The key neo-cons within both parties intent on continuing the decimation of your civil liberties and continued construction of a monstrous policy of interventionism for the corporate interests who stand to profit, are being protected. The partisan politics of Bush's "failures" are both shallow, and useful as diversionary cover for an unseen agenda by a so-called "global elites" from both parties.

::::::::

Having just watched the dissembling, smirking Kate O'Beirn on Hardball left no new impressions on me regarding Republicans. They smirk a lot; you can put 2+2 right in front of them and they'll tell you "well it was 4 in 1998, but today it's actually 5". They won't even blink when they allege this. The only thing to be gleaned from O'Beirn's presence on the panel was Matthew's remarkable restraint as he read her the court's finding, the legal definition of a Pardon, and repeatedly pointed out that virtually everyone convicted of a felony, maintains their innocence. I'd have been hard pressed not to simply reach across and choke the life out of her to see if the smirk went away.

Likewise, right-wing ideologue Victoria Toensing went on the air immediately following the verdict to denounce it on the grounds that the case should never have been pursued. She had some claim to credibility being a co-author of the 1985 intelligence act presumably violated by multiple people in the case, but not prosecuted. Her use of overt strawmen to make her case, however, only showed her to be a fundamentally dishonest person, who happened to have co-written a piece of legislation which has now bitten her beloved wing-nuts in the ass. But let us take a look at these strawmen and unsustainable claims and then burn them to ashes right here:

1. Plame was not "covert"; she was only "classified".

Fact (a). You can never truthfully claim someone who worked at the CIA was not covert if they were classified. The CIA will not acknowledge the covert or NOC status of their agents. The claim is therefor not legitimate.

Fact (b) The judge determined through his own off the record investigation that Plame was both classified, AND protected under the intelligence act. Unless Ms. Toensing is prepared to call the judge a liar, or to further "out" Mrs. Wilson by divulging additional classified information regarding a status the CIA refuses to publicly comment on for national security reasons, she should shut her big mouth.

2. The fact that Richard Armitage was not prosecuted proves that the intelligence act was not violated.

Fact (a) It proves absolutely nothing. To violate the letter of the act, the revelation of the identity must be done WHILE KNOWING it's in violation of the law. The way the law is written therefor, "ignorance of the law" actually IS an excuse, which can preclude one being prosecuted. Armitage was not prosecuted because the prosecutor could not prove INTENT with knowledge of status in light of the law.

Fact (b) MULTIPLE presumed violations of the act took place. That Armitage was the first ADMITTED leaker of Ms. Plame's identity IN NO WAY PRECLUDES THE CRIMINAL STATUS OF ADDITIONAL LEAKERS. A great big STRAWMAN was put forward by Ms. Toensing in her pathetic partisan defense of this conspiring scum bag.

3. That BECAUSE no charge was filed for violation of the intelligence act, prosecution for perjury was "political" and baseless.

Fact (a) The prosecutor was a Republican appointed prosecutor.

Fact (b) The perjury occurred DURING an investigation the purpose of which was to ascertain WHO violated the intelligence act, and is therefor relevant to the crime suspected, even if the crime itself is not proven (or even prosecuted). This is no different than perjury committed during the investigation of any other crime, be it murder or arson. You lie to an investigator, you go to jail, and whether or not he's ever able to successfully bring charges on the matter central to the investigation is absolutely irrelevant. Shut up Ms. Toensing, your contempt for equal justice under the law is entirely evident.

Now let's deal with the known facts of this case:

We KNOW Dick Cheney was a source for Scooter Libby's knowing Plame was a classified CIA agent.
We presume he is the FIRST, because:

(a) He has direct access to the information.
(b) His directive to Scooter was IN WRITING.
(c) Said directive in writing pre-dates any other source.

I do not know WHY Dick Cheney has not been indicted, but on the face of it, it appears that he absolutely should have been. Fitzgerald –presumably- went after Libby for perjury in hopes that he could squeeze additional information out of him regarding Cheney. It didn't work, and frankly, I doubt that it will: Anyone with a lick of sense can read between the lines and understand that when Libby refused to take the stand, and Cheney's promised appearance evaporated, an understanding was in place that if Libby just "hung in there", he'd get a pardon from Bush. I believe he will. On account of the potential for "damage" should Libby become "disgruntled", I believe the pardon will come sonner rather than later; Libby will never see a day in Federal prison.

There appears to me to be a highly questionable reticence on the part of Fitzgerald to do the obvious in this case: Subpoena Dick Cheney. He has probable cause based on what was revealed in the trial –Cheney's hand written notes in the margin of a newspaper-. While the foaming, lying, spinning, corrupt GOP loyalists shriek that Fitzgerald is somehow a partisan "plant" run amuck to destroy the Bush administration, I am coming to an opposite conclusion, and this one is actually based on LOGIC.

As a Republican appointed prosecutor, and a Bush appointed investigator, I find the following conclusion in keeping with political logic in this case:

Libby was indeed a "fall guy", but the fall was always understood to have the cushion of a pardon at the bottom. Fitzgerald agreed to confine investigation to Libby and only bring perjury charges against him, to throw a bone –so to speak- to an outraged public and Democratic minority for the same reason's Bill Clinton's impeachment was decided to be over Monica Lewinsky; a back room deal was cut to agree to impeachment to neuter enemies for the purposes of not exposing the INITIAL investigation which should have lead to Clinton's impeachment, that being unlawful campaign contributions from Chinese interests who received banned high technology infrastructure. In that case, a vulnerable Republican with Presidential aspirations would have been right in the cross hairs of any investigation which moved forward to impeach Clinton for treason over the China issues; Bob Dole.

Something smells very bad about the Libby Case to me, and although the jurors were presumably isolated from commentary and debate outside their narrowly defined mission, apparently even they could smell it through the walls of imposed isolation and the singularity of their considerations. Indeed, where is Rove and Cheney?

Unless the Democrats abandon their utterly corrupt politically motivated refusal to investigate this and begin impeachment proceedings, the whole sorted mess is likely to be swept under the rug to protect somebody. The question is who, and the answer might not be so obvious. That the Bush administration is being protected is obvious. That certain key Democrats are also being protected is less obvious but seems very probable to me. The first Democrat on that list Senator Rockefeller, who made a deal with Senator Pat Robertson in 2004 on a hand shake that the investigation into the possible abuse of intelligence by the administration, be postponed until after the 2004 elections. That
"deal" (by the way), was public and televised. It never happened. For ***some reason*** Senator Rockefeller went absolutely stone silent for two full years AFTER the 2004 elections; no demand was made by him that Senator Roberts abide in his agreement to convene hearings. No motion to convene was brought by Rockefeller. Rockefeller made no statements to the press pointing out the blatant violation of the public promise made by Roberts to protect Bush during the elections. And were one to logically assume that were Rockefeller actually intent on holding those investigations into the actual use and abuse of pre-war intelligence, it's safe to say that he'd have had all his ducks in a row and would have presented them and convened the long abandoned hearings as soon as the 2006 elections placed the Democrats into the majority in Congress with subpoena power. Still Mr. Rockefeller remains absolutely silent 2 years after the breach of the promise for hearings, and 2 months after actually gaining the power to convene them. WHY?

"Impeachment is off the table".

Why is impeachment "off the table"? One has to assume that there is something more to this than the commonly believed and oft touted claim that the Dem's political motivations are as simplistic as avoiding a political "back lash" were they to proceed with investigations and impeachment. The claim rings false in light of what would necessarily precede impeachment; hearings which uncovered the truth about the misuse, abuse, distortion, and out right cover-up regarding the real intelligence on Iraq. In truth, Senator Rockefeller has a lot to lose were these hearings to begin in earnest, as does Senator Clinton. "Impeachment" therefore is not "off the table" because the Democratic leadership is concerned about a back-lash and political consequences; it's off the table for the same reason Bill Clinton's investigation for treason was precluded; Key Democrats who voted for this war were not only NOT "mislead", but KNEW the intelligence was highly questionable, even to the point of having been falsified, and yet they went along with the war anyway:

Excerpted:

Authors Bio:
Jay Esbe is a writer with a background in cultural anthropology and comparative religion and lives in Seattle Washington.