Oh Dear...The facts get in the way again.

[red states rule]

Simply because a retard agrees with me on an issue doesn't change the fact that they are retarded. Only in your sick mind is reaching common ground a reason to treat a retard differently. But if I treated a retard differently just because they agree with me I would be a hypocrite. You can agree with me all you want but that doesn't change the fact that you are a fucking retard and that upsets you and I really don't give a shit if you are upset about it. You might want everyone to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside and waste their time debating with your retarded ass without pointing out that you are retarded but I will not do so even when we agree and if you don't like it asshole then have fun voting on whether I'm right for calling a retard a retard or wrong for calling your retarded ass a retard because you aren't a retard and I will laugh when you are done voting and give you my middle finger.

You know when a lib is losing - they go straight to the personal attacks.

 

[red states rule]

* Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, was convicted in March on four of five counts in the investigation into who blew the cover of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, whose husband was an outspoken Iraq war critic.

* The Libby charges grew out of an investigation of the leak of Plame's identity in 2003 after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to build its case for war.

* No charges have been brought against anyone for the actual leaks to journalists about Plame. Federal law makes it a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent.

* Libby faced a maximum of 25 years in prison.

* Known as "Vice President Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney," Libby was a quiet force in building the Bush administration's case for the Iraq invasion.

* Libby also served in the administration of President Bush's father as deputy under secretary of defense and was at the State Department during the Reagan administration.

* He was educated at Yale University, Bush's alma mater, and Columbia University law school.

Libby did not leak the name - Armitage did

Libby's crime - his memories of who said what to whom more than three years ago are different


June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He – he’s perfect. She – she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) "I know who’ll look at it." Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

Why would Richard Armitage have been talking about Wilson and Plame in June of 2003? This was still weeks before Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame

 

[maineman]

Libby did not leak the name - Armitage did

Libby's crime - his memories of who said what to whom more than three years ago are different


June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He – he’s perfect. She – she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) "I know who’ll look at it." Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

Why would Richard Armitage have been talking about Wilson and Plame in June of 2003? This was still weeks before Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame.

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame

just because Armitage leaked Plame's name does not mean that Libby did not as well.

 

[red states rule]

just because Armitage leaked Plame's name does not mean that Libby did not as well.

It was one month BEFORE Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame.

It has been proven Libby did not leak the name of the CIA paper pusher

 

[maineman]

It was one month BEFORE Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame.

It has been proven Libby did not leak the name of the CIA paper pusher

I don't think it has been proven at all. And again...if Armitage leaked the name to anyone, Libby could have independently leaked the name to anyone else.

 

[red states rule]

I don't think it has been proven at all. And again...if Armitage leaked the name to anyone, Libby could have independently leaked the name to anyone else.

Fitzboy did not produce any eveidence to support your statement

Again, her ID was published a month before Joe Wilson's op-ed

 

[maineman]

Fitzboy did not produce any eveidence to support your statement

Again, her ID was published a month before Joe Wilson's op-ed

the fact that he did not produce evidence to support it is not PROOF that it is not the case.

 

[red states rule]

the fact that he did not produce evidence to support it is not PROOF that it is not the case.

My, your hate for Republicans is clouding your brain once again

Facts can never make it through to you

 

[Care4all]

Libby did not leak the name - Armitage did
Armitage was ONE of the leaks to the Press, Rove and Libby also leaked Plame's association with the Cia to the press, ie Tim Russert, Walter Pincus, Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, Chris Matthews too, I believe...

Libby's crime - his memories of who said what to whom more than three years ago are different

No RSR, the investigation and grand jury testimony of Libby was just 3 MONTHS from when Plame was outed NOT three years. Someone as smart as Libby does not forget what he did and said just 3 months earlier. He intentionally lied to the grand jury and to the FBI Investigators, in order to cover up what actually was done. There is no other reason for him to make up and fabricate a story to send Fitzgerald on a wild goose chase, other than to COVER UP the truth.

Shame on Libby, as an attorney he knew better than to obstruct Justice and commit purjury regarding this very serious matter.


June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He – he’s perfect. She – she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) "I know who’ll look at it." Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

Why would Richard Armitage have been talking about Wilson and Plame in June of 2003? This was still weeks before Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame.

Armitage was talking about Wilson and Plame before the outing, because Armitage was the Under Secretary of State that supplied Cheney with information on Wilson that was asked of him, through Libby.

Armitage was the person labeled "Under Secretary" in the trial notes.

He was involved with Libby, the Veep and Rove ALL ALONG.

But he did not leak this information alone, libby and Rove did also.

Armitage knowing about Plame before the news leak IS BECAUSE he was the point man in the State Dept that the Veep got his info from, this SHOWS that the veep was gathering info on Plame and Wilson BEFORE the leak FINALLY made it in to the press. The Lord knows how many press people they SLIPPED this info to before one of them decided to print it, Novak finally won.


http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame

Armitage is not innocent in this matter imo. If you read the trial notes, everytime you see the words "under Secretary of State" know that this was Armitage, Armitage gave Libby/Cheney the info on Plame.

 

[red states rule]

Armitage is not innocent in this matter imo. If you read the trial notes, everytime you see the words "under Secretary of State" know that this was Armitage, Armitage gave Libby/Cheney the info on Plame.

Libby is the innocent one

There was NO CRIME committed

 

[maineman]

Libby is the innocent one

There was NO CRIME committed

thanks AGAIN for your opinion.

 

[red states rule]

thanks AGAIN for your opinion.

No, from one of the persons who WROTE the law Libby was charged with breaking

 

[Care4all]

Libby is the innocent one

There was NO CRIME committed

Surely Libby was guilty of Obstructing Justice and Lying to FBI Investigators and committing Purgery before the grand jury, found guilty for 5 counts out of 6 I believe?

 

[red states rule]

Surely Libby was guilty of Obstructing Justice and Lying to FBI Investigators and committing Purgery before the grand jury, found guilty for 5 counts out of 6 I believe?

Sorry - no crime

Can you remember what you said to someone three years ago?

If that is the standard now, nobody will ever be found innocent of a similar charge. All is needed is to fine someone who says something different then you do

 

[Gunny]

Surely Libby was guilty of Obstructing Justice and Lying to FBI Investigators and committing Purgery before the grand jury, found guilty for 5 counts out of 6 I believe?

Libby was guilty of inconsistencies in his statements from one year to the next. I don't know ANY human being who would not be guilty of the same unless reading from a script.

It's called "damage control" for an investigation that would otherwise be an embarrassment.

 

[red states rule]

Libby was guilty of inconsistencies in his statements from one year to the next. I don't know ANY human being who would not be guilty of the same unless reading from a script.

It's called "damage control" for an investigation that would otherwise be an embarrassment.

The point is, this case never should have been brought

Here is what one of the authors of the law covering REAL covert agents had to say

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705_pf.html

 

[Gunny]

The point is, this case never should have been brought

Here is what one of the authors of the law covering REAL covert agents had to say

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705_pf.html

I'm not going to rehash the case. Where I stand has been clear throughout the thread. Where the witch hunters stand has also been made clear. No one's budging and I'm tired of having the same things repeated to me, and having to repeat the same facts back.

I only commented on Libby because I don't even consider what was done to him as being any real part of the Plame Menagerie.

 

[Care4all]

Libby was guilty of inconsistencies in his statements from one year to the next. I don't know ANY human being who would not be guilty of the same unless reading from a script.

It's called "damage control" for an investigation that would otherwise be an embarrassment.

From one year to the next? Where do you get this talking point from Gunny? He committed Purgery within 3 months of the outing. Not a year or two years or three years, but within 3 months of the incident.

 

[red states rule]

Libby SHOULD have rolled on the people who outed a CIA agent. That's what criminals do... they roll on bigger criminals. The testimony BY THE CIA at Scooter's trial was that Valerie Plame was covert and working on intel regarding Iran's nuclear capability. And, in fact, it was the CIA who referred the matter for investigation to the DOJ BECAUSE a covert agent was outed. All that remained was the intent of the perps and whether they KNEW she was covert at the time. And THAT'S why they prosecuted poor ole Scooter... because his lies interfered with the investigation.

Pity that your partisanship prevents you from assessing the facts.

She was not outed by the White House

and how can you "out" a paper pusher?

 

[red states rule]

From one year to the next? Where do you get this talking point from Gunny? He committed Purgery within 3 months of the outing. Not a year or two years or three years, but within 3 months of the incident.

You must not have read the link Care

There was no case

I suspect this will be overturned on appeal.