesitation:

Last week before the dam began to break on the subject of the CIA war on the Bush administration, I contacted the CIA public information officer who fields media questions regarding Joe Wilson.

I asked him why the Agency hadn't required Wilson to sign a confidentiality agreement regarding his trip to Niger. He hesitated for a few seconds, then responded: "I don't know."

At his suggestion, I followed up with my questions by e-mail:

(1) Why wasn't Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger made subject to a confidentiality agreement?
(2) Did the Agency contemplate that Wilson would publicly discuss the trip at will upon his return?

(3) Did the agency anticipate that if he did so, it would attract attention to the employment of his wife by the agency?

(4) Why did the Agency select Wilson for the mission to Niger to check out such an important and sensitive matter given his lack of experience in intelligence or investigation?

(5) Was the Agency aware when it selected him for the mission of his hostility to the Bush administration?

The CIA officer responded:
Given the ongoing legal process, I don't have anything for you in response to your questions about Ambassador Wilson.

I emailed Scott at powerline to remind him to follow up -- everyone should too.



Is there any spine at all in the White House?

Funny, this is precisely what Cheney and Libby must have been wondering on this very topic as they contemplated almost precisely the same thing around July 7 or July 8, 2003 - getting the President to wave his declassification wand and declassify classified information that included Plame's employment at the CIA by getting the go-ahead to leak the stuff to Miller.



Tell that to all those now sitting in jail following convictions for lying to investigators, perjury and obstruction of justice. Soon to be joined by yet another, well not soon enough probably and likely to be pardoned, but that's another matter and another likely nail in the coffin for shrub's legacy.


It is a sick joke to suggest this WH has spine.

And it's a sick joke for the Dems and the MSM (I repeat myself) to claim that Bush's numbers are low because of Iraq Iraq Iraq when his supporters have other concerns.


You know I really don't think it is about spine. It is about politics. The slightest pushback and look at what we get. A man is facing prison for trying to point out the simple fact that Joe Wilson is a liar.





It's a great idea too!


"I'll bet the CIA lawyers who prepared the referral recited the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, noted a few reasons that maybe she did qualify as covert, noted a few reasons that maybe she did not, noted that the issue has never been litigated, and moved on."

I would hope that the referral did say she was covert so Fitz will have to explain why Armitage wasn't prosecuted. Is it possible that is why Fitz has been fighting the release of the letter?



getting the President to wave his declassification wand and declassify classified information that included Plame's employment at the CIA by getting the go-ahead to leak the stuff to Miller.

WOW! Did the jury's verdict include that piece of non evidence?


A man is facing prison for trying to point out the simple fact that Joe Wilson is a liar.


Pretty much. Also, it's odd that the worshiped icon is a proven low-level liar himself.

Life is stranger than fiction.



Self righteous aren't you?

Well you know something if all those people are in jail because some partisan hack thught he would lie his ass off in the NYT and start a chain of events that would end up with them facing prison for a something that would not have even happened if not for said partisan hack lying his ass off...then I might agree with you.

But, hey, lying in the NYT is not a lie..after all it happens every friggin day.

And besides Wilson is a good guy liar, not a bad guy liar like Libby.



Given the obvious culpabilities of the VP arising from Libby's conviction and the facts now enshrined in the record of that proceeding,


Your explanation better be good. Just what facts were enshrined in the record about Cheney? And how does Libby's conviction prove anything about cheney's involvement or non-involvement?



My frickin cell phone I got today has a GPS locator in it. Why can't we get something like this for our troops in the field?


At the end of a long article on Dick Cheney's fate now that the trial is over, the NYTimes, shockingly, allows Cheney's friends to reveal he has a heart. And even more surprisingly, they don't even provide a second opinion on the matter, to cast doubt on it:

On a personal level, friends of the vice president say the trial has been deeply painful for him. Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney were all but inseparable — Ms. Matalin has called the former aide “Cheney’s Cheney” — and often started their days by riding to work together. Mr. Libby accompanied the vice president almost everywhere he went, and Mr. Cheney made clear his high professional and personal regard for his aide, even playing host to a book party for him in 2002 at his official residence. Alan K. Simpson, a Republican former senator from Mr. Cheney’s home state, Wyoming, said he saw Mr. Cheney over Christmas and asked how he was doing. He took the answer as a kind of oblique reference to the Libby case.

“He said, ‘I’m fine, I’m O.K., I have people I trust around me — it’s the same old stuff, Al,’ ” Mr. Simpson recalled.

Another friend of Mr. Cheney’s, Vin Weber, a Republican former congressman, said the verdict had “got to be heartbreaking for the vice president.” But Mr. Weber said he wished Mr. Cheney would explain himself.

“I don’t think he has to do a long apologia,” Mr. Weber said, “but I think he should say something, just to pierce the boil a little bit.”





This is great. A Democratic Congressman is found with 90 grand in his freezer but golly gee let's not jump to conclusions. However, if Libby is convicted of a crime then Cheney must be guilty.

Christopher Fotos

fwiw, I've written my first post about WaPo/Leonnig/Goldstein's front page story on the conviction, but for this one I've focused on the dynamic duo's latest misrepresentation of Wilson's discoveries in Niger. I focused on this because many of their recent references have been cutely drawing a curtain over it, saying Wilson "concluded" there was no evidence, whereas Wednesday's misrepresentation is in bright blinking lights: Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly accused the White House of using flawed intelligence to justify the war and cited a CIA mission he took to Niger in 2002, which found no merit to claims that Iraq was trying to buy weapons-grade uranium.

My frickin cell phone I got today has a GPS locator in it. Why can't we get something like this for our troops in the field?
Don't worry, the troops have pretty awesome GPS capabilities. My husband does GIS and bought a high-end GPS unit (30 cm resolution.) The salesman showed him a real cool unit where you can shine a laser on an object and get it's coordinates. He had sold one to a local archeological dig where they used it to mark sites of interest up on a sheer quarry wall. The salesman then commented that you can imagine the military uses. ("Please drop the missile down the shorts of this guy here, not the guy standing next to him...")

I think that the resolution of the high-res military units is classified.


Terrye :

Libby was dumb to lie to the FBI and the GJ investigating the unauthorized leaking of classified information referred to the DOJ by CIA regarding his involvement. Given that he has blood on his hands for helping Bush/Cheney to sell the Iraq war, couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy.



What I was thinking of was something sewn into the clothes, for instances when guys are captured.

They have declassified a lot of the frequencies in the U.S. now. You can get WAAS with no subscription down to 6 inches. Pay a little bit and you can get it down to one or two, on a 20 ton piece of equipment moving 6MPH.


Like I said.

It is now a crime to disagree with a LIB.

Welcome to Fitzworld.


Syl :

Turn on the tv news (not Fox) and read tomorrows paper (something other than the Wash Times) and you will have your answer.



Contrary to what you were told, the American people didn't need much selling about the Iraq war. Cheney's inovlvement was mainly on the nuclear front--and I admit he exaggerated there. I never believed the nuclear stuff about Saddam anyway.

But two days after 9/11 the Washington Post did a survey and found that 74% of the American people thought Saddam had something to do with it.

I'm afraid there wasn't enough time for Cheney, Bush, or anyone else to convince the American public of that in 48 hours. They were kinda busy with other stuff.


Great idea, everyone still want's to know if she was covert or not. Fitz just says her status was classified, but that doesn't really answer the question. From the jury comments today, it seems that they still thought the trial was about the outing of a covert operative. Would the jury have reached the same conclusion if they would have known that:

1. Plame was not covert and identifying her as a CIA employee was not a crime,

2. The investigation had nothing to do with identifying a leaker, and the leaker(s) were already known before the investigation started anyway,

3. The whole point of the investigation was to try and catch somebody in a false statement by grilling them about details of conversations conducted months before.



Turn on the tv news (not Fox) and read tomorrows paper (something other than the Wash Times) and you will have your answer.

Oh, that means you don't know? Well thanks for that admission anyway.


And just think you, the defenders of our first war criminal president, helped make all of this possible. Are you proud little chickenhawks?

03/06/07 zwire: A Florence man has died from a roadside bomb while serving in Iraq

03/06/07 wcax: Newport soldier killed in Iraq

03/06/07 wreg: North Mississippi soldier killed in Iraq

03/06/07 AFP: 118 Shiite pilgrims slaughtered in Iraq

03/06/07 AP: Sunnis on the attack as Shiite militias step back in the Iraqi capital

03/06/07 AAP: Gunmen storm Iraq jail, free 140 inmates

03/06/07 DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
Lance Cpl. Raul S. Bravo, 21, of Elko, Nev.,

03/06/07 fayobserver: Six 82nd soldiers reported killed in Iraq

03/06/07 AFP: Suicide blasts kill 90 Shiite pilgrims in Iraq's Hilla

03/06/07 Reuters: U.S. army medic denies desertion in Iraq case

03/06/07 NPR: Europe Struggles with Influx of Iraqi Refugees

03/06/07 Reuters: 5 Shi'ite pilgrims killed in Sunni Yarmouk district

03/06/07 Reuters: Car bomb kill 3 pilgrams, wound 13 in seperate attacks

03/06/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills 2 civilians, wounds 10 in central Baghdad

03/06/07 Reuters: 25 bodies found in Baghdad

03/06/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill 3, wound 13 in Latifiya

03/06/07 Reuters: Gunmen wound 3 civilians, 1 policeman in southern Baghdad

03/06/07 Reuters: Roadside bombs wound 4 in different ares of Baghdad

03/06/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb wounds man in Mussayab

03/06/07 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Spc. Christopher D. Young, 20, of Los Angeles,

03/06/07 Xinhua: Three roadside bombs kill 5 across Baghdad

03/06/07 AP: Gunmen kill 2 people south of Baghdad

03/06/07 AP: Five policemen killed by roadside bomb in Baghdad suburb

03/06/07 Reuters: Nine U.S. soldiers killed north of Baghdad

03/05/07 deseretnews: West Valley City man killed in Iraq

03/05/07 NYTimes: Basra Raid Finds Dozens Detained by Iraq Spy Unit



Fitz just says her status was classified,

Tell that to Jeff. He thinks Bush declassified her. LOL



The biggest baddest chickenhawk in the world is Osama bin Laden.

Please list the enemy casualties in your next report.

Thank you.


via the WSJ

Mr. Libby did talk to some reporters about the Administration's case for war in 2003, and he did mention Ms. Plame in some cases. So the jury apparently decided that, when asked about those conversations by the FBI and grand jury, he had lied about his own sources of information about Joe Wilson and his wife. In other words, he has not been convicted of lying to anyone about the case for war in Iraq, or about Mr. Wilson or his wife.

Rather, he has been convicted of telling the truth about Mr. Wilson and Ms. Plame to some reporters but then not owning up to it. One tragic irony is that if Mr. Libby had only taken the Harold Ickes grand-jury strategy and said "I don't recall," he probably never would have been indicted. But our guess is that he tried to cooperate with the grand jury because he never really believed he had anything to hide. This may also explain why Mr. Libby never retained an experienced Beltway attorney until he was indicted.

None of this has stopped critics of the war from trying to blow this entire case into something far larger. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hailed the conviction as proof that the White House tried to "manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics." But the charges against Mr. Libby had nothing to do with intelligence, and Mr. Wilson was himself so discredited by summer 2004 that the John Kerry campaign dropped him as a spokesman once the Senate exposed his deceit...


Syl :

We supposedly elect leaders to lead not to blindly act on erroneous opinion polls that might make them popular in the moment. I thought all that was supposed to end with the election of a 'uniter not a divider'. Bush/Cheney have the duty and responsibility to act in the best interests of all Americans, not just those they can corral into the voting booth to make their mark for them.


Osama bin Laden? The post had to do with deaths in IRAQ. Is anybody that you know of advocating that we not find and kill Osama Bin Laden? ... except Bush of course.


BTW won't give up. I'll give it that.

What's Not News in Iraq by James Dunnigan March 4, 2007 Discussion Board on this DLS topic

At least a hundred, of the six million people in Baghdad, were killed by Sunni Arab terrorist attacks in the last four days. The two week old "Battle of Baghdad" has forced Sunni and Shia gangs to stay in hiding. That has helped the terror bombing operations, as these depend on stealth and surprise. The army and police catch many of the bomber vehicles at check points, but there are so many attempts that the terrorists can still carry out a few successful attacks a week. However, recent attacks appear to be of the "use it or lose it" variety. The more intense security operations inside Baghdad have uncovered bomb workshops and safe houses, meaning that more bombers will have to come in from the suburbs. But the suburbs are under attack as well. So desperate were the Sunni terrorists in the Baghdad suburb of Tarmiya, that they attacked an American outpost in the town. Three suicide car bombs were used, as well as dozens of gunmen. Two Americans were killed, but most of the attackers did as well, with the rest fleeing after their attack collapsed under American firepower. The Battle for Baghdad has seen dozens of these temporary American combat outposts set up, with the expectation that the terrorists would be tempted to try and overrun one of them. The failed attack at Tarmiya does nothing for terrorist morale.

While most of the Battle for Baghdad has concentrated on Sunni terrorists, American and Iraqi troops were also seen surrounding and taking over the headquarters of Muqtada Al Sadr, the head of the Mahdi army (a coalition of pro-Iran Shia militias). Sadar, and most of his henchmen, have fled to Iran, until the Battle for Baghdad is over. The Mahdi army officially denies that Sadr is out of the country, but no one has seen Sadr inside Iraq in weeks. Same thing with many of Sadr's key associates. The Shia militiamen are also off the streets. American troops were seen removing documents and other items from Sadrs headquarters.

Despite the jump in terrorist bombings in the last few days, the death toll in Baghdad, since the security operations began two weeks ago, have declined by over 70 percent. Shia civilians were afraid that, with Shia militiamen off the streets, there would be more attacks by Sunni death squads. This didn't happen, mainly because Sunni civilians, who provided safe houses for Sunni terrorists, have been driven from Shia neighborhoods. The Sunni killers have to travel farther to find a target, and that is more difficult because the Iraqi army and police have erected more check points over the last six months. American intelligence analysts have also used predictive software to analyze terrorist attacks and movements, and determined the best places to put the new checkpoints, and what to look for. Getting past checkpoints has become a major chore for Sunni terrorists, and many of them don't make it. When you hear of a suicide bombing with only one or two dead, that's usually a car bomber caught at a check point. Sometimes they take the bomber alive, which is an intelligence bonanza, as the bomb, and the bomber, can be examined at length. Also not reported are the hundreds of Sunni terrorists who get arrested at checkpoints each month. Occasionally, these arrests will result in some gun fire, and that might be noisy enough to make the news. But, generally, the most important stuff is not considered dramatic enough for a headline.

"Taking back the streets" is easy. Holding them in the long term is hard. It will take several months before it is known who won the Battle of Baghdad. It's all a matter of crime rates. If the murder rate comes down, you've won. Actually, the murder rate has come down over the last year, but not enough to become news. Eliminating the suicide car bombings would be a real victory, as these operations are largely for the media. Militarily they mean much less than the gun battles between police and terrorist (Sunni or Shia) gangs, or the raids on terrorist safe houses. At this point, the Sunni Arabs are fighting a media war. On the ground, they have lost. But until the media confirms this, they can keep it up.



you doofus.

Americans beleived that becuase they were fed it for 8 years by the Clinton administration, via the CIA, that also gave the same info to the Bush administration. It ain't hard.



It is time for bed and I have a job so I am not going to have this tired old conversation with you about the war. I am sick of it and people like you.

I know you long for the good old days of Saint Saddam but the truth is no one in this administration had to sell anyone on the war, Clinton had already done it.

Now I know that you think that if we had not gone to war everything would be fine in Iraq. Saddam would be running the place. The UN would have cemented its reputation as whore house to the dictators and its silly little resolutions would be more of a joke than they are even now.

Saddam would be busy rebuilding his weapons programs and paying off terrorists and slaughtering his people and the lefties would be screeching that we should do something.

But there would be nothing we could do. Because we already have proven that a dictator can shoot at our planes and defy a cease fire and it nothing happens. He can defy the UN it nothing happens. The gangster would have survived and that is what you want.

So Saddam and his kind would have no fear, not of us or the UN or anything else.

I know that is the world you long for...but the simple truth that your blind and stupid hatred leaves you incapable of grasping is that Bush is notthe enemy, the blood is not on his hands, certainly not alone.

Clinton was president for 8 years before Bush left Texas. Eight years he had to resolve this situation with Saddam. And if as the anti war people claim today, Saddam was harmless...well then Clinton should have ended this then and not left it to Bush at all.

And if you want to convict Libby for having blood on his hands, then charge him with that and go for it...do not trump up some charges for the sake of political revenge and make a mockery out of the justice system.

And by the way, you did not answer Syl's question. You made the statement, why should she have to back it up?


Maliki's Political and Economic Bullet

by Austin Bay
March 7, 2007

Petroleum is the resource that dominates discussion of Iraq's economy.

However, water and rich agricultural land make the country much more than a desert oil spigot.

Combine water and productive land, and the product is history -- the history of civilization. As Mesopotamia (the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers), Iraq spawned the Agricultural Revolution and served as the cradle of city-states, and hence historical civilization.

Several economists and economic development experts argue that land --specifically "land reform" -- is key to ending Iraq's complex civil conflict. Among them is Peter Schaefer. Schaefer served in Vietnam as an American military intelligence officer, then in the mid-1970s became deeply involved in economic development analysis and property right issues. A former adviser to Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto, Schaefer is now working on a business project that involves "commercial scale" property registration in the developing world.

Vietnam sparked Schaefer's interest in economic development. In an interview last week, Schaefer told me: "I couldn't get my mind around the fact that the Vietnamese people were so smart and industrious, and yet they were just so damn poor. The (destructive effects of the) war didn't answer that for me. Why would someone choose Mao over Jefferson?"

Schaefer concluded the Vietnamese communists pursued a calculated land reform policy, one that leveraged Vietnamese villagers' traditional recognition of property rights.

In the 1990s, Schafer noted, Peru turned the "land reform" tables on the communists. Property rights reform helped defeat Peru's "Maoist" Shining Path guerrilla movement.

In Schafer's view, property rights reform gives Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government a very powerful political weapon, one that has war-winning potential.

Schafer supplied some fascinating evidence. According to him, less than 5 percent of Iraq's cultivatable agricultural land is "freehold" (owned with clear title). Ninety-five percent of the cultivatable land in Iraq is therefore "dead" (illiquid) and cannot be used as security for a bank loan. "Iraqi farmers who lack clear title can't get (bank) loans," Schaefer said. That limits economic creativity, particularly in a population demonstrably successful at small business operations. Schafer believes that 95 percent of family homes in Iraq also lack clear, secure title.

"Prime Minister Maliki needs to go on television," Schaefer advised, "and say: 'Citizens of Iraq, 95 percent of the property in this country is not legally in your name. You don't have title to your own land or your own houses. We're going to change that right now.'"

This reform would launch a liberalizing political and economic revolution, with the democratic Iraqi government empowering the people of Iraq. For maximum payoff, Schafer said, Maliki's government should support title reform with a mortgage program that provides wholesale money to banks and permits them to do mortgage lending for individual Iraqis, thus "jumpstarting" Iraq's sclerotic banking system.

Property rights reform also provides a political tool for assuaging sectarian and ethnic fears among Iraqi citizens, Schaefer said. Good title "means Iraqis can protect their houses with the law on their side."

This is nation-building at a subtle but fundamental level: moving from the rule of the gun to rule of law. Consider the case of Sunni Arabs who have abandoned property in Shia Arab neighborhoods. "Anyone who loses a home, but has solid title, will have legal recourse to regain (lost property) through the courts," Schaefer said. The law becomes a nonviolent option preferable to gang or militia-inspired retribution.

Schaefer thinks the Iraqi city of Kirkuk offers a perfect opportunity to link title reform to an economically productive housing construction program. Saddam Hussein "Arabized" the city by forcing Kurds to move away. Now, returning Kurds are evicting Arabs. Some 40,000 homes are in dispute. Schafer's solution: Build 40,000 new homes in Kirkuk. "Displaced Kurds have a choice -- their old home or a new one," Schafer said. "They can have their former home once an Arab family moves into one of the new houses." This defuses the ethnic clash, and Schafer noted, "the economic impact of the construction program will be enormous."

Schafer's suggestions aren't pie in the sky -- they are pragmatic, wealth-generating alternatives to ethnic violence, tyrant-imposed poverty and cowardly despair.



Mission accomplished eh? What's that old saying that Bush mangled: "Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice, Shame on me."

Just how me times will you be fooled? It has reached a self perpetuating state were the true believers no longer need their daily dose of neocon misinformation. Instead you actively take part in fooling yourself. Wow! Good luck buddy!



Just think how much bandwith it would take to list the victims of your hero Saddam.

Besides, if you have your way and we just cut and run you will be handing Iraq to the terrorists on a silver platter. How many people will die then? Do you even care?

I can see it now...lots of dead people we can blame on Bush...good.....me like....



One of the strongest proponents for removing Saddam before 9/11 was none other than the NY Times. Get over yourself.




We supposedly elect leaders to lead not to blindly act on erroneous opinion polls that might make them popular in the moment.

Don't twist the meaning of my words. Bush didn't go into Iraq because Americans thought Saddam did 9/11. There were several reasons for Iraq (besides WMD) that you can look up in other threads where they're discussed.

I was letting you know that the public was well aware of the danger Saddam posed to us because of all that Clinton had told us before. It wasn't like the administration had to lie to convince us.

That's just an excuse for Dems in Congress who supported Bush and have changed their mind use to make themselves feel better about their former views.

It's actually the DUTY of our leaders to present their case to us before such an important task is taken on.



You're just afraid that Bush might be right and things will work out for Iraq.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Or just keep your eyes shut and shout 'liar!liar!' like a 3-year old.

Your choice. I don't really care.



Osama bin Laden?

So you didn't write this?

Are you proud little chickenhawks?



"Just think how much bandwith it would take to list the victims of your hero Saddam."

My hero? Is that what you tell yourself? That those of us with the foresight to fortell the greatest foriegn policy disaster in US history are Saddam supporters? That is so 2003. How far do you think you are going to get with that in 2007? Grow up and argue like an adult. And while your at fight your own wars like some with actual character would.

JM Hanes

TM: [ahem]

Here's what I was proposing on February 22:

The idea of exhorting the Administration to declassify all the relevant documents, however, has real possibilities. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and holds the most promise of laying still unanswered questions to rest.
I also suggested that it might be something left & right could actually join forces to accomplish!


Terrye & Syl

OBL and AQ attacked the US on 9/11 2001 using mainly Saudi operatives, NO Iraqis.

SH was not involved in supplying funding, personnel or material support to the perpetrators and he was effectively contained by sanctions and the no fly zones which were hardly an onerous undertaking in comparison to the current military investment. The inspectors and the IAEA despite unresolved issues relating to past WMD activities, were able to certify that the regime was clean of any nuclear capability which was the only potential threat that could concievably threaten US security or interests in the region. Put simply SH was not an imminent, not even much of a potential future threat to the US. He was simply an opportune candidate for the Neocon project to terraform the political landscape of the ME, which happened to coincide nicely with Rove's desire to have his Prince crowned War President and cement Republican hegemony for the foreseable future.

Missmanagement, ineptitude, GOP cronyism and corruption, together with the election of Nov. 2006 has changed all that.


Carol Herman


No spine in jello. Martha Stewart could'a told you that!

A pardon isn't the answer. Blowing up the robes of the jerks on the bench, however, might give them some pause. Because they're not doing much about any of the crimes we're seeing in broad daylight. Committed everyday in the name of "drug" policy. With the soon added bonus of going after women who will choose to have abortions, anyway. So they'll go back to the mafia's cash register. Won't make harry reid mad.

The system STINKS.

That DC is a crime-ridden town? You mean you didn't know? You didn't know their schools are crap? But the enscounsed bureaucrats have good jobs at taxpayer expense. ANd, they don't want to lose them! So they work hard at getting donks elected.

Still, if you look sideways, you'll see some erosion in the edifice.

And, when Bush leaves office. FINALLY. He'll get a hat just like his dad's. But I don't think the bush dynasty will send anymore crap into the Oval Office. Just let's hope we can get better people. At least a man who can give a good speech!



That those of us with the foresight to fortell the greatest foriegn policy disaster in US history are Saddam supporters?

Then why do you act like you are?

Your hyperbole would look better if you used spellcheck. Otherwise you look like a hyped-up teenager trying to impress a date.



You forgot the oil.

Sara (Squiggler)

I Call for Justice

Nice article, Clarice.


Bush has spine.

The problem is he only has one. He uses it for Iraq.

So we suffer the indignity of all these smell trolls. My contribution to the cause.


Syl :

Oil? or vaseline?

No matter, it wouldn't have lessened the pain much anyways.



Wherever you are, that Call for Justice made me cry.



Syl: A proud 29 percenter. Dead ender to the very end. Ride Dr. Strangelove ride!



Go bugger off and propagandize someone else for a while. You haven't a CLUE what is going on in Iraq. You care not one whit for the Iraqi people who want this to work so bad. Who are trying to learn how to run their own country, how to secure it from terrorists and extremists. Who just want to live their lives like you and me.

America is sacrificing to help this nation of oppressed people live again.

Just. Bugger. Off.


"...and he was effectively contained by sanctions and the no fly zones which were hardly an onerous undertaking in comparison to the current military investment.

I think the AQ Khan discovery, the oil for food scandal, the ongoing chemical weapon programs, harboring terrorists, attempts to buy yellowcake, and the attempted (and maybe successful) bribes of UN weapon inspectors, all put the kabosh on those in the CIA who claimed he was "contained".

"The inspectors and the IAEA despite unresolved issues relating to past WMD activities, were able to certify that the regime was clean of any nuclear capability which was the only potential threat that could concievably threaten US security or interests in the region. Put simply SH was not an imminent, not even much of a potential future threat to the US."

Put simply, thats just what some in the CIA want you to believe. We didnt get weapon inspectors back into the country until Bush put boots on Iraq borders. And when inspectors got in there, we found an ongoing shell game of inspections by Iraqi officials. Chemical weapons was always the firs and foremost worry, because that was the easiest WMD to make and spread by the Iraq regime.

The left seems to conveniently forget Clinton bombed the sudanese chemical plant using the same justification. Chemical weaponry in the hands of OBL. That was a two day yawner story, if I remember correctly.


Pardon? For lying wow

JM Hanes


"OBL and AQ attacked the US on 9/11 2001 using mainly Saudi operatives, NO Iraqis."

Just figured that out, did you?


Pardon? For lying wow

In 2005, Bush pardoned people who had committed the following types of crimes: A union organizer that helped bomb a coalmine, mail fraud, auto theft, making false statements, currency counterfeiting, drug dealing, mailing threatening letters, and embezzlement.

So a pardon for lying is hardly worth a wow or a hmmm.


clarice -

Excellent article.

To continue the analogy, several persons in this drama could fill the role of the smarmy Cicero. Armitage and Wilson, to name two.

Unfortunately, we have no equivalent of a Titus Pullo to symbolically "nail their pale white hands to the Senate door."


For setting up a war yeah??
Come on Fitz is a hero


U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald at the top of his game
WLS By Chuck Goudie ABC NEWS

March 6, 2007 - A federal jury Tuesday convicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the CIA leak, perjury trial. The conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide is the latest in a remarkable string of courtroom victories Patrick Fitzgerald, the US attorney in Chicago. He was named special prosecutor in the CIA case. ABC7 investigative reporter Chuck Goudie has more on Fitzgerald's amazing track record in this Intelligence Report.
Patrick Fitzgerald grew up playing an often bloody game called rugby. During rugby games, opposing players swarm over the ball and fight for possession in what is known as a scrum. For the last four months, Fitzgerald has been in Washington, in a legal scrum, and his competition has been some of the top criminal defenders in the nation. At the center of the scrum: the truth about the vice president's chief of staff. Tuesday afternoon, Fitzgerald emerged with the ball.

"Any lie under oath is serious. Any prosecutor would tell you in my days in New York, in my current days in Chicago, that we cannot tolerate perjury. The truth is what drives our legal system. If people don't come forward and tell the truth, we have no hope of making the judicial system work," said Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. special prosecutor.

Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is at the top of his game. Tuesday, he led the team that beat Scooter Libby's defense. After Fitzgerald's four year investigation, five month trial and 10 days of deliberations, Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned the identity of CIA official Valerie Plame and who he told.

Ron Safer is a former federal prosecutor in Chicago and now a top criminal defense lawyer. Despite Tuesday's conviction, an embarrassment to the Bush administration, Safer told the I-Team he thinks Fitzgerald will be U.S. attorney in Chicago through the rest of the Bush presidency but not to look for him ever as attorney general.

"He would be happy going back to being an assistant U.S. attorney," said Safer.

Fitzgerald proved that Libby learned about Plame from Vice President Dick Cheney, who counted Libby as his most trusted adviser. Libby then discussed her name with some reporters and concocted a story to cover-up those discussions when he realized that he was a target.

"I do not expect to file any further charges. Basically the investigation was inactive prior to the trial. I would not expect to see any further charges filed," Fitzgerald said.

"I was somewhat surprised to hear that and somewhat disappointed to hear that," said Safer. "The investigation was obstructed to some extent, as the jury found today, but that's not the nub of the case, and unfortunately they never got to the nub of the case."

When Pat Fitzgerald gets back to Chicago -- probably by car, he prefers to drive -- he will find a full plate on the desk of his office where he frequently dines and sleeps, starting with the Conrad Black/Sun-Times fraud trial, and then the Operation Family Secrets mob murder and rackets case.

The prize Fitzgerald would really like is leftover from his days as a terrorism prosecutor in New York: Osama Bin Laden


Yeah, I'll bet Osama is just quaking in his sandals.


I'd say that completely declassifying Plame just might be too harmful for the WH, as well as the country.


I'd say that completely declassifying Plame just might be too harmful for the WH, as well as the country.

You never fail to amuse, I think the Vanity Fair cover was painful but hardly harmful.


I think the Vanity Fair cover was painful but hardly harmful.

Tee Hee

hit and run

Clarice, what a column. Holy cow. It really is masterful. Really.


No, it will not be harmful for the WH. In fact, I think it will be beneficial for WH to declassify Plame's identity but the nutroots will not believe it as they still do not believe the NIE, SCCI, and IIPA reports. They still believe that Wilson's the hero, when in reality, Wilson's a proven pathological liar.

Saddam was considered a very serious and immediate dangerous threat to the entire world by both democrats and Republicans through their public comments in all the recent years.

Saddam failed to follow 12 years of UN resolutions, including the last UN resolution.

We had every valid reason to invade Iraq to topple Saddam from power. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! We won this war!!

The current war in Iraq is NOT the same as the 3 week war that toppled Saddam from power.

The current war in Iraq is part of the war against Global Jihadism. The war against Global Jihadism includes financials, military, diplomacy, and intelligence.

There are two wars. BIG DIFFERENCE. We won the first one and will win the current war.

Bush did NOT lie us into either war. Congress voted unanimously to invade Iraq. They made public comments that Saddam was dangerous. All diplomatic measures were exhausted. All inspections were exhausted. Hans Blix kept asking for more time. No more.

Enough, Sparta and Jerry!


TM: [ahem]

Step away from my spotlight.



"You never fail to amuse, I think the Vanity Fair cover was painful but hardly harmful."

Happy to entertain, my main function here - JNN, the Jerry News Network.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm obsessed enough to really want to know about what Plame was doing, and everything Fitzgerald learned but won't discuss.

But if the WH won't declassify her (after our righteous demand here) I'd conclude that it's either for national, or WH, security reasons.

So for instance, we know that the WH started to form a plan to push back against Joe Wilson in early March 2003 the day after he appeared on CNN - had Cheney already learned of Plame by then, earlier than then?



Your problem is that you think like a democrat. No rational person would ever think that a push-back against Joe Wilson's lies on behalf of Senator Kerry means that someone is gunning for his wife.

That's something that Syd Blumethal would think up, not Scooter Libby.


So for instance, we know that the WH started to form a plan to push back against Joe Wilson in early March 2003 the day after he appeared on CNN -

How in the world do "we" know this, jerry?
I only know that Wilson claims this, with no apparent evidence. It goest with his too many women too many drugs speil that noone ever said but him.


I didn't take you wrong I understood completely you intentions, that super spy Vals complete declassification would do some sort of damage to the American people.

But you see my trouble with that is that of the actors in this tragic comedy that we know had direct knowledge of Vals status didn't think it was damaging.

Richard Armitage certainly didn't when he disclosed her name to at least 2 reporters.

The CIA didn't when they verified her CIA employment to Novak.

Fitz didn't even talk to Armitage so evidently he couldn't locate any crime or damage as a result of her name being made public.

And Val and Joey certainly didn't since they became the cover couple for every media organization which would publish their images.

So lets see it all including the referral and all the deals Fitz and the FBI made with Russert and Ari, release all the information about Wilsons trip to Niger including who signed the authorization. Release the notes of the debriefing he recieved upon returning.

Release everything except that info still relevant to National Security and let the chips fall where they may.


It remains interesting that no government offical is willing to publicly discuss Mrs. Wilson, I'm ready to hear anything.

Poor ol' Leopold did have an article with a variety of additional information about the supposed March 2003 meeting, I'd be happy to learn more about this also:


I still find it hard to believe that they went after Wilson's wife but they certainly did after the Novak article - for instance, Mathews saying Rove told him that Plame was "fair game." That seems pretty damning.

We really only know a small amount of detail (parts of a few weeks) about issues that really covered many months, even years.


Lying to a grand jury is not a process charge.


"OBL and AQ attacked the US on 9/11 2001 using mainly Saudi operatives, NO Iraqis."

Mainly because dunce,Saudis could get visas more easily than Iraqis.


"Mathews saying Rove told him that Plame was "fair game." That seems pretty damning."
Why? Of course that's just Wilson's unsworn statement of what that genius Matthews told him, but in the broader sense isn't that just saying, it's now public? And wasn;t it? Thanks to the "innocent accused" Armitage, I'd add.


All I can say Clarice is that while the Libby case hasn't resolved any of these issues the Wilsons' case will try to do so.

Instead of wishing that their case is thrown out don't you want to know (something closer to) the truth about these topics?

Sammy Finkelman

Bush can't make Valerie Plame's record public. It wouldn't violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for him or anyone else to do it, but it would violate the Privacy Act. Libby might have been worried about that.

The comments to this entry are closed.