I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, has been indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury (two counts), and making false statements (two counts). (The prosecution let him off on what were, in my opinion, his greatest offenses: stealing a little kid's nickname and violating H. Ross Perot's trademark of promoting his middle name to replace his first name and demoting his first name to a mere initial.) In addition to Karl Rove's name not appearing in the indictments, the omission of actual charges on the release of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the media is striking. Today's indictments give further credence to the adage that it's not the crime, but the coverup.
I am entirely uninterested in "L'affaire Plame."
I am, however, quite interested in the fact that this whole "affair" stems from the neocon cabal's lies about Iraqi wmd capabilities. Recall, that the WH attempts to undermine that jerk Joe Wilson were over his exposing the Niger "yellow cake" claims to be willful fabrications . . . which they were.
That is what is interesting and I find it quite pathetic that Libby/Rove, et. al. will possibly be brought down and Bush lame-ducked based on a stupid cover-up of an almost non-issue about "outing" some Langley desk jockey. That only goes to show how complicit the media and Dems are in the run-up to an unjust and stupid war which is the real scandal of this presidency.
(Where is a Ben to point out how similar I sound to Cindy Sheehan?)
Brian, you need to bone up on the timeline of the Joe Wilson expose! First, Wilson's original report actually bolstered the CIA version of events, as he reported back that Saddam had indeed sought to purchase uranium. It was some eight months AFTER Wilson returned that the documents that he claimed to have discredited, and thought to be forgeries, even ENTERED the intelligence pipeline.
So if you want to list some lies, here's some to add:
1. Wilson lied about his wife's involvement in getting him asked to make the trip (heatedly denying it on more than one occasion), and instead stronly inferred he had been recommended by Dick Cheney.
2. He lied about the timing of the forged documents. By the way, the CIA interpreted Wilson's original debrief from his trip as mildly supportive of the claim that Iraq was seeking yellow-cake in Niger.
I truly don't mind having fact-based discussions on just about any subject. But let's, as Joe Friday said, have "just the facts".
Um, you people are way off base on this one. Discrediting Joe Wilson is actually irrevelant because it was the IAEA who made the Bush Administration eat its words when it revealed the uranium documents were forgeries. Take Joe Wilson out of the picture and it doesn't change one iota.
We can debate whether Joe Wilson's report strengthened the suspicion Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, but Wilson's report conclusively stated that any attempted purchase would be almost impossible. And it wasn't just Joe Wilson who had this quirky theory, but the U.S. ambassador to Niger, Barbara O. Kirkpatrick, also told Joe Wilson the story was bunk and thought his trip was a waste of time. But it doesn't stop there either. Eight days after President Bush uttered the now infamous 16 words in the State of the Address, Colin Powell goes before the United Nations and doesn't say a thing about an Iraqi attempt to acquire uranium. So obviously Colin Powell thought the uranium claim was in the BS section along with the rest of the "info" provided by Cheney's office.
Let's say Joe Wilson has never made one truthful statement in his life. That doesn't change the fact that the Bush Administration deliberately and without evidence incited hysteria by suggesting Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapon program, and concocted ominous scenarios about "mushroom clouds," and other assorted nonsense.
So keep "discrediting" Joe Wilson all you want. It still won't change the fact the Bush Administration has already discredited itself.
Facts of the matter.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
pg 46 and on...
"I am entirely uninterested in "L'affaire Plame."
I am, however, quite interested in the fact that this whole "affair" stems from the neocon cabal's lies about Iraqi wmd capabilities. Recall, that the WH attempts to undermine that jerk Joe Wilson were over his exposing the Niger "yellow cake" claims to be willful fabrications . . . which they were.
That is what is interesting and I find it quite pathetic that Libby/Rove, et. al. will possibly be brought down and Bush lame-ducked based on a stupid cover-up of an almost non-issue about "outing" some Langley desk jockey. That only goes to show how complicit the media and Dems are in the run-up to an unjust and stupid war which is the real scandal of this presidency.
(Where is a Ben to point out how similar I sound to Cindy Sheehan?)" -Brian
Well you're certainly no Sheehan, but you might be as intellectually dishonest.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003552.php
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=283338&attrib_id=7580
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008190.php
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A76_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A75_0_2_0_C/
More on request.
As far as I know, Ben L doesn't come here anymore. I don't come here much either. The only thing I disagree with most of you about is Iraq and it's been a while since we've had any opportunity for fiery debate on that issue.
Nice strawman there, I like how you worked in the "Oh they are in favor of the war so they must be mindless rednecks!" angle with the Sheehan referance. Very good work.
I suppose it one good turn deserves another, so here goes.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE AMERICA YOU CAN JUST GEEEET OUT YOU PINKO-FACIST COMMIE LOVIN SUNOFABEETCH!
satisfied?
You go Ben-T! As I said, I for one never mind an honest debate, but by definition this involves facts; cold hard facts. No emotion. No name-calling. Opinions are fine if identified as such; opinions are like...., well, you know the rest.
