Christopher Hitchens has produced rhetoric and has been challenged repeatedly to produce proof of his claims. .......and we're still waiting.

This pretty much is a dead issue and leave it to Hitchens (and his followers) to bring it back up again.

What proof do you need besides David Corn's own publications and Richard Armitage admitting he was Novak's source. (today's NY Times). Or did Hitchen's miracle those two things into existance.

Shush chad. The lefties got what they needed from the story and now that the facts are coming to light, time to move on.

Or maybe its important to move on because the left can't retort about Plame anytime you question Wilson's claims, we can focus on that now.

But unfortunately it won't matter. I'll bet that history books have been written and will still be written that the leak came from the Bush inner circle. Only the right side of the blogosphere knows about Armitage and its meaning. That is a minority.

More Syntax Error if you ask me.

Read today's Wall Street Journal opinion at www.opinionjournal.com. Almost better than Hitchens article!

This should have been a dead issue from the beginning--but was brought up many times by Joe Wilson & the rabid "hate Bush" crowd. Odd, we haven't heard much from them lately on this subject.

So Gonzalez didn't want to know the identity of the leaker? Because? He probably knew it already. Probably the VP knew. So his boss knew. They all knew.
They seem to major in knowing stuff that they can't or won't pass along. Why is that?

I had forgotten, there's no longer a commie under every bed to feed the right's paranoia. Now, it's the MSM.

I think there's medication for paranoia. perhaps you could all get a group discount?

Hugh:

It's not paranoia when a news story, that occupies the headlines for months, proves to be a complete fabrication. Why is it that the left can make up anything they want to, and even after it is proven to be fantasy, they continue to quote it as fact.

Poor little Hugh, there's no longer his hero named Joe Wilson :'(

The record is crystal clear that the WH wanted to use Plame's employment to get to Wilson. The record is clear that Libby leaked the info to Judith Miller and that Rove leaked to Matt Cooper. The record is clear that Libby has been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.

What I surmise from the Armitage involvement is that the right hand of this incompetent administration has no idea what the left hand is doing.

And, no, Joe Wilson is still my hero. Preferable any day to the thugs who work in and for this administration.

It was worse than being repeated for months, it was repeated for years, at almost a fever pitch. Don't forget that it was Joe Wilson's claim that Bush lied about the 16 words that started the "Bush lied" mantra. We now know that "Bush lied" was a lie, but that is getting scant little attention.

This is a ploy that is repeated time and time again by Democrats and it works every time. Make an assertion, even when it is contradicted by facts (in this case by Novak's statement from day one) and then repeat it over and over again until it becomes conventional wisdom. When the facts emerge and it is clear that the entire thing was a liberal fantasy the damage will have been done and since the media was so instrumental in spreading the misinformation, they will give very little attention to the truth when it is revealed.

Hugh, what is clear is that Libby was charged with lying about testimony. Exactly like Lorie says, you've swallowed the rest of the lies whole. But they're your hero Joe Wilson's lies, so I guess you're ok with that. What is clear is that Hugh will suspend reality to keep his hatred of Bush alive. Keep on keepin on Hugh. Well done.

Tony et al:

I want to set the rcord straight. I don't hate Bush, I just despise him. The last time I checked, there was no law agianst that, nor is there anything in the Constitution preventing me from expressing it.

Thank you.

Hugh,

Its good that you admit that a proven liar is your hero. Had you any credibility you would have lost it right there. Of course you had zero cerdibility already so you had nothing to loose.

Now it's safe to take as a given that everything you post is a lie.

Can you imagine the movie based on this? Of course the opening title says "This is a true story..." I can see it opening with Valerie Plame in some kind of secret agent disguise skulking at some fancy, high society party surrounded by swarthy-looking people who speak with ominous accents. A flunky of some bigwig comes running in and whispers in the big guy's ear. He suddenly looks at Plame and shouts something in his native tongue. Men with machine guns come running into the room. A mad chase ensues throughout the mansion and Plame only escapes by the skin of her teeth.

In the next scene, she's back at Langley and asks what went wrong. Her handler tells her that she was sold out by the President to protect himself and discredit her husband. She asks, "Are you telling me that I was betrayed to protect a lie?"

Just checking, these were the same people who bitched about Starr's investigation, that at least led to Clinton losing his law license, right?
-=Mike

Hugh, I never said you couldn't hate or despise him, that's putting words in our mouths. I'm saying your despising is clouding your judgement, which it has. Good day.

The silence from the Bush Haters, those wearer of head-gear crafted from tin (aluminum) is deafening!

movie continued....and then Valerie and her handler fall to the ground and make mad passionate love. At one point, they form "the beast with 2 backs". In the throws of passion, Valerie will look at a picture of her husband lying next to her and think..."I married that jack-ass?" And then vomit up a K-ration that she ate on the C140 she took back to the USA.

Now we need an independant prosecutor to investigate the independant prosecutor,what a wicked web we weave. The most obvious attribute of a Demorat is the use of dishonesty. Truth is foreign to this group of disfunctional adolesencents playing grown ups.My proof you ask? just read any of Hughs posts.Case closed.

I wondering if its stories like this that will keep the right from sitting home during the election cycles. I certianly want to sit, but damn, how can I allow people who not only bought into but helped pushed this be my leaders?

I also find that as a general rule, those that yell liar, more often than not, are the biggest ones.

Okay - let's all take a deep breath people.

Hugh: Reality check: JOE WILSON lied, not President Bush. VALERIE PLAME was NEVER a covert agent - therefore, no crime was committed in revealing her employment AND Richard Armitage - no friend of the President's has already admitted that HE is the one who revealed it.

Criticisms of the President's policy with substantive and ACCURATE backup (not the statements of people who were chastised by the U.S. House of Representatives as LIARS - that would be Joe Wilson) are one thing; blanket condemnations such as the endless "Bush lied" mantra which is, in itself, a lie if anyone bothered to actually read the State of the Union address word for word, are a waste of time, energy and breath. And while I don't seriously mind you wasting your breath, I do mind your wasting the time of the grown-ups with your infantile nonsense.

Is that clear enough? And by the way wilky - your comment about people who yell liar is very well taken and absolutely on point! And I will NOT be sitting out the election, nor will anyone I know.

The Libby indictment was based on the reporters' recollections being different than Libby's. But because Libby worked in the Bush Administration, he was automatically assumed by Fitzgerald to be a liar.

A difference of recollection regarding a non-crime already confessed to by the perpetrator, is hardly perjury. This was Fitzgerald's last gasp at getting his Bush Administration trophy.

I want to set the rcord straight. I don't hate Bush, I just despise him. The last time I checked, there was no law agianst that, nor is there anything in the Constitution preventing me from expressing it.

Is this or is this not one of the most pathetically transparent attempts at changing the subject (and cloaking yourself in victimhood) that has ever appeared on this site?

Some of you folks have learned the Bush method of obfuscation really well. Say something. Then when what you say is proven wrong say something different. When that is proven wong slime the opponent.

No one has taken the trouble to deny the "truths" I pointed out. (1) Rove disclosed Plame's identity to a reporter; (2) Libby did the same; (3) Libby has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (innocent until proven otherwise). Those are facts. You may not like them, you may deny them and lots of you will slime those who post them. But they are what they are.

The issue isn't about what happened to Wilson. The issue is what happened to his wife - oh, wait she probably deserved what she got cause she's married to the guy.

My guess was that the Libby indicitment/trial was to be ridden out until near the end of the Bush Presidency. It's purpose was to prolong the story as long as it was Bush Bashing Worthy. Also to justify Fitz's existence until people no longer cared about the Bush Admin. so Fitz could close the pointless case quietly.

Now that that has changed and this case will be an albatros around Fitz's neck, I wonder if they'll finally cut Libby loose and end this fiasco.

Just ignore Syntax, Hugh, et al. They're just flinging monkey poo. It's sad and pathetic really.

jpm:

Another lefty after the Bushies eh? I refer to my first post about pranoia. Oh here's Fitgerald's professional bio. Funny, a guy appointed by Bush after Bush. Wow...you do need those meds.

Career

Fitzgerald was born into a working-class Irish American-Catholic family in Brooklyn and grew up in the Flatbush neighborhood. His father (also named Patrick Fitzgerald) worked as a doorman in Manhattan. Fitzgerald attended Our Lady Help of Christians grammar school, Regis High School, a prestigious Jesuit Catholic school in Manhattan, and received degrees in economics and mathematics from Amherst College before receiving his JD from Harvard Law School in 1985.[1][2]
After practicing civil law, Fitzgerald became an Assistant United States Attorney in New York City in 1988. He handled drug-trafficking cases and in 1993 assisted in the prosecution of Mafia figure John Gotti, the boss of the Gambino crime family. In 1994, Fitzgerald became the prosecutor in the case against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others charged in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In 1996, Fitzgerald became the National Security Coordinator for the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. There, he served on a team of prosecutors investigating Osama bin Laden.[3] He also served as chief counsel in prosecutions related to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
On September 1, 2001, Fitzgerald was nominated for the position of U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois on the recommendation of U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation), a Republican from Illinois. On October 24, 2001, the nomination was confirmed by the Senate.

Hugh can't even get the basic facts correct, so how can you expect him to figure this out. He's intellectually and morally confused.

Novak mentioned Plames name to Rove, not the other way around. Rove acknowledged he'd heard about her, too, like Novak had--at the time she was a bureaucrat in the CIA bureaucracy.

Even the hapless Mr. Fitz found no violation of espionage laws, the central point to the whole investigation.

If memory serves, Libby also didn't not shop the identity of Plame. It was a matter of fact, however, in this whole bureaucratic political game.

No proof exists for the central lib claim that this was another "right wing conspiracy."

So, you just need to "MoveOn.org" nothing to see here in this nonstory, other than the obvious dysfunctional liberal thinking on the subject.

This whole thing could have been wrapped up in 2003 if Mr. Fitzgerald was focused and serious about his charge (i.e., to find the "leaker"--he knew it was Armitage then--and to determine if espionage laws were broken--which was determinable from the words of the statute, and the "status" of Ms. Plame which were all readily obtainable).

It's not really a serious debate you're in here, Hugh, et al. You can't argue facts here, or you get killed.

Hugh, your last post is a post without a point.

Are you attempting to say all Republican appointees are to be deemed authomatically credible, or competent, or capable by other Republicans, if not you.

I guess you really are a simple minded as we all thought.

Again, you are morally and intellectually confused, and lazy.

Hugh stated:

(1) Rove disclosed Plame's identity to a reporter; (2) Libby did the same; (3) Libby has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (innocent until proven otherwise)

(1) False. The reporter was aware of Plame's identity before his conversation with Rove. Rove did confirm it by stating, "Oh, you know that too". This by the reporter's own words.

(2) False. See above

(3) True. Libby was indicted.

So, you're 1 for 3.

- MikeB

Mitchell
Ttry reading the indictment for the facts. Try reading soemthing before you deny the facts.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_pr_28102005.pdf#search=%22patrick%20fitzgerald's%20indictment%22

His past resume means nothing, Hugh, absolutely nothing. Although to a leftist, it means everything, because leftists judge actions not of their own weight, but in context of a person's ideological stance. Cases in point, both Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are regarded as champions of women's issues by the left, and any peccadilloes of sexual misconduct are considered to be wiped away by that ideological record, presumably up to and apparently including rape and involuntary manslaughter.

In this case, the fact that Fitz was appointed by the two Presidents Bush to various positions means absolutely nothing. This investiation was a farce and a fraud, as the identity and motive of the leaker was known to the investigators within days, and thus the reason for the investigation vanished. The prosecution of Libby is thus totally disprortionate to the alleged "crime", and he will most likely be exonerated, or have the case kicked out of court in the alternative.

Rove and Libby did not disclose, they confirmed in a qualified way, and that's a huge material difference, as her identity was already known to both reporters in question, and as Ms. Plame is not covered under IIPA in any event, these confirmations are not criminal.

I just want to know. Are you folks seriously saying that Fitzgerald was on a partisan hunt to get the Bush administration? Or are you saying he's just incompetent?

By the way, I love you qualified parsing of "disclose" Evan. You must have been on Clinton's side when he was parsing.

It ain't parsin' nothin', Hugh.

A secret can only be disclosed once, by the first covered person who discloses it. After it gets out into the public, and knowledge of the fact by reporters clearly constitutes "getting out", it can't be "redisclosed", otherwise anyone who talks or writes about it thereafter could conceivably be charged with the crime, including (heh heh) you and me.

And it's a very real consideration whether a statement such as "Oh, you heard that, too?" constitutes a disclosure.

And you'd also have to prove that Rove knew she was covered under IIPA, before he made the "disclosure".

Hugh, it's not simply that these "crimes" don't qualify under IIPA for a reason; they don't qualify under just about ANY provision of IIPA. And if you don't believe me, ask Victoria Toensing, who wrote the doggone law in the first place.

Not quite the same as "what the meaning of the word is, is", Hugh.