Fitzgerald only indicted Libby, and only for lying to the FBI and the grand jury, and NOT for violating either the IIPA or the Espionage Act of 1917. THESE ARE SERIOUS CHARGES. If he did it, and the prosecutor proves he did it, then Libby should do hard time. But - as POWERLINE concludes: it's not as bad as it might have been for Bush.
I think the pathetically sad truth of the whole mess is that the AD HOMINEM attack which Libby used against Wilson was stupid and UNECESSARY. It was entirely pointless and un-germaine to debunking all of Wilson's FALSE CHARGES.
BOTTOM-LINE: as to whether his wife sent him or not: WHO CARES!?
The Veep's office could and should have merely : (1) just denied Wilon's claim that they sent him (which is true); and continued to argue that all of Wilson's charges were false - as a US Senate Intel' Committee would state in an official report, and as the British "Lord Butler Report" also avowed.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS ENTIRE "SCANDAL" IS POINTLESS: Bush NEVER referred to Wilson's Niger trip in the SOTU in question; Bush referred to British intel, as I mentioned above: intel which the Brits still stand behind. In addition, the SOTU in question was delivered three months AFTER Bush was authorized to go to war against Saddam, so the infamous 16 words - (none of which is either NIGER, or YELLOWCAKE, or BOUGHT) - could NOT have influenced one single solitary Congressional vote. Therefore, the 16 words could NOT have misled anyone in any material way. EVEN WITHOUT THE NUCLEAR ARGUMENT.
This of course won't stop the Lefty doves and so-called "realists (like lifelong failure Scowcroft, [see KRAUTHAMMER below]) from arguing that this indictment somehow proves that "Bush lied, and people died."
But in fact, all the indictment proves is that leaking classified data and making AD HOMINEM attacks is dumb.
[ASIDE: Libby will obviously try to prove that he did NOT know that Plame was covert, and that since he did not know that, he had no MOTIVE for lying to anyone, but was just "misremembering." The jury will have to decide if that's more credible than what Fitzgerald alleges: that Libby was told Plame was CIA MANY times through OFFICIAL CHANNELS and that when Libby TESTIFIED that he did NOT know Plame was a CIA agent came a day after Ari Fleischer testifed he was told of same by Libby. Either Fleischer is misremebering the date or is lying, or Libby is lying. I feel that Fleischer probably has contemporaneous notes, or Fitzgerald wouldn't have cited this instance.
Which is why I think Libby will be convicted. He will be convicted for lying about a stupid and pointless leak which served no purpose - (he was trying to explain who sent Wilson and why Wilson - a otherwise UNQUALIFIED MAN - was sent on this important mission to begin with). Libby could have discredited Wilson and his trip by using Wilson's own words - ALWAYS the most effective way to destroy another person's argument.]
I think the pathetically sad truth of the whole mess is that the AD HOMINEM attack which Libby used against Wilson was stupid and UNECESSARY. It was entirely pointless and un-germaine to debunking all of Wilson's FALSE CHARGES.
BOTTOM-LINE: as to whether his wife sent him or not: WHO CARES!?
The Veep's office could and should have merely : (1) just denied Wilon's claim that they sent him (which is true); and continued to argue that all of Wilson's charges were false - as a US Senate Intel' Committee would state in an official report, and as the British "Lord Butler Report" also avowed.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS ENTIRE "SCANDAL" IS POINTLESS: Bush NEVER referred to Wilson's Niger trip in the SOTU in question; Bush referred to British intel, as I mentioned above: intel which the Brits still stand behind. In addition, the SOTU in question was delivered three months AFTER Bush was authorized to go to war against Saddam, so the infamous 16 words - (none of which is either NIGER, or YELLOWCAKE, or BOUGHT) - could NOT have influenced one single solitary Congressional vote. Therefore, the 16 words could NOT have misled anyone in any material way. EVEN WITHOUT THE NUCLEAR ARGUMENT.
This of course won't stop the Lefty doves and so-called "realists (like lifelong failure Scowcroft, [see KRAUTHAMMER below]) from arguing that this indictment somehow proves that "Bush lied, and people died."
But in fact, all the indictment proves is that leaking classified data and making AD HOMINEM attacks is dumb.
[ASIDE: Libby will obviously try to prove that he did NOT know that Plame was covert, and that since he did not know that, he had no MOTIVE for lying to anyone, but was just "misremembering." The jury will have to decide if that's more credible than what Fitzgerald alleges: that Libby was told Plame was CIA MANY times through OFFICIAL CHANNELS and that when Libby TESTIFIED that he did NOT know Plame was a CIA agent came a day after Ari Fleischer testifed he was told of same by Libby. Either Fleischer is misremebering the date or is lying, or Libby is lying. I feel that Fleischer probably has contemporaneous notes, or Fitzgerald wouldn't have cited this instance.
Which is why I think Libby will be convicted. He will be convicted for lying about a stupid and pointless leak which served no purpose - (he was trying to explain who sent Wilson and why Wilson - a otherwise UNQUALIFIED MAN - was sent on this important mission to begin with). Libby could have discredited Wilson and his trip by using Wilson's own words - ALWAYS the most effective way to destroy another person's argument.]
8 comments:
Libby is not being indicted for a "dumb, ad hominem attack". He's being indicted because there is evidence that he may have lied to the FBI / Grand jury. Depending on how those charges pan out, it may show just how far members of the Bush administration will go to cover their tracks. That's far from "pointless".
As for Bush's SOTU address, why are you insisting that the Niger intel was accurate at the same time as asserting that Bush didn't refer to it? The one document that relates to the Niger claims was forged.
If you can prove the Niger claim true, than I challenge you to do so. Something more than "the Brits believe it to be true" is necessary. Passing the buck is an exercise in deference of responsibility. It also bears pointing out that 'the Americans" believed claims about vast stockpiles of Iraqi WMD's to be true. We all saw how that panned out.
McCoy,
It's interesting that you hang around blogs like this and don't seem to learn anything from them. Here, check this out:
the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee's July 7, 2004 report:
-The Committee report notes that the CIA intelligence report "did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium." (page 44)
-The Committee report notes that Wilson admitted that he may have "misspoken" or become "confused" about documents he claimed were forged, since he never saw them (page 45)
-Undermining Wilson's claim to have debunked the Niger-uranium story, the Committee report states that "DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal." (page 46)
-And, disproving critics who claim the Administration twisted the intelligence or ignored it altogether, the Committee report states that "Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue...CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue." (page 46)
Yes, McCoy, that's right.
And check this out:
the British Government's special inquiry, led by Lord Butler, which concluded that:
the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that (page 123):
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
was well-founded.
I mean, what does a guy like you say?
McCoy,
Read the post carefully. There is no claim anywhere in it that Libby is being indicted for a "dumb, ad hominem attack". The first paragraph clearly states that he has been indicted for lying to the FBI and the grand jury. The second paragraph clearly states that these are serious charges. The remainder of the post explains that outing Plame was a stupid ad hominem attack that could not have possibly benefited anyone in the white house, so they should not have bothered to. Being stupid is mostly not a crime, though it often leads to committing crimes.
This is a better post than I expected, because I have heard that the Right-wing media has been trying to claim that perjury and similar crimes are minor offenses and that only indicting on perjury would show that no crime was committed (clearly forgetting how serious Republicans considered perjury by Clinton). This is why I read this blog even though I am liberal, because while it is clearly biased, at least most of the posts make sense and don't just spew out whatever crap would best support Republicans at the moment. I disagree with many of the posts, but at least they make sense and show a self-consistent ideology.
James
pastorius:
WOW! thanks! that took research and i thank you fort taking the time!
james;
thanks very much -0 especially saoince i have SLAMMED some of your comments here in the past, (if i recall cortrectly!).
mccoy; you are wrong - as usual.
what libby did (and i wite did INTENTIONALLY: i think the indictment against libby is pretty damning BECAUSE UNLIKE THE "CRAPPY DELAY PSEUDO-INDICTMENT", THIS ONE IS VERY SPECIFIC IN WHAT IT ALLEGES THE ALLEGED PERP DID!)was a CRIME. a serious CRIME. if conviceted he should do HARD-TIME.
i want to remind all you libs out there that Fitz said he got TOTAL cooperation from ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES - including Bush's White House.
unlike other presidents, bush wanted the USAG to get all the facts, find the perp(s) and indict'em all.
bush deserves CREDIT.
the fact that wilson's wife was CIA and might have had somethiung to do woith him getting the CIA trip is IRRELEVANT, that's why it was STOOOOOOOOOOOOPID for Libby to leak it and THEREBY possibly COMMIT A CRIME.
i write POSSIBLY advisedly. Fitz did NOT indict for that becasue the leak was PROBABLY NOT A CRIME. why!?
(1) because wilson apparently told MANY people well before his op-ed
(2) becasue she was not covert IIPA did NOT apply
(3) because the laws requrie PROVING intent, and that isn VERY VERY tough, especially with this fact set.
so libby's LIES to the FBI and grand jury were STOOOOOOOOPID.
so he was very STOOOOPID.
stupid to bother with the plame fact-set, and stupid for trying to cover it up.
that said: he MIGHT get off.
though maybe he should plead guilty so that the Bush-Cheney administration can move forward. it might be the honorable thing to do.
AGAIN: thanks pastorius and james. very much.
Tweren't nothing, Reliapundit. That was kind of my point to McCoy. See, I read conservative blogs, and so does he. Because I read conservative blogs, I know about these reports. Since, I remember reading them, all I had to do was google the info and do a little cut and paste.
Somehow, McCoy forgets all this information he reads, so guys like you and me have to keep reminding him.
Don't know why I bother. He'll just forget again.
u r a good man.
Pastorius:
Actually, I learn quite a bit from reading blogs like this one, particularly with respect to selective presentation of facts. The Committee report notes that you refer to simply reflect the logical conclusion that one cannot prove a negative. The point is not whether or not it could disprove those claims, it's whether or not those claims could be verified to be true. If I hear a rumor about something, the onus lies on be to verify the truth of that rumor before I act on it. If I fail to fulfill that onus, putting fault for the error on the person I heard the rumor from is disingenuous at best.
The point of Wilson's report wasn't to bring "anything new" to the table, but whether or not it could confirm what the administration wanted to be true. It did not. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Otherwise one might assert that you have WMD in your closet, and in lieu of "new" information to prove that claim false, suggest that invading your residence would be justified. What you've cited as "proof" is merely an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from those who used the claim. Wilson's trip wasn't to disprove, but to confirm the truth of what has since turned out to be intelligence based on a forged memo. Dismissal for doing exactly that begs he question of "cherrypicking". Scientists who ignore data that doesn't support their hypothesis are poor scientists indeed, and should rightly be criticized for seeking to shore up a foregone conclusion rather than pursuit of the truth. The same concept applies here.
James:
Reliapundit posted that " all the indictment proves is that leaking classified data and making AD HOMINEM attacks is dumb."
I'm simply pointing out that "ad hominem attacks" didn't have anything to do with the indictment. Leaking classified data and making ad hominem attacks might be "dumb", but this indictment proves neither. What it does show is that lying and obstructing federal investigations is dumb.
Associating the indictment with two weaker cases instead of the real on is misleading at best. I'm simply making clear that the indictment wasn't motivated by "who" was involved. The indictment was based on the fact that there is evidence that Libby lied / obstructed the review.
Consistency is no substitute for accuracy.
mccoy your wrote:
"The burden of proof is on the one making the claim."
the FACT is that buish's 16 words are true, were true, remain true, and that wilson did NOT disprove them.
saddam SOUIGHT uranium.
also: libby's tactic of mentioning the fact that (1) wilson LIED when he said cheney set up the trip and that wilson LIED when he said that his wife had NOTHING to do with sending him
was a stupid tactic.
rather than try to discredit him by saying he was a CIA crony, he should have merely said what i said above.
then, he APPARENTLY LIED about the fact that he made those ad hominem attacks.
if libby had stuck to the facts about saddam/uranium/africa/16 words, there would have been no inverstigation and hence no chance at perjury.
you are either too dumb or too partisan to get this. take your pick.
Post a Comment