Rightwing Perjury Doublespeak
The trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is the closest version of a Red Queen trial this country has had in a long time. One says that knowing it might start a stampede from past defendants laying claim to the most upside-down prosecution. . . . The trial of Scooter Libby in Washington, the national capital of illogic, has been exemplary. In December 2003, the prosecutor purports a crime has been committed by revealing a "covert" CIA agent's identity to the press--despite knowing then what the outside world learned nearly three years later--that the revealer of the agent was a State Department official, Richard Armitage. With the "whodunnit" solved on day one, the prosecution follows the Red Queen's script by taking the nation on a useless, joyless ride through the opaque looking-glass of Washington journalism.
Somebody track down the author of the editorial, Daniel Henniger, and let him know that Libby is charged with PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Henninger must be a new guy and completely unaware or misinformed about the Wall Street Journal's stand on issues of PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Yes sirree. The Wall Street Journal certainly sang a different tune way back in 2001.
Reacting to Bill Clinton's complaint in Esquire Magazine that his Administration had been repeatedly investigated (Whitewater, Travelgate, and Filegate) and nothing illegal was uncovered, the Wall Street Journal countered:
Here's one: lying to a federal grand jury. Perjury by a sitting President, not only the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, but sworn to preserve and protect the Constitution. Mr. Clinton will leave office in a few weeks, but his campaign for exoneration is in full swing--in the face of history and in the face of an ongoing inquiry by Independent Counsel Robert Ray. Mr. Ray says he will move swiftly in deciding whether to seek an indictment for perjury in the Lewinsky matter after the President leaves office. . . . But as demonstrated in his Esquire remarks above, and elsewhere, Mr. Clinton is making magnanimity anything but easy. He is manifestly guilty of perjury in his Paula Jones testimony, but even today clings to the "what the meaning of 'is' is" defense. So consider Mr. Ray's dilemma: If he should decide to give the President a pass in terms of a larger public interest, the President will surely then claim his preposterous defense was vindicated, that he was the victim. This continuing corruption of our national discourse certainly serves no larger public interest.
Let's get this straight. Lying about a blow job is an impeachable offense. But lying about the leak of a covert agent's secret identity is silliness?
Here's my position--perjury, regardless of what you are covering up is wrong. That was a position I thought that genuine conservatives touted. But now I know that is wrong. After watching the spectacle of apologists for Scooter Libby insist "no harm, no foul" we are now asked to conclude that charges of perjury and obstruction of justice are meaningless. If that's the case we owe Bill Clinton a big apology and the tax payers deserve a rebate for any money spent to impeach a President over an act (perjury) that the rightwing and neocons now concede is simply abuse by an overzealous prosecutor.
We cannot change history. President Clinton ultimately took responsibility for his actions and was punished. The future is before us. If Scooter Libby is found guilty will he be man enough to take responsibility? I doubt it.
Bush will just pardon him anyway.
February 23, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote about this back in October 2005, after Kay Bailey Hutchison said
The problem with the 'hypocrisy' charge, though, is that it can cut both ways: on the surface, Democrats who derided the Starr chamber appear equally hypocritical if they now argue perjury is a big deal.That's why the more important point is that not all perjury is equal. The underlying conduct about which Clinton lied was not criminal, and had no victim. In this case (as you have ably and repeatedly demonstrated) the underlying conduct was not only potentially criminal but also may well have caused significant damage to the nation's intelligence-gathering apparatus.
It's not about the 'hypocrisy'; it's about entirely different circumstances.
February 23, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not being hypocritical if I demand consistency in the national debate. I do think that the underlying misdeed ( the blowjob was NOT a crime) of Clinton did not justify a perjury charge and I DO think that the underlying CRIME (outing a covert agent is criminal and morally despicable) of Libby DOES merit a perjury charge.
In passing it never ceases to amaze me how masochistic the left tends to be. No wonder right wingers get as far as they do.
February 23, 2007 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, exactly. That's the point we need to keep making.
February 23, 2007 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
They know they are being inconsistent and that they are not fooling anybody. Still, it is worth noting that they are full of bs.
Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that they actually believe the crap that they are writing.
FWIW, I think either perjury charge is very serious. The difference is that no Federal prosecutor thought a "he says, she says" case where the primary witness had herself submitted an affadavit backing up the President's version of events deserved to be in court.
In contrast, the Libby case appears to be rock solid.
Maybe this separates me from a lot of Democrats, but I don't thnk the underlying situation where the alleged perjury occurred should matter. Witnesses cannot be allowed to pick and choose which legal cases are "serious enough" to require honest testimony, and which do not demand a serious approach to perjury.
February 23, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
one thing to note is the insidious use of quotation marks around the word covert. plame was not "covert". she was COVERT, which warrants a proper inquiry, and which would certainly be a centerpiece of the investigation if roles were reversed.
February 23, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like shooting fish in a barrel picking at the logic of the WSJ editorial page is an exercise in which the serious huntsman simply does not stoop to engage.
February 23, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's put this in a perspective that an average person might be able to relate to a little better.
A man has an extra-marital affair and disclosing that fact would result in some uncomfortable circumstances. Not simply that the wife would be really pissed or even get a divorce but that .. oh .. he and his family, including a teenage daughter, would be made the object of a prolonged international sexual humiliation. Prime time, all the time. Of course Bill Clinton really lied about a BJ because it would have hurt his standing in a sexual discrimination lawsuit he faced where there was no evidence of sexual discrimination. A civil suit.
Then there's the other lying. Lying to prevent disclosure that multiple individuals in a coordinated effort disclosed information that was classified (or hurriedly de-classified by hand wave or something similar) that was important to the security of America and its defense against groups and nations that might be tempted to use weapons of mass destruction against America. One of the people involved in disclosing the information sought immunity from prosecution because he felt he might face execution on the charge of treason. Lying about this is something that every sexually mature individual can relate to. No?
They're both crimes. For sure. Eh? And they seem about the same to me. Right?? How 'bout you?
They've gotten the same press coverage. No?
Again, as is repeatedly demonstrated in America today and every day, the problem is the almost complete control of the public dialog that the "right" has. Public commentary on issues is controlled and manipulated. That's what the Libby case disclosed. America was lied into a needless disastrous war. Not a stained dress. A bloody murderous war that stains our nation with dishonor and another nation with gallons of blood every day.
Truth is irrelevant. Reality is irrelevant. They Bush people said they would make their own reality. Unfortunately we have to live in it.
February 23, 2007 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sexual games in the Oval Office are a novelty; in Washington lying to protect one's political power is SOP.
Dog Bites Man doesn't sell papers.
February 23, 2007 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both the cases, of Clinton and Libby, have been completely lame. Perjury should only be punishable if there is an underlying crime.
The only difference between Libby and Clinton is that Clinton was forced to admit he lied because of an infamous blue dress.
With Libby, we'll see if even a jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact lie, since Fitzgerald spent more than two years apparently doing anything other than finding a smoking gun.
It would have been a bit hard for Clinton to avoid having taken "responsibility" with that blue dress staring him in the face, eh?
February 23, 2007 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another gem from the second commentary:
...a sitting President, not only the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, but sworn to preserve and protect the Constitution.
The hypocrisy of the Right-wing smear machine knows neither shame nor end, but that's no reason to shrug and say 'that's the way things are.'
Ultimately, this post reminds me of something i've been thinking about recently--that the Internet is a gift to democracy, and a way to level out the mediascape. While it certainly can be used for any ends, at a minimum, it provides the potential for unfiltered news, commentary and discussion on a global scale, along with a searchable repository of the same from years past. It leads me to think that there are more than a few oligarchs out there who are furiously cursing the DoD for letting ARPAnet out of the bottle!
February 23, 2007 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding, right?
Kennedy? Even FDR had a girl friend. There were indications that GHWB had an in White House girl friend but when it was mentioned to him he responded angrily and said that he never wanted to hear about it again - and neither he nor anyone else did.
What about Gannon-Guckert? If there were indications that a gay prostitute was doing regular overnights in the White House do you think the press would have ignored it if the president was a Democrat? That wasn't enough of a White House "sexual novelty" I guess. The "novelty" of extra-marital sex in the White House is that it was made into a witch hunt rather than usual press insider gossip - like the Plame disclosure.
America was lied into a war and the press and media knew it and facilitated it. The American people have a sense that a president acts in the interest of the nation. They don't want to think otherwise. There were and are strong indications that this president has not done that and it's taken years of incredibly damaging malfeasance on the part of the Bush group before that fact has become apparent to the average American. Still the vast majority of the press favors this dangerous White House group. And that's what the American public sees.
Even lying America into war may not be a novelty. Johnson certainly expanded a war based on a lie. But actions in the White House directly and intentionally counter to the safety of the country would seem to be novel and even if they aren't they should be treated as something extremely serious. Ah, say, maybe, like the Wen Ho Lee case was treated - by the prosecution and the press?
The only way the Plame disclosure wasn't on the level of treason - giving aid and comfort to the enemy - was if the disclosed information wasn't classified. Ari Fleischer was sure scared shiteless. The indications I've read are that if the information wasn't classified it was declassified in a highly unusual manner - not following the regular declassification procedures. The "hand wave" I mentioned and maybe even an after the fact hand wave. Wouldn't it have been nice if that information was examined during this trial? But it wasn't. The trial was about a fib. Only very indirect references to the severe damage that was done were mentioned in the trial. Pictures of CIA agents that testified were left as symbols rather than actual faces. Big fking deal.
The line about Armitage being the first to disclose the information is meaningless. Any disclosure was a violation of the law up until the information was published and even then it was probably illegal. Again, the only significance was the hand wave declassification. It wasn't treasonous because the president OK'd it. Wouldn't that be a great headline?
February 23, 2007 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops! This was supposed to be a reply to "Ellen" above. Clicking "Reply" on a comment before logging in doesn't seem to actually make it a reply to that comment.
February 23, 2007 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
T.Rollie Fisher
You get the journalistic coverage that media managers reward. It's quite simple. I'm afraid media managers are too well attached to the Republican power structure to be unbiased, so to expect unbiased journalism is foolish.
February 23, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it won't surprise you to learn I disagree with both you and Thomas Fisher, below.
Sex Sells! --that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
February 23, 2007 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn ...
Is someone gonna have to call your mommy and daddy again and tell them you're loose from the cellar and playing with the computer?
You've been going in the dumpster...
~OGD~
February 24, 2007 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sex sells, sure. That isn't the point. The point is rather does sex constitute "News?"Is sex worthy of National Attention and Front Page headlines?
No, not really.
Maybe people should stop accepting this garbage and start standing up for themselves. The American Public deserves better coverage of actual News and Events that actually DOES affect their lives, as opposed to some politicos personal indiscretions. Wherther Bill Clinton got a blow job or 20 hardly mattered to the average American. Whether our National Security gets compromised, on the other hand, matters a great deal to the average American.
There is a big difference, and cynical snide remarks aside, most people understand the difference quite well.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
February 24, 2007 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ONLY difference?
Try one matters and the other doesn't. If you can't or won't see that, you are merely trolling for partisan purposes.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
February 24, 2007 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Among other things, Libby is being charged with lying to a federal investigator, the same charge that sent Martha Stewart to jail, though she wasn't found guilty of insider trading which was the cause of the original investigation.
Libby is also being charged with perjury and obstruction, the same charges the right wingers wanted Clinton hung for. But that was then, this is now, correct?
By the way, Ken Starr went after Clinton for Whitewater but got him on lying about Monica.
February 24, 2007 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
As sad as it is to see how many people view the rule of law as a kind of fungible quantity to be applied according to their whim, I find it infinitely more saddening to see the Wall Street Journal given even as much credence as the National Enquirer. At least the Enquirer has a sense of humor.
Not so many years ago every editor, from the NY Times to the Rio Grande Sun, would have committed suicide rather than allow such crap to be printed on his/her watch. I don't understand why anyone would take the ravings of the WSJ seriously. Why buy their paper, why even talk about their loony-tune editorials, it just encourages them.
Nowadays it seems an editorial (and even straight news) is measured not in terms of the informed dialogue it inspires and buttresses, but in terms of the number of hornets rousted from the opposing camp's nest in response. The more brazen the lies and obfuscations, the more hornets. At least with the NY Times and WaPo, they seem to try to straddle the divide with an occasional scrap of truthful and objective reporting, a sensible editorial here and there.
But the Wall Street Journal? My toilet paper reads more informatively.
February 24, 2007 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not so many years ago every editor, from the NY Times to . . . .
Lest we forget, it was the New York Times that pimped the White Water story, originally, and panting heavily and rubbing its hands on its thighs, kept the "story" going long after it was apparent that there was no there there.
February 24, 2007 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether Bill Clinton got a blow job or 20 hardly mattered to the average American.
True enough, but that doesn't mean that Americans didn't buy the papers to find out what brand of cigar was implicated.
My point is that editors are not engaged in a right-wing or corporatist conspiracy (per Thomas Fisher, below); they're just trying to sell their product.
P.S. I'm deathly afraid you're about to claim that Anna Nicole Smith's final resting place isn't "news." Say it ain't so!
February 24, 2007 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Libby's matter and Clinton's does not? In both cases, there is no underlying crime attached to the perjury and obstruction. Like Larry said, you've got to take them both at the same, either you're against both or you feel that both were a bad thing.
The only thing left is that Clinton was proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have lied. You know, the little blue number that Lewinsky wore. Now with the Libby case, there is no such proof.
Clinton had to admit lying because there was proof of him lying. That is not the case with Libby.
If you can't or won't see that, you are merely trolling for partisan purposes.
February 24, 2007 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Ari Fleischer was sure scared shiteless."
After the David Corn's of the world started churning the treason narrative, of course he got scared. But that was after the cat was out of the bag, not before.
February 24, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so a grand jury is set up to investigate whether a crime has been committed or not. And you are saying it's OK to lie to the grand jury unless the original charge is charged? Can you explain how the grand jury would be expected to charge the original crime if they are being lied to?
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
February 24, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fitzgerald knew from the very beginning that no crime had been committed. He knew who had leaked to Novak, Armitage, and he knew that Armitage didn't know that Plame's employment at the CIA was classified information. Thus, no crime.
Yet for some reason, the grand jury was held intact and the investigation kept going for two years, entrapping Libby in these alleged lies that do not work towards any underlying crime at all.
Let's just say that Libby does get charged for lying. Then what? That still doesn't help establish another crime. That's why this trial, and the Clinton trial, are/were completely useless.
Of course it's not OK to lie to a grand jury, but if you're lying about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the crime being investigated, so what?
With Clinton, why should he have to testify about his sex life within an investigation about something else?
With Libby, what does it matter whether or not Libby remembers who he talked to correctly when it has no effect on the investigation, an investigation that centers on who leaked Plame's employment information to Novak?
Libby told the grand jury that Cheney told him about Plame first, which may or may not have been the case. What does it then matter whether or not Libby remembers things correctly in the conversations he had with reporters thereafter?
Libby must be the dumbest lawyer on the planet to concoct a "cover" story where he learns about Plame from Tim Russert, while at the same time saying he already had been told by Cheney.
And what's with the kid gloves treatment of NBC by Fitzgerald?
February 24, 2007 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that Armitage may not have been guilty of a crime doesn't absolve others who may have been. Indeed, anyone who disclosed the classified information or outed Plame, at the least, prior to the publication of the Novak column may have been guilty. And the fact that a recipient of the illegal disclosure didn't communicate the information further (for example, by publishing it in media - Cooper, Miller, & c.) doesn't absolve the leaker.
Or to say it differently, Novak's a red herring.
P.S. I haven't followed the case closely and must ask whether I'm wrong in recalling that Libby and his band of Keystone Kops sat in an airport lounge and called reporters a day or so before the Novak column was published.
February 24, 2007 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, what is your point?
Is it some kind of virtue not to be scared when you know you're getting away with something. By extension then the only bad crimes are the ones for which someone is caught. This sounds like something my dad would say back in the 70s, "The only thing Nixon did wrong was to get caught".
But this tortured logic can't be what you’re trying to say. So what is it?Oh, maybe the old standard, "ignorance is bliss." Was he compartmentalized: did he not truly know he was used - duped. Was it only after the revolutions came to light and he realized his role in this treason did he panic? I would if this "narrative" is true. Wouldn’t you? Would you, Seixon, (or any true American patriot) want to assist a US Attorney get to the bottom of who leaked a COVERT CIA asset? Panic or not!
________________________________________________
“I, ..., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."
February 24, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
.> Fitzgerald knew from the very
> beginning that no crime had been
> committed.
Fitzgerald has said very explicitly that he cannot talk about whether _or not_ a crime has been committed. For a variety of reasons, including the **obstruction of justice** charges which Mr. Libby is currently being tried under.
Fitzgerald's public statements have been an absolute masterpiece of the "neither confirm nor deny" genre (vastly surpassing even the Air Force's non-statements about location of nukes). Where the Radical Right gets this idea that "Armitage did it" when they don't know what "it" is or what Fitzgerald is pursuing (if anything) is beyond human comprehension.
sPh
February 24, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is one problem: Seixon is judging Fitgerald's comments and (non-existent)leaking, against Starr's. Starr constantly leaked to the media to feed the GOP base and to bury Clinton. Truth and law had nothing to do with anything Starr did as he was collecting his millions.
That is why Fitzgerald's behavior makes the GOP so gleeful. It seems he is playing by the rules. Not a troll, or GOP ideal. They just don't know how to deal with lawfulness. Why should they? They have found success the other way too often.
Jan Knaus
February 24, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He knew who had leaked to Novak, Armitage, and he knew that Armitage didn't know that Plame's employment at the CIA was classified information. Thus, no crime.
Armitage did tell Novak, but Novak was only the first reporter to print the story. The leak had been given to reporters since June 23rd. The leak being investigated went from who told Novak to who told 8(?) reporters, before Novak, and why?
When Libby talked to the FBI, he mentioned nothing of hearing about Plame from Cheney. That only came much later.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
February 24, 2007 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ari Fleischer was sure scared shiteless."
It was a WaPo article that rendered Ari in such a sorry state.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
February 24, 2007 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you see...Seixon knows what the CIA DOESN'T know. He knows that Plame's status WASN'T classified. SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Even the CIA doesn't know this. John Ashcroft doesn't know it either, or he never would have appointed a Special Prosecuter.
Maybe, just maybe (as unbelievable as it sounds) Seixon is wrong. Why? Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to LEAK the name of an agent whose status is not CLASSIFIED. If her name wasn't classified, it is just yakking.
And if her name WASN'T classified, why did Libby tell Ari that is was "hush hush?" Or more to the point, why did he lie to an FBI agent and then to the Grand Jury about it? Oh, that's right. He just forgot. Funny he managed to hold on to his job at all considering how forgetful he claims to be.
Jan Knaus
February 24, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only problem here is that Ari didn't know that he was "getting away with something". There was no reason for him to believe he had done anything wrong until David Corn blew the horn on behalf of the Wilsons right after Novak's column, and the media started adapting the narrative.
Fleischer found out that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, from someone. Libby doesn't remember telling him. Fleischer says he told two journalists, neither of them affirm that. Seems nobody remembers any of it straight.
In any case, Libby did not tell Fleischer "Wilson's wife is covert CIA" or "Wilson's wife has a classified position at the CIA". Neither of them knew any such thing. All they knew was that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
February 24, 2007 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you seen the referral to the DOJ? No? So how do you know what they asked the DOJ to look into? I don't. You don't. Yet you pretend to know. That's the difference.
There is also a difference between a classified status and a covert status, as I'm sure you know quite well.
As for Libby supposedly telling Fleischer it was "hush hush", there can be any number of reasons for him having allegedly said that, such as him referring to all the info about Wilson, or making sure to let the CIA be the one to announce all of this without the White House getting involved.
In any case, it's Ari's word against Libby's, and there are other people who don't agree with Fleischer's version of things.
But here again you take it as a truth that Libby lied. Damned be the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.
Fleischer and Libby contradict each other. Dickerson and Fleischer contradict each other. Gregory and Fleischer contradict each other (if Gregory's silence is any cue).
Yet Libby is the liar, while the rest are all truthfully remembering incorrectly. I love how you work that out. Why Libby would lie, already having told the grand jury that he first learned of Plame from Cheney? Who the hell knows any more, makes about as much sense as the rest.
February 24, 2007 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. This investigation has been rife with leaks. All the reporting done about this investigation has been based on leaks from Fitzgerald's investigation, leaks which he did nothing to try and stop. Did he set them up? Who knows, but he certainly didn't mind them happening.
Fitzgerald's case is a joke. NBC was treated with kid gloves because Tim Russert was going to help Fitz put Libby away, the truth be damned.
The notes on Russert's interview with the FBI: oh, they're missing. How conveeeeenient.
February 24, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep wondering how long people like you will keep dreaming of Fitzmas. Will you ever figure out that it's not going to happen?
February 24, 2007 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. Keep pulling stuff out of your ass. But the one thing you cannot justify is this:
If outing Plame was not a problem, why did the CIA get upset? Covert? They say she was. Classified? That too. You disagree. Who the hell are you? This whole thing would not even have ANKLES, never mind legs if Plame were an overt agent. You know that. so just give it up.
The referral to the DOJ would have gone nowhere in this regime (junta) if Plame had not been covert. You can pretend to be obtuse, but I'm done with your games. There is not one more troll sausage you can throw into this discussion that will draw the facts off as you so pathetically desire.
Jan Knaus
February 24, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a very partisan position for the WSJ to take on a case that has not yet been decided by the jury. Are they trying you influence the jury's decision?
I'm not surprised about their biased stance, they are just following their usual double standard as you pointed out Larry. They along with many Republicans, believe in selective law enforcement - prosecute Democratic perjurers but not Republican ones.
I put the WSJ in the same category as the Washington Times - two partisan rags that try to impersonate professional newspapers. Rupert Murdoch really should try to buy the WSJ, it would make a great addition to his collection of faux newspapers.
February 24, 2007 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
self delete
February 25, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The CIA got "upset"? They sent a referral to the DOJ. What was contained in that referral, no one knows, but apparently it said nothing of a covert status leak, since Judge Walton has read the referral, and has said he has no clue whether Plame was covert or not.
The CIA has not stated for the record whether Plame was covert or not, as you say. They have not stated for the record if her position was classified, either. They have not stated for the record whether any damage was done, either.
The fact that the judge presiding over this case, having read the referral himself, says he has no clue to whether or not Plame is covert tells me a certain something.
You're free to live in the fantasy world that Larry Johnson and his VIPS crew have purposely set up for you.
February 25, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What grounds would they have for the DOJ referral if Plame's position in the agency were not protected?
Just answer that. Don't say you haven't read it, or that the judge has. Just answer the question: if Plame's identity was not protected, what possible grounds would the CIA have to file a complaint?
Can you think of ANY grounds at all?
Jan Knaus
February 25, 2007 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
~
There is absolutely nothing more satisfying on a Monday morn than drinking a nice warm cup o' joe and reading the words of an apologist for the scumbags as they vainly attempt to tease a rope of pearls out of their asteroid-orifice, while doing their very best at verbal gymnastics...
~OGD~
February 26, 2007 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, but there is NO ANSWER to my question that Sexon can give that supports his talking points. None.
Jan Knaus
February 26, 2007 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
QED -- Doublespeak
February 26, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton got one blow job or twenty, it wouldn't make a difference to my families safety.
If Bush and Cheney out a CIA agent involved with a front company dealing with WMDs, it does.
Common sense difference. There isn't enough spin in the world to counter the enormous reality of that. You are a fool for trying to peddle it here. Or anywhere.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
February 27, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll spare you.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
February 27, 2007 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink