Roger L. Simon

Blacklisting Myself Memoir of a Hollywood Apostate in the Age of Terror

BUY HERE IN HARDCOVER- BUY HERE ON KINDLE! New radio: Fred Thompson Show, Hugh Hewitt on PJTV (first of five-parter). YouTube version of Roger on BookTV (After Words) with Armstrong Williams - here. Video: Roger on Greg Gutfeld's Red Eye. Reviews so far: Lloyd Billingsley @ FrontPage, Ron Radosh in the National Review, Sonny Bunch in the Washington Times, Andrew Klavan in City Journal, Marty Dodge in Blogcritics, Tod Goldberg in LV City Life, John Hinderaker in Powerline. Lone Star Times, Mark Coffey at Informed Speculation, John Ruberry at Marathon Pundit, Dan Blatt at Gay Patriot. First syndication Commentary. Advance comments from Michael Barone, John Podhoretz and Ron Silver. Podcasts: Milt Rosenberg Show, John J. Miller - National Review, Ed Driscoll - Sirius Radio. Video review by Bernard Chapin. FrontPage Interview w/ Jamie Glazov. Join the Facebook group. BUY HARDCOVER! - BUY KINDLE!

October 28th, 2005 7:54 am

At the Valerie Plame Employment Office

On the brink of the evident indictment of ‘Scooter’ Libby, I am still trying to puzzle out the arcane and not so arcane motivations behind the endless Valerie Plame melodrama. What is clear to me is that if Libby and/or Rove did make false statements to a grand jury, they are not particularly bright fellows. On the other hand, a reputedly bright very recent former president lied blatantly under oath. Of course, that was about sex - not nearly as important a matter as national security - but I wonder.

A blood attack is nows going on by the Democrats on the Republicans - payback time. It’s hard to say the Repubs don’t deserve it. In any case, in both situations the principles seem to have been manoeuvred into their lies by the opposite side - the usual political gotcha game - not that that excuses anyone.

It’s obvious too that the Plame Affair is not at all about some minor not-so-covert CIA official, but about Iraq. It is a replaying of the war on other turf. The odd thing about this is that it has always struck me that Iraq could just as easily have been a Democratic Party war. Despite his present ultra-dovish position, Gore, who has often been a foreign policy hawk during his career, might easily have led the nation into the Iraq War had he been elected. His opinions now are dictated, in part, by his current constituency. This is no more than normal human behavior.

As the for the run-up to the war, in looking back I think it was a big game of charades that everybody understood. Despite what was said, the obvious US motivation was geo-political. We wanted the despot Saddam out of the Middle East and replaced by a democracy. The French and the Russians - never particularly interested in democracy in the first place - desperately wanted to keep their cash cow in office. Everybody knew this, so the dreaded WMDs had to be emphasized in front of the UN. Never mind that whether Saddam had nuclear and other such weapons now or later was essentially irrelevant as long as he was in power and able to use them, never mind the supposedly missing weapons could be hidden at this moment in Syria, Lebanon or Iran (or even Iraq of course), never mind that there actually is a fledgling democracy in Iraq seemingly applauded by a vast majority of Iraqis, the weapons have been pronounced non-existent and the war a mistake.

Of course the real mistake was this emphasis on WMDs instead of a more honest declaration of the what the war was really about - democracy. On that score it hasn’t fared that badly, all things considered. But still the focus must be kept on missing WMDs. The story behind the story is the forged Niger documents, which are currently under FBI investigation. Who knows where that will lead or how it will be spun? But I’ll place my bets it can all be filed under the category of employment.

UPDATE: Neo-neocon brings her therapist’s eye and brain to the feeding frenzy.

116 Comments

1. jedrury:

Two points to remember as the proverbial shoe is about to drop on the Scooter — according to the press.

1.) A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich but convicting it is another matter altogether.

2.) What were the WH/Rove/Scooter thinking in June 2003 before they went to the grand jury? Did collective amnesia set in? Did they not hear of Watergate/Whitewater, etc.

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:13 am 2. David Thomson:

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:26 am 3. Bruce Hayden:

I still wonder about the intent requirement with Libby. I expect that he will just say, sorry, I didn’t remember. And then it will be up to Fitzgerald to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he probably had. Non-trivial. This is much harder than proving that Bill Clinton, at some point, had received oral sex from Monica Lewinsky. There, it would have taken just one time to prove the lie, and that she had done it at least once was unlikely to slip his mind. Highly unlikely.

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:47 am 4. Ann:

What is also interesting is the international drift by the media.

In the US, the administration offered a long list of reasons to go into Iraq, many of them as good or better than WMD’s.

But in the UK, Tony Blair only spoke of WMD’s.

Somehow the Blair vision of the war crossed the Atlantic and became the prevailing theory in the media here. The other reasons Bush gave were ignored in favor of Blair’s version.

This could have been intentional or accidental. It could have been the media living out their dreams from J-School of not believing anything those in power (in the US) tell them and preferring to look overseas for the truth. Or it could have been that the media were more intersted in what an avowed liberal, Blair, had to say than an avowed conservative, Bush. Or it could have been a combination of all of the above.

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:48 am 5. ed:

nice post. fair assesment.

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:49 am 6. jerry:

A couple of comments:

Jedbury: If they had collective amnesia they would not be in any legal jeopardy. “I do not recall…” is an effective legal defense because you have prove that the witness actually did recall at that time and place. Not bloody likely.

It is pretty clear that if Fitzgerald could not make a case on either the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act that, like all special prosecutors before him, he feels a need to come down on indictments to justify the expense. Making false statements is a very weak charge. If he believes that Libby is guilty of violating the two acts in question but can’t prove it to a jury then there is some justification of pursuing this course. After all they sent Capone up for tax evasion because that was what they could get him on. However, it is clear that these acts don’t apply in this case so what is the justification for an indictment? The Martha Stewart precedent doesn’t apply because in her case there were underlying crimes that were committed. Since there was no underlying crime committed the only possible legal justification for doing this is Fitzgerald can’t prove perjury, which should be prosecuted under any circumstances, he is falling back on the false statement charge. Again, I don’t believe this to be the case. I think this is another Special Prosecutor gone wild. Once he concluded no crime and no perjury then he should have ended the case. Finally, if can’t build a case against Rove after two years, the courts should refuse to grant him an extension to continue an investigation into a no-crime event.

One more thing is it just me or does strike any of you as a little strange that there is a have been plenty of leaks coming from a Grand Jury investigating leaks?

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:51 am 7. calvinist:

Despite what was said, the obvious US motivation was geo-political. We wanted the despot Saddam out of the Middle East and replaced by a democracy. The French and the Russians - never particularly interested in democracy in the first place - desperately wanted to keep their cash cow in office.

This is a succinct description of my feeling as well. My formulation is that 9/11 showed the damage weaker parties — be they Bin Ladin or Iraq, could inflict through asymmetrical warfare, hijacking, anthrax etc.

Saadam’s regime was already an enemy of the United States. What 9/11 showed was that it was now intolerable to let the situation fester. It had to be dealt with, and the U.S. had to win.

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:53 am 8. jedrury:

Prosecutors do not indict on memory failure or confusion unless they are politically motivated which this one presumably is not.

They indict for clear perjury; “he said, she said,” makes for a very weak case. You may think otherwise but I am right. The prosecutor, if he moves for an indictment, has something more. If he is merely proceeding on the testimony of Miller, Cooper, Novak, Plame, Wilson, “these notes said this and that was what happened;”

he has a tough road in DC.

This is a case built for trial. I do not accept that this case, if an indictment is returned,

is about a justification for going to war. An indictment will be very carefully drawn, pinpointing exactly the misstatements of contact, the testimony and how it was false before the grand jury. Prosecutors want to win and not make a statement on policy grounds.

That is why I say Watergate/Whitewater can not be forgotten; this indictment, if returned, has to be bigger than “he said she said,” or, “the light was green, no, it was red.”

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:57 am 9. grumpy:

As a former prosecutor (27 years), I think the most interesting observations have been those of legal analysts familiar with the relevant statutes. They seemed to argue generally that even if all the allegations were true, it is unlikely that: a) The disclosure statutes were intended to apply to the Plame/Wilson situation; b) The requisite criminal intent could ever be proved. I agree. Unfortunately, special prosecutors are evidently not required to concern themselves with substantive issues of probable cause prior to commencing expensive and endless investigations.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:02 am 10. jedrury:

Ugggh !!!!

“Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s top adviser, was indicted on five counts including obstruction of justice and perjury in the CIA-leak case.”

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:03 am 11. jerry:

Jedbury:

Special Prosecutors often indict because they feel a need to show results from a high profile expensive prosecution. That is the danger of Special Prosecutors. You must consider ego.

Here is how I think this will unfold. He will indict Libby with the hope that Libby will plea bargain much in the same that Sandy Berger did. Fitzgerald would be foolish to put this case in front of a jury. The defense is going to argue “There was no crime and you cannot expect my client to remember every detail of every conversation that he has with the press.” The defense only needs to convice one juror and believe that will be easy. No, Libby will plead innocent and beat the rap. Fitzgerald will end up looking rather silly in the end.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:11 am 12. MarkD:

It’ll never happen, but this law needs to be ammended to prevent prosecution absent an underlying crime. What happened to Martha Stewart, despite my loathing of the lady, was a travesty of justice. Ditto this.

How much money and time was wasted on he said/she said? Was Valerie covert? No. Game over. Meantime Iran is making nuclear threats.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:14 am 13. grumpy:

What a surprise!!! There will be no substantive violations charged because there is no underlying crime. There really do need to be special ethical rules for “special” prosecutors.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:14 am 14. jedrury:

The WashPo reports this non sequitur garbage:

“Libby essentially was charged with lying to protect his boss, the vice president. He testified that he learned of the identity of the CIA agent in question, Valerie Plame, from reporters. But evidence emerged indicating that he actually learned Plame’s name and her role in the CIA from Cheney. The evidence reportedly includes notes Libby took in a June 12, 2003, meeting with Cheney.”

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:15 am 15. jerry:

Speculation is over. Now lets see the evidence. Bring on the trial.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:18 am 16. thedragonflies:

This war has always been about freedom - the Islamofascists’ loathing of freedom and their desperate need to eliminate it from the planet in order for them to establish their nightmare caliphate across the globe.

WMD is just a tool the fascists are trying to use to eradicate freedom. Lack of WMD does not indicate a lack of the intent to eradicate freedom on the planet.

Isn’t it lovely that those on the front lines in defense of freedom are being criminalized by the very people they are defending?

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:20 am 17. Anthony (Los Angeles):

I’m not sure why the FBI is still investigating this; the Italians arrested a guy who admitted to being a French agent. He procured the forged documents on French orders. The Telegraph has the story, linked below:

http://tinyurl.com/5h79e

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:23 am 18. Paleokaus:

1. Even the wingers’ hit patrol has not found any partisan dirt on Mr. Fitzgerald. He only has one obvious motivation to indict Libby other than to convict Libby, which is to get Libby to rat on Cheney, the true cancer in our formerly democratic government.

2. I think the legitimate reason for those who oppose the war to be happy is that this may expose the secret and agenda driven process that led us into this debacle. No one should be happy that someone has been charged with a crime.

3. I still ask, when are the Bush daughters going over to fight? I guess they have ‘other priorities.” or maybe it is because the insurrection is in its “final throes.”

4. Yes, I am angry and so should be the parents of 2000 dead servicemen. Maybe now we will find out how this happened.

5. Regarding leaks, Fitzgerald has to talk with defense attorneys, who then leak. Unlike Starr’s sieve, there is no reason to think Fitzgerald’s office is leaking.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:28 am 19. Dan Wismar:

A wonderful corrective to the current mainstream conventional wisdom on how Bush “misled” us into the Iraq war is this recent WaPo piece by Robert Kagan, who goes back to the editorial positions of the NYT and the WaPo from 1997 to 2000 as regards the threat from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Those positions could be characterized as alarmist, and criticized the Clinton administration’s lack of forceful action against Hussein. They spoke of necessary military action, derided the resolve and effectiveness of the U.N., and recognized the self-serving behavior of France and Russia who favored the lifting of Iraq’s U.N. sanctions.

What a difference a Republican in the White House makes a few short years later. This Kagan piece was long overdue. I was surprised to see it in the Post, though it does concentrate a bit more on the NYT statements from the 1997-2000 time period.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:35 am 20. jerry:

I just read the indictment. It is very narrowly focused indictment based on a technical charge of not telling the truth. It is not about content and it would be foolish for someone to hang anti-war message on this. The background in the indictment pretty much calls out the facts on Wilson’s trip, the fact that his wife set it up for him (nepotsim) and for those who are objective, the clear fact that Wilson lied in his press accounts of what he found.

Personal opinion here is that Libby will still take this trial and he will be the rap. His technical lie seems to be that he knew the true source of Plame’s status but he covered it by saying that he heard it from reporters. This is perjury trap because what he told Russert and Miller was not true and by testifying truthfully that he lied to them as to the source he has committed perjury.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:42 am 21. Knucklehead:

The AP seems to think this is all about “the war in Iraq”.

The five-count indictment accuses Libby of lying about how and when he learned about CIA official Valerie Plane’s identity in 2003 and then told reporters about it. The information was classified.

Any trial would shine a spotlight on the secret deliberations of Bush and his team as they built the case for war against Iraq.

Bush ordered U.S. troops to war in March 2003, saying Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program posed a grave and immediate threat to the United States. No such weapons were found. The U.S. military death toll climbed past 2,000 this week.

Reuters?

Libby, who as Cheney’s chief of staff played a major behind-the-scenes role in building the case for the Iraq war…

The leak case has put a spotlight on the sometimes aggressive tactics the White House uses to counter critics of the Iraq war. It has also focused attention on the administration’s shifting justifications for the 2003 invasion, from the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction — which were never found — to a need to spread democracy.

In neither article did I see any mention of information that discredited Wilson’s claims (claims which Rueters seems to claim were the impetus for the entire affair) or whether the outing of Plame was in any way criminal.

The Fourth Estate has regrouped their Fifth Column and is marching for all they are worth. We’ll see if they manage to reach some objective.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:48 am 22. jedrury:

Jerry:

Libby will be on trial but to make the case the witnesses must be Cooper and Miller and Russert and Wilson. Sweat time for the press.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:51 am 23. Jett-Parmer:

The indictment should go to trial. A great validation if taxpayer dollars were spent wisely, if nothing else.

Paleokaus, your anger is misplaced. What do the Bush twins have to do with anything?

Knucklehead, Wilson was generally discredited by numerous folks, including a Senate investigative committee. In fact, his visit underscored the fact that Iraq had approached, but not bought from Niger.

I don’t think Fitz has any axe to grind, but once you get committed to a project (regardless of alliegience) you will be inclined to follow through.

Oct 28, 2005 - 11:00 am 24. Inspector Callahan:

Paleokaus says,

Wingers’ hit patrol? Excuse me? They didn’t even try to dig up dirt, UNLIKE what the Clinton admin was successful at doing to Ken Starr.

Formerly democratic government? When did the country become a dictatorship? I remember voting (FOR Bush and Cheney, by the way) in 2000 and 2004. Was that all a ruse?

secret and agenda driven process that led us into this debacle

Honest people may disagree with the reasons for going to war. They’ve been debated on this blog and countless others. But they are valid reasons, whether you agree with them or not. Maybe you’re just not honest.

If the Bush daughters sign up, it will be up to them. Just like EVERY OTHER PERSON in the services.

Oh, about the 2,000 deaths, you forgot to mention the “Grim Milestone” meme. Haven’t been checking your DNC talking points lately, have you?

And I’m angry too, since the left is only good for knee-jerk emotionalism, half-truths, wild accusations, and B.S. I am so tired of this crap.

TV (Harry)

Oct 28, 2005 - 11:02 am 25. MikeH:

With all the media focus (frenzy?) over the Plame affair, I have a queasy feeling that this is a “Summer of Condit” moment all over again. It’s like focusing on whether Roosevelt buddies got preferential military contracts while von Monteuffel and the 5th Panzer Army are lining up on the other side of the pine trees in the Ardennes.

Oct 28, 2005 - 11:25 am 26. Knucklehead:

Jett-Parmer,

Understood. But this is almost NEVER mentioned when anything to do with the Plame Affair is the topic of an MSM article or TV report. Wilson is presented as a “critic of the administration’s Iraq policy” rather than as the liar and hack he’s been demonstrated to be. Instead, what we get is some version of …the sometimes aggressive tactics the White House uses to counter critics of the Iraq war.

We don’t get anything like, “Wilson, an example of the sometimes agressive and underhanded tactics critics of the Iraq War…”. We get “sometimes aggressive tactics used to counter”.

Oct 28, 2005 - 11:36 am 27. Kevin P:

Roger:

If Fitzgerald can convict Libby for perjury, more power to him. Lying under oath is a crime and if it was intentional it doesn’t matter what the underlying charge is. I am not saying Libby is guilty, but if it can be proven that it was intentional and not just bad memory then he should be punished. Clinton tried to give the “oh, it’s OK to lie under oath because the charge is political and it is a private affair” and many people bought that spin. It was crap then and it is crap to borrow Clinton’s spin to defend Libby.

The press is trying to take this indictment and turn it into a trial of the War in Iraq. It ain’t gonna happen. There was no indictment on the original charge. The only thing on trial is where and when Libby got the info and does his testimoney conflict with the facts. WMD is not going to come up in the trial. This trial is not going to blow up into a trial of the conduct of the War. The press and the Dem’s want to try to get Fitzgerald to turn this into a giant conspiracy witch hunt regarding the war but it is going to be narrowly focused and no matter how hard Chris Matthews tries to huff and puff and blow President Bush down, this trial is not going to do it. Fitzgerald is not charging anyone with intentionally blowing Plames cover.So no matter how many times the Press tries to work that charge in it isn’t true. This isn’t a Independent Council in the style of Iran-Contra or Whitewater which allows him to roam free over all aspects of the administration’s conduct.

Oct 28, 2005 - 11:52 am 28. Kevin P:

Roger:

Oct 28, 2005 - 11:53 am 29. Plainslow:

I wonder if Mr Libby is smart enough to Google for Sandy Berger’s attorney.

Oct 28, 2005 - 12:03 pm 30. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

Bush has always at a gut level understood the War On Terror, maybe now he will understand the domestic war that has been waged on him. While Bush doesn’t need to have any Clintonian or Nixonian “enemies lists”, or resort to the type of tactics they did, he certainly has the bully pulpit and needs take a long overdue turn at such pulpit.

I am no proponent of a Right Wing Judiciary, rather I am a Neo-con where National Security overides all. Negativity will prevail, no compromise will stop this now and this indictment will dominate the news if so allowed, the thing Bush should do is nominate a very articulate intellegent but also extremely conservative judge (a Cheney type, reasonable and mild mannered on the surface but with hard ideological beliefs that are naturally softened by his demeanor). This will give the reactionary left a fight they will never resist waging and also give the President a better topic to fight on. This will also give a much needed break from being on the defensive at home, time for the offense to take the field and Bush needs to be the Quarterback.

Also expect a large part of the Republican base carping at Bush to come home and once again start blocking for him, the WOT Neocons like myself will defer on the Conservative Judge and the Judicial Conservatives will be happy. With this Fineman and other liberals predicting with glee and hope for that impending break-up of the Conservative coalition can get a well needed sniff of smelling salts.

Oct 28, 2005 - 12:12 pm 31. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

Oct 28, 2005 - 12:15 pm 32. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

Oct 28, 2005 - 12:16 pm 33. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

Triple post… SORRY!

Oct 28, 2005 - 12:17 pm 34. Patrick Tyson:

Add “breathtaking” to “stupidity” if what the indictment charges is what Libby did.

Oct 28, 2005 - 12:23 pm 35. Charlie (Colorado):

Prosecutors do not indict on memory failure or confusion unless they are politically motivated which this one presumably is not.

Wouldn’t it be pretty to think so?

Sadly, beyond partisan motivations, there are a number of other “political” motivations that might apply:

(1) After two years and close to a milion dollars, coming back with a “no bill” wouold be somewhat personally embarrassing, wouldn’t you think? What would it do to Fitzgerald’s reputation as a hard-driving winning prosecutor?

(2) prosecutors generally have a lot of ego-involvement. Notwithstanding any partisan issues, I can easily see Fitzgerald taking some umbrage at not being treated with the deference he feels he expects.

(3) with a two year investigation of what has been a politically charged case from the start, Fitzgerald may feel that if he doesn’t indict, he’ll be reviled as a partisan hack, and he’s still got to live in DC and keep his job if the next President is a Democrat.

All of these motivations seem plausible, none of them have anything to do with partisan politics per se.

Oct 28, 2005 - 12:25 pm 36. Patrick Tyson:

Doesn’t Patrick Fitzgerald live somewhere in or near Chicago? His day job is there.

Oct 28, 2005 - 12:39 pm 37. neo-neocon:

Charlie (Colorado)–Thanks! You saved me the trouble of writing what you just wrote, and did it better than I could have. My sentiments exactly. It’s difficult, although not impossible, for a special prosecutor to pull an Emily Litella and say, after all that ruckus, “Never mind.”

If you search hard enough there’s always an indictable offense, always. Perjury is one of the best, because everyone makes errors. Whether Libby’s lie was an error or an outright lie remains to be seen, but what’s its significance?

Those who say that perjury is lying under oath are incorrect, by the way. “Perjury” is a legal term with a specific definition and is limited to lying about a material fact. (See this.)

As far as the buildup to the Iraq are goes, I’m with Roger–it was common knowledge, at least in the blogosphere, that the extreme emphasis on WMDs was for the world international community–the UN (although fat lot of good that did). There were always multiple reasons for the war, chief among them changing geopolitical realities in the region. But that would have been a hard sell, to say the least.

Oct 28, 2005 - 12:51 pm 38. ex-democrat:

“Right then guys, who’s next for the ducking stool? http://www.shanmonster.com/witch/traits/ducking.html”

- DNC strategist.

Oct 28, 2005 - 12:59 pm 39. jedrury:

The prosecutor sounded “earnest,” not political. He thinks he has a case, so go to trial and try to convict a ham sandwich with his star witnesses, Cooper, Miller and Russert and Ambassador Joe. This is the first big political DC case since the Age of Clinton when it was every day, 24/7. DC juries can be finicky.

I am not sure of what the response of Libby will be. There is a lot here for a creative defense. Will he defend it like that DeLay tomcat, scatching and biting and bomb throwing all the way, or, will he go gently like an over par country club Republican?

Oct 28, 2005 - 12:59 pm 40. ex-democrat:

“Right then guys, who’s next for the ducking stool? http://www.shanmonster.com/witch/traits/ducking.html”

- DNC strategist.

Oct 28, 2005 - 1:00 pm 41. Steven Mitchell:

For the record if anyone is counting, what Kevin P, Charlie, and neo-neocon said–especially the part about if he perjured himself, nail him for that.

Oct 28, 2005 - 1:04 pm 42. Easter Lemming:

1. If Valerie Blame was some “minor not-so-covert” agent this would have never been a case.

A number of conservatives have repeatedly played the public and their base on that story.

2. The UK Military of Defense just commissioned a large survey to see how we are doing at winning hearts and minds. 45% of Iraqis believe attacks on Western troops justified. 82% are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops; less than 1% believed coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security.

Immediately after the war the coalition embarked on a campaign of reconstruction. That appears to have failed, with the poll showing that 71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works, and unemployment is 40 - 50%.

This war has been a complete failure. Meanwhile the average American taxpayer would have had to pay $4,000 more in taxes except war funding has all been borrowed.

Lies, war, massive debt, crony corruption - this is what half the country elected. As more information comes out perhaps people should check where they are getting their information from.

Oct 28, 2005 - 1:07 pm 43. thedragonflies:

I read the indictment. In the begining, 1-f, it states “Prior to July 14, 2003 Valerie Wilson’s association with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.”"

It seems that this is one of the “facts” that the case is being built on. I have been reading many reports in the blogosphere that this woman was known by some of her neighbors, and some in D.C. as working for the CIA, and indeed, she drove to work at the CIA daily.

I would guess that a defense lawyer (I’m not one) would set about destroying the validity of that “fact” as step one in the defense of Libby.

Oct 28, 2005 - 1:08 pm 44. ex-democrat:

(sorry for the double post).

neo - it’s not just that the WMD/direct threat part of the rationale was stressed for the benefit of the UN crowd (as it had to be, given the UN’s charter regarding self-defense), there is also the delicate business of not telegraphing your mindset to your mortal enemies.

i’m convinved this still plays out now, every day of the war: if your real intent is to foment an insurrection in, say, Syria and Iran, it’s not very smart to announce that to the world, is it?

i still recall when our president said these words to the nation - while the horror of 911 was still fresh in our minds:

“Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war — to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

I don’t remember too many dissenters back then.

Oct 28, 2005 - 1:10 pm 45. velocette:

As we’ve seen in the Miers debacle, Bush & Co do make mistakes. Their mistake in the runup to the Iraq War was their emphasis on WMD’s. They did this in the hopes of getting the UN’s blessing. It was a very bad move diplomatically. If the Bushies were dead set on taking out Saddam, why allow the possibility of the French & Russians throwing a monkey wrench into the works? The attempted assasination of Bush I, Saddam’s attempts to shoot down our air planes patrolling the no-fly zone, his violation of Gulf War I peace terms, etc., would have been justification enough for the US public, tho possibly not Blair’s Britain.

This mistake lands largely in the lap of Colin Powell and the State Department, tho for some reason the media seems more eager to blame Bush.

Oct 28, 2005 - 1:11 pm 46. Kevin P:

Neo-Neocon-

I am not a lawyer and I can’t say that I know all the facts. But it seems to me that what Fitzgerald is accusing Libby of is lying about a material fact. he said that he found out about Plame from the press and that there was paper evidence that he knew about Plame well before the time he says he first found out. This doesn’t mean he is guilty in regards to exposing a C.I.A. covert agent but it does mean he lied to the F.B.I. and the grand jury. We will hear libby’s side but it doesn’t look good for him.

Fitzgerald- “This indictment is not about the war.” I was watching Blowhard with Matthews and you could see him and some of his guests still trying to to pretend that this trial will be a expose of the pre War intelligence and the run up to war. Fitzgerald went out of his way to say that his focus was not on the war and only on the specifics of this perjury and obstruction of justice charge. Even if Libby flips on someone the trial will not be about W.M.D., Iraq, or even the question of outing Valerie Plame. The law that requires proof that the outing is intentional and that they absolutely knew that she was still covert was part of Fitzgeralds limitations and so far he has decided that the threshold of that law was not breached and this will strictly be a perjury and obstruction charge.

The dissapointment of the press is so obvious. This will not be watergate, although the press will still try to gin up that analogy up. “Shadow over the Whitehouse”, Cheney, Rove, “Will it reach the President himself” Wishfull thinking. They want it so bad and they will not get it.

Oct 28, 2005 - 1:12 pm 47. insatty:

President Bush should just pardon Libby before his family is financially ruined and his reputation destroyed. The Democrats and their partners in the MSM did the same thing to Casper Weinberger and only a pardon kept him from being burned at the liberal stake. Libby is a genuine patriot who believes in and wants to win the War on Terror, unlike the MSM and the Democrats. Libby and Rove were justifiably angry that the CIA through a liberal employee sent the liberal employee’s liberal husband to Niger damage a conservative Commander in Chief.

In the final analysis, the Left and its lapdog MSM want to refight the Iraq war, which we are WINNING (no matter what moonbats like Paleokaus say). The Left, the Democrats, and the MSM will appease terrorists if it will bring them back to power. Bush cannot win this fight with the MSM on the adverse team.

So just sidestep the fight: pardon Libby, appoint a real conservative to SCOTUS, win the war, publicize the winning of the war, publicize the economy (3.8% growth last quarter despite the hurricanes), cut spending, and fight the border problem. Do like Reagan: go over the MSM’s head directly to the People.

Oct 28, 2005 - 1:23 pm 48. thedragonflies:

Punishing Libby and destroying him financially is all part of the game, I guess. The point seems to make it so painful to be a conservative in DC that conservatives stop showing up. I hope that Libby gets lots of financial help via contributions from conservatives to help his legal defense. And if Bush wants to pardon him at some point, better yet.

Oct 28, 2005 - 1:34 pm 49. AST:

I’d say this was worth it if every bureaucrat in Washington quit speaking to reporters from now on. Part of Bush’s troubles is the fact that he’s saddled with a huge number of bureaucrats who hate him, including apparently, the CIA, and who would be happy to see him mired in a scandal.

Oct 28, 2005 - 1:50 pm 50. In Vino Veritas:

Is it just me, or does that seem like a very anti-democratic statement. Basically, you are saying that there is some elite in this country that knows the real reason our gevernment makes decisions. The governemnt, knowing that this secret reason will be a “hard sell” to the rest of us plebians, then arbitrarily chooses how to get us to agree with its decisions, as though it were rolling out a marketing campaign.

That’s striking to me in its cynicism. Is that really how a democracy is meant to work?

Oct 28, 2005 - 1:53 pm 51. ex-democrat:

in vino - while it might be an interesting question as to how a genuine democracy like ours balances, in an intelligent and adult way, the government’s dual roles as guide and lackey.

however, the last time i checked there is no giant democracy called ‘the international community’ so your point is moot.

Oct 28, 2005 - 2:06 pm 52. Charlie (Colorado):

Is it just me, or does that seem like a very anti-democratic statement. Basically, you are saying that there is some elite in this country that knows the real reason our gevernment makes decisions.

Well, I suppose if by “some elite” you mean “ordinary, reasonably intelligent citizens who read the press and don’t accept 10 second sound bites as their source of all information”, then I suppose I’d have to say, “yeah, and so what?”

If by “some elite” you mean a group of neo-con insiders in Cheney’s office who aren’t talking about the real reasons, then you’re gonna have to explain how it is then that a bunch of unconnected, well-read but otherwise not particularly elite people knoew this stuff, and knew it back years ago.

If by “some elite” you mean a secret cabal of Freemasons and Zionist neocons intent on subverting the foreign policy of the US in order to achieve Israel’s geopolitical aims, then the answer is “yes, and now we have to kill you.”

Pick one of the three and we’ll continue.

Oct 28, 2005 - 2:07 pm 53. Jim Rockford:

Two things stand out in the Indictment:

1. Plame’s name and status and that yes she did send her husband to Niger were faxed all over the place by the CIA to the White House and discussed by senior WH officials. Suggesting that the CIA did not take many steps to protect her “covert” status.

2. The indictment rests on the assertion that the Vice President told Libby directly of Plame’s status, before any reporter spoke to Libby, and the three reporters deny having told Libby about Plame’s status.

Well, good luck with that one in court. Miller seems to have had extensive contacts with Libby BEFORE the Vice President told Libby about Plame; to the point where Maureen Dowd is practically echoing Bill Keller’s “entanglement” odd word choices. Cooper is dead meat for any semi-competent Defense Attorney let alone a shark like Tom Mesereau; and so too would be Russert.

But recall the Michael Jackson trial; the jury felt that the alleged victim’s mother was so motivated by money and such a liar that they disregarded ALL of the other testimony by the other witnesses. The danger for Fitzgerald is that putting Cooper on the stand (he will HAVE to testify) can so undermine the case by motive for lying (his wife is a top Hillary staffer, Mandy Grunewald). There’s no way a reporter who’s married to a top staffer for the leading Democratic Presidential candidate is a credible witness in a partisan investigation. Martha was undone by her assistant’s testimony, altered diaries (physical corroborating evidence), her broker’s testimony, and corroborating phone logs. Martha was unlikeable and her assistant and broker were sympathetic little guys. Tim Russert can be painted as a “master of the universe” entitled press big-wig; Cooper has problems; and Miller a history of in Dowd’s words “relationships with powerful men.”

I would not want my case hanging on that testimony.

Oct 28, 2005 - 2:21 pm 54. Kevin P:

Roger:

Yes, WMD was emphasized. But the myth that many anti-war advocates try to spread is that it was the only reason stated. Read President Bush’s speech to the U.N. Freedom and Democracy in the M.E. was given as one of the reasons and it was done numerous other times as well. They also argued that those governments that support terror were going to be in trouble and, yes, I know that Saddam was not the mastermind behind 9-11 but he was a open and enthusiastic supporter of terrorism all over the world and his country was a sanctuary for terrorists.

As much as the MSM is going to try to take this trial and try to attach it to the “Bush lied, people died” meme it will not fly. The trial will be about Libby not telling the truth to the F.B.I. and the grand jury about when he knew that Plame worked at the C.I.A. At this point it is not even about exposing Plame. Fitzgerald is not even charging him with that crime. The only question, as of this moment, is did Libby lie or not.Pundits can try to pump this into something else but there is no there there. When the left figures this out they are going to end up ripping Fitzgerald because their political bloodlust will not be satisfied. They wanted a spy exposing conspiracy that would expose the criminal nature of the war in Iraq and they are going to get a trial about lying about whether Libby heard about Plame from reporters and when he first heard the name. This is inside baseball politics and it won’t even generate a tell all book. There might not even be a trial, if the evidence against Libby is solid he may avoid the trial in exchange for a lighter sentence. Poor Chris Matthews.

Oct 28, 2005 - 2:41 pm 55. jedrury:

Jim:

You are spot on. Think trial, think witnesses, think credibility.

Cooper,husband of lovely Mandy; Miller, whackjob reporter, Ms. Run-a-Muck, blasted by her own Times; Russert, former Democratic operative [ let's think how good is Timmy under cross?] and Ambassador Joe, Kerry’s advisor with a Everestian ego and many statements in the media, accused by the Senate tres guilty of misstatements.

This is not an easy jury case except that it is brought in DC, the last truly liberal bastion of America.

Oct 28, 2005 - 3:10 pm 56. dougf:

LOL.

Thankfully I know NOTHINK !!! and intend to pursue the invaluable and ever useful Schultz gambit at every opportunity.

Perhaps ‘Scooter’ might have been better served to have used this one as well. It’s almost perjury proof.

Oct 28, 2005 - 3:14 pm 57. Paleokaus:

Insatty says “we are WINNING”

To repeat a previous post by Easter Lemming,

“The UK Military of Defense just commissioned a large survey to see how we are doing at winning hearts and minds. 45% of Iraqis believe attacks on Western troops justified. 82% are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops; less than 1% believed coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security.

Inspector Callahan wants to know what the Bush daughters have to do with this. The answer is that almost none of the chicken hawks who are so bellicose, or their families, have ever taken the personal risk they have imposed on our soldiers. There are plenty of other reasons why this war was a big mistake, but this just stands out as the height of hypocrisy.

Inspector Callahan also says that this is a democracy because we had elections in 2000 and 2004 and on at least one of those occasions, the person who won the election became President. The answer is that the concept of democracy includes getting accurate information from the government and not having decisions and made by idealogues and them lied about and justified by an ever changing stream of inarticulate (but “adult”)nonsense.

You folks can beat your chests all you want, but our country is profoundly weaker now than it was before the Iraq war.

Oct 28, 2005 - 3:27 pm 58. Rick Ballard:

Kevin,

Why has everyone lost their memory concerning the intended audience for the WMD charges? In January of ‘03 deVillepin was performing unnatural acts before the United Nations Security Council (at the direction of the UN brothel masters) in an effort to prevent passage of the final UN resolution authorizing the use of force on the Harlot’s Haven in Baghdad.

He was successful and Saddam’s French and French-Canadian whoremasters were delighted. French and French-Canadian venality triumphed over the WMD message that was delivered in aid of stiffening British resolve and in aid of convincing Saddam’s (unknown to us) purchased allies on the UNSC.

I sincerely hope that Saddam’s hangman is inept and I wish that it were possible to put his French and French-Canadian whoremasters on the scaffold with him. They’ve earned it.

Our Congressional representatives voted the authorization of the use of force in Iraq in October of ‘02 as a continuation of the US policy of seeking regime change in Iraq that was passed by another Congress in ‘98. WMD was one of 22 reasons given in the authorization to use force. Nobody lied to the American people in ‘98 or in ‘02 or in ‘03 - contrary to lies of the Demsm.

Oct 28, 2005 - 3:38 pm 59. Kevin P:

Roger:

The “chickenhawk” crowd loves this line of argument because it is their big nah,nah, nah, moment and it is just as stupid as the “anyone who doesn’t support the war is unpatriotic” line of crap. Some war opponents are un patriotic and some are just opposed to the war. My brother is in Kosovo at Camp Bondsteel outside Pristina. and Chelsea Clinton is not in the Army. Are Bill and Hillary chickenhawks? We have a volunteer Army and we have the best armed forces in the world. If the Bush twins were in the army no platoon leader would want them anywhere near their platoon because they would become the instant target of every terrorist in the Iraq or anywhere else they were posted.Some women can be fine soldiers. Take at a look at the twins and any soldier would say that they were more likely to get their fellow soldiers killed and they would not want to serve with them At best they would be doing paperwork back in the States and so President Bush would not be risking the life of his kids anyway.So the “he would be less likely to send our soldiers to war if his own kids were in the service” argument is drivel. This argument is juvenile and makes for great protest signs but it is the sign of someone who wants to hurl insults and gotchas rather then discuss issues.

Oct 28, 2005 - 4:01 pm 60. Paleokaus:

The point is not that the twins should really be in the military. I don’t even want them driving down the road I am on. The point is that these folks are very cavalier with other people’s lives.

We have enough trouble arguing Iraq without also arguing Kosovo.

There may have been 22 reasons in the resolution, but the one that was cited as justifying immediate action was the WMDs. You are just reinventing history if you deny that. I saw Cheney on Meet the Press just before the war and I heard him say it. Right before he answered Russert’s question about our plans after we won by saying he was not concerned because we would be “welcomed as liberators.” Somewhere in there the oil revenues were going to pay for the war.

But other than that, we are WINNING … right? … right?

Oct 28, 2005 - 4:40 pm 61. Mike_Nargizian:

DAVID CORN ARTICLE ON PAJAMAS MEDIA - QUOTES Hatchet Job from RICHARD (DICK) SILVERSTEIN

Dick Silverstein seems to be obsessed (see envious of) with Pajamas Media and smearing its contributors.

I will do a full proper fisking of his 2nd rate immature hatchet job. However, you should be aware that David Corn is now quoting Silverstein’s hatchet job in his latest piece on Pajamas Media.

CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE.

Oct 28, 2005 - 4:49 pm 62. The Fop:

“82% are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops;”

Let’s see, there’s about 170 Iraqis to every one US soldier. If the above statement was true, there would be 2,000 dead soldiers in the first two weeks after the Baathist government was overthrown.

What happened to “hand to hand combat in the streets of Baghdad”.

What happened to “millions of starving Iraqis flooding the borders of Syria and Iran, creating a huge refugee crisis”.

What happened to “Iraq is not ready for elections, no one will show up to the polls”.

What happened to “the Arab street will EXPLODE with anti-US sentiment, with moderate Arab regimes falling into the hands of Islamists”.

Hey all you lefties, keep moving the goal posts, it’s what your good at. I guess if Bush = Hitler, it stands to reason that Iraq = failure

Oct 28, 2005 - 4:58 pm 63. Kevin P:

Paleokaus:

You brought in the chickenhawk argument. Using your logic Bill and Hil are chickenhawks because their daughter did not participate in the Balkan wars. I don’t think they are because it is a silly and pointless argument. But using your logic the Clinton’s are very cavalier with other peoples lives because their daughter did not serve.

I did not deny the emphasis on WMD. In fact it was the first thing I wrote. But you are re-inventing History if you do not admit that a free Iraq was not among the goals of the war. Read Bush’s speech in front of the U.N.

Oct 28, 2005 - 5:00 pm 64. Paleokaus:

Kevin

We need to separate the theological side of the neo-cons’ argument (all people yearn for democracy) from the “fixed” intelligence they used to push us into the war. There is no proof of the theological argument, but that sort of thing does not worry these people. We know the intelligence was messed with and the CIA ignored by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Just because they fooled the NYT and WaPo proves nothing except that those papers formerly were inclined to trust the government. Another casualty of the war.

I am trying to find the casualty count for Kosovo, since you bring it up, but I cannot find it on the DOD website. I thought we are still over there! Overall, the Balkan situation seems to have been handled far more thoughtfully that Iraq. I am not saying that all leaders have to put their families in harms way. I am saying that this group is particularly poorly positioned to tell anyone else to take risks and they have exhibited egregiously bad judgment that they have attempted to hide through such stunts as banning press coverage of retuning casualties.

Oct 28, 2005 - 5:19 pm 65. sammy small:

Kevin P

The chickenhawk argument is a red herring. Its really about the left’s feelings of inadequacy and their incapacity to peform at the level of physical and mental toughness required by today’s military.

Paleokaus

The war in Iraq is a major success in my book. The shakeup of Arabian Gulf area has started a transformation that will take years, but it will continue to evolve into a safer place. And you don’t get that kind of result watching of sanctions and oil bribery waste a year after year of possibilities. Anything worth anything is worth fighting for.

And I expect the Iraqi polls you’re citing come from the Basra area where the Brits are stationed. I don’t doubt that they want the troops out of there. And I’m sure they will be moved out sooner rather than later.

Oct 28, 2005 - 5:51 pm 66. Terrye:

Maybe Libby was dealing with the fact that if he tells the reporters the truth he is confirming something he can not confirm and if he does not he is lying.

BTW I saw a poll not long ago which stated that 80% of the Iraqis wanted coalition froces to stay until they could get along on their own. I guess my poll trumps the other guy’s poll.

But I am sure that is a lie. I am sure that they want Zarqawi and Saddam to rule Iraq together and wipe out a sizable percentage of the population in the process. Why have elections and a right to vote when you can have mass graves and chilrens prisons and rapists on the payroll instead?

No doubt that is what the anti war movement thinks.

And you know if people would just read the resolution giving the authority to go to war they would no there was more to it than wmd.

But if we had not gone in, most people would still believe the weapons were there. With the help of a corrupt UN it would only be wrorse.

In fact if we had not gone in Saddam could easily have started up those moth balled programs of his and there would be new stockpiles.

Back in the 90’s Clinton and the CIA missed Pakistan’s bomb, they missed Dr. Kahn’s weapons business, they missed NK’s porgrams, they missed Kaddafi’s weapons, they missed AlQaida agents here in the US, they missed Iraq’s connection to the first WTC attack, they missed a lot of things, but they kept hammering away at Saddam and his weapons.

So I know that fairness and lefty thinking are not compatable but how about we at least not rewrite the years leading up to the war and accept the reality that the UN and the global intel people believed Saddam had weapons? It is also true that Saddam was in violation of Resolution 1441, that is just a fact.

But don’t spend too much time on the likes of Pale and Easter…they are lost.

Oct 28, 2005 - 5:51 pm 67. Terrye:

As for the Balkans, they still don’t have the lights on 24/7. They still don’t have a functioning government in the region. AlQaida has been allowed to get a foothold in the Muslim community, the Serbian civilians are being terrorized now and the UN peacekeepers are accused of running a sex slave ring.

Oh yeah, that is a real success story alright.

Oct 28, 2005 - 5:55 pm 68. Kevin P:

Paleokaus:

Of course we are still there. I mentioned that my Brother is serving there. And I guess we could have used the Balkan war method of using air power to bomb Iraq into submission and not risk as many lives but I have a thought that the left would be ripping Bush for all the destruction and civillian casualties. And yes the Balkan war had less U.S. casualties but the sitution is no where near to being solved. We are “occupying” the region, the Serbs and the Albanians are a million miles apart and the day we leave is the day the war starts up again. The Serbs will never allow an independent Kosovo where the 10 t0 20 per cent Serb population is left to live under the Albanian rule and the Albanians will never go back to living under a greater Serbia. Serbs that live in Kosovo are angry that there property has been taken and the Albanians can’t stand the serbs because of their brutal rule when the Tito government fell apart. The U.N. trial of Milosevic is going on it’s 5th year and they have manged it so poorly that they taken someone who was hated by the bulk of the population and turned him into a Martyr. It may take another 3 to 4 years and that pig Milosevic has been allowed to use the trial as a soap box to spread his hate and bile. There is no exit strategy and they have had to postpone elctions for a final settlement 2 or 3 times. It is a military occupation, there is no exit strategy and there is no sense that the two sides will find common ground. I agree, very well managed.

Oct 28, 2005 - 6:01 pm 69. Jamie Irons:

A visitor writes:

The answer is that the concept of democracy includes getting accurate information from the government and not having decisions and [sic] made by idealogues and them [sic] lied about and justified by an ever changing stream of inarticulate (but “adult”)[sic]nonsense.

Yes. Well, apart from the inarticulate (but “adult”) multiple non sequiturs articulated above, democracy in no way guarantees “getting accurate information from the government,” but rather requires citizens to watch said governemnt closely so that, when a majority decides it has been deceived, it may throw the lying bastards out of office.

It seems to me the citizenry had such an opportunity some fifty-one weeks ago, and decided either that it had not been “lied to,” or, if it had, said lies were insufficient to warrant electing the opposition, which seemed to have its own problems (exempli gratia, “Christmas in Cambodia”) with the truth.

Jamie Irons

Oct 28, 2005 - 6:10 pm 70. PeterUK:

Paleokaus,

Is you ego such that you would relish your country’s defeat just so you can be be proved right?

The chickenshit argument about Chickenhawks,also applies to you,no doubt you demonstrate in the safe confines of America,waving your placard and popping a can for the 2000th death,smile and congratulate the other ghouls with you,”We were right,Quagmire”,then home for a pizza and a bit of TV,then up in the morning,back to college or flipping burgers.some bloody activist!

So please spare us the moralising because you are no better than anyone else.

BTW if you are going to quote polls quote in their entirety,there was a significant drop in the numbers believing in attacks in Basra itself,where most of the population is.

Oct 28, 2005 - 6:10 pm 71. Mike_Nargizian:

Dick Silverstein’s “analysis’ (hatchet job) of Pajamas Media Quoted in article by DAVID KOHN

DAILY SCORECARD REPORTS

Dick Silverstein seems to be obsessed (see envious of) with Pajamas Media and smearing its contributors including Roger, Charles, Solomon, Protein Wisdom, Michael Totten and others…. LOL.

I will do a FULL fisking of his 2nd rate hatchet job later. However, check out just some the personal comments he left in his comments section that I posted.

Their lunacy and hypocrisy are too tasty to miss.

Oct 28, 2005 - 6:48 pm 72. neo-neocon:

Vino Veritas: Well, since I knew all about it prior to the Iraq War, the information couldn’t really be said to be confined to a group that was so “elite,” could it? All I did was read the blogs. And I ain’t no CIA agent, outed or not!

If by “elite” you mean those who make an effort to be well-informed–well, then, I guess you’re correct.

Oct 28, 2005 - 7:17 pm 73. Charlie (Colorado):

We need to separate the theological side of the neo-cons’ argument (all people yearn for democracy) from the “fixed” intelligence they used to push us into the war.

Paleo, the problem is that the “‘fixed’ intelligence” to which you refer was collected, summarized, and widely disseminated before Bush’s administration, and the “slam dunk” characterization was from a Clinton appointee. It was also corroborated by the intelligence operations of pretty much every country that’s been mentioned in the open press, with the exception of Russia which we now know was a big time recipient of billion-dollar bribes. Among the people who were specifically quoted as to Saddam’s WMD programs were Hans Blix, President Bill Clinton, Sec’y Albright, Senator John kerry, Senator Ted Kennedy, and el-Baradai.

So if the intelligence was “fixed,” by whom was it fixed? Bush? Or the Clintons? And how is it that the evil conspirators managed to fix the UN, the French, the British, the Israelis, the Egyptians, and so on and so on?

Oh, and did you have a dreadful head injury that explains you losing your memory of these things in the dim past … seven years ago?

Oct 28, 2005 - 7:19 pm 74. Barry Dauphin:

A good story for a script writer: (AP Headline) Louis “Scooter” Libby found not guilty on all charges after a vigorous defense was mounted by his attorney, Harriet Miers.

If Libby lied to the Feds or Grand Jury in the manner implied in the charges, that would have been stupid and wrong. But indictments are not guilt, and he gets a trial and may get to put Kristof, Russert, Pincus, Wilson, etc. on the stand. Darn good theatre. Politically this plays to the “Bush lied - People died” crapola.

Yet poor, dainty damsel Val was not “covert” but “classified” (hell, Pat Moynihan wrote a book about how everything is Washington is “classified” including articles from many publicly available newspapers). No indictment on the original charge to the prosecutor, not even for Libby. The whole “conspiracy” silliness whithers away, as Fitz had 22 months to find it from extremely cooperative witnesses but comes up with bupkus. Evil prince Rove is not indicted. The Mark Shields’ of the world can fool themselves into thinking this is a great day for their “side”, but it concludes not with a bang but a whimper.

Oct 28, 2005 - 7:48 pm 75. Paleokaus:

Charlie

First, I did not have a head injury. Thank you for your concern.

I am not saying the Clintons did it right, although I suspect if you had it your way, they would have spent all of their time on Mr. Starr’s charges and none at all on anything else. I am saying that this administration did not want to hear anything that contradicted their preconceptions. It was Bush et al who attacked Iraq. By the way, the term “fixed” not mine, as you well know. It is a literary reference to the Downing Street memo.

Peter UK

Thank you for the nice words also. Why are you attacking my patriotism? I do not want my country defeated. I would prefer that we win, as long as we are fighting. However, I would prefer a more intelligent strategy. If I didn’t care, I would not be commenting here. And you are correct, I was against the Viet Nam war also and proud of it. It is too bad that Mr. Bush completely failed to learn the lessons of that debacle.

Jamie

Thank you for pointing out my typos. I believe that were it not for the Bin Ladin (remember him?) message the weekend before the election, Kerry would have won, but we shall see what comes out as a result of Scooter’s indictment with regard to misinforming the public. I imagine that we agree that tif the govenment is sufficiently adept at keeping accurate information from the electorate, that undermines democracy.

Oct 28, 2005 - 8:18 pm 76. Patrick Tyson:

It’ll be two years on Tuesday.

Since I’m not likely to post again…

From the last comment in the same 11/1/03 thread…

In my earlier comment I make clear that I supported the war, but that I now think it to have been a mistake. I will not vote to re-elect Bush because I think that when a man is charged with making decisions that will cause other men to die he has an affirmative responsibility to be right regarding the reasons for making those decisions. In my view, he and his people were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction, the popular (Iraqi) reaction to our victory and the state of the Iraqi economy.

That being written, I support the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq and I believe it will continue, perhaps with different justifications, regardless of who occupies the office of President of the United States.

http://rogerlsimon.com/archives/00000474.htm

Nothing…and everything…has changed.

…and so it goes.

Oct 28, 2005 - 8:29 pm 77. thibaud:

Paleokaus,

For the sake of argument I’ll grant that your figures on Iraq’s electricity, sewage, and other service quality indicators are correct. In other words, that we and the Provisional Government have failed to provide adequate level of basic services, which clearly is one requirement of a successful government.

But we’re talking about a country that is emerging from a totalitarian regime, one that’s suffering from vicious, daily assaults by the deposed totalitarians and their nihilist allies upon ordinary people and facilities and infrastructure. Under these conditions, why should failure in the realm of public service provision be deemed sufficient evidence to conclude that democratizing post-Saddam Iraq has failed?

By this logic, I can think of a far worse failure than Iraq: a nation that, ten years after throwing over a brutal totalitarian regime that repressed and slaughtered members of the majority population, is now suffering from a triple calamity of violence, economic collapse and epidemic that dwarfs anything ever seen when the totalitarian regime held sway. If the price of liberation for South Africa was…

– 50% unemployment, holding steady for not one or two years but nearly a decade now;

– 30% of the adult female population raped and millions of males victimized by violent assault as well;

– 25% of the population infected with AIDS

… then will you please have the intellectual honesty to admit that by your logic the end of apartheid was a horrific mistake, and the wretched South Africans, like the miserable Iraqis, would have been far better off had their prisonmaster totalitarian leaders never been overthrown?

Oct 28, 2005 - 8:40 pm 78. Luther McLeod:

Typekey’s two week sign-in is still bull.

You guys and gals are to be commended for your patience and perseverance in educating the ‘memory loss’ afflicted that pop by here now and again.

To save time, I’m thinking something on the sidebar, the typical/million times answered question/accusation linked with the facts of the matter. After all, there is rarely anything new added to the discussion by those who disagree with the current situation. It’s all rehashed, done over and, for the most part, throughly repudiated. It seems as if the objective is death by a thousand cuts.

But, the most noticeable thing I see from these folks is the lack of ideas on how things coulda/shoulda been done differently. There’s the divide, I think, do nothing and/or continue the same old thing and hope for the best, versus, actively engaging and attempting to change events for the better. Old news I know. But that 51-49 divide seems more and more to be set in stone. That is not a good thing for this country.

And, yes, Patrick, so it goes. Do nothing or do something. “when a man is charged with making decisions that will cause other men to die he has an affirmative responsibility to be right regarding the reasons for making those decisions.” Good thing you were (I assume) never in combat, the micro of the macro. You would have been destroyed and those under your command as well. We act as if we know we are right, but never really know until ‘it’ is over. In the heat of battle there are many unknowns, you just do the best you can. If you’re looking for perfection, good luck in your next life.

Oct 28, 2005 - 8:53 pm 79. thibaud:

If “instability” and “adjustment” were inevitable consequences of the end of apartheid, and if one of the attributes of such instability was the rapid spread of a regional epidemic across the newly-free nation, then by Paleokaus’s crude logic it follows that the international activists who demanded an end to apartheid have, as the cliche goes, “blood on their hands.”

Alternatively, a better gambit for Paleokaus would be to simply leave aside the moral dimension and stick with his indisputable first point–Iraq’s a mess– from which a decent realpolitik case can be made a la Scowcroft/Eagleburger/Kissinger that we should favor “stability” above all else.

But you can’t have it both ways. If you want to claim the moral high ground, then there is no denying that overthrowing one of the last century’s bloodiest tyrants was a brave and noble act. Compare this with the especially grotesque demands from this country’s and every other country’s oilmen to lift the sanctions and allow them to do multi-billion $$$ deals with the monster.

Paleokaus, I can respect a realist argument, not least because it’s impossible for realists to keep moving the goalposts here, thereby allowing us to have a reasonable argument on the core propositions here– stability vs democracy promotion, balance of power vs shock and awe, oil-centric policies vs ones that look beyond oil, etc.

Tell us true, now: are you now, or have you ever been, an employee of Kissinger Associates, consultants to butchering tyrants and their pimping corporate counterparts from Riyadh to Beijing?

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:04 pm 80. Patrick Tyson:

Luther,

Comprehension problem?

Oct 28, 2005 - 9:48 pm 81. Kevin P:

Read the indictment. The great trial you are hoping for where the expose of the run up for the war “disinformation’ campaign is not going to happen. There is not even going to be a written report. The trial will be about whether or not Libby lied about when he found out about Plame. In his testimoney to the F.B.I and the Grand Jury Libby said he found out about her from the press. According to Fitzpatrick he has witnesses and paper evidence that showed he found out earlier. Thats it. In Fitzgeralds own words “This indictment is not about the War” If the info Fitzpatrick has is true Libby’s lawyer might even plea out to get a lesser sentence. I don’t think the ‘I forgot’ defense will work. So you can pray, you can hope, you can write letters to Fitzpatrick to go for more but this trial is going to be cut and dried and simple. If there was a conspiracy Fitzpatrick would have indicted Rove. It’s not there. Rove was smart enough not to lie or smart enough to go to the grand jury and clear up any mistatements. Fitzpatrick looked into the espionage leak charge and could not find enough to indict. the law has a very hard threshold to meet and it wasn’t there. He caught Libby and I think he has him nailed. BUT THAT IS ALL THERE IS. So keep writing posts about how this trial will expose the lies but you are going to be very unhappy when it doesn’t.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:19 pm 82. Luther McLeod:

Patrick,

Apologizes if so. But I did read your link above. I assumed the Patrick (only) was the same as Patrick Tyson. I believe the quote I pulled from same is accurate, as you replicate it in your present comment. If that is the case then I stand by my comment. Please correct me if I am mistaken. I’m a little dense at times.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:22 pm 83. insatty:

If guys of Paleokaus’s ilk had been in charge of the Democrat Party in 1941, Hitler would have lived longer than Castro and owned all of Europe and Tojo all of Asia. But the Paleokaus ilk would have been happy because 405,000 Americans would not have died. The American Nazi party or Communist Party that had already infiltrated the Democrat party and the media (remember I.F. Stone?) would have taken power. And then the Paleokaus ilk would have lived real oppression.

Paleokaus, the point is that even Japan and Germany looked bad after combat hostilities had ended. Democracy takes time. But the Iraq war has made this country safer by huge leaps: has there been a terrorist attack since 9/11?

But the Paleokaus ilk will never see past their liberal noses until the next hijacked plane crashes into their home or the next suicide bomber explodes in a Subway while a family member of the Paleokaus ilk eats a turkey on wholewheat.

Oct 28, 2005 - 10:51 pm 84. Patrick Tyson:

Luther—

I’d expect, if I made decisions that got men killed, to be subject to criticism if it turned out the information upon which I made those decisions or my reasons for making those decisions turned out to have been wrong. I didn’t write that Bush lied or that he acted recklessly, but I did write that in my view he had an affirmative responsibility (the ability to answer yes when certain questions are asked) to be right and because, in my judgement, he wasn’t I wouldn’t be voting to leave him in a position to make such decisions in 2004. I also wrote that I supported his decision to go in at the time and I supported staying in Iraq, despite my change of mind regarding my earlier support for going in, now that we were there. I don’t think either side in this tiresome argument can make a claim of success or failure until some length of time (at least two years) after the external and internal security of Iraq becomes the responsibility of the people of Iraq.

Hope this helps.

Oct 28, 2005 - 11:01 pm 85. Paleokaus:

After this, I have had enough. You are right that overthrowing Sadaam was a good thing. The problem is that my cat Peanut Butter could have told you that there was more to it than that. Hell, Cheney knew that the first time around. But, there is no evidence that they did any planning and at best we are getting a place like Iran, except probably with a tri-partite civil war.

The right thing to do was to be patient. I am sure you all joined Rush in making fun of those who said the UN had Sadaam in a box, but they did, didn’t they? It turns out that there were groups in Iraq that were opposed to the regime that we could have contacted and worked with. We might even have trained some more people to speak the language. Instead, we marched in on some demonic schedule, broke the place and now have to deal with it.

But let’s say I am completely wrong. Does it seem to you like Bush heard from all sides and then made a decision, like the good CEO he pretends to be, or did he immediately fall captive to the neo-cons, probably fueled by the fact that Sadaam tied to kill his Daddy? Then he rewarded those who screwed up and sacked those who knew better.

I hope that this accidentally turns out ok, but I don’t see how it will and I don’t see how you can be satisfied with a President as simple-minded as this fellow is.

Oct 28, 2005 - 11:35 pm 86. Charlie (Colorado):

Fascinating case.

First, I did not have a head injury. Thank you for your concern.

Okay, you’re actually 14 and weren’t paying attention to the news then? You were trapped on a desert island and had no access to the news? You have a problem with hysterical blindness and deafness?

You really are that ignorant?

You’re dissembling?

I am not saying the Clintons did it right, although I suspect if you had it your way, they would have spent all of their time on Mr. Starr’s charges and none at all on anything else.

I personally would have settled for “yes, I did it, i’ve got a real impulse control problem, and I’m going to seek treatment. Vice president Gore will assume my duties until I can be confident I can be trusted with the job.”

Since we didn’t get that, I’d settle now for “Since I didn’t think self-serving perjury and lying to a grand jury were important when the President did it in a multimillion dollar sexual harassment suit, it would be hypocritical of me to be concerned about possible self-serving perjury in a case where no underlying crime was apparently committed.” Not from Clinton, though, but from his defenders. Like you.

I am saying that this administration did not want to hear anything that contradicted their preconceptions.

Which preconceptions were fixed by the accumulation of intelligence that lead to, for example, the 1998 (notice the year) act calling for regime change in Iraq.

By the way, the term “fixed” not mine, as you well know. It is a literary reference to the Downing Street memo.

I think the term you’re looking for is “ignorant reference,” since you’re clearly unaware that “fixed” doesn’t have the idiomatic meaning of “tampered with” in British English. You’re not alone in that, of course, but being ignorant of the meaning of the words used doesn’t make your argument stronger.

But here’s the real insight to be derived here:

It was Bush et al who attacked Iraq.

So your argument would be that Bush was bad because Clinton’s administration called out the growing peril, but Bush acted to end it?

And that therefore — since you don’t approve of removing Saddam — you would rather have seen a psychopathic murdering fascist killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and attacking his neighbors, or alternatively using bribery and kickbacks to make sure that while “his” people suffered from the sanctions you apparently prefer to warfare, he and his cronies and henchmen got palaces, his sons raped and killed with impugnity, and his friends buried literally hundreds of millions of stolen dollars against some rainy day?

I guess I begin to get some insight into why your memory (as we spoke of before) is so conveniently poor: without a structure of denial, how could you live with yourself?

Oct 29, 2005 - 12:04 am 87. Charlie (Colorado):

I will not vote to re-elect Bush because I think that when a man is charged with making decisions that will cause other men to die he has an affirmative responsibility to be right regarding the reasons for making those decisions.

Honestly, Patrick, that is one of the silliest things I’ve ever seen said with a straight (I presume) face. I’d forgotten it, and were I you, I wouldn’t be trying to remind people of it now.

The rest of us realize that the best anyone can hope for is to make the best decision they’re capable of with the information they have available at the time, whether it’s a decision that will cause others to die, or a decision to cross the street to buy gum.

Oct 29, 2005 - 12:09 am 88. Patrick Tyson:

Charlie—

Thankfully, and I think I speak for both of us in this, we’re not one another.

Who is John Galt?

Oct 29, 2005 - 12:37 am 89. Mike_Nargizian:

FIXED THE LINK -

Richard Dick Silverstein’s “analysis’ (hatchet job) of Pajamas Media Quoted in article by DAVID KOHN

DAILY SCORECARD REPORTS

Dick Silverstein seems to be obsessed (see envious of) with Pajamas Media and smearing its contributors including Roger, Charles, Solomon, Protein Wisdom, Michael Totten and others…. LOL.

I will do a FULL fisking of his 2nd rate hatchet job later. However, check out just some the personal comments he left in his comments section that I posted.

Their lunacy and hypocrisy are too tasty to miss.

Oct 29, 2005 - 2:00 am 90. klrfz1:

Paleokaus

What a chicken-dove you are! You should handcuff yourself to the White House fence right next to Cindy Sheehan before you have the moral authority to criticize the Iraq war.

My nephew fought in Iraq and is now home and out of the service. Has any member of your family been jailed for protesting the war? Why do you call for sacrifice only by the supporters of the war? Hypocrite.

Oct 29, 2005 - 3:19 am 91. JK Ribera:

What amuses me about Paleokaus is that he thinks most of the commenters on this site are admirers of Limbaugh. I would imagine few at all listen to Limbuagh, especially the many disaffected liberals on here. This is a kind of cocoon-reaction that smacks of a certain kind of cognitive dissonance. He also rehashes old arguments such as the “lack of preparation” for the aftermath of the war. Well, of course there was a degree of that, but that’s war. War is never clean. Not once. Ever. It is what it is, whether led by Bush, JFK or FDR. The setbacks in WWII were far greater than in Iraq and it took far longer. But that doesn’t enter the brain of the Paleokaus’ of the world. They are trying to be right in a situation of chaos. ACtually, if you step back a few steps, that the Iraqis have even voted (and to a great degree) and have the beginnings of a constitution is nothing short of miraculous.

Oct 29, 2005 - 5:42 am 92. PeterUK:

Paleokaus.

“Why are you attacking my patriotism? I do not want my country defeated. I would prefer that we win, as long as we are fighting. However, I would prefer a more intelligent strategy. If I didn’t care, I would not be commenting here.”

No, you are shroud waving and mouthing the portents of doom.You never come up with a “more intelligent strategy” it is doubtful whether you could.If I am wrong.let’s see it.

To you this isn’t about strategy or patriotism it is about you being right,therefore you constantly emphasize the negative and play down the positive to bolster your point of view.

It is worth noting that the immature deal with problems by apportioning blame,”I was right,you were wrong” problem solved.

Adults solve problems by dealing with them,do so.

This psychopathy is a constant amongst the left,why not break the mold,try some constructive criticism,admit to what has been done right,present positive,realistic,solutions to what you perceive as failings,then perhaps we will treat you like an adult.

I await your pearls wisdom,but I feel somehow that I will have heard it all before.A good starting point wuuld be that the invasion of Iraq happened some time ago,what now?

Oct 29, 2005 - 6:06 am 93. PeterUK:

Limbuagh,wasn’t he the first man to fly the Atlantic?

Oct 29, 2005 - 6:08 am 94. PeterUK:

More idiocy

“The right thing to do was to be patient. I am sure you all joined Rush in making fun of those who said the UN had Sadaam in a box”

Repeat after me,”The UN has no forces of its own,that it was involved in the massive corruption of Oil For Food,that at least two members of the Security Council,France and Russia were involved, using their veto to obstruct any UN action in Iraq.

The Arab Lrague is a powerful force in the UN

You can’t box in someone who can buy and sell you.

Oct 29, 2005 - 6:17 am 95. PeterUK:

“And you are correct, I was against the Viet Nam war also and proud of it. It is too bad that Mr. Bush completely failed to learn the lessons of that debacle.”

I never raised the subject of Vietnam,but whilst we are there,do you think you could perform some act of contrition for the millions that perished and suffered under the Communist Regime.Just a little mea culpa,or are you like the rest of the infants,you have played with your toy and abandoned it after the innitial gratification,like all of your kind you got your way and refuse to face the consequences.

It really is about you.

Oct 29, 2005 - 7:02 am 96. RogerA:

Taking Paleo at his word about his patriotism; looking at his concerns about what he sees as a failure; and assuming he wishes to see some type of successful outcome in Iraq, let me offer my thoughts.

First, it is clear that Paleo’s view of what is going on in Iraq is shaped by the negative reports put forward to the American public by our on site media. Because, I suspect, Paleo does NOT trust the Central Command’s statistics and believes the MSM reports accurately and honestly, he could be forgiven for his impression, although, not perhaps, his willingness to dig a bit deeper into the situation.

Then there is his profound misunderstanding of tactics versus strategy. It appears to me that he sees Iraq through the lens of strategic battle, when, in fact, Iraq is simply a tactical operation to bring about a different world in the Middle East.

If one looks at the early results of the strategic campaign, there appears to be quite a bit success: Libyia, Afghanistan, Lebananon, and an increasingly weakend baathist regime in Syria. Al-queda as a centralized operation seems to have been destroyed and its remnants are now fighting peacemeal. The Arab media is starting to recognize that the Jihadists are killing more fellow muslims than they are Americans (the Guardian’s recent interview with Abu Theeb points to internal divisions)–The admonishment of the Zaqauri in Iraq by al-queda. In short, Al-Quaeda and the jihadists are losing the hearts and minds of the Arab street. These seem to me to be portends of a successful strategic campaign.

Tactically, the 42d division turned over 10 forward operating bases to Iraqi forces; Iraqui’s are increasingly taking over control of local operations; their forces are being trained and deployed; they demonstrated they could control the country for elections in which the Sunni’s participated–a major success. Iraqui oil production reached a high point not seen since before the first gulf war recently. Were Paleo to read some of the military blogs and compare them to the MSM it should at least raise questions as to whose perception and message is correct.

Just my .02.

Oct 29, 2005 - 7:08 am 97. Luther McLeod:

Patrick

Well, I guess it helped. I’m still unclear as to exactly what level of perfection you were expecting in the pursuance of this war. I suppose I would need to know the specific questions that you think Bush has not answered to your particular satisfaction (”affirmative responsibility (the ability to answer yes when certain questions are asked) to be right” as you put it. After all, you say “I didn’t write that Bush lied or that he acted recklessly”, but is that what you think? After all, you say as well, “if I made decisions that got men killed, to be subject to criticism”, well, criticism is one thing, lack of support, and/or inability to follow through on the action is another.

I haven’t had enough coffee yet.

Oct 29, 2005 - 7:49 am 98. Jamie Irons:

A very polite but confused visitor thanks me for pointing out his typos. I wasn’t bothered by the typos (I made one myself in addressing him) but the incoherence of the sentence.

He then asks me if I remember Bin Laden, and his effect on the 2004 election. Well, I recall the former, but don’t subscribe to his fantasy about the latter.

Via InstaPundit today, this on how our visitor might have viewed WWII after four years of quagmire:

As this bloody and futile war enters its fourth year, the casualties continue to rise, and while it’s hard to know how many American soldiers have been lost, due to a secretive Roosevelt administration, many analysts think that the number of deaths in brutal battle is now approaching a quarter of a million, with many more millions of civilian casualties in Europe and Asia. Even ignoring all of the innocent loss of life, the loss of American soldiers alone is now almost equivalent to that of the entire population of a medium-sized American city.

Jamie Irons

Oct 29, 2005 - 8:57 am 99. Old Dad:

Paleo claims that “there is no evidence that they did any planning,” they, of course, meaning the administration. John Edwards tried this same ridiculous argument. Its stupidity, or perhaps lame cynicism, is staggering. I could at least stomach an argument for poor planning, but to argue for no planning is imbecilic.

How would it be possible to move three armored divisions along with all the requisite equipment and supplies half way around the world with no planning?

Sometimes I despair.

Oct 29, 2005 - 8:58 am 100. Charlie (Colorado):

I would imagine few at all listen to Limbuagh,…

Hey, I do. He’s hilarious. Sometimes it’s on purpose.

Oct 29, 2005 - 9:15 am 101. Syl:

Well, this thread certainly got hijacked.

That’s okay though. In fact it’s nice to have someone drop by who actually stays around a bit for a back and forth.

Back to Plame.

Bad news: Libby

Good news:

Rove not indicted.

Underlying crime not indicted.

The focus of the indictment is so narrow there is no way the BDS crowd will ever hear a whisper of their trumped up grievances.

The Wilson’s could have used an indictment on the underlying crime to bolster their threatened civil case. They didn’t get it.

Cheney was not the first one to tell Libby mrs. wilson was CIA. Not that it was illegal for them to discuss it anyway. It just removes another talking point.

The left’s heads are imploding.

(The frustration was palpable in some of the questions asked of Fitzgerald in his presser.)

I feel bad for Libby for whom his coworkers have a great deal of affection, if he is found guilty then he deserves it, so be it.

Doesn’t look good though I have the seeds of a possible defense strategy. Just think in terms of how someone with as much access to classified info as Libby (who probably daily is keeping himself from revealing any of it) would have a mental strategy to deal with it. Then interpret his testimony with that mental strategy in mind.

Oct 29, 2005 - 11:04 am 102. jedrury:

Think ahead.

Fitzgerald was almost contrite yesterday. Have you noticed how the press makes him to be angelic, loveable? No Ken Starr is he. Mark Shields on the Newshour was so giddy about Fitzgerald one might suspect he was actually the St. Patrick.

Yesterday’s press conference was no Rudi press conference where you have a Mafiosi charged with the FBI line uppped in the back.

This is, as they say in the law, a “malum prohibitum” offense.

Trial will not go til next year. No more indictments. Rove is not charged.

A plea offer is made: one count, a felony. No step back, no sentence demanded by the prosecutor. It is over . . . move on. Libby does a short stint, loses his license.

Then again, he might mount a Delay/Clinton defense; burn the bridges, trash the press and castigate Fitzgerald. Unfortunately, he and his lawyers will do alone. Because the press sees only the Savior of Ireland.

Oct 29, 2005 - 12:29 pm 103. Rick Ballard:

You forgot to link your excellent analysis which gpes nicely with Vnjagvets also excellent analysis of the weakness of the indictment. Libby’s lawyer seems to be taking an initial tack similiar to what I surmised in my comments on Vnjagvet’s post.

Oct 29, 2005 - 12:31 pm 104. Rick Ballard:

Geesh - I was writing to Syl.

Oct 29, 2005 - 12:35 pm 105. Bostonian:

Paleokaus: “We need to separate the theological side of the neo-cons’ argument (all people yearn for democracy) from the “fixed” intelligence they used to push us into the war”

Uh, what? Noting that all people prefer to make their choices is now a *theological* argument? WTF?

Let me try to make this really really simple for you.

Human beings, like every other animal on the planet, do not like captivity. How many trapped animals, shown a chance of escape, decide to stay in jail? Please.

And representative government is nothing but a system for getting along with other ordinary people who also prefer to make their own choices.

There’s no God in this argument.

Oct 29, 2005 - 1:03 pm 106. PJ:

“There is no proof of the theological argument, but that sort of thing does not worry these people.”

Actually, Paleo, the theological argument, that people in Iraq are yearning for freedom just like Americans, was proven by the millions of Iraqis who braved death to vote in the recent historic two elections.

But no one will ever convince a anti-Bushie like Paleo, because it’s all about emotion. BTW an excellent book called Rebels Without A Clue attempts to explain this curious anti-intellectual political phenomena.

http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/fall2005/voegeli.html

At least posters like him help us sharpen our arguments and examine our own thinking–I agree that a FAQ for Leftists sidebar is a great idea! (and dump TypeKey.)

Oct 29, 2005 - 1:04 pm 107. Syl:

Rick

Hey, between me and Vnjagvets we got it covered. LOL

Actually, I don’t think it looks like it’s going to be easy for him.

BTW, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, according to Greta, sentences on the high end.

jedrury

I hope you’re right. But I don’t share your skepticism of Fitzgerald. He prosecuted the blind sheik, which sticks in my mind.

I, like many others I”m sure, file away names in my brain in buckets representing admiration, credibility, etc. (Yeah, I’ve got a bucket for jerks too). I can recall what bucket a name is in, but I can’t always recall why I put it there.

Fitz was found in one of the good buckets.

Oct 29, 2005 - 1:22 pm 108. Kevin P:

Syl:

You are right that the thread got hijacked but the left had geared up to use the indictments as an excuse to replay the Bush lied, war for oil, chickenhawk, he did it because they tried to kill his daddy, bumpersticker cliche-athon.

Unfortunetly Fitzgeralds words “the indictments are not about the war” and the thought that anyone who tried to use this trial to fight the 2004 election all over again would be frustrated. But the press is going to do it for a couple of weeks anyway. But in a couple of weeks they are going to find that there is nothing in the indictments or the trial to latch their anti-war propaganda on to. The trial is so narrowly focused and Fitgerald can’t and won’t use it as a platform to pontificate from. He is out for a conviction and he will probably get it. And unless Libby comes up with an outstanding excuse for his memory loss he is going to be convicted and as far as I can tell he deserves it.Case closed, Rove will still be driving the conspiracy people wild. The evil genius foils the noble members of the blow dried press again.

Oct 29, 2005 - 1:55 pm 109. PeterUK:

If the thread got hijacked by paleokaus et al,it really is an indication of the confusion on the left,would they rather saty on the subject of an indictment rather than broadening the issue until it got lost?

Oct 29, 2005 - 2:15 pm 110. jedrury:

I forgot to mention that the president may be “inclined” to pardon Libby. Is “inclined” too strong a word? W ain’t never gonna allow Scooter to serve a day in the can. This is one case which screams out: PARDON.

Lastly, Walton is “a heavy hitter,” blah, blah. He is also a recent Bush appointee, who was formerly director of WH drug policy who could know Scooter and thus may recuse himself in the future. Then again, ne may not.

The cards are shuffled and ready to be dealt.

Oct 29, 2005 - 2:48 pm 111. jedrury:

The cards are shuffled and ready to be dealt.

Oct 29, 2005 - 2:48 pm 112. Captain Hate:

Kevin P

“Fitzgeralds words “the indictments are not about the war” and the thought that anyone who tried to use this trial to fight the 2004 election all over again would be frustrated. But the press is going to do it for a couple of weeks anyway. But in a couple of weeks they are going to find that there is nothing in the indictments or the trial to latch their anti-war propaganda on to.”

I was stunned to find exactly this on the front page of the fishwrap this morning. They really are prisoners of their delusions. There were, I think, 41 indictments under Clinton. Were any of them covered like this? Anybody up for a pool predicting the date of the next round of layoffs at the NYT?

Oct 29, 2005 - 3:57 pm 113. tefta:

“It’s hard to say the Repubs don’t deserve it.” Deserve it? What exactly do the Repubs deserve? There’s no moral equivalency between the Republicans and Democrats.

Judy Miller keynote speaker and David Corn on the editorial board. He’s allegedly one of the people along with Wilson and Kristof who orchestrated the yellowcake caper to embarrass Bush and throw a monkey wrench into the war effort.

How the worm has turned.

Oct 29, 2005 - 4:51 pm 114. dougf:

The evil genius foils the noble members of the blow dried press again.

Oh what I would sacrifice were this to be 100% true. Rove as evil genius who simply cannot be overcome. Progressives running around aimlessly but always doomed to eventual defeat and humiliation.

Heaven on earth.

Oct 29, 2005 - 9:20 pm 115. richard mcenroe:

Paleoarkus — you’re either ignorant or a liar, pick one.

“The answer is that almost none of the chicken hawks who are so bellicose, or their families, have ever taken the personal risk they have imposed on our soldiers.” — In fact, Congressmen and senators have a disproportionate number of family members in Iraq, compared to the rest of the population. A substantial number senators and congressmen are veterans of Desert Storm, Nam, Korea, even still WWII. The sitting President has over 300 hours flying time in a fighter that was dangerous to its pilots the Air Force pulled it out of service. The current secretary of Defense flew Navy patrol bombers.

If taking the risks counts so much, how come we never saw the Kerry or Carter girls running off to be human shields?

Oct 30, 2005 - 9:34 am 116. richard mcenroe:

RogerA

Oct 30, 2005 - 9:41 am

Roger L Simon

The blog of the mystery writer, screenwriter and CEO of Pajamas Media

Just Published

With gratitude to the readers of this blog without whom my new -- and first non-fiction -- book would likely never have been written.

Simon's first non-fiction book - Blacklisting Myself: Memoir of a Hollywood Apostate in an Age of Terror - Pub. date: February 5, 2009

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments:

Pajamas Media

Roger L. Simon

At the Valerie Plame Employment Office

116 Comments

Write a Comment

Roger L Simon

Just Published

Pages

Archives

Books

PajamasXpress

PJM Political

DAILY DIGEST

THE EDITORS @ PJM