Is Fitzgerald Really Wrapping Things Up?
As the CIA leak investigation heads toward its expected conclusion this month, it has become increasingly clear that two of the most powerful men in the Bush administration were more involved in the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame than the White House originally indicated.
With New York Times reporter Judith Miller's release from jail Thursday and testimony Friday before a federal grand jury, the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, came into clearer focus. Libby, a central figure in the probe since its earliest days and the vice president's main counselor, discussed Plame with at least two reporters but testified that he never mentioned her name or her covert status at the CIA, according to lawyers in the case. His story is similar to that of Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser. Rove, who was not an initial focus of the investigation, testified that he, too, talked with two reporters about Plame but never supplied her name or CIA role.
Their testimony seems to contradict what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public.
In October 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that he personally asked Libby and Rove whether they were involved, "so I could come back to you and say they were not involved." Asked if that was a categorical denial of their involvement, he said, "That is correct."
By the end of this month we'll see where things stand.
by MG at 8:32 AM
23 Comments:
I've gotta say that I have followed this case for a long time and I sincerely hope that justice will be served. The truth is that the entire Bush Administration is guilty of quite a fe wthings, most of which we'll never be able to document, at least until we get a non-Republican in the White House who is willing to release the documents proving what went on. In any case, this particular set of accusations against Rove and Libby have my hopes on a high peak that justice, to some degree, will be served against these radical rightists.
Howdy Ms. Moxie!
Here's a possible bombshell; a source has leaked to George Stephanopoulos that it looks like both Bush and Cheney were directly involved in the Plame leak:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/02/bush-directly-involved
Cheers,
N.
The truth is that the entire Bush Administration is guilty of quite a fe wthings, most of which we'll never be able to document, at least until we get a non-Republican.
Humm no truth until a "non-Republican".
Little Biased
How about "non-gay"
"non-white"
"non-black"
"non-brown eyed"
"non-blue eyed"
Your logic is "non-sense"
Give Brush credit; Saddam is going to be tried by his fellow countrymen.
He was almost as bad a Adolf. Over 1 million dead!
At a small cost of life.
Democratic President Johnson 60,000 DEAD! (see all the zeros)
This was for what; cheaper rice cakes?
Hope we all get to see the pics of the perp walk trotting Rove and Scooter out of the whitehouse offices in cuffs. Certainly, behind bars will be a better place for these men - and certainly safer for Americans of all stripes.
iggy dude...
Saddam was bad but who here has questioned that? As far as being as bad as Hitler, you couldn't be more wrong. Hitler was responsible for more like 30 million deaths, not one million.
Of course Bush and Cheney are involved. They did exactly what they alway have done whenever anyone catches them in one of their bullshit lies or other dishonest tomfoolery. They had a meeting with Rove and whoever else they needed there and came up with a plan to attack the person responsible for causing them trouble. Apparently it was decided that Rove and Scooter would do the dirty deed through their press contacts. It was a stupid plan, as most of their's are, and Its hard to imagine that they would get away with it, but I suppose that only demonstrates how arrogant they are about their invincibility.
However, even if Rove and Libby (and perhaps Bolton's aide) go down for this, they will protect the presidency. Bush is so fukin cocky he will undoubtly pardon the bastards sooner or later. They're all guilty of treason yanno.
"ALMOST" as bad.
both were millionaires in the killing sense.
Same league just like money!
and..Johnson was the Biggest crook and liar of all time. 60,000 LIVES!
Ahhh, but Johnson can't top Bush, IggyDude; 102,000+ dead and still climbing (or do only 2,000 American deaths count in your books? Who gives a ratf**k about 100K dead, non-white, Iraqi men, women, and children when it comes to making the world safe for oil companies and billionaires, eh?). Give Chimpy "the Witless Wonder" McSmirk another couple of years and another couple of "for-profit" wars (which may very well involve the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, Syria, North Korea, or China) and he'll make Saddam look like an complete piker. Bush and his whole piggish, greedhead, neocon cabal are warcriminals of the worst order, little different from Saddam or Hitler's nazis and should be dealt with as such, and frankly, anyone who supports them is a fool.
That was 58,000 (60k) Americans, who knows how many viets.
The sound of little pattering feet. (remember the "carpet bombing" the naked children running trying to escape, Johnson the King of Napalm.)
Regardless, Johnson was the biggest warmonger, all for the defense kickbacks.
War wise; Bush is a Mother Teresa; given Americas past War Presidents.
The difference between 'Nam and Iraq is that we were committed to aid South Vietnam and were legally and legitimately involved in that one. Johnson (another oil industry Texan) was responsible for esculating the war for oil and defense contractor profits, but he was proceeding under compact obligations the US had with the South Viets.
Bush, on the other hand, committed a crimial act by defying the United Nations, distorting fact, concocting false evidence, and misrepresenting his motivation/intent to acquire the authorization of Congress to invade a sovereign nation, murder and maim their people, and destroy the Iraqi infrastructure. That defines a war crime. By condoning and supporting his crime, the US and its citizens are equally liable for the damages, the deaths of approximately 150,000 people, and who knows how many injured and/or maimed for life.
United Nations.
*uck the United Nations.
The most corrupt and Evil Bastards on the Planet.
I am an American; *uck the "United World" BS.
Our Fathers did not ask the "World" if America should be free from under the King of England!
Our Fathers would Vomit at the thought of The UN
Iggy:
Speaking of the sound of little pattering feet, I seem to hear yours, doing a soft-shuffle past the subject at hand: direct involvement in a matter of treason by Bush, Cheney, et al.
A word to the wise: Fan dancing with a Johnson can cause problems if attempted at the same time as a soft-shuffle. Besides, it's ~so~ distracting...
fan dancing with a...
ROFLMAO!
*sigh, wipe tear from corner of eye*
Iggy said:
"Our Fathers did not ask the "World" if America should be free from under the King of England!"
Nevertheless, concern for what the world thought was clearly expressed in their declaration of independence: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
I guess you'd charecterize that as appeasement, right?
The UN is a direct violation of Our Constitution.
America was crafted as a Republic.
NOTHING is to supersede Our Constitution.
Iggy Dude said...
The UN is a direct violation of Our Constitution.
America was crafted as a Republic.
NOTHING is to supersede Our Constitution.
"The UN is a direct violation of Our Constitution."
Are you saying that our Constitution should take precedent over all others of the nations of the world, and that all peoples should be subservient to it? Sure sounds like it.
"America was crafted as a Republic."
So was Rome. And, we all know what happened to it - or should.
"NOTHING is to supersede Our Constitution."
This is so silly, it's hardly worth responding to. I'll simply point out that half the country seems to disagree with you. They'd rather the laws of God reign supreme, not the craftings of Man.
If I recall, nothing has been truly cast in stone save the Commandments... and the words of Ozymandias.
Iggy --
CRAFT your posts, dearheart. I have no idea what you're ranting about half the time.
"Are you saying that our Constitution should take precedent over all others of the nations of the world, and that all peoples should be subservient to it? Sure sounds like it."
Yes, other Nations does not have a right to impose upon us.
Do you want to give Internet Power over to the World Order?
This does not make other Nations subservient, what ever blows their skirt up.
Don't bring the World Order here to tread on my rights.
Rome was a not a Republic in the sense it had a dictator empowered via bloodline.
"CRAFT your posts, dearheart. I have no idea what you're ranting about half the time."
Oh well that's a liberal thing I guess
Actually, I'm a libertarian who speaks English as my native language.
Lil Bobo, replying to a post of Iggy's, said:
CRAFT your posts, dearheart. I have no idea what you're ranting about half the time."
Oh well that's a liberal thing I guess
October 03, 2005 5:56 PM
And, in a follow-up, said:
Actually, I'm a libertarian who speaks English as my native language.
October 03, 2005 7:49 PM
Now, it is I who am confused. Are you saying ill-crafted posts are "a liberal thing"?
As far as being a libertarian: Isn't Iggy of the same denom... eh, persuasion?
Lil Bobo, replying to a post of Iggy's, said:
CRAFT your posts, dearheart. I have no idea what you're ranting about half the time."
Oh well that's a liberal thing I guess
October 03, 2005 5:56 PM
And, in a follow-up, said:
Actually, I'm a libertarian who speaks English as my native language.
October 03, 2005 7:49 PM
Now, it is I who am confused. Are you saying ill-crafted posts are "a liberal thing"?
As far as being a libertarian: Isn't Iggy of the same denom... eh, persuasion?
Actually, Iggy made a comment suggesting that my problems understanding his weird syntax is "a liberal thing".
I guess he assumes I am a liberal. I am not would you'd call a liberal, I don't think. I'd be the least annoyed if you called a libertarian.
Iggy is a sort of libertarian, too, I guess. I don't think we're the same stripe of libertarian however.
His syntax is strictly non-sectarian.
Re-reading the posts, I see I incorrectly attributed Iggy's words to you.
My apologies.
Re Iggy's syntax: I think Iggy should be proud. Both he and Bush appear to have accomplished what no one's achieved until now: provided living proof of Jaynes theory of the Bicameral Mind.
http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/conscious/conscious3.html
Post a Comment
<< Home