Putting things in perspective
I wasn’t going to blog on the Lewis Libby indictment because it is so difficult to have a sane conversation about it. However when I read hysterical nonsense in the NZ Herald headlined “Plamegate scandal could put Watergate in the shade” one can’t stay silent. The article actually comes from The Independent, which explains a lot.
So let’s deal with some myths and facts:
1) Contrary to popular belief, no-one at all has or is going to be charged with revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative. The original focus of the investigation has found no crime.
2) The prosecutor has made clear that in the main there has been full co-operation with his investigation from the White House. None of the Nixon cover-ups or the Clinton documents suddenly turning up months later.
3) However Libby himself is facing serious charges. This is not a case of merely forgetting a conversation or two, but a very deliberate pattern of misleading. Powerline says the indictment is devastating.
4) Libby is a senior WH official, but he is far from a household name like Rove was. As someone had commented, can anyone name Al Gore’s Chief of Staff?
Overall the indictment is obviously bad news for the Bush Administration. Having senior staff charged with perjury is never a good look. However it is a bit like the Whitewater investigation – Clinton was never charged with anything related to the original investigation, he was charged for lying. But in this case it is not the President but a staffer in the dock. And hence any comparisons with Watergate are fevered delusions of the anti Bush press.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:40 am
Thanks to all those brilliant newspapers and their shrill journos I made some nice money on this one. Let’s hope my fellow bettors never lose their faith in their prized newspapers.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:43 am
I actually clicked on the article, and what spied my eye? “To appreciate the broader potential of Libby’s indictment, one cannot avoid a little of the labyrinthine background.”
How hilarious. Appreciate the broader potential, never lose hope, eh?
October 31st, 2005 at 8:52 am
The Opinion Journal ahs a good take on this.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007476
Essentially Scooter has been indicted for lying about a crime that didn’t happen!!!
October 31st, 2005 at 9:19 am
As soemone who hasn’t followed the case that closely I’m left with a probably tedious question. If a crime didn’t happen, why did he lie about it?
October 31st, 2005 at 9:26 am
To use Al Gore as an example here is ridiculous. Gore’s chief of staff was never at the apex of power the way Libby was. Known as the neocon’s neocon Cheney operated entirely through Libby. The neocon network throughout the Bush administration was closely tied to everything that Libby did. Libby was the one responsible for pushing the disinformation campaign prior to the invasion of Iraq.
To think this is goiing to play out like Whitewater is delusional.
My money’s on Rich to be correct on this one not Brooks. Brooks is a bit sad really, left to continually try and think up excuses for an imploding administration whos credibility with the American people has long passed its use by date.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:39 am
It’s really unbecoming of you, David, always shrilly leaping to the defence of George W Bush and anyone around him.
Still, I give you 11 out of 10 for long-term consistency.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:48 am
Elizabeth de la Vega’s article ” What Should we Expect Now that Fitzgerald Has Announced the Indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby” is worth reading.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=32241
October 31st, 2005 at 9:49 am
Actually I’ve criticsed Bush also on occassion and am far from a fan of his. I just find the hysteria from those against him to be so stupid, that I try to balance things up a bit.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:57 am
Perhaps the only reason people *constantly* need to defend George Bush is because Bush’s person is constantly under attack from the left. The left can’t argue on ideas, so they call their opponents murderers, or imply that they have committed other such crimes, and then use their kangaroo courts to sentence them to execution or long jail sentences or just to discredit them personally.
Look back through history, or just look at what is going on around the world today. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot locked up or executed their opponents for bogus “crimes against the state”. Castro keeps those who challenge his ideology in dungeons or executes them. The left in the US label George Bush a murderer. The left in the last election tried to portray Brash as a liar over the Brethren pamphlets. Its the same pathological pattern, just at different levels. No challenge on ideas, just the same old politics of personal destruction.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:43 am
Saying it will overshadow Watergate is incorrect. But at the same time, is there another white house scandal in the last 50 years of greater magnitude than this?
Some of the right wing talking points that you are spouting need a little common sense applied to them (“The original focus of the investigation has found no crime.”). Al Capone was convicted of Tax Evasion. I guess he didn’t do anything else, since he wasn’t charged with them eh?
It doesn’t look like any of the bigwigs are going to fall in this. There’s still an outside chance that Karl Rove will be indicted, but I think if he plays his cards right he should be ok.
Interesting how absolutely hypocritical the right has been looking at the prejury stuff clinton was facing and the perjury of compromising covert operatives.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/24/hutchison-flip-flop/
“Yesterday, offering a hint of the attack White House allies will launch on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald if and when he announces any indictments, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison dismissed the possible felony indictment of perjury as a mere
October 31st, 2005 at 10:45 am
The anti Bush media in the US worked themselves up into a frenzy over this Plame issue hoping that the more they talked about Fitzgerald indicting Rove, the greater the likelihood it would happen. I just returned from 2 weeks Stateside and the liberal/Democrat anticipation of a Rove indictment was ludicrously frenetic.When the only scalp claimed was Libby-the spin moved to how damaging this would be to the White House.
Make no mistake Libby is personally in trouble but as for long term damage to the White House, think again – Bush has been perpetually written off by the liberal establishment media but he soldiers on. Even the Miers nomination fiasco he may yet turn this around with a Roberts style nominee both confirmable and acceptable to the conservative base in a way Miers never was.
Plame’s husband Joe Wilson has proven to be a disingenous person thus helping Special Prosectutor Fitzgerald to conclude that the original regulatory breach of his wife’s ‘outing’ was unindictable even after a solid two years of this grand jury’s investigations. MI6 never wavered from their assessment over the original Niger uranium allegation and an exhaustive Senate Foreign Affairs Committee investigation backed them up.Wilson has merely made mischief over this issue counting on a compliant anti Bush anti War in Iraq media to row his boat.
Neither the original issue nor Libby’s charges have anywhere near the heat, intensity or the seriousness of the Whitewater allegations and is far from the Watergate style coverup the liberals are praying for.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:45 am
LOL, the grand jury is a kangaroo court when it’s trying to get to the bottom of a leak that compromises national security, but it’s fair enough when it’s about the president getting a blowjob?
In case you’ve forgotten about Guantanamo bay and Abu Graib, you might want to get off your high horse about holding people in dungeons and treating them badly or even killing them.
As for the politics of personal destruction, I’m pretty surprised you don’t remember your own words of vilification towards our illustrious leader, let alone the diatribe of personal attacks on every aspect of her life from her looks to her familial status to her speeding offences to her lesbian mates coming from your favoured side of the political fence. Unfortunately for you, throwing stones in glasshouses is famously dangerous.
Not to mention that the case you’re all woody about talking down was about the vicious and illegal personal attack on a critic of his establishment and his lies. I’m just waiting for you to start having a crack at the prosecutor himself. That’ll be good for some laughs.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:04 am
Ben Wilson you are a prime example of the dickhead dork donks. If there is one thing that stands out from the current brouhaha that is the fact that neither the administration nor the Republican party have attacked the prosecutor. So you waste your breath and my time predicting that David Farrar will do so? You’d be better of worrying about your mates in Christchurch who have been singled out by Volker this morning. Oh, you mean you haven’t heard? Too busy reading the Independent and the NYT no doubt?
October 31st, 2005 at 11:07 am
Ben – you need to stop inventing things. When have I said it is a kangaroo court? In fact I have linked to articles praising the special prosecutor. And hen I have vilified Clark? On the contrary I have actually spoken against those who do.
You try one trick by listing things imporoper to attack Clark on such as her looks (and no doubt you condemn those who attack Gerry Brownlee’s eight) and family status, but add in there the motorcade issue.
Nice try but that one is legitimate.
And you say the attack on Wilson was illegal. No it wasn’t, otherwise someone would have been charged.
You’re the perfect example of someone so blinded by hatred, you can’t distinguish between fact and fiction.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:25 am
David, I wasn’t saying you said anything, my post was a response to redbaiter, but a couple of posts got in first. Don’t take it personally, and don’t lower yourself to personal attacks, I’m surprised at you, usually you’re better than that, leave that to Adolf and others.
As to your claim of a ‘trick’ I guess that means you concede the other points, outside of the motorcade issue? Cheers. You can have the motorcade, lame though it is, I merely chucked it in as the weak attempt at a character attack that it is. So the PM *might* not have a problem with speeding sometimes…I guess that puts her squarely in the statistical mainstream Brash is always trying to find.
As for the Wilson thing, you’re quibbling in a prematurely legally positivistic way typical of someone skating on thin moral ice. It is obviously perfectly possible to commit a crime and not get charged for it. And this affair is not over by a long shot. That is ‘putting things in perspective’.
Adolf, your foul mouth doesn’t inspire me to even consider what you say. Grow up.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:35 am
Adolf: “… neither the administration nor the Republican party have attacked the prosecutor.”
They haven’t relly had any scope to (although that hasn’t stopped loyal butt-kissers like Fox News’s Carl Cameron from trying): Fitzgerald was appointed by the Bush administration’s own deputy attorney general at the request of the CIA director.
Even the prominent right-wing blogs have been acknowledging the fact that Rove isn’t off the hook – he’s still under investigation. Fitzgerald is a cautious and conservative prosector (unlike Ken Starr), and he’s gone for the charges he thought he could nail. This might be it, or it might get much, much messier.
Cheers,
RB
October 31st, 2005 at 11:50 am
Another reason to like Mr Fitzgerald – he likes us. From Time:
“He has gone bungee jumping in New Zealand …”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1124306-2,00.html
Cheers,
RB
October 31st, 2005 at 11:53 am
“So the PM *might* not have a problem with speeding sometimes”
Translation: So the PM *might* speed through NZ towns at over 140km per hour. Who doesnt?
She didnt take responsibility for her something directly under her control. She said she didnt notice the speed, which must be a lie. But thats ok, and pretty lame, i mean, she’s the primeminister, OF COURSE she isnt going to be honest and take personal responsibility, what were you expecting?
BTW Whitewater wasnt about Clinton’s blow job (though I can understand your confusion given the name).
“or even killing them.” Oh, and I am sure you really *want* to believe this.
“Unfortunately for you, throwing stones in glasshouses is famously dangerous.”
“I’m just waiting for you to start having a crack at the prosecutor himself. That’ll be good for some laughs.”
“you’re quibbling in a prematurely legally positivistic way typical of someone skating on thin moral ice.”
I am also sure you like to think of yourself as educated, intelligent and worldy. But really you come across as a sanctimonious, arrogant wanker.
“That is ‘putting things in perspective’.” Um, no it didnt.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Kimble,
“Translation: So the PM *might* speed through NZ towns at over 140km per hour. Who doesnt?”
Hmmm, yes, well said.
She may be the Prime Minister, but I don’t think that gives her clairvoyance yet. People are notoriously bad a judging speed, which is why cars come fitted with speedometers. My wife complains that I’m speeding every time I go over 45kmh.
I never said Whitewater was about the bj. But there was a big hue and cry about lying to Grand Jury about it nonetheless.
Yup, killing them. Many people have died in US custody under extremely suspicious circumstances in this ‘war on terror’. Found dumped somewhere and revealed to having been beaten to death, last seen being interviewed in US military custody…that sort of thing you like to turn a blind eye to. I don’t want to believe it, it hurts to think the US does that kind of thing. But I do believe it, there’s just too much evidence, too many cases. Then there’s ‘extraordinary renditions’ which even you must admit might lead to the odd violation of human rights.
I can’t make much of your last point. Is it just abuse with random quotes? I hope you feel a little better now.
You see David, you really didn’t need to go there! You’ve got plenty of people willing to take shots beneath the belt. Unfortunately they punch beneath flyweight, with the accuracy of Peter North, so I don’t need the eye gouges waiting in the arsenal.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:46 pm
RB, put your money where your mouth is. I sell you 1000 TradeSports contracts that Karl Rove won’t be indicted before Dec 31 2005, ok?
Because either your “This might be it, or it might get much, much messier.” is the usual left wing smear and inuendo, or you actually believe what you say.
Back it up I would say, I’m ready to take you on.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:56 pm
“You’d be better of worrying about your mates in Christchurch who have been singled out by Volker this morning. Oh, you mean you haven’t heard? Too busy reading the Independent and the NYT no doubt?”
Goodness me, are you always this quick to grab your ankles?
Looks like you can put your pants back on & have a wee lie down now.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:57 pm
“Back it up I would say, I’m ready to take you on.”
What would be the point? It’s an uncontroversial statement, and one that even the more sensible conservative bloggers are making. Rove has been back three times for testimony and he’s still under investigation. That doesn’t mean he will be indicted, but if he was completely in the clear he wouldn’t still be under investigation.
Jeez, this is all happening a long way away. I don’t see the need to turn it into a local pissing contest.
Cheers,
RB
October 31st, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Russell claims that This might be it, or it might get much, much messier is an uncontroversial statement
The trouble is that it’s about as unsatisfactory as saying “So-and-so is a pedophile or he isn’t”.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:28 pm
RB, it’s a pissing contest alright. And you come up short because you don’t gamble, you soft lefty.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:31 pm
“People are notoriously bad a judging speed”. Perhaps people are notoriously bad at telling the difference between 50 and 55 kph, but who CANT tell the difference between 100 and 145 kph?
Only someone blinded by partisanship would dismiss the motorcade incident so easily. Especially when it comes after the Doone affair and paintergate. There surely has to come a point when you start to think, “Mmmmm, I could let one of these go, but they are really starting to pile up, and just maybe they are evidence of a real character flaw”.
You seem to believe her at the expense of good sense, and you have given her more credit for honesty than she deserves.
“there was a big hue and cry about lying to Grand Jury”. Yes there was. The lying was the problem, just as it is in this case. He didnt break the law by his actions, but he did when he lied about it.
Re: the last comment. I was just informing you that you come across as a sanctimonious, arrogant wanker. I simply presented examples from which people could get that impression. Simply because you fluff up insults, does not mean you are being more polite.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Kimble, I’d be surprised if you could reliably tell what speed you are going over 100kmh on a straight road. Try it, by speeding up until you think you’re going 145 and then look at the speedo. Then do it in a different car. Then try it with your passengers. It’s really a lot harder than you think. A well designed big, quiet vehicle seems to be going a lot slower than a small, loud one, particularly from the back seat.
But hey, whatever. Perhaps she was aware the driver was speeding. Big deal. It’s not even a loss of license offence for the driver, let alone the passengers. Perhaps she’s still got some overdue library books, why don’t you go check that out too.
“”there was a big hue and cry about lying to Grand Jury”. Yes there was. The lying was the problem, just as it is in this case. He didnt break the law by his actions, but he did when he lied about it.”
?
Cheers for putting your stamp on my point.
Re being a sanctimonious arrogant wanker. I’m sorry that you find my difference of opinion to you so sanctimonious, and my responses that fail to use schoolyard language so arrogant. But I really can’t see how it follows from any of the selected quotes. Care to elaborate?
October 31st, 2005 at 5:19 pm
G’Day, All Y’All
Beyond the Wilsons’ and the Clinton-appointee-headed CIA’s felonious neopotisms and the subsequent Wilson perjuries, fabrications and fantastications there has been no crime in this matter.
Fitzgerald’s DNC-agenda-driven attempt to criminalize political policy differences will therefore fail.
Just as Joe and Valerie Wilson’s serial delusions, lies and fabulizations have already failed.
Mrs Wilson never was a covert agent as defined by United States Law and all parties well know it and always did.
Given those facts, I applaud your general position vis-a-vis the self-styled “mainstream media’s misrepresentationsof the Plame Game being played out by the liberal lawyer, Fitzgerald in the Libby matter. Further to your position, however, I confidently state there will be no convictions whatsoever in this matter and that the fifteen minutes of infamy of the markedly, even for a DNC activist, bumbling incompetent, Fitzgerald, will prove over before it began.
Perhaps your elsewhere-admitted-to underlying dislike of United States President and Armed-Forces Commander In Chief, George Walker Bush took charge of your typing finger and caused you to deviate way so far from reality as to draw an analogy between Fitzgerald’s activist over-reaching and the Whitewater investigations?
Before attempting to draw such an analogy you aught consider that the Clinton/Whitewater investigations have been well demonstrated to have been set in motion by and drawn out by the Clinton Crime Family’s extraordinarily-well-documented serial criminality, obstructions of justice, perjuries, subornations of perjury, obstructions of justice, abuses of high office, slanders, libels, thefts, lootings, false prosecutions, fraudulent IRS audits, high-treasons, high crimes, breaches of trust, lies and deceptions, obstructions of justice, stonewallings and denials of civil rights — and many others.
You may see the comprehensive Clinton crime catalog at: http://www.alamo-girl.com. I suggest that no intelligent being can spend a half hour perusing that catalog and remain unconvinced of either of the Clintons’ psychopathology.
Any remaining doubts will be removed by the listing of the litany of and other links to his and her joint and several serial sexual crimes to be found at: http://users.aol.com/beachbt/rapes.txt; and at: http://users.aol.com/beachbt/psychpth.txt.
Let it be noted that very serious and continuing [Sandy Berger] criminal activities of many of the Clinton cronies resulted in many criminal convictions [With both Clintons' names mentioned many scores of times throughout every one of many scores of felony indictments] and in many lengthy prison sentences.
Let it be further noted that in addition to being the only elected president ever to be impeached, Clinton was himself criminally convicted of perjury, subornation of perjury, abuse of office, obstruction of justice and denial of civil rights, all felonies, was fined around One Hundred Thousand US Dollars, was disbarred as a lawyer and was ordered to pay around One Million US Dollars in damages to the person whose civil rights he was convicted of denying.
And let it also not escape your attention that Clinton’s spouse, Bruno, was also stated by the prosecutor to have committed perjuries. Bruno [AKA "Mrs Clinton"] did not deny this official finding.
Loosely, that’s a brief synopsis of what’s known as “Whitewater.”
Still seeing any similarities with the Libby matter, are we?
Let also be noted the trail of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, easily visible, in even their present states, to both Ray Charles and Claude Papesch, [But not, apparently to those moral relatives absolutely blinded by the virulent hatreds definitively-symptomatic of the socialist psychosis, some of your morally-reprehensible post-moderist [PoMo] babbling detractors among them] of the most awful frauds and corrupt and treasonous acts and serial predations seperately and/or co-perpetrated by both Clintons.
That neither of the naked-king-like Clintons’ crimes is ever visible to any lunatic-fringe-dwelling lefty may apparently be explained only by supposing that he loses his ability to see beyond his own nose once his nostrils flair to the stench of America hatred that defines both Clintons and their every envy-driven anti-American supporter.
On the subject of presidential pretenders and presidents, however and especially given that, the instinct to herd belongs to others than Republicans and Conservatives, [See: "Democrats"] the degree of blind hatred toward America’s current chief executive seems, even for sufferers of the socialist psychosis that so dominates New Zealand politics, to go beyond that gang’s “normal,” assinine and irrational.
Republicans and most particularly conservative Republicans are, to a man, are attracted to Principle, to Moral Integrity and to the Tenet — and only seem and even then, only to those that suffer the liberal [Socialist] psychosis, to be herded to the man.
That is, if we have seemed to like President Bush it was because he seemed to be one of us. But it was always his perceived Republicanism we conservatives followed and never the man.
You will have no difficulty noting that while every ludicrous left-winger loves the criminal, Clinton and refuses to conceed to even those crimes of which he stands convicted, once his participation in a single silly bungled burglary’s coverup was revealed, no Republican stood beside then President, Dick Nixon. It was Republicans who went to the White House and insisted Mr Nixon resign and not a single “Democrat” participated in that action.
Republicanism is thus not a popularity contest.
That given: We conservative Republicans have watched with increasing forboding as Mr Bush has absolutely abrogated his responsibility to protect our nation’s sovereign borders;
We have despised his un-Constitutional communization of education and of pharmacutecals for geezers;
We have been cautious in our take on his increasingly wimped out, “PC” and American-casualty-intensive conduct of operations in the Iraq Phase of the War on Terror and;
Have been aghast that he has unlawfully put women into combat operations there and;
We were horrified as he with a pen stroke tossed out the First Amendment to our beloved Constitution; [McCain-Feingold]
We were aghast as he oligarchically rehabilitated the criminal Clintons; [And that he retained so many of the grandiosely self-described "co-president" Clintons' feral-gummint appointees, including the CIA's George Tenet, who signed off on Mrs Wilson's felony neopotism]
Conservative Republicans stood aside as Mr Bush signed into law the Euro-peon-like preemptive criminalization of America’s businessmen [Sarbanes-Oxley] and;
We have watched in horror as he has presided over the most massive and most totally irresponsible and profligate congressional corruption of federal spending in our republic’s history;
We have been increasingly troubled by his appointment of unqualified cronies;
Because, every one of us told himself, his restoration of the role Supreme Court by his appointment of originalists makes it worth putting up with this other liberal “Democrat” party-like stuff.
But then came the stealth supreme-court nomination of the minimalist, Roberts, whom we believe was more likely an acceptable candidate by chance than by choice — and the complete bypassing of the “vetting process” [Such as occurred carried out by her afraid-to-fail to approve her and everything-to-gain by her nomination, deputy!] — and by the assinine nomination of the hapless Miers.
In that one act President Bush placed the straw that broke the loyal Republican camel’s back — and proved beyond much doubt that he is all “compassionate” and no conservative! ["All hat and no cattle"]
But — and here’s the rub — Mr Bush’s is an almost-perfectly typical left-winger’s track record!
No real “Democrat” could have gotten away with even half of it.
Given, then and as is evidenced here, that to a man the world’s surly, sorry, sulking socialist sheeple still hate him, surely there goes the last possibility any had to to deny the total, definitive, blindness to fact definitive of every envy-motivated, hatred-engined and consequentially-rage-driven sufferer of the liberal psychosis?
Eh?
Thanks for letting me have a bit of a rant.
Blessings — Brian
October 31st, 2005 at 5:43 pm
RB, thanks for clarifying that your opinion isn’t worth a dime.
October 31st, 2005 at 6:35 pm
PM: “Russell claims that This might be it, or it might get much, much messier is an uncontroversial statement. The trouble is that it’s about as unsatisfactory as saying “So-and-so is a pedophile or he isn’t”.”
Actually, it would be a perfectly satisfactory thing to say if so-and-so had been named in another subject’s indictment (“Official A”), was relying on a “memory defence” to square conflicting testimony, and was still under investigation for charges related to paedophilia.
But for a breaking example of messiness, try Cheney’s counsel, David Addington, who has been in the room a *lot* in the past few years (and was a witness for Fitzgerald’s probe). The moment he was mentioned as Libby’s successor, the Dems on the Senate Intelligence Committe gave notice they’d be demanding all the documents Cheney’s office refused to release to the committee’s investigation last year on the usage of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war.
Cheney will presumably refuse to release them again. It just won’t be a very good look.
Cheers,
RB
October 31st, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Berend: “RB, thanks for clarifying that your opinion isn’t worth a dime.”
Berend, was there really any need for that? What is it about this topic that makes the petty insults come out even quicker? Adolf managed to get three terms of abuse in his first sentence!
Puffing out your chest and offering to “take me on” is not the same thing as debate. And please forgive me when I tell you that I don’t even know what a “TradeSports contract” is, let alone whether I’d want one.
Cheers,
RB
October 31st, 2005 at 7:30 pm
I’m still bemused as to why Berend’s opinion is more valuable/valid because he’s willing to put money behind it.
October 31st, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Russell:
On my statement that The trouble is [about your statement is] that it’s about as unsatisfactory as saying “So-and-so is a pedophile or he isn’t”
Actually, it would be a perfectly satisfactory thing to say if so-and-so had been named in another subject’s indictment (“Official A”),
“Official A” is not a name the last time I looked. Given that no indictment has been handed down with respect to the leaking – Scooter is being indicted for lying about the conversations in which he leaked the name but is not indicted for the actual leaking of the name – and that Official A is only mentioned in the context of leaking the name, his mention proves nothing.
was relying on a “memory defence” to square conflicting testimony,
The only person apparently relying on the memory defense is Libby who has been indicted. Rove returned to the Grand Jury after Cooper and Miller had given their testimony and has not relied on the memory defense.
and was still under investigation for charges related to paedophilia.
You are getting confused between my hypothetical example and what actually is the case. Rove is reportedly under investigation for making false statements, not pedophilia. Nobody knows for certain whether Official A is Rove.
But for a breaking example of messiness, try Cheney’s counsel, David Addington, who has been in the room a *lot* in the past few years (and was a witness for Fitzgerald’s probe).
Yet he has not been mentioned in the Libby indictment.
The moment he was mentioned as Libby’s successor, the Dems on the Senate Intelligence Committe gave notice they’d be demanding all the documents Cheney’s office refused to release to the committee’s investigation last year on the usage of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war.
Cheney’s refusal was a correct application of the principle of Executive Privilege which has been upheld by the courts time and again. If that is supposed to be messier than the Libby indictment, you appear to be implying that Plamegate is a storm in a teacup.
October 31st, 2005 at 7:47 pm
Is anyone still awake? Maybe Peter and Berend could become bookends for the defence of Scooter. One could puff out his wee chest and issue manly challenges the other could concern himself with minute detail, parsing the words so to speak.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:22 pm
“You are getting confused between my hypothetical example and what actually is the case. Rove is reportedly under investigation for making false statements, not pedophilia.”
Well, duh. It *was* your metaphor.
“Nobody knows for certain whether Official A is Rove.”
Apart from people involved with the case, three of whom spoke to AP’s reporter and said it was.
“The only person apparently relying on the memory defense is
Libby who has been indicted. Rove returned to the Grand Jury after Cooper and Miller had given their testimony and has not relied on the memory defense.”
That’s not what the WaPo and the LA Times say:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/30/MNG4QFGE4N1.DTL
It would seem to be his main argument against being indicted.
Cheers,
RB
October 31st, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Maybe Berend and Peter could become a double act. Berend could puff out his wee chest and issue manly challenges and Peter could parse the words so no detail escapes our notice but we miss the big picture altogether.
October 31st, 2005 at 8:32 pm
0h dear, the impact is not quite the same if it’s a repeat post, the 2nd one was better I think….and Peter are you really the only person who doesn’t know who “official A” is?
October 31st, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Allow me to respond, a la Peter.
“oh dear”
What exactly do you mean by that. Are you calling me a dear, or are you admitting that you are stupid.
“the impact is not quite the same, the 2nd one was better I think”
Your blatant self contradictions show a lack of reasoning and deep seated guilt about your abandonment at birth.
“…”
…? Fuck you! (ooops, I think i kimbled accidentally).
“and Peter are you really the only person who doesn’t know who “official A” is?”
No one “knows” anything. You’d have to never have studied any philosophy to know that.
Game, set and match. Get a life and a job.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:40 pm
Lets get one thing straight Crimes were comitted.
Libby is facing 10 years in jail, funny way of saying no crime comitted. The very reason no one is facing charges under the Espionage or Identities Protection Acts is Libby’s lies. And if the Whitehouse had really cooperated then Cheny would have ordered his most important employee to cooperate fully or be sacked right now. I wonder why Libby chose to lie away, to help his boss seems a good conclusion.
Rove was in the same position, until very late last week, when he suddenly had about of recovered memory and Fitzgerald held off indicting him in exactly the same way.
As for those who say no crime was committed, well the police here have a saying , we know who is responsible, we just cant get a jury to convict.
Just browsing on the CIA website:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/cia_today/ciatoday_04.shtml
The Directorate of Operations (DO) has primary responsibility for the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence, including human source intelligence (HUMINT). Domestically, the DDO is responsible for the collection of foreign intelligence volunteered by individuals and organizations in the United States.
Guess where Val worked , not in DI http://www.cia.gov/cia/di/org_chart_section.html
which analyses the intell, not in directorate of Support which does all the other back room stuff, no she was Counterproliferation division of the operations division. Libby and Cheney knew all the details and Cheney got Libby to tell reporters in order to damage Val’s career.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Al Capone was never convicted of any crime, he just forgot to pay his taxes, so wasnt a criminal acoording to DPF.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Russell:
Well, duh. It *was* your metaphor.
So you can’t tell the difference between a metaphor and the facts of the case?
“Nobody knows for certain whether Official A is Rove.”
Apart from people involved with the case, three of whom spoke to AP’s reporter and said it was.
Oh yes. Leaks. Considering the number of false leaks in this case, not to mention the falsity of Joe Wilson’s leaking, one can never have certainty of knowledge that Rove was Official A as I had originally said.
Me: “Rove returned to the Grand Jury after Cooper and Miller had given their testimony and has not relied on the memory defense.”
RBThat’s not what the WaPo and the LA Times say:
Again supposition, leaks and guesswork. There are other ways to defend against the making of false statements on the grounds of conflicting testimony than just the memory defense.
It would seem to be his main argument against being indicted.
“Seem” says it all.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:57 pm
Jimmy:
.and Peter are you really the only person who doesn’t know who “official A” is?
Take remedial reading lessons and look up the meaning of “certain” as used in my statement:
Nobody knows for certain whether Official A is Rove.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:26 pm
Palmyra:
Lets get one thing straight Crimes were comitted.
Nope. An indictment alleging a crime has been committed has returned. Crimes may have been committed but the courts require beyond reasonable doubt.
Libby is facing 10 years in jail, funny way of saying no crime comitted.
I don’t see anybody saying no crime committed. What has been pointed out over and again is that no crime appears to have been committed in the circumstances that led up to the Fitzgerald inquiry.
The very reason no one is facing charges under the Espionage or Identities Protection Acts is Libby’s lies.
Untrue. If Fitzgerald can prove that Libby was lying about what he told Russert, Cooper and Miller, then he can prove that Libby leaked the name. And whatever lies Libby may have told does not affect what Official A told Novak.
And if the Whitehouse had really cooperated then Cheny would have ordered his most important employee to cooperate fully or be sacked right now.
Except that Libby did co-operate by providing his notes, testifying before the grand jury twice and signing documents releasing journalists from their confidentiality agreements over a year ago. What more co-operation was Cheney expected to provide?
I wonder why Libby chose to lie away, to help his boss seems a good conclusion.
How does Libby lying about what he told reporters help Cheney in any way?
Rove was in the same position, until very late last week, when he suddenly had about of recovered memory and Fitzgerald held off indicting him in exactly the same way.
Categorically false and you have been corrected on this before. Rove was willing to testify again as far back as July but Fitzgerald wanted to wait until he had heard from the testimony of Cooper and Miller.
As for those who say no crime was committed,
Who are these people?
well the police here have a saying , we know who is responsible, we just cant get a jury to convict.
I dunno what part of the world you are from but the local police in NZ are at least able to describe the specific crime that they think was committed even if they don’t have the evidence to convict. With Cheney, nobody’s come up with anything.
The Directorate of Operations (DO) has primary responsibility for the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence, including human source intelligence (HUMINT). Domestically, the DDO is responsible for the collection of foreign intelligence volunteered by individuals and organizations in the United States.
Guess where Val worked , not in DI http://www.cia.gov/cia/di/org_chart_section.html
which analyses the intell, not in directorate of Support which does all the other back room stuff, no she was Counterproliferation division of the operations division.
You really are turning into a write-only poster as we’ve been over this before. Just because Valeria Plame worked in the DO does not mean that she was a NOC operative as not everybody that works in the DO are NOCs. Hence you cannot conclude that from the fact that her employment status was classified, that she was a NOC. The simple fact that Fitzgerald hasn’t charged either Libby, Offical A or anybody else with a violation of the IIP act indicates that Plame was not a NOC as both the NY Times and the WaPo
(among others) have deduced is likely to be the case over the past year.
Libby and Cheney knew all the details and Cheney got Libby to tell reporters in order to damage Val’s career.
Cheney told Libby on June 12th. Libby is alleged to have told Miller on June 23rd and July 8th, Russert on July 10th and Cooper on July the 12th about Valerie Plame. Despite this, it’s only through the efforts of Official A that the name actually appears in the Paper on the 18th. If I were Cheney and I said to Libby to leak the name then I would have fired him for mere incompetence.
As for Val’s career being damaged, it was already damaged by the antics of her husband, Joe Wilson.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:31 pm
While Peter is beavering away in defence of the realm the rest of us can read Krugman and say Hallelujah and goodnight.
http://edstrong.blog-city.com/everything_the_bush_regime_touches_turns_to_crud.htm
November 1st, 2005 at 7:14 am
RB, you find TradeSports at http://www.tradesports.com.
It’s a site where people can take your opinion and bet on it. An opinion of “it could be yes, it could be no”, wouldn’t make them a dime, would it?
And the people who will take your opinion on matters of current affairs will lose dimes. Lots of them.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:47 am
Ah! Thanks Berend – I’ve been wondering where you go to place bets on fairly obvious events that no sane person would gamble against (it took Fitzgerald 2 years to indict Libby – what are the chances he’s going to indict Rove in the next two months? Possible but unlikely).
But I don’t really understand gambling – does someone who has a clue want to visit the Rove indictment page and tell me what the odds are?
November 1st, 2005 at 8:14 am
“Fevered delusions of the anti Bush press”. What a load of poppycock.
What you advocate is the same thing as the Board of TVNZ not knowing how much the management have agreed to pay top television presenters.
Get real – they are all complicit – all the way up the chain !
November 1st, 2005 at 11:03 am
I love watching Peter Metcalfe debate people like Ben. Inspite of what Bene says, PM does present the facts of the case. He presents the facts, calls Ben on his errors and points out that all Ben can present is speculation and irrational deductions (Cheney told Libby therefore Cheney is also to blame, somehow Bush is also involved, it was all a scam created by Rove that has blown up in his face.) And then, after PM calls Ben on his many inaccuracies and unfounded speculation, Ben whines that he is getting bored and tries to satirise PM’s debating style (though Ben conveniently leaves out any known facts).
Rove, Cheney and Bush HAVE NOT BEEN INDICTED, and it is only by reflexive anti-Bushitis that anyone could expect with certainty that they will be.
Oh, and Krugman? Jimmy’s credibility (RIP).
November 1st, 2005 at 12:31 pm
Interesting how legalistic the right get over alleging guilt when one of their own is involved. I’m sure I’ve seen the same players exhibiting a lower standard on here, however, when accusations are made about a labour politician…I wonder why that is?
November 1st, 2005 at 1:26 pm
dim, not sure if you should read this at adds, but this is how you should read it.
If a contract sells at 20 it means the odds are low. When the specified event occurs, the contract will expire at 100, and the profit 100-20 = 80 will go to you. Every tick is worth 10 USD cents, so in this case you will earn 8 USD.
If the specified event does not occur, the contract expires at 0. In that case you lose the difference, i.e. 0 – 20 = -20 = 2 USD.
When you bet a little money, i.e. 2USD in order to gain 8USD, the odds are against you.
You can also go short. In Rove’s case it means you sell a contract at 20. If the event occurs, you lose 8USD, if it does not you win 2 USD.
It’s a great site to test the loony predictions of the left. “Read the MSM and lose all your money” is my motto.
Back to your “it took Fitzgerald 2 years to indict Libby – what are the chances he’s going to indict Rove in the next two months? Possible but unlikely” statement. Do you have any idea how loony that sounds? “Rove isn’t indicted now, and probably won’t be in the next two months, but one day there will be a day of reckoning”. Yeah right.
November 1st, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Kimble, we aim to please. I don’t remember talking about Cheney at all, as a simple text search will show you the only reference I make to him is on another thread where I call Libby ‘Cheney’s Cheney’. Were there some other innaccuracies you wanted to point out, or are you content just to go off addled reinvented memory?
And you’re right, I haven’t gone too far into the facts on this case, because it is really all just idle speculation at this point. We don’t know exactly what the grand jury did, what they will do, or what any of the hawks did or didn’t do.
Which is why I didn’t comment based on anything other than the well known fact that Libby has been indicted and faces jail. Everything else is speculation. Perhaps he didn’t lie to a grand jury. Perhaps they didn’t fabricate evidence. Perhaps they didn’t go after Wilson/Plame. Perhaps it isn’t technically against the law. Perhaps Rove and Cheny weren’t involved. Perhaps Nigeria was really trying to sell Saddam yellowcake. Perhaps the WMDs are hiding somewhere in Iraq. Perhaps pigs fly and perhaps you’ll admit all these perhapses go both ways.
You and your boring buddy PMs longwinded speculations and tedious poring over snippets of other people’s speculation are in the same speculative boat. He seemed to be intent on trying to get to the bottom of it with all the efficiency of a Thompson twin and you were content to chip in with abuse. Hence the satire. A regular Laurel and Hardy act. Keep it up, it’s all here in the permanent record for when we really do know what happened.
I can’t be arsed being dragged into trying to put odds on this stuff. I’m just happy at least one shitstick is feeling the consequences for almost the first time in this administration’s titanic list of costly blunders. And I’m content to be happy with it. You can make whatever silly bets you like and wriggle around with whatever evidence you can dig up. You can abuse me. It like water off a ducks back to be accused of being irrational by someone who can’t even use the search button on his browser to see if the statements he’s accusing of being irrational were ever made.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Hi Berend – thanks for the explaination. I think I’ll stick to pub quizzes.
‘Back to your “it took Fitzgerald 2 years to indict Libby – what are the chances he’s going to indict Rove in the next two months? Possible but unlikely” statement. Do you have any idea how loony that sounds? “Rove isn’t indicted now, and probably won’t be in the next two months, but one day there will be a day of reckoning”. Yeah right.‘
No, I don’t have any idea of how loony that sounds. Why does it sound loony?
November 1st, 2005 at 3:00 pm
I said people like you Ben, but I should have clarified it again in the later sentences as well. It was the metaphorical Ben. It was the Ben that is every anti-Bushite. It is the Ben that insults people and feels superiour when they insult him back.
PM may speculate, but at least he does so with enough information to make his opinion worth something. Whereas your speculation is apparently based on a self invented fairytale about what the facts should be. The difference between you and PM, is the difference between arguing from a base of facts and arguing in complete ignorance and denial.
I mean, look at the questions you just posed, “Perhaps they didn’t fabricate evidence”, “Perhaps Rove and Cheny weren’t involved”. Your starting point is that they DID fabricate evidence, that Rove and Cheney ARE involved. But there is a distinct lack of irrefutable facts supporting these claims. To you, though, it doesnt seem to matter, you have decided who the bad guys are, and they are old white male republicans in the Bush administration.
Those perhapses do exist in phase space, in which pigs indeed can fly, but simply because they CAN exist, doesnt mean they are likely to exist, or that a rational person could expect them to exist. Based on the information that is available though, it is unlikely they do exist, but if you have information (or even a logically reasoned argument that doesnt rely on an unfounded belief that the people involved are corrupt, evil and unintelligent) that they exist then please provide it, you might change somebodies mind.
The fact that you say that pigs can fly in relation to the perhapses, shows what you truly think; those perhapses all go one way, and that is towards the negative. So you have really just provided opinions regarding a whole range of issues separate from Libby, ie Cheney is involved etc. Which kind of negates the most self-pitying part of your whinge.
November 1st, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Aha, another private definition, in this case it just happens to be a proper name that I happen to be attached to.
But I’m quite happy if you choose to use the word Ben to mean ‘People who characterize a viewpoint you would like to argue against, rather than any particular person or their viewpoint’.
I think I now understand why I’m so confused by your apparent argument with me – it’s not actually an argument with me at all! It’s with a fictional collection of views you’d like to characterize by associating them with me.
That’s cool. We can use it that way from now on. When you say Ben, you mean ‘Straw Ben, the archetypal pinko’.
Now that’s clear I can sign out of talking to you again, since it’s already been a real waste of time, and it’s only getting worse, as your whole pointlessly obvious ‘pigs may fly’ pedantry demonstrates. Feel free to continue with screeds of deeply philosophical statements of the bleeding obvious to justify the patently stupid. And PM can pad it out tenfold without the swearwords.
November 1st, 2005 at 5:52 pm
“‘pigs may fly’ pedantry”. Is pedant your word of the week? You had a go at me for attributing to you something you said I shouldnt have, but then you go and support it anyway. Dont blame me if for your own inconsistency.
What are your reasons for believeing that Cheney and Rove are responsible for the leak? Is it simply that they are old white male republicans in the Bush administration?
November 1st, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Funny you should ask. No, my word of the week is ‘Shadenfreude’.
I’m lost what inconsistency you’re talking about, I haven’t raised any new points for about 10 posts, just responded to a desperate stream of attempts to misinterpret them.
As you might have already forgotten since only a few hours ago, I still haven’t made any statements about Cheney, but that’s right, I forgot, Ben isn’t me, it’s the looney left and all their conspiracies, which is why for some reason I’m bitter on old white male republicans, despite being old, white and male myself.
Would you like me to give you the standard and most obvious reasons why Cheney and Rove might be responsible, since I’m Straw Ben anyway? Or would you prefer to give the matter the few seconds thought that it requires and then pin it on me like it’s a conspiracy theory that I’m claiming mathematical levels of proof for?
Why am I even asking *if* you will do that, you’ve been doing it all along. You always do it. It’s only you who’s fooled into thinking it alters any facts out there in the world, though. You’re not going to be able to stop this indictment by all this quibbling, or make it less serious, or discredit the people pursuing it, just by quibbling and pooh-poohing it. All that does is put you in the blind and partisan Bush establishment worshipping camp you find it so lonely to be in these days.
November 4th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Ben – Kimble
>
You flatter yourself, Ben.
Your tangible bitterness in that regard — and as-palpable envy, hatred and latent rage — descends not from reason. But is definitively symptomatic of the liberal [Socialist] psychosis.
Blessings from [Older, (Although only sufferers of the liberal psychosis and other morbidly-age-discriminatory bigots feel compelled to make the distinction) "white," (Although only sufferers of the liberal psychosis and other organically-racist bigots feel compelled to so note) male, (Although only sufferers of the liberal psychosis and other obsessively-sexist bigots are ever overwhelmed by the need to so discriminate) Republican: (Automatic with every higher than room-temperature IQ)] — Brian
November 4th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Ben – Kimble
“…. for some “reason” I’m bitter on old white male republicans ….”
You flatter yourself, Ben.
Your tangible bitterness in that regard — and as-palpable envy, hatred and latent rage — descends not from reason. But is definitively symptomatic of the liberal [Socialist] psychosis.
Blessings from [Older, (Although only sufferers of the liberal psychosis and other morbidly-age-discriminatory bigots feel compelled to make the distinction) "white," (Although only sufferers of the liberal psychosis and other organically-racist bigots feel compelled to so note) male, (Although only sufferers of the liberal psychosis and other obsessively-sexist bigots are ever overwhelmed by the need to so discriminate) Republican: (Automatic with every higher than room-temperature IQ)] — Brian
November 5th, 2005 at 2:40 am
Brian, you go on to flatter yourself excessively and unashamedly. But you know nothing about my views, or my psychoses, that is plain.
I’m bitter on powerful violent hypocrites, whereever I find them. And currently the most powerful, most violent and most hypocritical bunch seem to be heavily weighted towards old, white, male republicans. That is true. But I have never noted it anywhere as relevant. That would be silly given that I am old, white and male myself.
So you can stuff your sarcastic blessing right up somewhere your amazing 25 celcius IQ can probably work out. Most people die with brains that cold, but you guys just keep cranking on, which makes me suspect you’re really part lizard, or maybe jellyfish.
November 5th, 2005 at 7:26 am
I’ve been following this story now since it first popped up in the blogs several years ago. It is a very tangled web indeed that no ordinary person like myself could hope to fully understand, but whether they are its’ weavers or victims, Libby, Rove and Cheney are inextricably caught up in it.
Regardless of where Fitzgerald suceeds in taking this grand jury, the simple political reality has these guys hung around Bush’s neck like rotting albatrosses. Significantly the real opposition is that now disaffected chunk of the GOP, who understand the party and the presidency are crippled for as long as these guys stay on.