Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Plamegate's real liar

Old 11-02-05, 10:42 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Plamegate's real liar

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...mment-opinions

Plamegate's real liar
Max Boot

November 2, 2005

'SCOOTER" LIBBY'S indictment was not exactly good news for the White House, but it could have been a lot worse. Feverish speculation had been building that Karl Rove would soon be "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs," as Valerie Plame's bombastic hubby, Joe Wilson, had hoped. Or even that Dick Cheney would have to resign.

But with his investigation all but over, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has found no criminal conspiracy and no violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose the names of undercover CIA operatives. Among other problems, Plame doesn't seem to fit the act's definition of a "covert agent" someone who "has within the last five years served outside the United States." By 2003, Plame had apparently been working in Langley, Va., for at least six years, which means that, mystery of mysteries, the vice president's chief of staff was indicted for covering up something that wasn't a crime.

Making the best of a weak hand, Democrats argued that the case was not about petty-ante perjury but, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put it, "about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president." The problem here is that the one undisputed liar in this whole sordid affair doesn't work for the administration. In his attempts to turn his wife into an antiwar martyr, Joseph C. Wilson IV has retailed more whoppers than Burger King.

The least consequential of these fibs was his denial that it was his wife who got him sent to Niger in February 2002 to check out claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later stated, in a bipartisan report, that evidence indicated it was Mrs. Wilson who "had suggested his name for the trip." By leaking this fact to the news media, Libby and other White House officials were merely setting the record straight not, as Wilson would have it, punishing his Mata Hari wife.

Much more egregious were the ways in which Wilson misrepresented his findings. In his famous New York Times Op-Ed article (July 6, 2003), Wilson gave the impression that his eight-day jaunt proved that Iraq was not trying to acquire uranium in Africa. Therefore, when administration officials nevertheless cited concerns about Hussein's nuclear ambitions, Wilson claimed that they had "twisted" evidence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." The Senate Intelligence Committee was not kind to this claim either.

The panel's report found that, far from discrediting the Iraq-Niger uranium link, Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger's prime minister and an Iraqi delegation. Beyond that, he had not supplied new information. According to the panel, intelligence analysts "did not think" that his findings "clarified the story on the reported Iraq-Niger uranium deal." In other words, Wilson had hardly exposed as fraudulent the "16 words" included in the 2003 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In fact, the British government, in its own post-invasion review of intelligence, found that this claim was "well founded."

This is not an isolated example. Pretty much all of the claims that the administration doctored evidence about Iraq have been euthanized, not only by the Senate committee but also by the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission. The latest proof that intelligence was not "politicized" comes from an unlikely source Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, who has been denouncing the hawkish "cabal" supposedly leading us toward "disaster." Yet, in between bouts of trashing the administration, Wilkerson said on Oct. 19 that "the consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming" that Hussein was building illicit weapons. This view was endorsed by "the French, the Germans, the Brits." The French, of all people, even offered "proof positive" that Hussein was buying aluminum tubes "for centrifuges." Wilkerson also recalled seeing satellite photos "that would lead me to believe that Saddam Hussein, at least on occasion, was giving us disinformation."

So much for the lies that led to war. What we're left with is the lies that led to the antiwar movement. Good thing for Wilson and his pals that deceiving the press and the public isn't a crime.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 10:46 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Personally, I'd rather they have been flat out lying than the reality we have, which is that our intelligence is completely incompetent.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 11:00 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I think it's somewhat of a stretch to say our intelligence if completely incompetent.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 11:11 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Pleasantville - in black & white ;P
Posts: 5,970
Good thing for Wilson and his pals that deceiving the press and the public isn't a crime.

Except if you're Scooter Libby His indictment is about lying TO the press.
mosquitobite is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 11:16 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
pretty good article. If it is true about the definition of what a covert agent is, it sure doesn't look like a crime.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 11:17 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by mosquitobite[/QUOTE
Except if you're Scooter Libby His indictment is about lying TO the press.
Don't you wish that's all it was?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 11:43 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Originally Posted by kvrdave
pretty good article. If it is true about the definition of what a covert agent is, it sure doesn't look like a crime.
The lady who drafted the 1982 law in question said it would've taken 15 seconds to look at the law, and this situation, and see that there couldn't have been any crime committed here - she said the conditions of the law simply could not have been met in this case.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 11:49 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Correction: Libby is indicted, not for lying to the press, but for lying to federal officials and lying to a federal grand jury. He's also indicted for obstructing justice.

Those are the crimes.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 11:53 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
The type that could impeach a person. But not Libby.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 11:55 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Duran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 8,177
The lady who drafted the 1982 law in question said it would've taken 15 seconds to look at the law, and this situation, and see that there couldn't have been any crime committed here - she said the conditions of the law simply could not have been met in this case.
That may very well be the case. That would cause some to wonder why Libby allegedly lied to the grand jury about it.
Duran is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 12:00 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by kvrdave
The type that could impeach a person. But not Libby.

It's not necessarily the underlying act (whether it's criminal or not) - it's what you do afterwards that will get you.

As you say - ask Bill Clinton.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 12:00 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Originally Posted by classicman2
Correction: Libby is indicted, not for lying to the press, but for lying to federal officials and lying to a federal grand jury. He's also indicted for obstructing justice.

That's the crimes.
Which brings me to another point - in another thread, you accused me of buying the Republican version of the Phase II release "hook, line and sinker", while obviously buying the Democrat version the same way yourself.

If we're talking about trust here, I think my side has the upper hand, as the very statement Reid used to go into the "secret session" said that the Libbygate affair "opened a window" into the pre-war handling and intelligence, blah blah blah.

When, in fact, he's simply lying. It did no such thing. Here's what Fitzgerald said:

This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

...

The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.

And I think anyone's who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.
Reid and the rest of the Left can't take that simple fact, and so they simply ignore it and act like this whole thing is "about the war" - they are lying to the American people on purpose.

So in light of Reid not even being able to comprehend and/or be honest about this simple fact, how does it make he and the Dems the ones to trust? I'll buy the other side "hook, line and sinker' any day over this bunch.

Your boy can't even get the basic facts right. I trust my guys.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 12:03 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
natesfortune - desperately trying to change the subject.

Next you'll will be saying - 'it's all the Democrat's fault.'
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 12:05 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
We had/have the Clinton apologists. Now it's the Bush apologists' turn.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 12:12 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The real question is when will the House Judiciary Committee convene to consider impeachment charges against Cheney - who knows, with the passage of time, maybe even Bush?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 12:15 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
C-Man...

Are you serious?

Change the subject from what, exactly? There is no evidence implicating this administration in any wrongdoing, despite multiple commissions and now the special council.

I get accused of "changing the subject" by simply quoting the actual words of the special council, while the Democrats have to resort to ignoring what he said and charging forth as if this was "about the war".

Who's desperate here?
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 12:20 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Actually I don't believe it'll ever come to an actual impeachment of Cheney. A couple of Republican influential heavyweights will make the trip to Blair House with the message, 'Dick, you've gotta go,' the same as happened to another Dick some years ago.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 12:23 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
What am I missing?

Is Cheney charged with any crime? Is there any compelling evidence that he did anything wrong about any issue?

Or are you just trying to play Democrat on us and make a bunch of crap up in lieu of actually talking about real ideas and issues?
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 12:41 PM
  #19  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Posts: 6,677
It really surprises me how many people believe the "I had no idea it was happening" act. If the leadership doesn't know what is going on, then they are a bad leader.That is not an excuse or a get-out-of-jail-free card - that is a reason to remove the leadership.

Like John Stewart said, "Its too bad lies don't leave stains."
joshd2012 is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 01:02 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Originally Posted by classicman2
Actually I don't believe it'll ever come to an actual impeachment of Cheney. A couple of Republican influential heavyweights will make the trip to Blair House with the message, 'Dick, you've gotta go,' the same as happened to another Dick some years ago.
I have always thought he would, but I don't think it will be because of this. Though now Democrats will claim it was.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 01:06 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I think this mess will spend up Cheney's decision to 'retire.'

Serious question: Why would Libby lie if he wasn't covering up for someone?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 01:08 PM
  #22  
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: In mourning
Posts: 26,281
Originally Posted by classicman2
I think this mess will spend up Cheney's decision to 'retire.'

Serious question: Why would Libby lie if he wasn't covering up for someone?




We know he lied? I sure didn't.
Pharoh is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 01:24 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by Pharoh


We know he lied? I sure didn't.
I complimented you previously about being a reasonable fellow - don't disappoint me.

Either he's lying; or, Mr. Fitzgerald is lying about what he said about Libby's conversations with reporters about where he got his information. He didn't get it from reporters, as Fitzgerald said Libby said. I believe that's obvious.

I don't believe it's too much of a leap to say that Libby is covering up for someone. The question is - who is that someone? Some speculate that it's the vice president.

Last edited by classicman2; 11-02-05 at 01:32 PM.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 11-02-05, 04:42 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Pleasantville - in black & white ;P
Posts: 5,970
Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA

By ZELL MILLER
Published on: 11/02/05

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1105/02edmiller.html?COXnetJSessionIDbuild102=DpICsoeXn1GNFXprsEA1AZ9UiQg63kGGuelt0fndf1mfmO3I9OBY!640968 73&UrAuth=aN%60NUOcNVUbTTUWUXUTUZTZU_UWUbU]UZUaU_UcTYWVVZV&urcm=y

The agent realizes her spouse can go out on behalf of the spy agency, can distort information, go public with classified information and use all this spy-agency-sponsored material and credentials to try to pull down the current government, and it is all perfectly legal.
<snip>
To the media, it doesn't matter that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence says Wilson lied about what he did and with whom he met while investigating Iraqi attempts to purchase "yellowcake" uranium.

To the media, it doesn't matter that the CIA says what Wilson did actually find supported that Iraq was attempting to buy the uranium a direct contradiction to Wilson's public claims
<snip>
Something has to be done. We can't let the CIA become the domestic dirty tricks shop, with Republican and Democratic agents each trying to pull down their opposing presidents.
mosquitobite is offline  
Old 11-04-05, 05:31 PM
  #25  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 223
I can't believe the Conservatives and their tools are still attacking Wilson. Some folks NEVER learn !
Pwman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.