|
If the CIA was being pressed to provide "information about Wilson’s trip as long as two months before Plame was unmasked in July 2003," why didn’t the CIA move more aggressively to muffle Wilson? They had two months to prepare a game plan in the event Wilson’s taking on the White House drew attention to his wife and it was naive on their part to think it wouldn’t. Instead, they sat back and then proceeded to confirm her identity to Novak. |
| |
Written By:
katy
URL:
http://
|
I’ll say the same thing now that I said during the Clinton Administration. I have one inflexible standard, which is that I don’t want my public officials to commit crimes. If the evidence shows that someone in the Bush Administration—I don’t really care who—has committed a crime and needs to be tried for it...well, then take them away. Good riddance.
What would constitute sufficient "evidence" in your opinion? Would a Ronnie-Earle style indictment be sufficient for you? What if it’s an indictment on Scooter Libby for some borderline maybe-maybe not perjury issue?
In the meantime, again, it’s a crying shame that we’re talking about this and not the outcome of Joe Wilson’s treason trial. Next time something like this happens, instead of trying to push back, they should just deliver a bullet and be done with it. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
There are lots of possible outcomes. Based on what’s publicly known, I think the most likely one is that, since it’s not clear that a crime was committed, there won’t be any indictments.
If there are indictments, I hope it’s because the prosecutors have much clearer evidence of somebody commiting a crime than we’ve seen so far. One Delay-style political prosecution per year is already way too high a rate. |
| |
Written By:
Billy Hollis
URL:
http://
|
|
Re: Jon’s update, there’s no way it’d be any of them. Guliani doesn’t want it, Bush doesn’t like McCain, and Condi is most valuable right where she is now. I guarantee you Bush would just pick somebody close to him with little or no credentials for it. It’s his pattern, after all. |
| |
Written By:
Matt McIntosh
URL:
http://conjecturesandrefutations.net/weblog/
|
::::getting out QandO Labelmaker (tm):::::
yeah yeah I know the inevitable comparasons to BJ Clinton and Cheney are forthcoming.
yeah yeah...a lie is a lie.
How many people were put into physical harm when BJ lied? Um, zero.
How many operatives and spies were potentially exposed to harm as a result of this leak and lie to cover the leak? I’d venture more than zero.
Treason? Wilson? Huh? Close, but sorry no brass ring..it does start with a "T", though.
Besides, you can’t blame the "Left" for their tut tut tactic. After all, the "Right" showed them where the high road was during BJ’s tribulations.
The "Right" showed us the right way to publicly call for impeachment and prison for scandalous liars. Right, "Right"?
Since the "Right" is always right, and the "Left" is always wrong, why slam the "Left" for takeing a page out of the "Rights’" book of hate and division, when dealing with this issue of crooks and liars in high office?
No one in their "right" minds can have it both ways. Um, except for religion/Roberts/Meiers.
Ok, I have put away my Labelmaker (tm) and await retort. Should be interesting, yet rife with name calling and generally dismissive. (grins) |
| |
Written By:
Rick D.
URL:
http://
|
Re: Jon’s update, there’s no way it’d be any of them. Guliani doesn’t want it, Bush doesn’t like McCain, and Condi is most valuable right where she is now. I guarantee you Bush would just pick somebody close to him with little or no credentials for it. It’s his pattern, after all.
On this particular topic, I don’t think anyone wanting to run for Pres in 08 would want it. Too easy to be tarred as part of the "culture of corruption" that will be the theme in the next election |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
How many operatives and spies were potentially exposed to harm as a result of this leak and lie to cover the leak? I’d venture more than zero
Explain how "operatives and spies" were put at risk regarding this? V. Plame did a Vanity Fair photo shoot after this overblown incident. V. Plame being an agent was an open secret among Washington and the Press Corps. Sounds risky to me...
As for the rest of your posting, it’s generally "nyah nyah nyah" style taunting. Not worthy of a response (is that dismissive enough to fulfill the criteria you were looking for? Sorry to leave out the name calling though. Maybe next time.) |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
|
What Rick was saying can be summed up like this: "A crime is only a crime if the perpetrator’s ideology differs from yours." Also, per shark, "nyah nyah nyah" is a good description. And he wonders why names are flung? |
| |
Written By:
CyanCyde
URL:
http://
|
|
Actually, I’ve changed my mind on one possibility. Condi might be willing to do it, she’s close to Bush, and she’s not really all that valuable at State. Bob Zoellick would make a better SecState anyway. Plus she’s already strongly associated with this administration, so she has nothing to lose by taking it if it’s offered. |
| |
Written By:
Matt McIntosh
URL:
http://conjecturesandrefutations.net
|
Explain how "operatives and spies" were put at risk regarding this? V. Plame did a Vanity Fair photo shoot after this overblown incident. V. Plame being an agent was an open secret among Washington and the Press Corps. Sounds risky to me...
Google This:
Brewster-Jennings & Associates
every covert operative tied to that firm, when it was outed as a CIA front, was put in jepordy. How many? Hm, classified.
oh, and the name calling began the day the E.I.B Network started its frist day, not with today’s blog, my blameshifting friends.
Again, if you read nyah nyah in my post...guess which idealogy I learned that from? (which was the point of the post, heh)
Or is that "nyah nyah I am ’right’ and you are not"?
heh. I hope we agree neither the right or the left is the answer, but a sane blend of the two. |
| |
Written By:
Rick D.
URL:
http://
|
heh. I hope we agree neither the right or the left is the answer, but a sane blend of the two
After trying to decipher your posts, I’m not sure sane is a word you’re familiar with (oooh, there’s some EIB-style name calling!) |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
Shark: In the meantime, again, it’s a crying shame that we’re talking about this and not the outcome of Joe Wilson’s treason trial. Mkay, I’ll bite: what’d he do?
|
| |
Written By:
b-psycho
URL:
http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
|
|
BTW: Rick actually has a point here IMO despite his tone. The two are nowhere near the same thing. |
| |
Written By:
b-psycho
URL:
http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
|
THe NYT recently exposed a secret CIA air transport company.
I guess they need to be prosecuted as well.
BTW, Clinton was not about the BJ but about LYING UNDER OATH.
But I guess LYING is okay now, as long as no one is physically injured.
Are you teaching your kids this new morality?
|
| |
Written By:
Harun
URL:
http://
|
Mkay, I’ll bite: what’d he do?
Outside of lying about the outcome of his trip in a deliberate effort to thwart the initiatives of the POTUS (and possibly secure some sort of appointment from his opponent should he emerge victorious) not much I guess... |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
BTW, Clinton was not about the BJ but about LYING UNDER OATH. But I guess LYING is okay now, as long as no one is physically injured. Are you teaching your kids this new morality? Obviously not, but you miss the point. What Clinton lied about was none of our business anyway, who the president is screwing isn’t relevant to his job. There are priorities.Outside of lying about the outcome of his trip in a deliberate effort to thwart the initiatives of the POTUS (and possibly secure some sort of appointment from his opponent should he emerge victorious) not much I guess... What’d he lie about? Wasn’t it proven the uranium purchase attempt didn’t happen?
|
| |
Written By:
b-psycho
URL:
http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
|
Obviously not, but you miss the point. Ah, but Clinton lied under oath, didn’t he? Last time I checked, perjury is still a crime. |
| |
Written By:
CyanCyde
URL:
http://
|
Ah, but Clinton lied under oath, didn’t he? Last time I checked, perjury is still a crime. Lying about sex is about as much of a crime as smoking weed is. Neither has reason to be illegal.
See, people that think such a piddling offense is worth going after tend to be one of two things: 1) nitpickey moralists concerned more with "sending a message" than keeping the gears running properly or 2) partisans who just want to take down someone not on their "team". Partisan identification is meaningless, the D or R next to their names might as well be "group of imbeciles #1" & "group of imbeciles #2" far as I’m concerned.
|
| |
Written By:
b-psycho
URL:
http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
|
"Lying about sex is about as much of a crime as smoking weed is. Neither has reason to be illegal"
How about lying about rape? Would that be all right, since it is only about sex? How about sexual harassment? He wasn’t just lying in answer to irrelevant questions about his sex life. He was lying under oath(perjury) in a lawuit brought by Paula Jones, who famously accused him of sexual harassment. Does her right to legal redress lose to Wee Willy’s desire to avoid embarrassment? Why do other defendants in such cases have to answer these questions, but not him? |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
How about lying about rape? Rape violates the rights of another person. Answering the question of if you got a blowjob from a consenting adult with "no" when the answer is yes doesn’t.How about sexual harassment? He wasn’t just lying in answer to irrelevant questions about his sex life. He was lying under oath(perjury) in a lawuit brought by Paula Jones, who famously accused him of sexual harassment. Does her right to legal redress lose to Wee Willy’s desire to avoid embarrassment? Her right to legal redress ends where her involvement in the matter ends. Last I heard, Monica did her part willingly, so why throw that into the case?
Tell you what: if a day comes when who the president gets oral sex from has an effect on national security and/or individual rights, I will care about it, ok? Until then, it’s a complete waste of time. I’m quite sure that if an anonymous survey were done, a quite large %age of politicians w/ a degree of power would be revealed to have screwed someone not their spouse.
|
| |
Written By:
b-psycho
URL:
http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
|
|
BTW: I’m not a fan of Clinton either, I just don’t get why of all the things to point at it’s THAT that comes up. |
| |
Written By:
b-psycho
URL:
http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
|
|
Her right to redress, like that of all sexual harassment plaintiffs, includes the right to prove a pattern of behavior of to support her case. This is standard, not something dreamed up to harass or embarass Bill Clinton. You may no like it, but it is the law. Anyway, the subject of the questions is irrelevant. He was under oath, he had a legal obligation to answer the questions truthfully, and he lied. That is perjury. Other people have gone to jail for doing what he did, why should he get special treatment? |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|