DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Libby Guilty on Four of Five Counts

I see. The consequences of your actions has nothing to do with the severity.
Got it!

LOL, now you resort to lying, huh, Pit? Geez, you are more and more laughable with each and every post. Seeing as how we weren't on the board during the time of Clinton's CRIME, you once again speak out of ignorance. I was VERY concerned that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES committed PERJURY. What the perjury related to doesn't matter. He committed a crime. He lied under oath. If you could ACTUALLY PROVE that Cheney did what you CLAIM he did (with zero evidence, as usual), then I would be very concerned. You and the left saying it happened isn't evidence, though, no matter how much you think your opinion should be taken as fact.

Now, you continue to post your OPINIONS and ACCUSATIONS as facts and when called on it, you just ignore it. Again, provide ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Cheney was involved. You can't because there is none. Until there is, it's just more of your crap you pull with every post.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your absurd statement about my "bias" and how I don't care about my family members giving their lives for this country, too. I know you won't respond because you know how ignorant your accusation was and will, in typical Pit fashion, ignore it and pretend you weren't YET AGAIN called on your absurd statements.

Do you know what one of these are coach----?
That makes something a "question" not a statement. And I have said how "it looks" and the "possibilities". So you need to start using "quotes" before you keep ranting into thin air if you wish something addressed.

I haven't down right "accused" Cheney of anything. But the indicators thus far point in that direction. And I feel this matter should and will be delved into much deeper before it's over with. Then we will know for sure.

We do KNOW that Libby lied. We DO KNOW that members of the jury questioned why it was not Rove or Cheney they were trying instead of Libby. So it appears the jury saw all of the evidence and felt strongly there were "bigger fish to fry" than Libby. Unless you're just dismissing that? Those are facts coach,not my assertions and accusations.

My question is,how would you feel if you found out later this war WAS based on lies and cover-ups? I don't know that to be a fact at all. Didn't say it was. I asked you if that would change anything for you?

And I asked why you seem to ignore the fact that even some on that jury wondered why it wasn't Cheney or Rove doesn't make you wonder? Doesn't it even make you "question" things or want to dig deeper to get at the truth? Now remember what this-? means coach. It's called a question mark. It's ot one of these---. Which happens to be a period,making something a statement.

Knowing the difference between this ? and this . may help clarify things for you just a bit.

Too bad you try to rewrite history with your post there for all to see. You want quotes....here you go:

"We KNOW they outed Plaime to attempt to discredit Wilson while Wilson was right all along. We know they LIED about it too."

I don't see one of these ? Mayby if you were asking a question, it would be there. Instead, you accused "them"....Now, please quickly try to spin that as you saying Libby was guilty and try to spin away how you used the plural pronoun.

Maybe if you wouldn't try to rewrite history when caught in your rhetoric, it might clear things up for you a bit.

Firstly,history has "not even been written" about this topic. There will be an ongoing Congressional investigation into this matter. So it would be hard to "re-write" something that hasn't even been "investigated and written" yet,now wouldn't it?

Secondly,Libby did not act alone in this. May be it was not Cheney,even though some jurors seem to strongly feel he DID play a part in it,something YOU have failed to address to this point As a matter of fact? You've addressed NONE of my points.


But SOMEBODY else,be it one of Libby's aides,more of Cheney's aide's,or someone has also played a part in this. Or are you naive enough,or do you expect others to be naive enough to believe Libby was the ONLY one in the VP's office to know about any of these details and help cover them up?

Now,are you ready to address my questions? That I've asked twice now? Didn't think so.

Waxman Asks Fitzgerald to Testify Before Congress
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Thursday 08 March 2007

Congressman Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said Thursday he wants Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to testify before his committee about his investigation into the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame-Wilson's identity. Plame-Wilson, Waxman's office said, has agreed to testify before Congress on March 16.

The announcement comes on the heels of a story first reported by Truthout on Wednesday, which stated that some members of Congress were engaged in discussions Tuesday about the possibility of holding immediate hearings and asking Fitzgerald to provide evidence he obtained during the course of his three-year investigation about the roles Vice President Dick Cheney and other White House officials played in the Plame leak. Plame is married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a fierce critic of the Iraq war who accused the administration of "twisting" pre-war intelligence. The Oversight Committee hearing, scheduled for March 16, comes nearly four years to the day that the US invaded Iraq.

In his letter to Fitzgerald dated March 8, Waxman requested a meeting with Fitzgerald to discuss whether the special prosecutor can voluntarily appear before his committee.

"I recognize that as a federal prosecutor, you are constrained by the rules of grand jury secrecy," Waxman's letter states. "But you undoubtedly recognize that Congress has a responsibility to examine the policy and accountability questions that your investigation has raised. As a result of your investigation, you have a singular understanding of the facts and their implications that bear directly on the issues before Congress.... Your investigation had a narrow legal focus: Were any federal criminal statutes violated by White House officials?"

On Tuesday, a jury in Washington, DC convicted former vice presidential staffer I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of obstruction of justice, lying to investigators and perjury over when and how he learned that Plame was employed by the CIA and whether he disclosed that information to the media.

During a press conference Tuesday, Fitzgerald said if Congress inquired about his probe he would "do what's appropriate."

"After the verdict was announced yesterday, one juror expressed the view that former chief of staff to the vice president Libby was only a 'fall guy,'" Waxman said in his letter to Fitzgerald. "This juror's views encapsulated questions that many in Congress and the public have about whether the ultimate responsibility for the outing of Ms. Wilson rests with more senior officials in the White House."

Waxman said the Libby trial raised important questions about whether "senior White House officials, including the vice president and senior adviser to the president Karl Rove, complied with the requirements governing the handling of classified information" related to Plame's classified status within the CIA. "They also raise questions about whether the White House took appropriate remedial action following the leak, and whether the existing requirements are sufficient to protect against future leaks. Your perspective on these matters is important."

Two years ago, Waxman called for Congressional hearings to determine if there was a White House conspiracy to unmask Plame's covert status in retaliation for the criticism Wilson leveled against the administration's Iraq policy.

"I think that the Congress must hold hearings, bring Karl Rove in, put him under oath, and let him explain the situation from his point of view," Waxman said during an interview with Democracy Now in July 2005. "Let him tell us what happened. It's ridiculous that Congress should stay out of all of this and not hold hearings."

At the time of Waxman's comments, it was unknown how involved Cheney was in the matter. But two weeks ago, during closing arguments, Cheney was implicated in the leak. It was the first time Fitzgerald acknowledged that Cheney was intimately involved in the scandal and may have told Libby to leak Plame's status to the media. Fitzgerald told jurors that his investigation into the true nature of the vice president's involvement was impeded because Libby obstructed justice.

Libby's attorney, Theodore Wells, told jurors during closing arguments that Fitzgerald and his deputy have been attempting to build a case of conspiracy against the vice president and Libby, and that the prosecution believes Libby may have lied to federal investigators and a grand jury to protect Cheney.

At issue were a set of talking points Cheney dictated in July 2003 that the vice president's former chief of staff was instructed to discuss with the media, including information about Plame. The discussions with the media were supposed to be centered around Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, and the fact that he accused the White House of misrepresenting intelligence related to Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium from Niger, according to testimony by Cathie Martin, Cheney's former communications director.

During the trial, Martin testified that she was present when Cheney dictated talking points about Wilson, but Wells said in his closing arguments that there was a clear implication by the prosecution that Martin may not have been privy to some of the private conversations that took place between Cheney and Libby regarding Plame.

"Now, I think the government, through its questions, really tried to put a cloud over Vice President Cheney," Libby's attorney Theodore Wells told jurors Tuesday, according to a transcript of the closing arguments obtained by Truthout. "The prosecutors questioned Ms. Martin: 'Well, you weren't with Mr. Libby and the vice president all the time. Some things could have happened when you weren't there.' And the clear suggestions by the questions were, well, maybe there was some kind of skullduggery, some kind of scheme between Libby and the vice president going on in private, but that's unfair."

Rebutting the defense's assertion that Cheney was not behind the leak, Fitzgerald told jurors: "You know what? [Wells] said something here that we're trying to put a cloud on the vice president. We'll talk straight. There is a cloud over the vice president. He sent Libby off to [meet with former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting - the two hour meeting - the defendant talked about the wife [Plame]. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened."

"If you think that the vice president and the defendant 'Scooter' Libby weren't talking about [Plame] during the week where the vice president writes that [Plame] sent [Wilson] on a junket - in [Wilson's] July 6 column, the vice president moves the number one talking point, 'not clear who authorized [Wilson's Niger trip] - if you think that's a coincidence, well, that makes no sense."

Moreover, copies of handwritten notes by Vice President Dick Cheney - first reported by Truthout - introduced during Libby's trial also appeared to implicate George W. Bush in the leak case.

Bush has long maintained that he was unaware of attacks by any member of his administration against [former ambassador Joseph] Wilson. The ex-envoy's stinging rebukes of the administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence led Libby and other White House officials to leak Wilson's wife's covert CIA status to reporters in July 2003 in an act of retaliation.

But Cheney's notes, which were introduced into evidence during Libby's trial, called into question the truthfulness of President Bush's vehement denials about his prior knowledge of the attacks against Wilson. The revelation that Bush may have known all along that there was an effort by members of his office to discredit the former ambassador raises the question: Was the president also aware that senior members of his administration compromised Valerie Plame's undercover role with the CIA? That is a question that very well may be answered if and when Fitzgerald testifies before Congress.

Further, the highly explicit nature of Cheney's comments not only hints at a rift between Cheney and Bush over what Cheney felt was the scapegoating of Libby, but also raises serious questions about potentially criminal actions by Bush. If Bush did indeed play an active role in encouraging Libby to take the fall to protect Karl Rove, as Libby's lawyers articulated in their opening statements, then that could be viewed as criminal involvement by Bush.

Libby's defense team first discussed the notes - written by Cheney in September 2003 for White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan - during opening statements last week. Wells said that Cheney had written, "Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others": A reference to Libby being asked to deal with the media and vociferously rebut Wilson's allegations that the Bush administration knowingly "twisted" intelligence to win support for the war in Iraq.

However, when Cheney wrote the notes, he had originally written "this Pres." instead of "that was."

During cross-examination by Libby's attorneys, David Addington was asked specific questions about Cheney's notes and the reference to President Bush. Addington, former counsel to the vice president, was named Cheney's chief of staff after Libby resigned.

"Can you make out what's crossed out, Mr. Addington?" Wells asked, according to a copy of the transcript of Tuesday's court proceedings.

"It says 'the guy,' and then it says 'this Pres.,' and then that is scratched through," Addington said.

"OK," Wells said. "Let's start again. 'Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy ...,' and then what's scratched through?" Wells asked Addington again, attempting to establish that Cheney had originally written that President Bush personally asked Libby to beat back Wilson's criticisms.

"T-h-i-s space P-r-e-s," Addington said, spelling out the words. "And then it's got a scratch-through."

"So it looks like 'this Pres.?'" Wells asked again.

"Yes sir," Addington said.

Thus, Cheney's notes would have read "not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others." The words "this Pres." were crossed out and replaced with "that was," but are still clearly legible in the document.

The reference to "the meat grinder" was understood to be the Washington press corps, Wells said. The "protect one staffer" reference, Wells said, was White House Political Adviser Karl Rove, whose own role in the leak and the attacks on Wilson are well documented.

On Tuesday, during his press conference on the steps of a federal courthouse in Washington, DC, Fitzgerald reiterated his belief that the vice president was complicit in the leak.

The revelation by Fitzgerald on Tuesday and during closing arguments two weeks earlier led to widespread speculation that Fitzgerald had Cheney in his crosshairs. During a news conference Tuesday, Fitzgerald said he would further investigate others if he receives additional information.

Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, who led the push for the appointment of a special prosecutor in 2003 to investigate the leak, said the Libby trial demonstrated to him that Libby was indeed the "fall guy" and was covering up for other officials who "remain unpunished."

"That is the real tragedy of this," Schumer said.

Juror Denis Collins, a former Washington Post reporter, who at one time worked alongside Post reporter Bob Woodward, agreed.

***** "It was said a number of times, what are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys? I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy," Collins said during a news conference Tuesday. ******

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030807Z.shtml

Quote:

---

***** "It was said a number of times, what are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove? Where are these other guys? I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was, as Mr. Wells put it, he was the fall guy," Collins said during a news conference Tuesday. ******

---

Pit...obviously the jury knew that Libby was taking the fall for Cheney, Rove and whom ever else is involved.

It's kind of sad that some crow about Cheney and Rove not being charged but the moral character of the GOP has gone down the tubes since the Neocons moved into DC.

They, the new neocons, think nothing of lying as evidence, the ground swell of radical righters calling for Libby to be pardoned.

Now we will wait and see just what kind of moral compass Bush possess. But most of Americans already know that answer as Bush lied to start a war...it does not get any worse than that.

Wow, you ONCE AGAIN post an article that has absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE in it as some sort of proof. You are really laughable, Pit. Of course, you did put in bold that a DEMOCRAT has been using this as a political football calling for a special investigation. It's pretyy cut and dry, though. The article states a meeting took place between Libby and Cheney with SOMEONE ELSE PRESENT. It says what was to be discussed. Those are the actual facts. I see attempts to change tose facts....that's why you posted the article.

As for your "points", you have none. You have ONE JUROR, according to your article, that stated he felt Libby was the fall guy. That makes it a fact? Again, if someone finds some ACTUAL EVIDENCE, then you might be on to something. Until then, it's nothing more than the typical crap from you and mac. You see, Pit, I like to have ACTUAL EVIDENCE before I decide if someone is guilty of something.

You want me to address your points, yet YOU continue to ignore the things I called you on. You know, like your accusation that I'm biased and don't care about the death of my own family members. Keep ducking and dodging though, Pit. It's all you ever do. Just like saying you aren't "rewriting history" by talking about something that has NOTHING to do with what I posted. You rewrote history, and that's a kind way of saying you flat out lied, about you were noly asking questions. Your quote shows otherwise. Of course, you'll resort to your usual MO in this by ignoring what you did, spin it into something else (as you tried to in the last post), or just continue with your accusations with no evidence. Same crap, different day.

Mac, "obviously" ONE jury member thought that. I love how you and Pit always twist what's being reported. Here's a simple challenge, mac. Prove it. Prove your accusations. Don't just sit there and think that because you and Pit WANT this to be fact that it is. Cite some actual EVIDENCE, not just your own biased opinion as fact. You see, in this country, there is a PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. So, prove your accusations. Libby was found guilty of perfjury. He's guilty. Now, prove your other accusations on Cheney and others. Until then, stop hurling insults and calling people names just because they are holding you and Pit and all the others so desperate to convict people without facts to the the standard held in this country, innocent until proven guilty. I'll say this again, mac, since Pit ignores it. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that I put Bush & Cheney above the lives of my family members that died in Iraq? Are you seriously that desperate to invent facts to try to sway peoples' opinions? Please, if there was ACTUAL EVIDENCE that the intel was fabricated, I would be the first in line to hang all involved. Right now, all you have is your own biased statements. Put up or shut up, mac....and I'm not talking about you posting links to people trying to interpret what's going on, but to ACTUAL EVIDENCE. You won't post it because as of right now it doesn't exist. I'm sure it won't stop you from your rants, though.

I showed that a JUROR thinks Libby was the fall guy for others in the White House AFTER seeing all of the evidence in this trial. I showed you that the Congress will continue to investigate this matter to get to the bottom of it.

You? You seem to think you saw all of the evidence. You seem to think you know more than these jurors. You seem to wish to ignore what this jury believes after they DID see all of the evidence. You don't seem to care either.

If playing dumb suits your style Coach,so be it. I'm looking at what "the jurors" believe. I'm looking at what those who actually SAW all of the evidence have to say. I'm smart enough to understand they saw and heard information we did not. See,I can actually learn from others who have more information than I do on a subject. While others? Would rather play ostrich and bury their heads in the sand.

Hopefully you may find some sand crabs for dinner while you're down there.

LOL, great job of spinning your OWN POST, Pit! You said that you are tlkaing about "one juror", then in the next paragraph talk about how the "jurors" see things. Keep spinning, Pit.

Again, Pit, you have to resort to insults because you can't provide any evidence. Keep ignoring the other things you get called on, too, Pit. You continue to ignore your ignorance you spewed and I continue to call you on. I don't expect you to actually talk about it, though. Typical Pit....all spin and no evidence and when called on it, resorts to more insults.

Get back to me when you actually find ANY EVIDENCE that proves what you desperately want to be true. Until then, keep digging that hole, Pit. If you could learn from others that know more than you, as you say, you'd learn about the one thing you want to ignore....innocent until proven guilty. Funny how you ignore that in your zeal and eagerness to sling mud and try to get it to stick.

Keep up with the spin and lies, Pit. You have nothing else. Again, I ask you, are you SERIOUSLY saying that if there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE that intel was manipulated that I will deny it? Are you SERIOUSLY saying that I would defend those guilty and responsible for the death of two of my family members? You keep ducking that when I called you on it. I'm not surprised, though. You HAVE to in order to continue the insulting and dismissive posts. You're sad, Pit. You want everyone except for the Bush Administration to be innocent until proven guilty. I guess that is only for pot smokers like Vick, though, in your world. Of course, there was ACTUAL EVIDENCE about Vick, though. Yet you call me "biased". Pathetic, Pit.

For Cheney, Political Toll May Follow Libby Verdict

WASHINGTON, March 6 — In legal terms, the jury has spoken in the Libby case. In political terms, Dick Cheney is still awaiting a judgment.

Diary of the Leak Trial For weeks, Washington watched, mesmerized, as the trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr. cast Vice President Cheney, his former boss, in the role of puppeteer, pulling the strings in a covert public relations campaign to defend the Bush administration’s case for war in Iraq and discredit a critic.

“There is a cloud over the vice president,” the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, told the jury in summing up the case last month.

Mr. Cheney was not charged in the case, cooperated with the investigation and expressed a willingness to testify if called, though he never was. Yet he was a central figure throughout, fighting back against suggestions that he and President Bush had taken the country to war on the basis of flawed intelligence, showing himself to be keenly sensitive to how he was portrayed in the news media and backing Mr. Libby to the end.

With Tuesday’s verdict on Mr. Libby — guilty on four of five counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice — Mr. Cheney’s critics, and even some of his supporters, said the vice president had been diminished.

“The trial has been death by 1,000 cuts for Cheney,” said Scott Reed, a Republican strategist. “It’s hurt him inside the administration. It’s hurt him with the Congress, and it’s hurt his stature around the world because it has shown a lot of the inner workings of the White House. It peeled the bark right off the way they operate.”

The legal question in the case was whether Mr. Libby lied to investigators and prosecutors looking into the leak of the name of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson, whose husband, the former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, wrote an Op-Ed article in The New York Times accusing the White House of distorting pre-war intelligence. Mr. Cheney scrawled notes on a copy of the article, asking “did his wife send him on a junket?”

Now, Mr. Cheney faces a civil suit from Mr. Wilson.

The political question was whether Mr. Libby, the vice president’s former chief of staff, was “the fall guy” for his boss, in the words of Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. Though the defense introduced a note from Mr. Cheney worrying that Mr. Libby was being sacrificed to protect other White House officials, some say the vice president bears responsibility for the fate of his former aide, known as Scooter.

“It was clear that what Scooter was doing in the Wilson case was at Dick’s behest,” said Kenneth L. Adelman, a former Reagan administration official who has been close with both men but has broken with Mr. Cheney over the Iraq war. “That was clear. It was clear from Dick’s notes on the Op-Ed piece that he wanted to go get Wilson. And Scooter’s not that type. He’s not a vindictive person.”

Mr. Cheney is arguably the most powerful vice president in American history, and perhaps the most secretive. The trial painted a portrait of a man immersed in the kind of political pushback that is common to all White Houses, yet often presumed to be the province of low-level political operatives, not the vice president of the United States.

Prosecutors played a tape of Mr. Libby testifying to a grand jury that Mr. Cheney had asked Mr. Bush to declassify an intelligence report selectively so he, Mr. Libby, could leak it to sympathetic reporters. Mr. Cheney’s hand-written scribbles were introduced into evidence at the trial, including the one that hinted Mr. Cheney believed that his own staffer, Mr. Libby, was being sacrificed.

“’Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat-grinder because of the incompetence of others,” the note read.

Mr. Cheney’s defenders insisted the vice president was not out to smear Mr. Wilson or even clear his own name, but simply to defend a policy he fiercely believed in.

“There wasn’t some Cheney strategy or Wilson strategy,” said Mary Matalin, Mr. Cheney’s former political director. “There was only one strategy: to convey the nature of the intelligence and the nature of the threat.”

Ms. Matalin said Mr. Cheney remained as influential as ever where it counts — with Mr. Bush.

Still, liberal critics of the administration had a field day with the trial. They are hoping the Democrats who now control Congress will use the case to investigate Mr. Cheney’s role further. Mr. Schumer, who was among the first to call for a special prosecutor in the case, suggested in an interview that they might.

“I think there is a view in the public that Libby was the fall guy,” Mr. Schumer said, “and I do think we will look at how the case shows the misuse of intelligence both before and after the war in Iraq.”

Such issues are already of intense interest to scholars, who say the Libby case will invariably shape Mr. Cheney’s legacy.

Historians typically pay scant attention to vice presidents, unless they become president. Mr. Cheney, though, is an exception. The historian Robert Dallek, who has written about presidents including Lyndon B. Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy, predicts scholars will “be racing for vice-presidential records in a way that we’ve never seen before” to answer questions raised by the Libby trial.

“It will deepen the impressions of someone who was a tremendous manipulator and was very defensive about mistakes,” Mr. Dallek said, “and I think it will greatly deepen the impression of a political operator who knew the ins and outs of Washington hardball politics. He’s going to be, I think, the most interesting vice president in history to study.”

Diary of the Leak Trial On a personal level, friends of the vice president say the trial has been deeply painful for him. Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney were all but inseparable — Ms. Matalin has called the former aide “Cheney’s Cheney” — and often started their days by riding to work together. Mr. Libby accompanied the vice president almost everywhere he went, and Mr. Cheney made clear his high professional and personal regard for his aide, even playing host to a book party for him in 2002 at his official residence. Alan K. Simpson, a Republican former senator from Mr. Cheney’s home state, Wyoming, said he saw Mr. Cheney over Christmas and asked how he was doing. He took the answer as a kind of oblique reference to the Libby case.

“He said, ‘I’m fine, I’m O.K., I have people I trust around me — it’s the same old stuff, Al,’ ” Mr. Simpson recalled.

Another friend of Mr. Cheney’s, Vin Weber, a Republican former congressman, said the verdict had “got to be heartbreaking for the vice president.” But Mr. Weber said he wished Mr. Cheney would explain himself.

“I don’t think he has to do a long apologia,” Mr. Weber said, “but I think he should say something, just to pierce the boil a little bit.”

Instead, Mr. Cheney maintained his silence Tuesday. As the verdicts were being read, he went to the Capitol for the Republicans’ regular weekly policy luncheon. Later, he issued a two-paragraph statement saying only that he was disappointed with the verdict, “saddened for Scooter and his family” and would have no further comment while an appeal is pending.

With a career in politics that goes back to the Nixon White House, Mr. Cheney is no stranger to Washington scandal and how to weather it. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said he went hunting with the vice president late last year and did not sense that the trial was bothering him.

“He’s got a thick hide,” Mr. Graham said, “and he needs it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/washin...0Jr%2e&_r=1

Pull the quotes up coach and I'll address them. Pretty simple really. And yes,I think you'll keep excusing them untill there's absoluetly NO OTHER choice. The funny part is? Instead of wanting to dig into this matter to LOOK for the truth,you're too busy defending tham NOW to even try to do that. Sad really..........

Pit....I asked you this question yesterday evening. Please comment as I am anxious to hear your opinion. Thanks

"Do you think the War on Terror would end if someone put Cheney,Rice and Petraius in prison tomorrow???"

No I certainly don't Ralphie.

I do think it will be "re-directed" if it's a war we plan to win though. I agree that it's a global war as well. But instead of attacking "nations and governments" I think you attack "terrorist strongholds" within other nations.

I'm familiar enough with some of these nations like Pakistan,Iraq,Iran and other nations who "have terrorist strongholds within their borders" to understand that some of these governments don't have the manpower,military equipment and intestinal fortitude to attack and apprehend these terrorists who are within their borders.

You see,not only that,but certain people with the power and equipment to disrupt their governments often sympathize with some of these terrorist organizations. Let's use Malaki as an example. He is a Shia as are the majority of the citizens of Iraq. Now we're pushing for him to go hard after Al Sadr. But look at his position?

Sunni death squads were killing innocent Shias and Al Sadr took that same role to even the score with the Sunnis. So many of the Shias in Iraq look at Al Sadr as their hero. The one who got revenge for the deaths of their people. So IF mAlaki goes hard after Al sadr and takes him to trial? If Al Sadr is convicted and jailed or hung? What ramifications would that hold for Malaki and the Iraqi government?

See,I think we must look at the big picture rather than one side of the coin to reslove the "war on terror". I'm sure that the president of Pakistan would very much like to take out all Al Queada within the Pakistani boreders,but he too faces a very similar situation.

Here's the option I would like to see explored. See we DO have to eliminate the terrorists. But leaders of these nations must save face,as well as their asses in their own part of the world at the same time. Do they WANT war with the U.S.? Certainly not. But we're putting them on a tightwire act.

Now see,we can do a flyover and bomb terrorist strongholds. Put some choppers in the air with strategic special forces ops to clean out terrorist strongholds. In and out! This eliminates our terrorist targets without waring with "nations and governments". It gives their leaders the option to say to their people,

" We did not give the U.S. permission to do this. WE did not do this! We believe the U.S. was wrong to ececute a military mission within our borders!"

See,this helps their leaders "save face". It permits their governments to remain stable. This enables them to pacify their people. It eliminates us from 600 billion dollar + wars for years with thousands of troop casualties. It's a pinpoint,accurate and efficiant way to address the terrorists.

And on the world stage? We would look MUCH better! We can tell the world that we must wipe out terrorists. That we did not attack a nation,a people or their government. But rather we "pinpointed the enemy" that lies within their borders. It is for our nations security without compromising the security and governments of Muslim nations.

I'm not against a "war on terrorism". But the government of Pakistan is not a "terrorist government". Sadaam's regime did not "terrorize the U.S.". We can't go around the globe spending 6-8 hundred billion dollars on every nation where a small percentage of terrorists lie within their borders. It's illogical and a very unsound strategy. That's a huge part of this issue.

IF Cheney,Rove or others fabricated the reasons for this war? To artificially make up false accusations in order to "scare the American people" into supporting a war based on that? They should be held accountable for that. They should be held responsible for the deaths of our fallen soldiers.

This would be a war crime of major proportions that must be dealt with in a likewise manner. If a murderer faces the death penalty,will it bring back his victim? No,but would justice be served? Yes. This would be no different.

Would it stop the war? No. Would it force those who IF THEY DID start this war based on lies accountable for their crimes? Yes.

We don't KNOW one way or the other wheather this is the case or not. But so far,there's an awfull lot of smoke for a fire not to exist under there somewhere. But we'll just have to stay tuned for further details at this juncture.

Well,I responded to your question Ralphie. Didn't know if you saw it or not since you never responed? Just wondered?

"If Cheney,Rove or others fabricated the reasons for this war? To artificially make up false accusations in order to "scare the American people" into supporting a war based on that? They should be held accountable for that. They should be held responsible for the deaths of our fallen soldiers.

This would be a war crime of major proportions that must be dealt with in a likewise manner. If a murderer faces the death penalty,will it bring back his victim? No,but would justice be served? Yes. This would be no different.

Would it stop the war? No. Would it force those who IF THEY DID start this war based on lies accountable for their crimes? Yes.

We don't KNOW one way or the other wheather this is the case or not. But so far,there's an awfull lot of smoke for a fire not to exist under there somewhere. But we'll just have to stay tuned for further details at this juncture. "

Pit, I have read your opinion and understand your thinking. I appreciate the deep held beliefs that you hold concerning the Intel Inaccuracies early on.
Some believe that Joe Wilson is a true patriot who told the entire story and the complete truth and was forced to see his wife forced into the public eye.
Some people believe that Joe Wilson was an unaccomplished Democratic pawn who hated the Bush Administation and told a tall tale of supposed events with vague individuals in some vague coffeehouse.

The fact remains that neither "yellow cake" nor WMDs were found....either way the Iraq/Afghanistan campaign is about much more than Joe Wilson's story and his wife's blown cover. I couldn't care less if Libby goes to prison...if Rove arranged the whole episode...if Cheney ordered the entire prelude to Afghanistan invasion. You care ... I don't ...!!!

The Republic is involved in a war against enemies of all good men...cowardly terrorists who kill innocents PURPOSEFULLY!!! They named it Terror.

I deem your posts concerning our actions in Iraq to be not only incorrect but actually from an immature mind. When we invaded Iraq we did cause large scale losses of lives from bombing and targeted attacks against the terrorists who willfully hid among the masses.
Since the early stages of the conflict indiscriminate bombing has not occurred on a large scale...especially when compared to the purposeful terror attacks designed bu the militants to kill innocent civilians.

I honestly believe you don't care if thousands of our soldiers have died based on a pack of lies. That's sad,but I believe it. You want to hear WHY we invaded Iraq in the words of the president? It had NOTHING to do with "terrorists". Or was his 03 State of the Union speech to the American people yet another pack of lies you don't care about?

Either he was completly wrong and we have no further business there according to his reasoning,or he was lying. Take your pick. But either way,the reasons he gave for invading WERE FALSE! So it's past time to move on.

Bottom line? Joe Wilson was right and got attacked,his wife outed as a CIA operative and Libby was convicted on four counts trying to cover it up. An American citizen who TOLD THE TRUTH has suffered at the hands of this administration in order to attempt to add some validity to their false claims. But hell,they don't count for anything either,right? As long as the lie about yellow cake got to scare the hell out of American citizens,it really doesn't matter does it?

This is where you once again make things up to make your point. Wilson didn't "tell the truth"...at least that has been proven. Again, I ask you for EVIDENCE that the intel was fabricated and that Bush lied. You've been spouting that for all these years and HAVE YET to prove it. You also claim that he was punished for it, yet there is no evidence of that, either. I love how you twist what has happened and change the actual guilty verdicts.

IF the intel was a pack of lies, don't you think that those countries that were cited as giving the intel would have been screaming from the rooftops that what Bush said was untrue.....especially now that the war is so unpopular? The only "smoke" that is around is what you've been inhaling that enables you to draw these conclusions. Again, Pit, you were so adamant about Vick being innocent until proven guilty, but you are already proclaiming others of guilt and you don't have any evidence, let alone a conviction. I guess your staunch defense of the accused's rights stops when it is someone you want so desperately to be guilty.

Ralphie, you're right about Phil, too. Not only that, but he never lets facts get in the way of his rants. Just ignore him. He claims to want to deal with factgs and debate, yet never does.

Pit...you must have missed the numerous posts where I have stated that if he lied...he lied. Send him away for 30 years if you like. Send Rove and Cheney if you like also.

I care deeply what happens to our men and women overseas. My younger brother is still in the service and while he's done 3 trips to Iraq he now rests in the comfy confines of Korea...waiting to be called upon to return to the Arabian litter box. My other brother finished his 25 years and out last year with 2 trips to Iraq...so I care.

But they are there now...and it is a good and just conflict against really bad,bad guys. The conflict would exist worldwide if we had not entered Afghanistan/Iraq anyways. We battle is to be fought and will continue as cutting off funding for this conflict would mean disaster for the military,Iraqi citizens and the long term health of our nation and 2 party system.

So you see that the lies if they are lies need to be exposed...continue on and hold a decade of hearings!!!! Put untruthful politicians in the news and courtrooms...what a novel approach to lying pols.
I'll follow the conflicts' progress with hope,prayers and support whatever way I can...and I'm sure you'll do the same.

Exactly, Ralphie. If these things happened, then I fully support going after Bush or whoever was responsible. The problem is that there hasn't been anything proven yet, it's the same thing that has been going on for years....alot of accusations without actual proof. If there is evidence of the intel being falsified, then I will be one of the first, having lost two family members in this war, to scream for the people responsible to be brought to justice. I just have this little problem of convicting people with no evidence. Pit does, too.....unless it's someone he really despises.

... "We know he has reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons, and we know he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al Qaeda "...


....."I think there's going to be skepticism until people find out there was, in fact, a weapons of mass destruction program. "..

..."Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

..."where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat"...

....."We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. This is what this war was about and is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."

..."The president has made very clear that the reason why we are in Iraq is to find weapons of mass destruction. Very clearly, we need to find this stuff or people are going to be asking questions."

..."America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

ABOVE ARE A FEW OF THE COMMENTS and statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration before the war and in the early months of the war.

Were any of these claims true?

DEFINITION OF "LIE"...1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
..................................2 : to create a false or misleading impression
.................................transitive senses : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble

Bush started the Iraq war because he said Sadam was a threat to America because Iraq/Sadam possessed WMDs.

Under our democracy, there is no greater responsibility for a Commander in Chief than to send soldiers under his command into a War.

How many of the WMDs that Bush claimed were in Iraq have been found in Iraq?

The buck stops at the Commander in Chief as he is the individual with the final say.

That is the responsibility our President accepts when he or she takes the oath of office.

The Commander in Chief weighs the evidence and then makes his decission.

Bush chose War and to date, not one WMD that Bush claimed was in Iraq, has been found.

Before some start spinning, show me one statement where Bush said they found the WMD he based the War on?

To date, 3195 brave American soldiers have died in Iraq and not one WMD that Bush based his invasion of Iraq on, has been found.

Mac, there is a difference in being wrong and lying. That's what you are having troucle dealing with. There were 3 independant intelligence groups that concluded there were WMDs...and I'm not talking U.S. intelligence sources (that's more for Pit stating that one group was in power at the time). You provided what was stated by the administration from the intelligence. I don't see anything you've said that proves that there was a lie told or that the intel was fabricated. There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Are you saying anytime you've been wrong you were lying? Please.

Pit, I'm all for investigating to see if these things actually took place. IF there is evidence, I want those responsible to be brought to justice. I will be the FIRST to be incensed and demand action, as I lost two family members in the war. Where we differ is that you have stated throughout this thread a presumption of guilt and have already drawn conclusions. I want evidence. I think when making accusations of this sort, it is just as important, if not more, to have evidence because of the magnitude of the charges. I'm not saying no one is guilty of anything. I'm saying that there hasn't been any evidence to bear it out so far.

For some time now we have each been stating our feelings about the Libby case...the Cheney involvement...the WMD falsehood or miscalculation...the Bush culpability in the reasons to go to Iraq.

Where we have a difference of opinion I believe is that you believe the President should be disciplined in some way if it can be proven his miscalculation was an outright lie and ploy to unethically drum up support for the venture in Iraq. I have no problem investigating this but intent is a diifcult thing to prove and it is necessary that it be proven in this case.
With that said whether he is disciplined and censured or more...even if he is thrown out of office the Iraqi Campaign needs to continue until decided by win,loss or truce with compromise. nothing changes.....

Quote:

---

Mac, there is a difference in being wrong and lying. That's what you are having troucle dealing with. There were 3 independant intelligence groups that concluded there were WMDs...and I'm not talking U.S. intelligence sources (that's more for Pit stating that one group was in power at the time). You provided what was stated by the administration from the intelligence. I don't see anything you've said that proves that there was a lie told or that the intel was fabricated. There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Are you saying anytime you've been wrong you were lying? Please.

---

coachb...So your a subscriber to passing the buck to someone else?

Bush is not the Commander in Chief responsible for sending soldiers to fight and die in Iraq for his claims of WMDs?

Either Bush is incredibly inept as Commander in Chief, not getting one claim correct concerning his WMD claims or Bush is an incredible liar. Either way, our troops suffer the consequences.

Though I came to my conclusion some time ago concerning what Bush did, it warms my heart to see an overwhelming majority of Americans have joined my viewpoint.

Those of you who think someone else forced Bush to be wrong on every count concerning his WMD claims, thankfully, your part of the vast minority in America now.

Again, either our troops are under the command of the most inept Commander in Chief in our nations history or Bush lied to the troops about WMDs just to get them involved in his Iraq war.

The choice is simple, do you love your politics more than our soldiers?

I'm comfortable loving our soldiers more than politics.

Sadly, I feel that some are placing politics ahead of our soldiers. Those folks and Bush have to live with that choice.

Plame: I felt like I had been hit in the gut

Says White House treated her CIA identity 'recklessly' for political reasons

WASHINGTON - Valerie Plame, the CIA operative at the heart of a political scandal, told Congress Friday that senior officials at the White House and State Department "carelessly and recklessly" blew her cover to discredit her diplomat-husband.

Plame, whose 2003 outing triggered a federal investigation, said she always knew her identity could be discovered by foreign governments.

"It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover," she told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"If our government cannot even protect my identity, future foreign agents who might consider working with the Central Intelligence Agency and providing needed intelligence would think twice," Plame said in response to a question.

When asked how the release of her identity affected her, Plame said, "I felt like I had been hit in the gut."

The hearing was the first time Plame has publicly answered questions about the case, which led to the recent perjury and obstruction of justice conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Her appearance was a moment of gripping political theater as Democrats questioned whether the Bush administration mishandled classified information by leaking her identity to reporters. No one has been charged with leaking her identity.

"It's not our job to determine criminal culpability, but it is out job to determine what went wrong and insist on accountability," Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said at the outset of the hearing.

No testimony from Fitzgerald
The man who led the criminal investigation, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, was not on the witness list. He told lawmakers Wednesday that federal law prohibited him from offering his thoughts on the case.

Nobody from the White House involved in the leak was scheduled to testify. Neither were officials from the State Department, where the first leak of Plame's identity occurred, or the CIA.

Plame sat alone at a witness table and fielded questions about her CIA career and the disclosure of her name in July 2003 in a story by syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Novak has said that former Deputy State Department Secretary Richard Armitage first revealed Plame's job and President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, and CIA spokesman Bill Harlow confirmed it.

"My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior officials in the White House and State Department," Plame testified. "I could no longer perform the work for which I had been highly trained."

Plame said she had no role in sending her husband on a CIA fact-finding trip to Niger. Wilson said in a newspaper column that his trip debunked the administration's prewar intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa.

"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.

That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.

Plame also repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.

But the word "covert" also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service and active efforts to keep someone's identity secret. Critics of Fitzgerald's investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and said that's why nobody was charged with the leak.

Also, none of the witnesses who testified at Libby's trial said it was clear that Plame's job was classified.

However, Fitzgerald said flatly at the courthouse after the verdict that Plame's job was classified.

The issue was not clarified during the trial because the defense persuaded U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to keep that information out of testimony because Libby wasn't charged with leaking classified information.

Rep. Tom Davis, the ranking Republican on the committee, said, "No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified. This looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem."

Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was but said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.

"They all knew that I worked with the CIA," Plame said. "They might not have known what my status was but that alone - the fact that I worked for the CIA - should have put up a red flag."

Wilson has written a book, and Plame is working on one, "Fair Game," although it has had a troubled history. In May 2006, the Crown Publishing Group announced it would publish her book, a deal reportedly worth seven figures. But the two sides could not agree on a final contract, and two months later an agreement was announced with Simon & Schuster.

Plame's book is subject to a mandatory review by the CIA. On Thursday, Simon & Schuster spokesman Adam Rothberg would say only that the book was "in progress," and that publication was expected soon.

Scheduled to testify Friday were attorney Mark Zaid, who has represented whistle-blowers; attorney Victoria Toensing, who said early on that no law was broken and has criticized the CIA's handling of the case, and J. William Leonard, security director of the National Archives, who was to discuss general procedures for handling sensitive information.

James Knodell, director of the White House security office, also could attend to discuss general security procedures, committee officials said.

After the outing
Plame's life changed the day her name appeared in a newspaper column, her job as a CIA officer exposed in black and white.

She goes before the committee Friday as both a shadowy figure and a celebrity, with lucrative book and movie deals in the works, a magazine cover in her past and her unceremonious unmasking four years ago the subject of persistent intrigue.

Now she is lifting the veil by her own hand, and to maximum effect.

The full House of Representatives is not in session Friday and Plame's only competition for attention in Washington is a Senate subcommittee hearing on next year's budget for smaller federal agencies, and the annual St. Patrick's Day exchange of shamrocks at the White House between President Bush and Ireland's prime minister. In other words, it's no contest.

She's telling her story to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where Democrats are eager to explore the circumstances of her outing and how the White House responded to the leak of her identity.

Few words, many appearances
Although she's had little to say publicly, Plame has made more than a few splashy appearances with her husband. Last month alone, the Wilsons attended a book party for Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic Party chairman, and were spotted having lunch with actress Morgan Fairchild at the Four Seasons.

Then there was last year's announcement that they were suing Bush administration officials they blame for ending her career. They rubbed elbows with Washington's glitterati at a celebrity-studded awards dinner for the White House press corps that year.

The couple famously posed in his Jaguar for the January 2004 cover of Vanity Fair magazine. A scarf covered Plame's blonde hair and dark sunglasses hid her eyes - deepening the sense of mystery.

The book
The disclosure of Plame's name closed one chapter in her life, but opened others.

The mother of 7-year-old twins, a boy and girl, is putting final touches on a book about her life and the leak of her name, tentatively titled "Fair Game," for which publisher Simon & Schuster paid her an advance of over $1 million.

"She is hopeful she'll be able to get it out soon," Wilson said last week. "She's in discussion with the CIA about it."

Plame submitted the manuscript to the CIA for a mandatory review, which is done to make sure the book tells no government secrets. It was returned to Plame, who left the agency in January 2006, with suggestions.

"We are all awaiting Ms. Wilson's resubmission," CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said Thursday. "In most cases, we are able to work it out in a way that satisfies everyone's concerns."

Adam Rothberg, a spokesman for Simon & Schuster, on Thursday would say only that the book was "in progress," with publication expected soon.

The movie
Plame's story also is headed for the big screen. Warner Bros. is developing a film based on the couple's lives, a screenplay is being written and Plame and her husband are expected to serve as consultants.

Asked who he'd like to play them in the movie, Wilson, who has done most of the couple's talking, joked: "I don't know. I would only ask that Jack Black be cast in a role other than that of Joe Wilson."

The civil case against Bush administration officials also is moving forward, and that will keep both of their names in the headlines - long after their imminent move to New Mexico. Arguments are set for May 17 in U.S. District Court.

Plame and her husband blame Vice President Dick Cheney; presidential adviser Karl Rove; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage for revealing her identity and, effectively, ending her career.

"Valerie wishes none of this ever happened," said Melanie Sloan, an attorney who represents Plame in the lawsuit and who directs the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "She had the life she wanted. She had the job she wanted."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17643269/

Here are the facts of the case from the beginning....much too long to post. A most interesting read:

factcheck.org

The White House has to be absolutely elated that people are so focused on whether or not Plame was covert or Wilson had an agenda. In fact, they're probably sending all major media outlets fruit baskets as we speak. It's maddening sometimes what people focus on. The real crux of this Niger/yellow cake issue is that the President presented information to the American people that U.S. intelligence agencies and his administration knew to be false...and yet somehow, the nation remains fixated on the Plame/Wilson saga.

Thanks J. It is very interesting to say the least.

I swore off Iraqi political discussions last week and hoped to stay off the thread...but I am weak and easily goaded.

After 4 years in Iraq I do not see anything which would suggest that we refuse to change course. We have changed leadership several times after the miscalculation of how much the Iraqis were willing to do for themselves.
This surge may have a positive effect in crucial areas and actually reduce the murder and mayhem which is part of the radical Islamic culture. It appears to have a good chance of success. And most Americans pray that it does.

The real test will come when, God willing, the surge accelerates the progress of Iraqi self policing with out outside activism. That test will be whether the loyal opposition in DC gives credit when due .... I'm a doubtin' it!