<p>No, Liz, it is you who are bringing up extraneous scenarios. The only allegation that is warranted by any evidence is that of the Libby lies; yet you and your party with the complicity of the media are trying to use that as a foil for attacking the administration for a whole range of issues. If you want to stray from the facts and get into these other allegations, fine, but then you must accept the responses involving Wilson’s lies (as documented by the Senate) as well as potential CIA dirty tricks. They are just as relevant as trumped up allegations of “lies” about WMDs.</p>
<p>As far as Libby’s alleged lies, I don’t think I have seen anyone here claim that he didn’t lie. We’ll let the judicial system deal with that. However, do bear in mind that you have heard one side of the story - the side crafted to imply guilt. I don’t know if you ever sat on a jury for a criminal case but I have and it was quite enlightening. The prosecutor’s opening remarks sounded very much like Fitzgerald’s allegations against Libby. I was thinking this guy was flat out guilty and it was going to be a waste of time even going through the motions of a trial. However, after hearing the other side, things weren’t quite as clear and after deliberations we voted to acquit. Innocent until proven guilty is not just a trite phrase.</p>
<p>As I predicted over the summer, the CIA’s behavior in the Plamegate matter was just too obvious to withstand scrutiny. A few additional articles out today. This will end up being the big story, I think, the wishes of the fever swamp Bush-hatred crowd notwithstanding. And yes, what FF posted above is exactly right, and speaks to the wilfull self-delusion of that crowd. Once again, Liz, no one needs to discredit Wilson. He’s already done all that needs to be done, to himself.
<p>The motive for lying about Plame is tied into the rational for going to war.
And it is brought up in the indictment. It’s part of trying to discern motive. I don’t believe there is any mention in the indictment about Wilson’s motives for going to Niger or the CIA for sending him.</p>
<p>You guys keep peddling that notion - I know how you play the game…Denial, obsure the facts, blame the media and repeat your defense over and over. I’m done arguing with nonsense - someone else can waste their energy.</p>
The prosecutor specifically rejected any notion that his indictments had anything to do with judgements on the war, pro or con. Glad you’re done arguing with nonsense. It’s gotten tedious.</p>
<p>Liz, the only thing I can say is it’s a good thing that you will not be on Libby’s jury. I doubt that you have an open mind about any of this - you continually want to link his alleged lies to the war.</p>
<p>ff: LOL Since this is an opinion thread, I really don’t think any of us would qualify as jurors. Look at how far you and driver have to go to bend the truth to defend these traitors. Giving out the name of a CIA agent should get them a ticket to those secret prisons we now have in EAstern Europe. After all you two are among the few Americans that don’t realize you were duped into this war.</p>
<p>Liz keep up the fight for truth…take a coffee break if you need, but please don’t let these lies go unchallenged.</p>
<p>“The mainstream media, of course, is entirely uninterested in determining why the Wilson Gambit was undertaken. Once upon a time, the New York Times and the rest of the American liberal establishment worried about CIA dirty tricks aimed at influencing domestic politics…”</p>
<p>I have no idea why anyone would be so sanguine about this possibility. Either the President of the United Statess, and his informed and trusted and well-educated advisors, had sound information about what really was going on in Iraq and chose to manipulate it in such a way as to get the American people to support a disastrous war policy, or, alternatively, a secret, unelected deeply hidden conspiratorial cabal can effectively turn our elected representatives into a club of dupes. I would much, much prefer the first possibility, and can’t see why anyone - on either the left or te right - would disagree.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone is “sanguine” about it. It’s a serious problem that needs to be vigorously addressed. The leaks–by rogue CIA elements–about “secret jihadist detainment facilities” are cut from the same cloth, and are actually an example of national security breaches with the potential to do real harm to our efforts to fight terrorism. But the Washington Post sees no irony in their outing of truly covert operations, even as they continue to flog the story of the “outed” CIA desk jockey-cum soccer-mom.</p>
<p>Love your leaks, keeps USofA fluid. Plugging of leaks could lead to greater complications later that we would not like to discover. </p>
<p>It is odd that an administration that promotes individual freedoms, decrease in government interaction, reduction of taxation and debt, has actually promoted the opposite. </p>
<p>The WP rehashed report of more than a year ago. Forgot which news mag, but one of the big three. The detainment of “suspected” " agents" on non US controlled soil has been known for a long time, widely published, and criticised.</p>
<p>We are a bunch of dupes and our officials that we elected are bigger dupes. I wonder why go thru the trouble of getting yellow cake, thru a costly and difficult manufacture process, when the real stuff or its analog can be obtained fairly easily. Why buy yellow cake when you can steal it?</p>
<p>Do you Boomers remember how Johnson and McNamara got the US deeper into the VN War (conflict)? Do you are even care why? Hint: three letter word.</p>
<p>Are those who leaked the info about the supposed secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe traitors too? How many Americans who are just doing their job and looking out for what they view as America’s best interests do you think will be compromised by this “traitorous” leak? </p>
<p>Looking forward to the Dem’s defense of that particular leak. I know it’s different. Can’t wait to hear why.</p>
<p>“I don’t think anyone is “sanguine” about it. It’s a serious problem that needs to be vigorously addressed.”</p>
<p>So do you see the President “vigorously addressing” those who duped him, and the entire nation, into a war that will end up costing half a trillion, and umpteen thousand lives (American and Iraqi) all so a pro-Iranian ayatollah can rule over a country we were duped into invading? </p>
<p>“It” doesn’t need addressing. The passive voice is uncalled for. We elected someone to address it, or so I remember. And for that he must be held accountable. (But he seems so sanguine with the result, I see little evidence that he even sees a problem. And THAT should be a problem, for Americans of whatever political stripe.)</p>
<p>"Shocking many of us who have long argued against the use of torture under any circumstances, noted liberal blogger TBogg has come out in support of Vice President Dick Cheney and his plea to Republican senators to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terror suspects in US custody.</p>
<p>As he says:</p>
<pre><code>There is nothing less than our precious freedoms at stake here, and when push comes to shove, we shouldn’t let quaint antiquainted notions about human rights take precedence over our freedom from fear and harm when it comes to those who would attack us or who pose a danger to our men and women in uniform or the others who serve our country in covert ways through our intelligence services.
Therefore I think we should torture Scooter Libby. "
</code></pre>
<p>Browninfall - Does it make a difference that one set of lies was to coverup an illegal act and the other was to uncover an illegal act? </p>
<p>The country I love should not be torturing people. My definition of inalienable rights means that they are not capable of being repudiated, as opposed to the White House interpretation of inalienable meaning occassional.</p>
<p>I agree with John McCain that we should not be a nation that tortures.</p>
<p>But this is such a tiny issue, when the country – including the budget and our military capacity - has been hijacked by a criminally conspiratorial intelligence cabal that neither the President nor his advisors is able to control - in fact, hijacked so completely that the President doesn’t even seem to know it!</p>
<p>Now THAT’s a problem.</p>
<p>As for torture? We’ve been training torturers at Fort Benning for years! When I lived in Iran (and worked for the U.S. government) everyone knew what happened at Fort Benning, everyone knew that the Shah’s torturers were trained there, and everyone knew that torture was supervised by U.S. military advisors from there. What’s the big deal? Torture has been part of bipartisan foreign policy for decades - and, if you contact John Kerry - as I DID - you’ll find that, when it comes to the torture school at Fort Benning, he will categorically refuse to repudiate it. </p>
Bull. Interesting that it’s the same reporter (Dana Priest, WaPo) who brought us the phony stories about the “School of the Americas” back then who is now bringing us the stories about secret jihadist detainment facilities, once again using “secret” sources who claim they don’t even know where the facilities are…but they know what’s going on inside them. Interesting, too, that the same dupes are falling for it again.</p>
<p>Well, in the Fort Benning case, those tortured had no problem finding it on the map. (at the time, I didn’t even know where Fort Benning was!)</p>
<p>But what does it matter? The Right says that this secret conspiratorial intelligence cabal controls what the President thinks and does in any case, so who cares how the Senate votes about such things? Given the expertise of the cabal in controlling information, it would seem likely that neither the President nor the Democrats know about torture one way or the other.</p>
<p>If we are not torturing people (Source George Bush)
Why is Dick Cheney fighting so hard for an exemption from the Senate proposal against torture?</p>
<p>Bush should promise not to let any of these traitors get off. No pardons for the Bush Whitehouse traitors.</p>
<p>Do you think when Bush says that we don’t torture he is also meaning we don’t turn people over to others to torture them for us?</p>
<p>Speaking of torture…my hats off to driver and fundingfather for regularly pointing out the silliness expressed by many here on this board. You’re made of strong stuff. </p>
<p>I love the hypocrisy of the Left. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth here when the evil Republicans supposedly outed Valerie Plame and put her life in such danger. Traitors all! </p>
<p>Oops. We now find out that no crime was committed in that regard. Last week someone leaks a story to the Washington Post that truly damages national security and genuinely puts people’s lives at stake and some here who didn’t like leaks before now think that…well… maybe some leaks are OK afterall. To paraphrase the Good Witch Glenda, “Are you a good leak or a bad leak?”</p>
<p>There’s a terrific new book out called “Do as I say (Not as I do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy” by Peter Schweizer. Fascinating stuff. </p>
<p>misterb, there’s a little gem that I know you’ll like about Nancy Pelosi. Seems a while back the United Farm Workers union gave Nancy Pelosi and her husband the Cesar Chavez award. Interestingly the $25 million Northern California vineyard she and her husband own is…(drum roll, please)…a non-union shop. Imagine that. Ms. Pelosi’s no different than Walmart.</p>
<p>“The leaks–by rogue CIA elements–about ‘secret jihadist detainment facilities’ are cut from the same cloth, and are actually an example of national security breaches with the potential to do real harm to our efforts to fight terrorism.”</p>
<p>Trent Lott says he believes it was probably a Republican senator who leaked the story. He says all the information was in a briefing that Dick Cheney gave to a group of exclusively Republican senators. [Update - Lott says he was talking about another Washington Post CIA story, about torture, not the “secret prison” story.]</p>