Will President Bush Fire Himself?

[MUFFYCAT]

this thread is just waiting to close.

 

[bsnyder]

Bet, the answer to your question is..."I don't know" Not trying to be a smart alec, but the only person who could definitively answer that question is Fitzgerald himself.

I do have a theory that would explain it, however. It's entirely possible that he actually is trying to prosecute the case without making it into a partisan witch hunt. There is a legitimate legal question as to whether leaking the name itself was a crime, due to technicalities surrounding Plame's "covert" status. If that is the case - and I honestly don't know if it is or not - then Fitzgerald would not be doing his job if he truly believed that and still went after the person that leaked the name.

But again, that is just speculation on my part. Even if that is the case, I still think that leaking the name (and, thus, blowing not only her cover but the cover of the agency she "worked" for) was wrong, even if it escapes illegality by the thinnest of technicalities.

Okay, let's say, for the sake of argument, your theory is true.

How does that explain the fact that he won't confirm her status. He could end the speculation, once and for all. Why not? I'd be really interested if you have any theories that would explain it. Same with the damage to national security. Teejay and I obviously don't think it did any damage. But if proof were offered, I'd be the first to admit I was wrong, and I'd agree with you that this was a serious crime. So far, the only thing the facts show is that this was an out-of-control turf war

And as for the identity of the true leaker, even if Fitzgerald can't proscute that person, doesn't the public have a right to know who it is? Don't you want to know? Shouldn't that person be judged in the court of public opinion, even if they can't technically be accused of a crime?

Up until the Libby indictment, the Left and the MSM were calling for the leaker's head on a platter. Now, except for the blogosphere, no one seems to give a crap.

 

[bsnyder]

Oh, please....PLEASE...let's turn this into a "who's more corrupt" discussion, Brenda. How anyone could support people like Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, Dennis Hastert, and company and still try to call someone else corrupt is just baffling.

I'll tell you what...If Mollohan is guilty, he should resign. But then, so should every REPUBLICAN currently under investigation for ethics violations. Course, I'm not sure there would be any Republicans left by the end of that.

wvrevy, it's Bet, not Brenda. (I wonder where's she been lately??? She always added to a lively discussion!)

No, not trying to turn it into a "who's more corrupt" at all. That's not how I view it. Do I think there are corrupt politicians, on both sides of the aisle? Absolutely! And when they're exposed, they should be prosecuted and run out of town with their tails between their legs.

But that's not all that's been going on for the last decade. The Republicans won back power in Congress for the first time in 40+ years. The Democrats haven't been able to increase their majority legitimately, through elections and that has absolutely infurniated the Left. So they've decided to trash the process that they themselves created. Suddenly, lobbying is an immoral thing. That's not what the Democrats thought all those decades when they controlled K Street, by a 70/30 margin. Now when the margin has shifted to better reflect the Republican majority in Washington, they're beside themselves with righteous indignation.

So now we're going to get all out war - with each side investigating every transaction of every member in Congress. I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, anything that slows down the process in Washington is usually a good thing in my book. On the other hand, I believe our vulnerability to terrorism is the greatest threat our nation, and the free world, has ever faced. We're in uncharted waters. So I worry about the impact on our government's effectiveness to deal with that crisis if they're completely bogged down in a political war.

And I just love the double standard in your last paragraph. If Mollohan is guilty, he should resign. But any Republican merely under investigation should resign.

 

[LuvDuke]

Bet, the answer to your question is..."I don't know" Not trying to be a smart alec, but the only person who could definitively answer that question is Fitzgerald himself.

I do have a theory that would explain it, however. It's entirely possible that he actually is trying to prosecute the case without making it into a partisan witch hunt. There is a legitimate legal question as to whether leaking the name itself was a crime, due to technicalities surrounding Plame's "covert" status. If that is the case - and I honestly don't know if it is or not - then Fitzgerald would not be doing his job if he truly believed that and still went after the person that leaked the name.

But again, that is just speculation on my part. Even if that is the case, I still think that leaking the name (and, thus, blowing not only her cover but the cover of the agency she "worked" for) was wrong, even if it escapes illegality by the thinnest of technicalities.

Fitzgerald ain't no Ken Starr.

 

[LuvDuke]

Okay, let's say, for the sake of argument, your theory is true.

How does that explain the fact that he won't confirm her status. He could end the speculation, once and for all. Why not? I'd be really interested if you have any theories that would explain it. Same with the damage to national security. Teejay and I obviously don't think it did any damage. But if proof were offered, I'd be the first to admit I was wrong, and I'd agree with you that this was a serious crime. So far, the only thing the facts show is that this was an out-of-control turf war

And as for the identity of the true leaker, even if Fitzgerald can't proscute that person, doesn't the public have a right to know who it is? Don't you want to know? Shouldn't that person be judged in the court of public opinion, even if they can't technically be accused of a crime?

Up until the Libby indictment, the Left and the MSM were calling for the leaker's head on a platter. Now, except for the blogosphere, no one seems to give a crap.

What status? That Valerie Plame's identity was classified? In that respect, Fitzgerald most definitely did confirm her status as classified. Here's what he said at the press conference:

"I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Is that not enough confirmation of Plame's status for you?

And, obviously, when it comes to the damage done by the Plame outting, you're not as well-informed as you think you are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801988.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060213-cia-iran.htm

Unfortunately, the "smoking gun" story you're really hoping for doesn't exist. What's the "smoking gun" story you ask? It's the story that proves Valerie Plame was, in reality, a short order cook in the CIA cafeteria, had nothing to do with national security and managed to out herself.

Btw, one of the reasons why Fitzgerald has not indicted the person who leaked Valerie Plame's identitiy is because of the roadblocks put in his way by this administration. Hence, Libby's obstruction of justice charge.

Here's to the "36%".

 

[Mugg Mann]

When Bill Clinton was impeached, there was a large outcry (that continues to this day) that impeachment was just and fair because Clinton's crime was lying while under oath.

I've wondered if either Bush or Cheney were put under oath at any point when asked by prosecutors about their roles in this affair, and I've hunted but I can't find any confirmation of this. I did find a Washington Post article dated 6/25/04 that says that Bush was not put under oath when interviewed about the case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3668-2004Jun24.html

(As a sidebar, the following quotes appeared in that article;

"The leaking of classified information is a very serious matter," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan, adding that Bush was "pleased to do his part" to aid the probe.

"No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the president of the United States, and he has said on more than one occasion that if anyone -- inside or outside the government -- has information that can help the investigators get to the bottom of this, they should provide that information to the officials in charge."

-and-

"It's hard to believe the special prosecutor would be burdening the president with an interview unless they had testimony to the effect that the president had information," said Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer representing Time magazine in the probe.)

My question to folks supporting the current administration is this; if it turns out that Bush in fact testified under oath at some point and was found to have committed perjury in this matter, given the Bill Clinton precedent, do you support impeachment of George Bush?

I'll be curious to see who supports consistency and who doesn't.....

 

[bsnyder]

What status? That Valerie Plame's identity was classified? In that respect, Fitzgerald most definitely did confirm her status as classified. Here's what he said at the press conference:

"I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Is that not enough confirmation of Plame's status for you?

And, obviously, when it comes to the damage done by the Plame outting, you're not as well-informed as you think you are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801988.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060213-cia-iran.htm

Unfortunately, the "smoking gun" story you're really hoping for doesn't exist. What's the "smoking gun" story you ask? It's the story that proves Valerie Plame was, in reality, a short order cook in the CIA cafeteria, had nothing to do with national security and managed to out herself.

Btw, one of the reasons why Fitzgerald has not indicted the person who leaked Valerie Plame's identitiy is because of the roadblocks put in his way by this administration. Hence, Libby's obstruction of justice charge.

Here's to the "36%".

No, the statements at a press conference aren't "good enough" for me. A prosecutor has to prove his case in a court of law, remember? And apparently you haven't heard - Fitzgerald will not offer that proof. I find that exceedingly odd. Why not just put the matter to rest. Do you have any explaination?

The same is true of the damage done (or not done). Why not offer proof at the trial? Do you really think the CIA hasn't done a damage assessment? If that's the case, I'd contend the only reason they'd have for not doing one is if they were already sure no damage had taken place. Otherwise, they're being completely derelict in not doing one.

BTW, not sure if you realize it but that second source of yours, for the damage assessment issue, is from the Left's equivalent of the Drudge Report, and on this subject, it has a pretty lousy track record on accuracy to boot. Just found that kind of amusing in light of some past comments.

As to the reason Fitgerald hasn't indicted the true leaker, go back and read what I wrote. I didn't address obstruction, one way or another. It may turn out that the Administration, or someone in it, did obstruct the investigation. We'll see.

But I still want to know who the leaker is. Don't you? But it doesn't look like Fitzgerald is going to tell us.

 

[bsnyder]

My question to folks supporting the current administration is this; if it turns out that Bush in fact testified under oath at some point and was found to have committed perjury in this matter, given the Bill Clinton precedent, do you support impeachment of George Bush?

I'll be curious to see who supports consistency and who doesn't.....

Yes, if he committed perjury, I'd support impeachment.

But I won't just take the word of a prosecutor, at a press conference,

 

[LuvDuke]

No, the statements at a press conference aren't "good enough" for me. A prosecutor has to prove his case in a court of law, remember? And apparently you haven't heard - Fitzgerald will not offer that proof. I find that exceedingly odd. Why not just put the matter to rest. Do you have any explaination?

The same is true of the damage done (or not done). Why not offer proof at the trial? Do you really think the CIA hasn't done a damage assessment? If that's the case, I'd contend the only reason they'd have for not doing one is if they were already sure no damage had taken place. Otherwise, they're being completely derelict in not doing one.

BTW, not sure if you realize it but that second source of yours, for the damage assessment issue, is from the Left's equivalent of the Drudge Report, and on this subject, it has a pretty lousy track record on accuracy to boot. Just found that kind of amusing in light of some past comments.

As to the reason Fitgerald hasn't indicted the true leaker, go back and read what I wrote. I didn't address obstruction, one way or another. It may turn out that the Administration, or someone in it, did obstruct the investigation. We'll see.

But I still want to know who the leaker is. Don't you? But it doesn't look like Fitzgerald is going to tell us.

SSDD ............ knock me over with a feather ...................

And I'll stand by the assertion that the only reason people like you cannot accept what Fitzgerald said was because it didn't contain the Bushie wishing/hoping that Valerie Plame wasn't who she was, didn't do what she did, and actually outted herself.

Here's to the "36%" .

 

[bsnyder]

SSDD ............

Same ****, different day? Yep, you've got that right. I ask pertinent questions and you don't ever have any answers for them!

 

[LuvDuke]

Same ****, different day? Yep, you've got that right. I ask pertinent questions and you don't ever have any answers for them!

Your questions aren't pertinent, they're rhetorical and you aren't interested in answers because they don't jive with what you hope/believe and want to hear.

Yes, Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

Yes, someone in the Bush administration leaked that information.

Yes, Libby lied to Fitzgerald and obstructed the investigation.

And bringing this back to the OP, yes, Bush selectively leaked parts of an NIE to support his case to go to war the same way he cherrypicked intelligence to peddle his war.

End of story.

 

[bsnyder]

Your questions aren't pertinent, they're rhetorical and you aren't interested in answers because they don't jive with what you hope/believe and want to hear.

Yes, Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent.

Yes, someone in the Bush administration leaked that information.

Yes, Libby lied to Fitzgerald and obstructed the investigation.

And bringing this back to the OP, yes, Bush selectively leaked parts of an NIE to support his case to go to war the same way he cherrypicked intelligence to peddle his war.

End of story.

I'm very interested in the answers to the questions.

But the ones you answered weren't the ones I asked.

 

[salmoneous]

He then goes on to (selectively) relate his "experience", implying that because he found nothing that indicated the sale of yellowcake from Niger was consumated, the Bush Administration must have used the claim that it actually was consumated to make the case for war.

The NEI shows the Administration didn't rely on a consumated sale as its' rationale for the war.

I'm really curious now, what, in your opinion, was the gist of Wilson's op-ed,

At some point, two people are just talking past each other. But I have appreaciated the conversation up to this point. I honestly don't see Wilson saying the things you say he said. I don't see the words, I don't see how you can read between the lines and get to what you think he is saying. But you do see what I don't.

Until the next discussion,
Sal

 

[bsnyder]

At some point, two people are just talking past each other. But I have appreaciated the conversation up to this point. I honestly don't see Wilson saying the things you say he said. I don't see the words, I don't see how you can read between the lines and get to what you think he is saying. But you do see what I don't.

Until the next discussion,
Sal

I appreciate it too, Sal. I think people can agree to disagree. Although, as I said before, I'm curious to see what you think Wilson was saying. I've paraphrased it in my own words, and you don't see it that way. That's fine. But I'm wondering if you can do the same, and then maybe we'll see where we're talking past each other.