Libby Indicted, Resigns

[LadyDay]

First Post heh? Welcome. Who did you used to be?

Thanks for the welcome and take a wild guess.

 

[bsnyder]

John Dickerson in Slate has a very plauisble analysis of the evidence that exonerates the rest of the WH, at least legally (though not the OVP), but which sinks Libby

Link

IOW, all other WH types were hoping reporters would run it down and publish it (they should know reporters are too lazy - they must be spoonfed) , but they were careful not to walk over the line that Libby is alleged to have

Wow, that's some morally repugnant and VICIOUS smear campaign there....

 

[sodaseller]

Wow, that's some morally repugnant and VICIOUS smear campaign there....

They did on other stuff - the stuff you fell for earlier on the thread. But on the legal issue, they were careful

 

[bsnyder]

They did on other stuff - the stuff you fell for earlier on the thread. But on the legal issue, they were careful

Still waiting to hear about the Op-Ed Wilson tried to write before the invasion and what prevented him from doing so....

 

[sodaseller]

And it's still dishonest and stupid, though not atypical, to think that's an argument. He leaked his version plenty, and only authored it himself when he thought it wasn't getting enough traction.

Your attempted point was that he waited to be shown that Iraq lacked WMDs before going public to say he knew it all along. Cetainly the discovery of anything would have undermined any charge about misrepresenting the intelligence, which is what the Admin was counting on, the logical rejoinder to your prior failed attempt at logical argument. In that case, no one would have cared about the fact that the Admin had been lying, thought it had been.

But he was leaking to anyone that would listen (TNR reporters Ackerman and Judis not long after the SOTU) was before we knew what the invasion would reveal that the CIA was correct, making the Adminsitration's lies more poignant. Heck when Kristof's 5/6 piece was out there (the one you missed in mindlessly repeating the talking point you picked up and deemed so devastating), we were not even at MET Alpha stage yet.

So it's a nonpoint

 

[bsnyder]

And it's still dishonest and stupid, though not atypical, to think that's an argument. He leaked his version plenty, and only authored it himself when he thought it wasn't getting enough traction.

Your attempted point was that he waited to be shown that Iraq lacked WMDs before going public to say he knew it all along. Cetainly the discovery of anything would have undermined any charge about misrepresenting the intelligence, which is what the Admin was counting on, the logical rejoinder to your prior failed attempt at logical argument. In that case, no one would have cared about the fact that the Admin had been lying, thought it had been.

But he was leaking to anyone that would listen (TNR reporters Ackerman and Judis not long after the SOTU) was before we knew what the invasion would reveal that the CIA was correct, making the Adminsitration's lies more poignant. Heck when Kristof's 5/6 piece was out there (the one you missed in mindlessly repeating the talking point you picked up and deemed so devastating), we were not even at MET Alpha stage yet.

So it's a nonpoint

Why leak it at all? Why not just come out with the op-ed to begin with? As history has shown, that would have gotten immediate traction.

CIA was "correct" about what? Can you show me even one definitive assessment by the CIA that states categorically that Saddam does not have nor is he seeking to aquire WMD's, prior to the invasion?

Again, this is all just revisionist history, based on the fact that you guys have lost the last three elections and are trying to find some way to undermine the Bush Administration in the foreign policy arena without appearing to be reverting to 1960's "softies" or alienating folks on the "support the troops" front.

It's politics. The moral superiority crap is what's dishonest and stupid.