I am too dense to figure out why it is that a prosecutor did not prosecute the "crime"
I know Bush lies... that is not the point, and if you would bother to ask critical questions, maybe you would get the point I am trying to make.
it is not just Armitage.. NOBODY was convicted of committing any crime other than lying about what was said in a conversation to reporters AFTER the "crime" had been committed!
So you can continue to behave like the rest of the lemmings while I go back under my rock....
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 587 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 11:47:40 AM
The first step in recovery is admitting a problem. But unfortunately the old adage comes to mind: "The wise man can play the fool, but the fool can't play the wise man."
Demonstrating and admitting you don't have the capacity to think this out kind of puts a ceiling on your thinking process. Perhaps reading "Fair Game" might help. That is unless books scare you, much like our fearless leader, as do facts and critical thinking.
You can now crawl back and I have no need of further converse with you until you have something of intelligence to say.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1425 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 12:08:54 PM
...that there's no crime because no one was indicted. That's an interesting view of the real world. By your logic, those murders, assaults, etc. that are not prosecuted with a conviction aren't crimes. But that's just the start. Your initial comment was already answered quite effectively. With regard to what I may or may not choose to write (my choice), you might simply ignore what I write instead of adding to readership with this minor flap and making my writing look even more logical compared to your strange argumentation.
by
Michael Collins (96 articles, 16 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 344 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 1:29:59 PM
The reason we don't see this on the front page is because of the of the enormity of this crime.
There are crimes so horrendous as to scare reporters away. History is riddled with them. Gen. Smedley Butler's exposing the coup of 1933, the attack against the USS Liberty, are just two examples. Recently there's the Sible Edmonds case. Why is she being silenced? Every year a book is published of the top censored stories of the year. It makes for good reading and one has to wonder why these stories too are buried.
If you haven't seen Orwell Rolls in His Grave, please do. It does a masterful job of showing how the consolidation of news networks by major corporations have a big hand in making sure the no one up-sets that status-qua. To anyone that thinks that there isn't a conspiracy by those that own much of the wealth to keep the rest of this in the dark, to you more than those that already know, this DVD should be required viewing.
If indeed the truth ever comes out about the Plame/Wilson case we're talking about a crime of high treason committed by the top officials in office. Meaning that the top 5 or 6 are guilty of a crime that carries the penalty of death. If you were a reporter and after seeing what these sociopaths are capable of and knowing the power they yield, and having pressure from your bosses to bury this story, how many have the courage or wheretofore to fight those odds? Is it any wonder that reporters like Greg Palast had to leave the country in order to have his stories published?
Palast has iron-clad evidence of Election Fraud committed by this administration. One would think that outside of treason this would be front page news too. But do we see it anywhere? After the 2000 election farce one would think that a massive effort would have been made to have uniform, verifiable system of elections. Not only has that not happen, it's gotten worse! Why isn't this also news?
Why haven't we seen more headlines about the trillions of dollars that have disappeared down the coffers of the likes of Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, Carlyle Group and others? Do you think it's because the same people making money off these corporations also own the TV networks, newspapers, and magazines? If so, you win the Thinking Man's Cup. It isn't worth anything, but it could get you in trouble. Do you think NBC, owned by GE, one of the worlds largest providers of weapons of war, are going to do a story exposing GE's war-profiteering?
Look up Bilderberg Group. Ask yourself after studying this why we don't hear about the top 120 or so movers and shakers, world leaders, industrialists, media mongrels, politicians and the wealthiest of the world that meet in secret every year at different locations around the world? Do you think they get together to play Bridge?
And with bills being passed like the one before the Senate now, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act ,that's being "fast tracked", meaning that most won't even read it, that will put free speech and dessent on the chopping block, putting sites like this and anyone the government deems a threat, because of what they say in danger of being scooped-up and held in some Kaufian hell isn't being mentioned either by the M$M.
The revolution will not be televised.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1425 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 11:56:53 AM
One point that I make elsewhere is that there's no point complaining about the citizens who support Bush-Cheney. They have more than plausible deniability, they're lied to non stop. Give the hard core, maybe 25%, right wing a set of lies and they can then support this monsterous act and the general pattern of tyranical behavior we've seen. Present the news in a fair way to all and many of those hard core will, as we're seeing now, melt away and simply stay home. A look at the 2004 electorate showed a huge drop in the percentage of rural voters and an actual drop in votes for Bush. But we didn't hear that on election night or thereafter. Why? Because they needed a red-blue election to explain what was, in fact, a stolen election. Hopefully, we'll get to 80% disapproval of Bush-Cheney before they sink our ship entirely. 80% will motivate even this Congress;)
by
Michael Collins (96 articles, 16 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 344 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 1:40:58 PM
Let's see if our "little friend" agrees. He'll have to, don't you think? Extremely well put. The enormity of the crime is stunning. I tried to take the easy route and say it with a picture but your words are gospel. I hope that they're widely read. Thanks!
by
Michael Collins (96 articles, 16 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 344 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 1:33:39 PM
This crime, perhaps more than any of the others, really makes me boil with anger. When this story first broke I said that this will be the "leak" that will sink bush's ship. I couldn't imagine that even hard-core bushies could defend a crime so vile and petty.
Oh, how wrong I was. Like everyone else I watched as blatant lies were told and the treasonous bastards once again were let off the hook.
I have come to the conclusion that the America I was taught to believe in as a kid in school died some time ago and what we have now is just a festering cesspool of corruption. Millionaires put in office to protect billionaires. A corporate/imperialism on steroids, hell bent on not being satisfied with controlling 80% of the world's wealth - they want it ALL. We the people nothing but cannon fodder and consumers. Elections nothing but dog & pony shows to give us the illusion we have some say in policy.
If we had a real election, we wouldn't have needless wars, we'd have health care, more schools, less prisons, streets that were safe to walk and drive down, our troops wouldn't be stationed in nearly every country around the world as we ironically call ourselves a "peaceful" nation and a host of other commonsense policies. AND we wouldn't be outing our own for petty, vindictive reasons, and if anyone did THEY'D BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!
One can only hope that mcclellan's revelations will allow Plame's Civil Case to now move forward. If we can't get these bastards one way - try another.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1425 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 6:43:41 PM
What will be televised is Oprah and her weight battle, Jennifer Garner fighting another imaginary enemy, and some more episodes of 24 in which people are rounded up and tortured. The people who are in denial will sit in their armchairs, drinks in hand, cheering for the conquerers living in the White House. That is, until their heroes' private armies show up on their doorsteps to arrest them for viewing the wrong program, or going to the wrong website.
by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 5:07:18 PM
The crimes committed are just so horrendous that even this reticent corporate media are too afraid to touch it, even with a ten foot pole. They know better! America hasn't seen a realignment such as this since the late 1700's. You're intelligent enough to understand what I'm referring.
We're talking about Treason here! Anyone that believes otherwise then I, I don't know what to tell them.
Mr. M. this country is going to have to sink to rock bottom before the citizens of America awaken to the treasonous High Crimes which were, and continue to be committed.
One thing I can say to the credulous Americans across this country, and that is Martial Law and the coming Revolution aren't gonna be televised!
by
Munich (0 articles, 66 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 831 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 1:07:10 PM
...you've got Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Feinstein. I too fear where this is headed. If they don't televise and report this type of news, they'll certainly not report massive, undeniable violations of civil rights when the smack down comes. Gitmo, as we now know, was almost covered up. The control freaks are obsessive in their pursuit of .... well, control. Thanks for the comment.
by
Michael Collins (96 articles, 16 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 344 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 1:45:21 PM
On the off chance that you really DO want to learn and grow and know the facts so you can argue better.
Nobody else was charged with any crime in the plamegate matter exactly BECAUSE Libby was charged with OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
Read those words carefully OBSTRUCTION (that is, the prevention) of JUSTICE (that is, those other people being charged, the absence of which you claim indicates there was no crime).
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS WHEN JUSTICE GETS OBSTRUCTED. (gee, sounds like Bush on Native American Sovereignty.)
NO PEOPLE WERE CHARGED BECAUSE LIBBY LIED AND PREVENTED THE FACTS BEING FOUND OUT (OBSTRUCTION) THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED PEOPLE TO BE CHARGED (JUSTICE).
Sorry to YELL, but you just don't seem to get it -- saying "I didn't get caught, therefore I didn't commit a crime" may work for the current Rethuglican administration of criminals and liars, but it is NOT the way JUSTICE and the RULE OF LAW work.
Now, print this whole thread out and crawl back under your rock and read it for a while. Maybe it will get through.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 674 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 1:19:01 PM
The reader comments here should be collected and republished on their own. They're quite something. I love your point, so well taken. It applies to those who say we have not provided "incontrovertible proof" that 2004 was stolen, therefore we can't make the charge. They conveniently leave out the fact that to prove, you must first have an official investigation - a real investigation. The rhetoric of the Bush-Cheney supporters is truly pathetic. Your comment makes the point and then some...value added!!!
by
Michael Collins (96 articles, 16 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 344 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 1:49:55 PM
So I will say this again... The PROSECUTOR spent 2 years investigating the "crime" of "WHO LEAKED PLAME'S NAME TO NOVAK??"
Amazingly enough, he found the answer to his question, "WHO LEAKED PLAME'S NAME" almost instantly.. Mr M calls this a "red herring"
So let me put it to you this way...
Since it was a crime, then it should be a VERY simple matter to name, for me, the person, or persons, who were found guilty of leaking Plame's name, and are now serving in jail, specifically for the crime of leaking plame's name.
when you can answer that question with a NAME, then, we can have a conversation about who else might be guilty of some sort of a crime in connection with this...
However, as it stands, Most of you can not actually bring yourselves to consider any possibility other than this: If he is not convinced that the case is more than we have seen, then he must be a Bush operative planted to distribute misinformation.
The way I see this latest development... Lots of people hate Bush et al... If someone wants to sell a book, the best way to stir up free publicity is to create a few more talking points for the people who hate Bush et al...
You people are being played for a bunch of SAPS, and Scott McClellan is laughing ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK!
but I am dence.... IF I want to learn something? I have learned a great many things... In this case, how to differentiate between reality and fiction..
Perhaps, one day, you all might consider looking somewhere other than your fellow bloggers for real answers to real questions.
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 587 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 3:12:16 PM
You simply don't get it. McClellan named conspirators
Conspirators to obstruct justice...the five names in his statement (below). It's known that Libby was involved and also Rove. If the special prosecutor can't see a crime in that, that's his problem. Revealing the name of a top operative tracking illegal nuclear shipments is a crime, period. Denying that is truly absurd.
As for McClellan's statement, heres a textual analysis. I knew I'd have to use this for someone strict constructionist who said, "He didn't say that."
The textual analysis is first. Following that are various sources, including the original, dealing with the AP story and then a story from McClatchy News. This shows how people who deal with the English language interpret fairly obvious content.
"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. (Motive)So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. (And the "most powerful," i.e., Bush, knew he was doing it.)
"There was one problem. It was not true. (What was "not true?) The exoneration "of …: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.")
"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so:(The "five" "were involved" in him telling the lie to "restore credibility."If they didn't know it was a lie, he would say so.He pointed that out about his knowledge.He doesn't.Why?Because they "were involved" – intentionally acting – either through the request "called on me;" through silence as he did so (silent encouragement); both active and passive encouragement; or through some other means."Karl Rove and "Scooter Libby" knew that they were being wrongfully "exonerated."Hence, their silence establishes the meaning of "were involved" since they're included in the group of five.The Bush, Cheney involvement is thus established since they're part of the "five … involved in my doing so.You can't include Rove & Libby as "involved" with knowledge that it was a lie but exclude the other three of the "five."The "five" are all in the same sentence, all "involved" – implying that they're awake, sentient, and conscious.).Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself." Public Affairs (McClellan's Publisher) Web Site
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
MATT APUZZO Associated Press November 20, 2007 at 6:21 PM EST
WASHINGTON — Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative
There was little for the unindicted co-conspirators of the Bush administration to give thanks for this week as the clock winds down on the 14 months they have left in power.
With former White House press secretary Scott McClellan spilling the beans on who told him to lie to the American people and cover up the White House's responsibility for the criminal act of revealing the identity of a covert CIA officer, it clearly was time for some folks to begin drafting their requests for presidential pardons.
McClellan, in a forthcoming book that will tell some, if not all, reveals that his 2003 statements absolving top White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of any involvement in leaking the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame were untrue — and that the orders to make those statements came from President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, White House chief of staff Andrew Card, Rove and Libby.
by
Michael Collins (96 articles, 16 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 344 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 4:35:16 PM
and yes you are. I am simply flabbergasted at the way your politics runs the gamut from ignorance to abysmal ignorance.
There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion, there is certainly nothing wrong with being in the minority in your opinions, Ive spent most of my political life in that minority. But there is something monumentally wrong with an opinion that is so amazingly superficial, so unbelievably ignorant of the laws of the land and the workings of the justice system,and how easily the process was subverted by a scapegoat, abetted by a no longer free press and many conscienceless administration figures.
It would behoove any patriotic American to be damn certain about an incident in which an undercover CIA agent, running a network of vulnerable assets, was outed simply to "get even" with her husband for telling an inconvenient truth. Or, perhaps, her work in tracking weapons among radical groups world wide was uncovering things that conflicted with the lies of Bush and Cheney......Either way you owe it to yourself and your love of this country to get the hell off your high horse and reread all the facts of this matter, may of which are posted right here in this thread. All it takes is an open mind and a fair effort...oops, sorry.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Monday, November 26, 2007 at 5:55:45 PM
Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something.
If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."
You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.
You might learn that you wanted to hit the batter in the back and it hit him in the head because he moved. You might want to throw it under his chin, but it ended up hitting him on the head.
And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.
And then you'd make a decision as to whether this person should be banned from baseball, whether they should be suspended, whether you should do nothing at all and just say, "Hey, the person threw a bad pitch. Get over it."
In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.
And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. Cooper? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?
Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?
And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.
So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.
I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.
This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.
by
Steven Leser (211 articles, 44 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1388 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 10:36:33 AM
We are generally on opposite sides of many issues, and we see differing solutions to many problems besetting uor nation. Yet I always have great respect for you, if less sometimes for certain opinions you hold.
I bnelieve you waste your time though you have presented the case in an admirable and thoughtful fashion. This guy is hopeless.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 1:35:26 PM
