• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush

Truth Detector said:
You're kidding me right? What part of the charges brought against Libby has to do with this case? I will wait for the FACTS from you to suggest that anything I have stated is untrue.
Click to expand...

I know, I know... reading and following along with the thread (even your own posts) are not your strong suit. I'll oblige just this once and hold your hand through the process. After that, you're on your own.

Let's see you said regarding Scooter Libby's conviction:

Truth Detector said:
It sure as hell had NOTHING to do with the outting of Plame; unless of course you desperately want to spin this some more?
Click to expand...

You also stated:

Truth Detector said:
Libby's prosecution for lying under oath had NOTHING to do with the [outting of Plame] case.
Click to expand...

Then I presented you with the following facts. (click below) [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby"]the following facts[/ame]:

Libby resigned all three government positions immediately after he was indicted on federal charges of obstruction and perjury resulting from the grand jury investigation into the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame. In his trial for his role in the Plame affair, United States v. Libby, the jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment: one count of obstruction of justice; two counts of perjury; and one count of making false statements to federal investigators.
Click to expand...

The Wiki article has plenty of citations to back this up. Again the stubbornness of facts.

Here's where I think you run into problems. The reading part. You see, you miss the FACTS you so desperately desire when you don't take a moment to read.

Now, in two posts you said one had 'nothing to do' with the other. When the FACTS say otherwise.

Are you with me...? Because the FACTS I posted contradict your statement. Get it?

If, after reviewing the facts, you really don't understand how one investigation lead to, resulted in the ultimate conviction of Libby, then, my friend, you are beyond my help.

As for the rest of your post:

Have you been drinking, or are you just THAT incoherent when it comes to reading comprehension?
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension...Ironic, coming from you.

FACT: This was an investigation of the "outing" of a CIA agent where the source of the presumed “outing”, Armitage, was known before the investigation even began.
Click to expand...

See you had some of the facts. You just were not able to connect the dots. No worries. We'll help you out.


FACT: No crime of "outing" a CIA agent was ever discovered in this case and NO prosecutions for that crime were brought forth.
Click to expand...

Well bully for you pointing out an irrelevant fact in support of your mistake.

And Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion. OJ for armed robbery. That's how the justice system sometimes works, sport. Slow, sometimes sloppy, but hopefully Karmic.

You were desperately attempting to suggest otherwise? Read Grim's response; at least he is coherent and comprehends what it is he is talking about, something that cannot be said for your ramblings.
Click to expand...

TD, again the irony of your user name just makes me laugh. You make these totally inaccurate statements, then, when presented with FACTS, you dance and parse words or run away and pretend the thread never existed. But we don't forget. They all still exist.

Can't quite figure you out--to be bold in the making of inaccurate and false statements... Strange indeed.

Either you don't really know what you were talking about most of the time or are just hoping no one notices the inaccuracies in your statements. Both explanations seem removed from reality in their own way...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Sorry, the last thing the Left is allowed to question is anyone's ethics.

That rule will change when they demonstrate possession of any.
Click to expand...

:rofl:rofl:rofl

Care for me to link the so-called "ethical" Conservatives involved in scandals in the past 12 months? Or are you going to disown them and label them liberals?
 
1. the investigation was to find a white house source for bob novak's story

2. there was no white house source

3. there was no covered agent

4. a dc jury did find libby guilty of perjury in the investigation into the incident that the prosecutor ultimately determined was not a crime

5. health care's dead
 
hazlnut said:
I know, I know... reading and following along with the thread (even your own posts) are not your strong suit. I'll oblige just this once and hold your hand through the process. After that, you're on your own.

Let's see you said regarding Scooter Libby's conviction:

You also stated:

Then I presented you with the following facts. (click below) the following facts:

The Wiki article has plenty of citations to back this up. Again the stubbornness of facts.

Here's where I think you run into problems. The reading part. You see, you miss the FACTS you so desperately desire when you don't take a moment to read.

Now, in two posts you said one had 'nothing to do' with the other. When the FACTS say otherwise.

Are you with me...? Because the FACTS I posted contradict your statement. Get it?

If, after reviewing the facts, you really don't understand how one investigation lead to, resulted in the ultimate conviction of Libby, then, my friend, you are beyond my help.

As for the rest of your post:

Reading comprehension...Ironic, coming from you.

See you had some of the facts. You just were not able to connect the dots. No worries. We'll help you out.

Well bully for you pointing out an irrelevant fact in support of your mistake.

And Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion. OJ for armed robbery. That's how the justice system sometimes works, sport. Slow, sometimes sloppy, but hopefully Karmic.

TD, again the irony of your user name just makes me laugh. You make these totally inaccurate statements, then, when presented with FACTS, you dance and parse words or run away and pretend the thread never existed. But we don't forget. They all still exist.

Can't quite figure you out--to be bold in the making of inaccurate and false statements... Strange indeed.

Either you don't really know what you were talking about most of the time or are just hoping no one notices the inaccuracies in your statements. Both explanations seem removed from reality in their own way...
Click to expand...

Let's try this again; Libby was not charged with ANYTHING related to the outing of a CIA agent. THEY ALREADY KNEW WHO DID IT.

You can desperately attempt to link Libby to the purpose of the investigation, but his crimes had ZERO to do with the Plame affair but rather were an effort by an overzealous prosecutor to charge someone with something to justify the millions spent in a case where the perpetrator was KNOWN before the investigation started. Not to mention imprisoning a reporter for no real reason as well.

End of case. I can't make it any clearer than that but apparently you want to play the obfuscation semantic game here.

Carry on. :roll:
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
:rofl:rofl:rofl

Care for me to link the so-called "ethical" Conservatives involved in scandals in the past 12 months? Or are you going to disown them and label them liberals?
Click to expand...

The Liberal list is far longer; but when you are wallowing in denial, I can see why you would attempt to play this silly game.
 
Truth Detector said:
Let's try this again; Libby was not charged with ANYTHING related to the outing of a CIA agent. THEY ALREADY KNEW WHO DID IT.

You can desperately attempt to link Libby to the purpose of the investigation, but his crimes had ZERO to do with the Plame affair but rather were an effort by an overzealous prosecutor to charge someone with something to justify the millions spent in a case where the perpetrator was KNOWN before the investigation started. Not to mention imprisoning a reporter for no real reason as well.

End of case. I can't make it any clearer than that but apparently you want to play the obfuscation semantic game here.

Carry on. :roll:
Click to expand...

Okay. Let's say Libby had zero to do with the outing of Plame, what are some possible reasons for him lying to federal investigators?
 
Lightdemon said:
Okay. Let's say Libby had zero to do with the outing of Plame, what are some possible reasons for him lying to federal investigators?
Click to expand...

p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s
 
Lightdemon said:
Okay. Let's say Libby had zero to do with the outing of Plame, what are some possible reasons for him lying to federal investigators?
Click to expand...

That question was already answered by Grim in this response:

Grim17 said:
He was convicted of perjury, because he made contradictory statements to investigators. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear, that he was not guilty of outing a covert CIA agent.
Click to expand...

You know, it would be very easy for you to "google" this for yourself as well. I think you knew the answer, but just wish to play the same games hazel is playing on this topic.
 
Lightdemon said:
Okay. Let's say Libby had zero to do with the outing of Plame, what are some possible reasons for him lying to federal investigators?
Click to expand...
Are you still pimpin' that whore? Jeezz. :doh
 
Truth Detector said:
You know, it would be very easy for you to "google" this for yourself as well. I think you knew the answer, but just wish to play the same games hazel is playing on this topic.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was feeling optimistic about having an actual conversation with the infamous TD. If I googled it, I would deprive myself of having the pleasure wouldn't I?


EDIT: And grim's response did not answer my question, because you see, it's an open ended question.
 
Where'd you all go? :confused:

The 3 of you jumped at me for my simple question, but now no one's playing? I feel used...:3oops:
 
Bush took a hard left turn towards the end of his first term and during his second term, showed his true colors, and betrayed Cheney and Rumsfeld. Hell, I don’t blame Cheney for spilling his guts, since Cheney remained loyal to Bush even when he disagreed with him. Bush was like his daddy in that he was a closet liberal who didn’t have a conservative bone in his body and like his daddy he was grossly incompetent as hell!
 
Truth Detector said:
Sam, Sam, Sam; there you go again Sam. Shame on you again. Here's a reminder of what Democrats said about WMDs lest we continue to desperately attempt to re-write history:

Here they are on video:

YouTube - Democrats Used to Say There Were WMD

Here are their statements, note the dates too Sam....I guess they were all lying too weren't they Sam? :rofl

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Click to expand...

wal uf textz 4 teh wyn!!!111ONE

kut an pasTe rulez
 
Lightdemon said:
Where'd you all go? :confused:

The 3 of you jumped at me for my simple question, but now no one's playing? I feel used...:3oops:
Click to expand...

u r goin to ge+ s0000 much kut an pAstE reespnze it wi11 make yer ize bl33d d00d
 
I can't believe all the misinformation in this thread. Good lord people!

1. Robert Novak's notorious article cited "two senior administration officials" as its sources. Not one, but two. Armitage was one. Patrick Fitzgerald didn't know who the other source was when the investigation started. So, any assertions that they knew who the leaker was before the investigation began are patently false. As it turned out, Karl Rove was the other source. Rove also leaked to Matt Cooper, and Libby leaked to Judith Miller, but they didn't mention her name.

2. To find out whether a law was broken, it was essential for investigators to determine who knew about Plame and when. It was during this investigation that Libby testified repeatedly to a Federal Grand Jury that he was surprised to learn about Plame from a conversation with Tim Russert in July. Nine different witnesses testified that they had conversations in June with Libby regarding Plame. These witnesses included Dick Cheney, Ari Fliecher, and Libby's own CIA briefer Craig Schmall. The jury didn't believe that Libby could have had nine conversations about something and then suddenly be surprised to learn about it during a 10th conversation. Since Libby obviously lied about when he learned who Plame was, he was rightfully convicted of obstruction of justice. And since the investigation was halted by Libby's lies, Fitzgerald was never able to bring charges to anyone for leaking her name. So, any assertions that Libby was unjustly thrown under the bus in a political witch hunt, or that his conviction had nothing to do with the outing of a covert agent, simply because nobody was ever charged with outing Valerie Plame, are patently false.

3. CIA director Michael Haden has confirmed that Valerie Plame was in fact a covert agent on the day Novak's article was published and her identity was exposed. So, any assertions that "there was no covered agent" (assuming covert here, right Prof?) are patently false.

4. A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq was created in 1998, and another one in 2002. So, statements made about Iraq in 1998 were based on the 1998 NIE, and have no relevance to the decisions that were made based on the 2002 NIE (which still predicted a grim situation, but one that had improved since 1998).

5. For three weeks prior to the Iraq invasion, UN weapons inspectors had been enjoying unrestricted access to Iraq. Hussein's bluff had been called and he was cooperating. George W. Bush was the last person to kick the inspectors out of Iraq, not Sadaam Hussein. So, assertions that "nobody knew" Iraq had no WMDs, or that all 15 intelligence agencies agreed in a 2002 NIE (before the inspectors were let back in) therefore the Iraq invasion was necessary, are patently false.

Truth Detector said:
You know, it would be very easy for you to "google" this for yourself
Click to expand...
Couldn't have said it better myself.
 
covered, not covert

or, either

the language back at the time was like this---to be COVERED as a COVERT agent by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, you had to meet certain specifications that it appears ms plame failed to measure up to

to be covered, one:

must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

USATODAY.com - CIA 'outing' might fall short of crime

she was not covered by the act cuz she had not been covert, she worked a desk job

mr prosecutor said as much many times, he could not seek for going after libby on outing her for more than just the one reason

her failure to meet conditions required to be covered being but another
 
Binary_Digit said:
2. To find out whether a law was broken, it was essential for investigators to determine who knew about Plame and when. It was during this investigation that Libby testified repeatedly to a Federal Grand Jury that he was surprised to learn about Plame from a conversation with Tim Russert in July. Nine different witnesses testified that they had conversations in June with Libby regarding Plame. These witnesses included Dick Cheney, Ari Fliecher, and Libby's own CIA briefer Craig Schmall. The jury didn't believe that Libby could have had nine conversations about something and then suddenly be surprised to learn about it during a 10th conversation. Since Libby obviously lied about when he learned who Plame was, he was rightfully convicted of obstruction of justice. And since the investigation was halted by Libby's lies, Fitzgerald was never able to bring charges to anyone for leaking her name. So, any assertions that Libby was unjustly thrown under the bus in a political witch hunt, or that his conviction had nothing to do with the outing of a covert agent, simply because nobody was ever charged with outing Valerie Plame, are patently false.
Click to expand...

Thanks Binary, fine work.

As you've probably read, Truth Detector stated that the Plame case had nothing to do with Libby's conviction:

Truth Detector said:
It sure as hell had NOTHING to do with the outting of Plame;
Click to expand...

Truth Detector said:
Libby's prosecution for lying under oath had NOTHING to do with the [Plame] case.
Click to expand...

Truth Detector - the most ironic user name ever.

This is usually the point where he disappears from the thread.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Since Libby obviously lied about when he learned who Plame was, he was rightfully convicted of obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Libby didn't "obviously lie", but I am a believer in law, so I agree that there was no choice but to find him guilty.

The reason I said he didn't obviously lie, is because back when all this was taking place, it wasn't an issue. Even the CIA never stated, or even implied, that discussing her publicly would be any violation of the law. So the topic of Valerie Plame had no more significance than discussing Frank the White House gardener. Libby maintains that he just didn't remember, or wasn't sure about conversations he had about the lady... Which is very plausible.

Think about it... Why would he lie about something that wasn't a violation of the law?


And since the investigation was halted by Libby's lies, Fitzgerald was never able to bring charges to anyone for leaking her name.
Click to expand...

Bull... Fitzgerald knew in the first few weeks of the investigation that Richard Armitage was Robert Novak's initial source for his op-ed. That was what this investigation was about... Remember? That fact has never been disputed.

Nothing Libby did or said resulted in the investigation coming to a halt. The investigation ended, because there was no crime committed concerning the public disclosure of Valerie Plame. Patrick Fitzgerald just wasted 2 years and millions of tax payer dollars investigating something that wasn't even a crime, so he tried to make Libby look the the reason nobody was indicted for the leak.

So, any assertions that Libby was unjustly thrown under the bus in a political witch hunt, or that his conviction had nothing to do with the outing of a covert agent, simply because nobody was ever charged with outing Valerie Plame, are patently false.
Click to expand...

Let me quote the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald:

“the defendant was neither charged nor convicted of any crime involving the leaking of Ms. Plame’s ‘covert’ status.” ​

He also went on to say:

“The reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson, included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby’s false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent.”​

Of course, the one thing Fitzgerald fails to mention in that statement, is the fact that libby didn't discuss Plame to anyone outside the White House until nearly 2 weeks after Armitage told Novak that Wilson's wife was the one who got him the Niger assignment.

Source.
 
Last edited:
I believe it was an attempt to gather a headline rather than keeping the bigger picture in mind. Cheney is more than likely largely proud of the achievements of the administration, and his Commander in Chief. Memoirs are going to expose "woulda coulda, shoulda" aspects because we are dealing with individuals who are passionate participants in public service who probably had severe disagreements with colleagues and superiors. Second of all, this is also more evidence that the relationship between the Vice President and the President surpassed the ridiculous tale of Fool and Conspiring Evil Man.

It will be another useful (though flawed) tool for future historians to figure out to an even greater degree the complicated atmosphere of the George W. Bush administration.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Cheney is more than likely largely proud of the achievements of the administration, and his Commander in Chief.
Click to expand...

Very good point.

The book will be 95% 'we did good,' 4% 'we could've done better', and 1% 'we shouldn't have done that.'

All the headlines will focus on the 4% and the 1%.

:)
 
Grim17 said:
Libby didn't "obviously lie", but I am a believer in law, so I agree that there was no choice but to find him guilty.
Click to expand...
Well I think his lying was blatantly obvious. Honestly, how can someone discuss something 9 different times, and the suddenly be surprised to learn it during a 10th conversation only a couple weeks later? If that doesn't set your BS detector off then it needs some serious calibration.

Grim17 said:
The reason I said he didn't obviously lie, is because back when all this was taking place, it wasn't an issue. Even the CIA never stated, or even implied, that discussing her publicly would be any violation of the law.
Click to expand...
Huh? It's not the CIA's job to decide or announce whether a law was broken. That was Fitzgerald's job. It would have been inappropriate for the CIA to do what you're suggesting. And again, CIA director Michael Hayden confirmed that Plame was a covert agent when her name was leaked to the press. The only question was whether or not the leaker knew she was covert when he opened his mouth.

Grim17 said:
So the topic of Valerie Plame had no more significance than discussing Frank the White House gardener. Libby maintains that he just didn't remember, or wasn't sure about conversations he had about the lady... Which is very plausible.

Think about it... Why would he lie about something that wasn't a violation of the law?
Click to expand...
1. It was a violation of the law if the person leaked what they knew to be classified information to the press, because Valerie Plame was a covert agent who had been on assignment during the 5 years prior. This was all confirmed by Michael Hayden years ago.

2. Libby maintains that he was surprised to learn who Plame was during a conversation with Tim Russert, but he'd had 9 conversations about Plame with 9 different people before that. His supposed surprise during the 10th conversation is not plausible at all. He didn't contradict himself based on a faulty memory, he contradicted 9 other witnesses based on blatant lies.

Grim17 said:
Bull... Fitzgerald knew in the first few weeks of the investigation that Richard Armitage was Robert Novak's initial source for his op-ed. That was what this investigation was about... Remember? That fact has never been disputed.
Click to expand...
*sigh* Like I already said:

1. Robert Novak's notorious article cited "two senior administration officials" as its sources. Not one, but two. Armitage was one. Patrick Fitzgerald didn't know who the other source was when the investigation started. So, any assertions that they knew who the leaker was before the investigation began are patently false.

Grim17 said:
Nothing Libby did or said resulted in the investigation coming to a halt. The investigation ended, because there was no crime committed concerning the public disclosure of Valerie Plame. Patrick Fitzgerald just wasted 2 years and millions of tax payer dollars investigating something that wasn't even a crime, so he tried to make Libby look the the reason nobody was indicted for the leak.
Click to expand...
That is factually incorrect. Libby obstructed the investigation because his lying prevented Fitzgerald from determining who -- besides Richard Armitage -- leaked classified information to the press. And Plame was a covert CIA agent who had worked undercover during the 5 years prior to Novak's article, and outing her as a CIA agent was most certainly a crime if the person knew her identity was classified. Again, Plame's status as a covert agent was confirmed by CIA director Michael Hayden.

Grim17 said:
Let me quote the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald:
“the defendant was neither charged nor convicted of any crime involving the leaking of Ms. Plame’s ‘covert’ status.” ​
He also went on to say:
“The reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson, included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby’s false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent.”

​
Click to expand...
What's your point? Libby wasn't charged with leaking Plame's name. That's all Fitzgerald is saying here. It is an undisputable fact that Libby was charged and convicted with obstructing the investigation that set out to determine who -- besides Richard Armitage -- leaked classified information to the press, and whether they knew it was classified at the time (hence violating the law).

Grim17 said:
Of course, the one thing Fitzgerald fails to mention in that statement, is the fact that libby didn't discuss Plame to anyone outside the White House until nearly 2 weeks after Armitage told Novak that Wilson's wife was the one who got him the Niger assignment.

Source.
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant. Nobody said that Libby leaked Plame's name to anyone, inside or outside the White House. Libby discussed Plame's CIA status with 9 different people before the 10th conversation which he falsely claimed was the first time he learned about her. It doesn't matter the least bit whether all of these people were government officials in the White House or not. The fact is he lied when he asserted that Tim Russert's interview was the first time he learned who Plame was.
 
Last edited:
Binary_Digit said:
Well I think his lying was blatantly obvious. Honestly, how can someone discuss something 9 different times, and the suddenly be surprised to learn it during a 10th conversation only a couple weeks later? If that doesn't set your BS detector off then it needs some serious calibration.


Huh? It's not the CIA's job to decide or announce whether a law was broken. That was Fitzgerald's job. It would have been inappropriate for the CIA to do what you're suggesting. And again, CIA director Michael Hayden confirmed that Plame was a covert agent when her name was leaked to the press. The only question was whether or not the leaker knew she was covert when he opened his mouth.


1. It was a violation of the law if the person leaked what they knew to be classified information to the press, because Valerie Plame was a covert agent who had been on assignment during the 5 years prior. This was all confirmed by Michael Hayden years ago.

2. Libby maintains that he was surprised to learn who Plame was during a conversation with Tim Russert, but he'd had 9 conversations about Plame with 9 different people before that. His supposed surprise during the 10th conversation is not plausible at all. He didn't contradict himself based on a faulty memory, he contradicted 9 other witnesses based on blatant lies.


*sigh* Like I already said:

1. Robert Novak's notorious article cited "two senior administration officials" as its sources. Not one, but two. Armitage was one. Patrick Fitzgerald didn't know who the other source was when the investigation started. So, any assertions that they knew who the leaker was before the investigation began are patently false.


That is factually incorrect. Libby obstructed the investigation because his lying prevented Fitzgerald from determining who -- besides Richard Armitage -- leaked classified information to the press. And Plame was a covert CIA agent who had worked undercover during the 5 years prior to Novak's article, and outing her as a CIA agent was most certainly a crime if the person knew her identity was classified. Again, Plame's status as a covert agent was confirmed by CIA director Michael Hayden.


What's your point? Libby wasn't charged with leaking Plame's name. That's all Fitzgerald is saying here. It is an undisputable fact that Libby was charged and convicted with obstructing the investigation that set out to determine who -- besides Richard Armitage -- leaked classified information to the press, and whether they knew it was classified at the time (hence violating the law).


That's irrelevant. Nobody said that Libby leaked Plame's name to anyone, inside or outside the White House. Libby discussed Plame's CIA status with 9 different people before the 10th conversation which he falsely claimed was the first time he learned about her. It doesn't matter the least bit whether all of these people were government officials in the White House or not. The fact is he lied when he asserted that Tim Russert's interview was the first time he learned who Plame was.
Click to expand...

i offer most respectfully to the learned, esteemed gentleman

1. such circular, repetitive reasoning would bore any jury to death

2. why didn't the prosecutor go after scooter for outing an agent?
 
The Prof said:
i offer most respectfully to the learned, esteemed gentleman

1. such circular, repetitive reasoning would bore any jury to death
Click to expand...

Hmm...It doesn't look like he's using [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic"]circular reasoning[/ame]. However it is repetitive, but only because you refused to listen, or you refused to address the points given. An example of this would be the above quotes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom