This is kind of a long cut but I think it is worth the read. This might be a turning point in the investigation:
Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago
Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward testified under oath Monday in the CIA leak case that a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed.
In a more than two-hour deposition, Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive, according to a statement Woodward released yesterday. …
Woodward’s testimony appears to change key elements in the chronology Fitzgerald laid out in his investigation and announced when indicting Libby three weeks ago. It would make the unnamed official — not Libby — the first government employee to disclose Plame’s CIA employment to a reporter. It would also make Woodward, who has been publicly critical of the investigation, the first reporter known to have learned about Plame from a government source.
The testimony, however, does not appear to shed new light on whether Libby is guilty of lying and obstructing justice in the nearly two-year-old probe or provide new insight into the role of senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, who remains under investigation.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove, said that Rove is not the unnamed official who told Woodward about Plame and that he did not discuss Plame with Woodward. (sorry DU’ers)
William Jeffress Jr., one of Libby’s lawyers, said yesterday that Woodward’s testimony undermines Fitzgerald’s public claims about his client and raises questions about what else the prosecutor may not know. Libby has said he learned Plame’s identity from NBC’s Tim Russert.
“If what Woodward says is so, will Mr. Fitzgerald now say he was wrong to say on TV that Scooter Libby was the first official to give this information to a reporter?” Jeffress said last night. “The second question I would have is: Why did Mr. Fitzgerald indict Mr. Libby before fully investigating what other reporters knew about Wilson’s wife?”
That last graph is what I was wondering the whole time I was reading this. It appears that after almost 2 years of Fitzgerald investigating (and who knows how many million dollars) he is no closer to understanding who told what to whom than I am.
This has to be an embarrassment for Fitzgerald. It really makes him look like a bumbling Inspector Clouseau.
I think this is the first time I’ve blogged anything about Fitzgerald but it has just seemed clear to me from the start that when you have a rumor swirling around Washington, you’ll never be able to trace it back to the source. It’s like trying to figure out who invented your favorite knock knock joke. — Assuming you have a favorite knock knock joke.
Part of the reason it is so problematic is that despite the DU’ers claims of Roveian omnipotence, there probably never was a single source. (Pure speculation here but it seems obvious…) Probably one tidbit of information started moving then it picked up another bit of information from another person and another and another like a snowball until it lands in Novak’s column.
Next thing you know we have a 2 year investigation that still can’t get to the bottom of who “leaked” the information. Personally I’ll be shocked if they ever charge anyone with the actual leak. Especially if Fitzgerald keeps getting blind-sided with things like this.
Knock, knock
Who’s there?
Scooter.
Scooter who?
Scooter into a new job since she’s not under cover.
Next thing you know we have a 2 year investigation that still can’t get to the bottom of who “leaked” the information..Woodward’s failure to notify his Washington Post editors of what he knew of the Plame leaks and his refrain in his sworn deposition that “he has no recollection of speaking to…. renders hollow his recent lament that Today’s press fails to get ‘to the
bottom of things’, But then Woodward in his desire to get heavy inside Administration access for his books, has stopped doing the first thing a good reporter should do, that is report.
Is there a hot lesbian cheerleader angle to this story?
Who knows how many million dollars? I do, it was in all the papers. The figure was under three-quarters of a million. $724,000 if memory serves.
Is there a hot lesbian cheerleader angle to this story?
If it involves Helen Thomas, I’d rather not know about it.
Well..wasn’t it like 80 million to prosecute Clinton and all they got him on was Perjury (not the underlying crime).
Why all the concern now when it’s less than a million dollars spent.
Actually, don’t answer that. I think we all know why.
“It appears that after almost 2 years of Fitzgerald investigating (and who knows how many million dollars)…”
Less than 1 million dollars, actually.
To date less than one million dollars has been spent on this investigation….compare that to Ken Starr at this time in his so-called investigation.
“Pure speculation here but it seems obvious…”
Wizbang speculating….what a surprise.
BTW, the cost of the Fitzgerald investigation was found using the unexpected and difficult research technique of googling “cost of the Fitzgerald investigation”.
Sometimes it’s just as easy to dispel ignorance as to perpetuate it.
Keep grasping at straws, Paul. If Libby testified under oath that he heard about Plame from Russert, and Russert provided an audiotape proving that in fact it was the other way around (which many people believe, given the wording of deposition), then Libby perjured himself. End of story. (Unless, of course, you believe perjury is only a problem when Democrats do it.)
Sorry, too early, not enough coffee yet. “deposition” (?!) -> “the indictment.”
By now it ought to be clear that to minimize or trivialize this investigation is but another attempt to blow smoke. We’ve had more than enough smoke from the Administration’s stenographers the past six miserable years. Why add to it?
The trolls are still pissy over their lousy Fitzmas.
And it just keeps getting worse!
Gee, and I guess you were REALLY upset about the Starr investigation which lasted five years and cost 70 million. Um, no?
BTW, we don’t know if Fitzgerald knew anyhting about his or not, but we do know that Woodward lied through his teeth about it, and that a difficult thing for a prosecutor to get around.
Troll? In a shocking turn of events–especially for the Bush Administration stenographers–all the polls show that most people now see the smoke for what it is. Give it up.
Hmmm.
Clinton wasn’t just guilty of perjury. He was also guilty of getting Lewinski to lie under oath.
But you guys tend to forget that stuff.
Frankly this whole Plame thing is less convincing every day. Any indictment that doesn’t include Joe Wilson is just not credible.
Hmmm. Looks like you got linked at one of the fever swamps again, Paul.
“Clinton wasn’t just guilty of perjury. He was also guilty of getting Lewinski to lie under oath.”
OMIGOD! I forgot about that! It was all about the big coverup of a blow job. Horrors! Horrors!
Get serious. This is about a coverup that is WAY more significant than that tired old line.
Hey, I knew who Plame was more than two years ago. I read it in the Novak column. Can I get my subpoena now?
This is about a coverup that is WAY more significant than that tired old line.
A cover-up of … what, exactly?
Nothing, apparently.
Clinton was covering up something — in a deliberate and illegal attempt to avoid a civil judgment for which he was factually and legally liable. Oh, what? You forgot that part?
Aw, come on! I already said Clinton tried to coverup his blow jobs from Monica. That’s old news. Republicans impeached him. He was found–guess what?–NOT GUILTY.
Now let’s turn to what on the table right now. Iraq. Torture. Deaths. Outing of a CIA agent. Based on what? The sweet shining light of truth? For this administration truth is merely something Karl Rove creates daily for the stupid “reality based community.” The cynicism and fradulence of that point of view has led to an appalling disaster.
You should be appalled, but instead are blowing smoke. Wake up. It’s very nearly over.
A senior official who had access to classified information, illegally leaked to Bob Woodward 2 years earlier than the leak to the 6 reporters. So this makes the later leaks ok. Yeah right. Only in Right-wing world.
Comparisons of this serious investigation to the 80 million dollar zippergate witchhunts are laughable. You people are really, really dumb.
Gee, dosen’t this mean that Fitzgerald lied to the American public when he stated Scooter Libby was the first to leak the information?
“Any indictment that doesn’t include Joe Wilson is just not credible.”
Okay then…
Thhe Whitewater Conviction list: (includes a sitting Governor)
1) Webster Hubbell: Bill Clinton friend and political ally; Hillary Clinton Rose Law Firm partner: embezzlement; fraud; two felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Whither Whitewater?” October 18, 1995)
2) Jim Guy Tucker: fraud; three felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Second-Term Stall” February 11, 1997; Associated Press “Tucker Pleads Guilty to Cable Fraud” February 20, 1998)
3) William J. Marks Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker business partner; one conspiracy conviction (Associated Press “Whitewater Defendant Pleads Guilty” August 28, 1997)
4) Jim McDougal: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend, banker, and political ally: eighteen felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Immunize Hale” May 29, 1996)
5) Susan McDougal: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend; former wife of Jim McDougal: four felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Immunize Hale” May 29, 1996)
6) David Hale: Bill and Hillary Clinton friend, banker, and political ally: two felony convictions of conspiracy and mail fraud (Wall Street Journal “The Arkansas Machine Strikes Back” March 19, 1996)
7) Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker; two felony convictions (Wall Street Journal “Hard Evidence From a Federal Investigator” August 10, 1995)
8) Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide; one conviction (Wall Street Journal “Hard Evidence From a Federal Investigator” August 10, 1995)
9) Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent; fraudulent loans (Wall Steet Journal “Hard Evidence From a Federal Investigator” August 10, 1995)
10) Robert Palmer: Madison appraiser; one conspiracy felony conviction (Wall Street Journal “Hale Predicts Hillary Conviction” October 21, 1996)
11) Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president; embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign; two misdemeanor convictions (Wall Street Journal “Arkansas Bank Shot” May 4, 1995)
12) John Latham: Madison Bank CEO; bank fraud conviction (Wall Street Journal “Smoke Without Fire” January 12, 1996)
13) John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker; misdemeanor guilty plea; tax fraud (Associated Press “Tucker Pleads Guilty to Cable Fraud” February 20, 1998)
14) Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of trying to bribe David Hale; is appealing a ten month prison sentence (The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “Whitewater Defendants” February 22, 1998)
15) Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of bribery, served fourteen months of a sixteen month prison sentence (The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “Whitewater Defendants” February 22, 1998)
Of course, Democrats have no problem with Patrick Leahy. He used to be chairman of the intelligence committee. He leaked to the Press that we had intercepted Mubarak’s phone call about the Achille Laural hijackers (that allowed us to intercept them). This caused the death of our informant. He was thrown off the intelligence committee.
Democrats will get us killed.
re: Fitzgerald
Go ahead Republicowards… eat your own. When the going gets frightening, attack one of your own. Don’t forget to make a lot of excuses along the way. And a new terror alert would be handy too.
And to the very dim Husker above with the ‘whitewater’ conviction list.. you forgot the Republicowards that were convicted or associated with Iran/contra convicts. Remember that one? That’s the treason where president reagan GAVE weapons to the Iranians while RESCUING Saddam Hussein from certain defeat. That’s just how it went down. None of your spin can free you of that one.
If it weren’t for Reagan, Saddam would have been overthrown a long long long long time ago. That’s just how it is, cowards.
Why don’t you join the Iraq war… oh.. that’s right, joining the war that you want so badly would take courage, which you prove over and over that you have none of.
bok bok Chicken Hawks
“And to the very dim Husker above with the ‘whitewater’ conviction list.. you forgot the Republicowards that were convicted or associated with Iran/contra convicts. Remember that one? That’s the treason where president reagan GAVE weapons to the Iranians while RESCUING Saddam Hussein from certain defeat. That’s just how it went down. None of your spin can free you of that one.
Why don’t you join the Iraq war… oh.. that’s right, joining the war that you want so badly would take courage, which you prove over and over that you have none of.
bok bok Chicken Hawks
Posted by: Lars Gruber “
You are a fool, Gruber dude. I WAS IN HONNDURAS at that time. I saw the thousands of Nicaraguans fleeing your murderous Sandinistas. I held more than one in my arms as they died, while I recited the 23rd Psalm to them. I got lice from them and I got bit by many weird insects and a snake. It took me a year to recover.
Thank God for Reagan and Iran-Contra. I will never apologize for saving lives.
Chickenhawk??? That’s you, dude. You helped the Sandinistas murder women and children. Remember Kerry’s (et al) “Dear Commandante” letter.
You Democrats help the dictators of the world and hamstring the forces of freedom, including our troops.
OK, Husker
you are a liar AND a coward, but I’m not surprised by that at all. Bush himself revels in being a liar and a coward. Funny how all of those against the war of choice in Iraq were actually veterans, and all of those who wanted the war had their best battle experiences watching John Wayne movies.
If you think a little harder, you’ll recall that the Sandinistas overthrew the murderous dictator Samoza. We injected ourselves into their civil war… hence all the added injury, death and destruction. I won’t apologize for either the Sandinistas, nor Samoza. Neither were on my side. But at the same time it was a mistake fund a civil war, and then to make things worse, cut and run when it was over. How is it now in HONNDURAS (your spelling)?
And very conveniently, you ignored the comment about free weapons of mass destruction that Rummy himself delivered to Saddam and the free secret weapons to Iran – 2/3 of the axis of evil. The other 1/3 has been left alone now to develop all the nukes they want.
how many lives in Iraq/Iran did Iran/Contra save? how many lives did we save by militarizing central america, before AND after the Sandinistas (whom were democratically elected once).
The answer is that you cannot answer cause you are just one more of many Chicken Hawk cowards that are only interested in saving their own skins at the expense of other innocent people, just like Bush/Cheney/Wolf/Hadley did during vietnam.
the Republicowards never change. Luckily, that fact is better known every day.
bok bok Chicken Hawk
I knew as soon as I saw the headline on the Woodward story that the Bush administration apologists would immediately rush to claim that this somehow exonerates Libby, or minimizes what he did. But the fact is, as Fitzgerald made very clear, Libby’s perjury made it impossible for Fitzgerald to accurately determine how the outing of Plame went down. That’s called obstruction of justice. The fact that you can successfully lie enough that investigators can’t uncover the whole truth doesn’t mean you “win.” It means you go to jail. If all of this is so innocent, then all Libby had to do was tell the truth. Instead, he lied to investigators and the Grand Jury, and was contradicted by several administration officials, not just reporters. And the fact that Woodward was told about Plame earlier doesn’t mean that her identity was widely known. I’d say Woodward’s knowledge was something of a secret, since we’re just learning about it. If Woodward and the official who told him about Plame don’t come forward, how does that make Fitzgerald a “bumbling Inspector Clouseau?” That’s just wishful thinking.
Since there’s a tendency on this site not to trust the MSM, I assume everyone is looking at Woodward’s story with a healthy dose of skepticism. Especially since he claims to have told Walter Pincus what he knew, and Pincus absolutely disputes that. Or is Woodward above reproach because he writes fawning books about Bush?
actually, unlike the superfluous investigation into Clinton, this prosecutor is not burning taxpayer money like it’s free. I don’t think this boy has even passed the million dollar point yet.
Lars,
So, all of the 77 Senators that voted for the war were draft dodgers or otherwise not in service? Don’t say that within arms reach of McCain or Kerry. And the people who voted against the war are all veterans? Only 19 Republicans and 16 Democrats in the senate at the time were vets. So explain how the 23 are comprised of only one Republican?
As for Husker being a liar, you have no proof that he is, or not. Just saying it doesn’t make it so.
“It appears that after almost 2 years of Fitzgerald investigating (and who knows how many million dollars) he is no closer to understanding who told what to whom than I am.”
I suppose if officials like Libby could pull the truth out of their asses for once, he would know exactly who told who what.
It isn’t like he hasn’t asked all these crooks flat out what they knew, how they knew, when they knew and who they told.
It is the PERJURY that is making it difficult. Generally, when you get a person under oath, you operate on the assumption that they are telling the truth. When the stories don’t add up, you have to spend all this time figuring out who is lying. Is is Libby or Russert? So don’t blame Fitzgerald for the cost of the investigation. Blame the fucker who lied under oath. That is a new crime and thus the new crime necessitates new investigations.
If there was no crime committed, then why lie about it? Anyone who has read the indictment can plainly see that Libby lied several times under oath. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
If outing Plame isn’t a crime, why don’t Rove and Libby just fucking fess up already and then we can all move on? Why jerk around a Federal Prosecutor and lie to the FBI for two years?
Why allow a reporter to sit in jail rather than just say, “Yes, it was me. I did it. And since it isn’t a crime, and Wilson had it coming, I’d do it again.”?
Wait don’t tell me, because it IS a crime. Because the fact that some of you troglodytes think Wilson ‘had it coming’ only proves motive, not justification. That’s why you lie.
Generally, when you have motive and opportunity, lying to a prosecutor about a crime that has been committed is not the smartest thing to do. Just a rule of thumb.
Remember, Clinton didn’t lie about the underlying charge. He lied about cheating on his wife. Libby lied about the actual crime that was being investigated. That is much much worse. Starr was investigation a land speculation scheme. Clinton’s lie did not hamper that investigation. Libby’s lies (and likely Rove’s as well) are still hampering this one.
Well, I see the Reality-Challenged Community has weighed in…
Lars isn’t a fool, just a drool but hey, don’t question his “patriotism”!
What is glaring about the indictment of Libby is that it has nothing to do at all with ‘outting a covert agent’ because that crime NEVER HAPPENED.
Now, Woodward is fessing up he knew long before, just as Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely has revealed that Joe Wilson was bragging about his wife’s working at the CIA in greenrooms in 2002 …. good Lord, who DIDN’T know that Mrs. Wilson was a CIA employee?
It’s a hoot that Woodward is claiming he felt he had to “hunker down” to “protect his source” …
Ironically, Woodward is transmorgrifying into Nixon.
Heh.
Oh for God’s sake, seattle slough, dial down the Outrage-O-Meter. You’ve been reduced to arguing that one lie is somehow less bad than another lie. No one “allowed” a reporter to sit in jail, she CHOSE to do so. Her own ex-paper has admitted as much.
I liked Bill Clinton, voted for him twice. I did not think we should spend the millions we spent on the Starr investigation. But none of that eliminates the lies that Joe Wilson has told. No one but Joe himself is responsible for what has happened since he CHOSE to tell untruths in public.
Oh, avaroo
Too bad Joe Wilson was right. About the Niger forgeries that is. They were forgeries. The administration knew or should have known it. What exactly did he lie about? I don’t even get it. He was right. They were wrong.
Remember that you guys (perhaps not you personally mind you) are still harping on Dan Rather over falling for a forgery and presenting it to the American People as authentic. Didn’t Our Leader do the same? At least the CBS forgeries were based on events that verifiably happened. The woman who typed the originals said as much. The Niger forgeries, on the other hand purported events that NEVER OCCURRED. Yet Bush presented that crap as true. And whoops! a war ensued. A little worse no?
The ‘Wilson lied’ line, as I mentioned above, even if true, only damages the administration. It suggests a motive. It is like saying ‘I didn’t kill my wife, but she WAS cheating on me.’
As far as one lie being greater than another. Of course they are. It would be stupid to suggest that any two lies are the same. Clinton was blind-sided with a personal question wholly unrelated to the underlying investigation. Libby lied about the very subject being investigated.
Imagine you and I are being investigated over a dead body found between our homes. I am asked a question about whether I have ever smoked pot, and I lie. Later, you are asked where you were the night the murder occurred and you lie about that. Which lie is worse? The one that harms the investigation or the one that doesn’t.
The outrage comes from the partisan hypocrisy. You can’t gripe about CBS and give the Executive Branch a pass. You can’t cheer on Ken Starr and then chastise Fitzpatrick. I mean, you CAN, but don’t expect to not be called on it.
My point originally, was you can’t gripe about how long the investigation is taking when you have officials lying under oath. If everyone simply answered the questions put forth in a timely and honest manner, this investigation would have lasted two months, not two years.
Joe Wilson wasn’t right about Niger forgeries. He hadn’t even SEEN the documents when he claimed they were forgeries. He lied about that too, although he uses the term “misspoke” rather than lie.
I don’t know who you mean by “you guys”. Dan Rather lost his job because he put on a fake story and then refused to admit it was fake. News media cannot do that and maintain credibility.
You seem confused about the Niger documents. Who is it you think Bush “presented” anything to?
Wilson’s lying damages HIS credibility, no one else’s. Anyone’s lying damages only the actual liars credibility. The Senate Investigation clearly said that Wilson lied.
Two lies are just that, two lies.
As for “griping about CBS and giving the Executive Branch a pass”, as soon as the Bush administration (or any other administration) forges documents and then demands that the “underlying story” be examined based on forged documents, then you’ll have a point. It’s worth noting that even CBS does not agree with you on Rathergate. It took appropriate action on the issue and I applaud it for doing so to restore its credibility.
Please show how I’ve “cheered on Ken Starr”. Same with Fitzpatrick, show how I’ve “chastised him”. You are free to “call me” on whatever you’d like to, but you look foolish calling me or anyone else on things they haven’t done.
Can you show how I’ve griped about how long anything has taken?
oh avaroo. so silly. such a sweet silly person you are.
I clearly (I thought) explained that my outrage was not directed at you. It was directed at Paul, the author of the ridiculous excuse for a blog post that drew me here (via the Daou Report).
Bush “presented” information to the American People, the United Nations, and Congress that was contained in forged documents. Those famous 16 words. The TANG story has never been established as false. The documents are true forgeries. That is, artificial copies of real documents. (recall that secretary who remembers typing the originals) The Niger forgeries are complete fabrications of events that never happened. So not only did the Bush Administration apparently fall for the fake documents, they did so with no corroboration, as none was possible. At least CBS checked with people who were there and got verification that the events referenced actually occurred.
Oh, and I don’t think 2000 American Soldiers died over the CBS forgeries.
You were telling me that my outrage was misplaced. I explained where it was coming from. I clearly stated that I wasn’t accusing you of anything. I think you confuse the two uses of the word you. In French I was using the plural you as in ‘vous’ not the singular as in ‘tu.’
Thus I was speaking generally. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think about anything. You are repeating the Wilson Lied angle. It is such a joke. Wilson is not a document expert. He investigated the content of the document and found the contents unfounded. He was right. 100%. That you are all calling him a liar only supports the notion that the outing of his wife was done for political revenge. Not helpful to you.
All lies are not the same. You can say it (again) but it doesn’t make it true. Two lies are not just that. They are one lie with one set of motivations and consequences and another with completely different motivations and consequences.
You are either grasping at straws here or you are an idiot.
Please tell me it is the former. I would hate to think any human being is so simple minded as to think that all lies are the same. That is as stupid as saying all assaults are the same or all complements. No they aren’t. Some lies merely save someone from an embarrassing situation. Some lies cause death. Some lies are done for personal profit, others out of cruelty. Each is unique. Why am I even explaining this to you. Are you ten years old?
Jesus, listen to me. I feel like I am literally explaining things to a fourth grader.
Russert, or Woodward? Who gives a crap who told Libby?
Russert says it wasn’t him, but we all know Russert has an agenda (just watch his show). Woodward says he may have told Libby, but doesn’t remember. Can anyone remember who told them what two years ago? I doubt it, unless the information was something truly earth shatttering. Memories are notoriously at odds between people recalling events.
And if Libby discussed the Plame name with anyone else in the White House, there is no crime. They are all cleared to discuss information, classified or not.
There is no there, there. Plame was not covert. This whole episode is another Democrat bruhaha, with liberal media collusion, to get Bush.
Folks who are focusing on what Fitzgerald said in his news conference need to go back and read the transcript. He never siad that flat out Libby was the first. He said that he was the earliest know at that point int the investigation…. so so convienent to make up your own un-truths and misinformation. Oh wait a minute, just like out wonderfull pres and vice pres. Hmmmm, a patern? Or just the modus operendi of the wonderfully delirious wacky right wing wingnutz. WHere very lie made bt the right is the truth! Get real.
Geez, I think when this whole thing is over, we’ll probably find out that everyone and his cousin in D.C. knew Plame worked for the CIA. She just wasn’t important enough until Wilson went to Niger for anyone to need to drop her name to anyone else.
Talk about wishful thinking. Fitzgerald indicted Libby for perjury, and nothing Woodward says affects those charges at all.
And 5 gets you 10 that the mystery source for Woodward is Libby’s ex-boss, Richard “An Axis of One” Cheney. So, he may be a little more distracted now that that Fitzgerald has his name, and is talking to Woodward as well.
The TANG story has never been established as false. The documents are true forgeries. That is, artificial copies of real documents.
Sir, with that statement you have established your bona fides as either tool or fool.
Not a damned thing you say, previous or subsequent to that statement can carry any credibility, even to the “ands” and “thes”
The docs were FRAUDULENT…made up. There are no “real documents” and even a high school newspaper reporter knows that when ones own assertion is question then it is up to the person making the assertion to PROVE IT.
I’m only sorry that Mapes and Rather are not serving time in jail.
If Libby deliberately lied has yet to be proven, and if he did he’ll get the sentence appropriate to the perjury charge. That doesn’t have a thing to do with the essential fact that NO CRIME took place when Libby passed on the FACT that Valerie got Wilson the job to drink sweet tea then lie about his “findings” in North Africa. Wilson as early as 2002 was bragging about his wife being an analyst in the FNC greenroom. And obviously the CIA wasn’t that concerned with Val as they confirmed her employment to Novak. Even Fitzgerald admitted that he deliberately didn’t use the word “covert” and that Libby didn’t reveal ANYTHING “covert.”
Ya got a whole lot of nothing.
Darleen – you lose
The woman who typed the original TANG docs verified that the events mentioned in the forgeries actually happened. See that? The ORIGINAL TANG DOCS! There were no original Niger forgeries. Saddam never tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger. Total fiction.
An equivalent is that Rather fell for a fake Mona Lisa painting.
The Bush administration fell for some random painting of a picnic being passed off as a DaVinci original. See the difference? At least Rather could ask around as to whether DaVinci had ever painted a picture of a smiling woman. Bush couldn’t.
They sent Wilson to Niger to verify if the events occurred. He said it never happened. It hadn’t.
You got a whole lot of nothing. You are picking one sentence of mine which you disagree with (or more accurately don’t understand) and then use it as a crutch to justify not refuting anything else I say. Probably because you can’t. At best because you are lazy.
So go home Darleen. Nothing personal, but you simply lack the rhetorical skills.
The reason Fitgerald hasn’t been able to find out “who to what to whom” as you claim, is because Republicans like Scooter Libby LIED to him to hide “who told what to whom”. They OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE (a crime!) to protect their criminal bosses. You’re wrong anyway, we do know “who told what to whom” Libby told reporters Plame’s name as did Rove. Soon we’ll learn that Dick Cheney did, too.
If you think this money was wasted, what do you think about the campaign to destroy Bill Clinton? That was really money well-spent, huh?
Puhleeze. You’re one of those bloggers that’s giving blogging a bad name!
The woman who typed the original TANG docs verified that the events mentioned in the forgeries actually happened
Are you babbling about Marian Knox? The woman who admitted she
>DID NOT type the original memos?
>that Killian did NOT write those memos?
>that she had NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of GW’s service?
>and only makes vague, unsubstantiated and unsupported assertions that it was kinda, sorta known that maybe kinda that GW behaved the way the FRAUDULENT memos suggested?
That’s YOUR “woman who typed the original memos”?
Better go back to the cult and get your talking points updated.
meshugga schmuck
Isn’t it just like the LEFT to change the subject when they know they can’t beat the facts. More facts will be coming that will serve to undermine the Wilsons, Plames, and liars at the CIA !! I say “BRING IT ON” Sound familiar?
Rather than waste energy on the dumbed-down leftists, just refer them to carefully re-read (if they are capable) of the above posts. They are not worth the band width.
“Rather than waste energy on the dumbed-down leftists, just refer them to carefully re-read (if they are capable) of the above posts. They are not worth the band width.”
Greta, what did you add to the debate with this post? You are clearly unable to articulate an argument. I happen to believe that Libby is guilty, and that there are possibly more indictments to come. I also believe that Wilson is essentially truthful, that Plame’s employment with the CIA was not widely known, and that the Woodward revelations did nothing to undermine Fitz’s case. Some people on this board make good arguments otherwise, although I disagree with them. This business of telling people to re-read previous posts as though the truth is so self-evident that the only people who don’t see it are those who are too stupid to understand is a waste of space. I see it a lot on this and other boards. I read all of the comments on this thread, and generally follow the links because I like to know what kind of evidence people on the other side are using. For the most part, I think the arguments are weak. But I’m also capable of articulating my thoughts. You should try to do the same.
“Next thing you know we have a 2 year investigation that still can’t get to the bottom of who “leaked” the information.”
hmmm, that wouldn’t possibly be because witnesses are LYING would it? So much for the Administration’s “cooperation” in the investigation. But we all knew that was a lie too.
seattleslough, you poor little thing.
You don’t appear to know what Bush even SAID in the 16 words. He said the British government had learned that Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Niger. Nothing at all about forged documents. And the British government still stands by that today. You appear terribly confused.
60 Minutes “documents” have absolutely been established as forgeries. That’s why Rather and co were fired. You don’t think he actually “retired”, do you? Wilson has admitted he misspoke about the Niger documents. Why do you deny that he did when even he admits it? It isn’t me calling Wilson a liar, the Senate Intelligence Committee has. How can you be so ignorant of what’s actually happened?
You can continue to deny reality and I don’t care if the dems never win another election, although I do think it’s a shame that I don’t have at least a choice during elections. I can easily vote for a dem but not when they are as out of it as you are. btw, nastiness wins few allies (and even fewer votes).