VP deeply involved in CIA leak

User Forum Topic
Submitted by bigtrouble on January 23, 2007 - 9:58am

Bloggers are in the courtroom, living blogging the trial. You can now make up your own mind, based on the evidence presented.

http://firedoglake.com/

Submitted by bigtrouble on January 23, 2007 - 10:05am.

Special prosecutor Fitzgerald just laid out in opening statements that Libby lied to cover up Cheney's involvement.

Libby's defense team just started opening statements saying that Libby was asked to be scapegoat for Karl Rove!

Submitted by bigtrouble on January 23, 2007 - 10:15am.

MSNBC has its article up:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16770023/

"Fitzgerald alleged that Libby in September 2003 “destroyed” a Cheney note just before Libby's first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson from reporters, not the vice president. "

Submitted by blahblahblah on January 23, 2007 - 10:26am.

There was a great PBS Frontline about Dick Cheney a few months back. In the first Gulf War, he was Sec. Def. for Bush I and the CIA was totally wrong about Hussein's WMD programs. Hussein was much closer to getting the bomb than the CIA had suspected. Since that time, Cheney has been highly suspicious of intelligence from the CIA. That's why he was so gung-ho to set up the OSP to end run around the CIA during the runup to the second Iraq war. He simply doesn't trust the CIA. A better course of action probably would have been to work with the CIA to improve their intelligence gathering in the middle east, but of course I'm sure that's easier said that done (these are all government employees we're talking about here, Cheney included).

The bottom line is that Cheney let his ideology cloud his judgement and negatively affect his job performance; he may have also done something illegal in the process. Sad.

Submitted by bigtrouble on January 23, 2007 - 10:29am.

Libby’s defense makes Bush a liar, to the whole world.

He said he would fire any involved in the leak. If libby is saying that the WH wanted to scapegoat him to protect Rove, that means the President of the United States, the Decider, lied to the American people when he said he would fire those involved.

No spin involved. Just the facts.

Submitted by Diego Mamani on January 23, 2007 - 11:35am.

Cheney and Rumsfeld are entitled to their own ideological position. But not to blatantly deceive public opinion to bring the country into the quagmire that is the Iraq invasion and occupation. Worse than the lies and the cover ups, is the enormous cost in human lives. A hundred thousand people may have died as a result of this most misguided misadventure in Iraq. These two deserve to be tried for crimes against humanity.

How about their boss? Nixon was impeached for a far lesser offense.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 23, 2007 - 2:02pm.

People see and hear only what they want all too often.

go here;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/sit...

then here;
http://www.investors.com/editorial/edito...

CIA motivation? Just consider these;
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/...

http://www.rcpblog.com/articles/2006/08/...

Wells is trying to defend his client as is his job. At this point he is going to come up with anything he can, which is what he is doing. From what I've read his claims are still based on heresay, Truth be damned. But he is in a bad position as the only thing Fitzgerald can hold on to is the possible conviction of Libby

This is typical partisan politics. And, as usual, the majority of those here follow right along.

Submitted by jg on January 23, 2007 - 6:17pm.

DM, you must have gotten a government education (i.e., public school): only two Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and Slick Willie. Nixon did the honorable thing, unlike Slick Willie, and stepped down before he was impeached.

Submitted by dontfollowtheherd on January 24, 2007 - 12:02am.

And now we have another sex scandal with dubya who has been in bed with big oil. Only he hasn't been getting screwed - we have. lol

Submitted by Diego Mamani on January 24, 2007 - 12:24am.

JG, you are right. Nixon's impeachment was imminent, which is why he resigned. This doesn't change the essence of the argument: that there are grounds to start impeachment proceedings today, as there were in 1974.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 25, 2007 - 9:32am.

DM, the biggest difference would be that Bush broke no laws.
If he had, the proceedings would have started, the Dems would be or would've been all over it. Why would they wait? For the good of the nation? LOL.

Consider a reason (one reason) behind the huge increase in MSM reporting lambasting everything Bush and when that falls short, everything they would like to blame on him. Again, the media knows no laws were broken, so do the next best thing to indicting him legally, indict him in the minds of americans, of which a significant number are under utilized.

True to their nature the Democrats are forming a group to try to find something to try Bush for (breaking another one of their election pledges), in what is complete disregard (I'm putting that mildly) for our legal system. I guess to blindly prejudiced people, that is completely justified.

So, it does change "the essence of the argument" your argument is based upon fallacious logic.

Submitted by Diego Mamani on January 25, 2007 - 11:37am.

SDnative, back in 1973 and 1974 there was a "silver bullet" tape recording that proved that the president was directly involved in cover ups and the funding of illegal activities like wiretapping, harassment of political adversaries, etc. The fact that the current Libby investigation on the Valerie Plame scandal appears to implicate Rove, is moving us closer and closer to the oval office.

The consequences of the presidential actions this time are far more serious than in the early 70s: possibly over 100,000 dead in Iraq, and a whole generation coming of age with a profound hate that will haunt us for several decades. That's not fallacious logic, it's measurable fact.

Submitted by FutureSDguy on January 25, 2007 - 12:37pm.

Its better to lose on any American issue, whether in war or with domestic policy, so long as the ability to govern of ones political opponent is compromised. It's the pursuit of power out of selfish ego. Its sad that the threat against America from our own politicians are greater than any foreign entity. Very... very sad.

Iraq is a mess, and we're there partially due to one person's ego. But that's water underneath the bridge. Believing (in good conscience for some, anti-Bushism for others) that a pullout is in the best interests of this nation is wishful myopic thinking.

As for the handful of democrats clapping a the State of the Union address (as someone asked about in another thread). That is partially done to honor the president as should be done. But I bet if you went back and reviewed all the televised State of the Union adddesses, and measured how much "partisan clapping" (where clearly only one side of the aisle is clapping), I'm willing to bet it's the democrats who are more guilty. It's more in their nature, where party loyalty outweighs individual conscience--which is what you expect in a minority party, and a party whose constituent base is made of a large range of subgroups rather than the mainstream. Futhermore, half of the claps were on fodder issues like global warming and health care. Nobody is serious about any solutions, just enough talk to get them through to the next election cycle. They were thrown out just to make Democrats smile, who want their consituents to smile. Smiling is what it is all about with these guys, not taking the hard road--taking on issues that are not popular--and doing whats in the health of this country.

The other half of the claps were about troop morale, because no one wants to get caught appearing not to support the troups.

Oh, and the solution for global warming is to put ice cubes on the sun or put up a visor between the earth and the sun. Sorry to break it you fellas.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 25, 2007 - 12:39pm.

As you base your logic on false premises it is indeed fallacious. Regardless, blathering on about Nixon
isn't pertinent to the issue you address, give it a rest. So, The Plame Affair is the cause of 100,00 Iraqi deaths? And, a whole generation coming of age with a profound hate? Read the links on my earlier post, or don't, it won't matter in your mind.

The Libby investigation will do what? Nothing, the man who ADMITTED to leaking Plames "identity" hasn't been indicted. If you can't see the blatant partisian action on Fitzgeralds part.... well exercise your brain by investigating sources you don't like or want to go to.

The true measurable fact is that you are lost in your prejudices, period.

Submitted by deadzone on January 25, 2007 - 1:30pm.

Anyone with half a brain can criticise Bush and his (mis)handling of Iraq, it has nothing to do with Party politics, just common sense.

The Iraq invasion was a terrible idea, and most Republicans knew it a long time ago. They are finally coming out to criticise the adminstration in mass because of upcoming elections. However, it is pure partisanship that kept them from expressing their criticisms in the past.

This so called democracy we live in is a F-ing joke. The checks and balances written into the constitution are outweighed by party politics. F*%k the parties!

Submitted by sdrebear on January 25, 2007 - 1:41pm.

"If you can't see the blatant partisian action on Fitzgeralds part.... well exercise your brain by investigating sources you don't like or want to go to.

The true measurable fact is that you are lost in your prejudices, period."

I'd love to hear your true feelings on the Kenneth Starr reports and your take on its contrast to this trial. Let's see if you can keep your prejudices in check.

By the way... are you sure you're not "bgates"? Haven't seen his name around lately, but your writing style sure does seem familiar.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 25, 2007 - 1:42pm.

dz, you think we live in a democracy? Seriously? We don't, the U.S. is a republic, well, the intent is/was to be a republic. Big difference.

I am inclined to agree though with your last paragraph.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 25, 2007 - 1:53pm.

deadzone, i agree that the Republican's support of Bush is pure partisanship. Had a Democrat bungled Iraq, there would've been major reprisals. Republicans strongly opposed Clinton's foreign policy actions such Kosovo and Somalia.

I'm guessing that Republicans are privately reeling over Bush's proposal to spend $1 billion on a jobs program in Iraq.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 25, 2007 - 4:52pm.

sdrebear, well lets see, K. Starr was appointed to investigate the Clintons role in Whitewater which pretty much proved nothing illegal, during that course of events the Lewinski issue popped up. I don't have total recall but I think in part it was due to P. Jones filing a criminal suit against BC. and, that lewinski could be called to testify. I could be wrong as I said I'm not exact on the course of events.

Anyway, despite the fact that K. Starr felt it was necessary to go graphic about BC's sexual pecadillos the underlying premise for that course of events was true. BC lied in front of a federal grand jury. Still, was it worth 40 million? I go back and forth on that point.

Now, for the most part, sure, politics was a cause. I qualify that because I can't say (no one can say) that if BC never went into politics that Whitewater and thus the Clintons involvement would never have been investigated. I believe that started at the state level not at the federal, but again I could be wrong. There you go, a brief response.

I am aware of my prejudices/bias and I consciously make an effort to see and acknowledge their presence in any situation they might arise. It's important for me to do so, as I can then make every possible effort to negate them. In the times I can't, I admit to their presence. I do so/try so because if I cannot do that, it then calls into question the validity of any opinion I express, any action I might take. do I have a 100% success rate? Sadly, no.

Also, I am fully cognizant that being aware of my shadows doesn't necessarily add any validity to my opinions. I have to be able to provide supporting data. But, I also rarely if ever, am discussing things in the terms of right and wrong here (meaning I am right, therefore you are wrong).

For the most part, I start in when I see blatantly biased and usually unfounded rhetoric and/or statements being thrown around. IMO if you can't look into and at both sides of an issue/problem/event etc. then your conclusions are bound to be inaccurate - and deserve to be both questioned and challenged.

Diego's comments about impeachment and Bush have no basis other than his dislike of Bush and his (Bush's) policies

I don't see many people here acknowledging their political prejudices do you?

no, I am not bgates, he is far better looking, intelligent,
eloquent, sophisticated and wealthy than I.

Submitted by sdrebear on January 25, 2007 - 5:15pm.

Thanks for the reply sdnativeson. I feel that you are correct in your analysis of how arguments should be constructed. It's important to acknowledge the failures of your "side" on the issue to have your main points hold water. Usually in politics there is truth (and fallacy) to both stories and it's a matter of who is "more" right on the particular topic.

As you stated on Starr; Clinton was being "bad", but the extent it reached and the cost it incurred was purely driven by partisan politics. $40 mil is quite a bit for that and I think he spent $5 mil on his defense. Crazy. I still have some questions on how the whole situation was constructed to trap him into either publicly outing himself, or perjuring himself. Either way though, that is completely his fault. However, was the whole thing a total waste of time and money, or worse, possibly even detrimental to our country as a worthless distraction from more important issues? I'm inclined to say yes.

My sincere hope is that if, in fact the Democrats decide to go after Bush for something, it had damn well better be more important than what was leveled at Clinton. I don't really care if Bush stepped on one small law to avoid a personal embarrassment. However, if any law was stepped on/over/around in order to further a personal agenda of his or others in his cabinet, then we have something that needs to be revealed and dealt with.

They tried the whole "Al Capone Tax Evasion" plan on BC (even though there really weren't some "worse" charges that he really should have been convicted on), but I really don't care to see that again with Bush. I'd rather see the real dirt or nothing. I think it's cowardly to try and take down a sitting president (no matter your preference) with drivel.

P.S. If you're truly not bgates, then you're a worthy protégé. Very similar style.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.