i guess - why not - its all a lot easier than coming up with some ideas on how you want to govern. Especially when those ideas keep getting rejected every two years.
Yeh, they're kinda using some circuitous logic. Here's their case:
* In his January 2003 State Of The Union, President Bush made his case for war in Iraq. He included this now-infamous 16-word deception about Iraq's nuclear capability: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [2] * But the White House had known for nearly a year that this claim was false. In February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the unsubstantiated claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger for use in nuclear weapons [3]. * Wilson had discovered that the claims were bogus and documents used to support the claims had been forgeries. He reported this to the CIA, and the CIA told the White House [3].
Why Did The President Ignore Wilson's Findings And Lie? It's About Iraq
* Why did President Bush use the discredited nuclear claims in his January 2003 State of the Union Address to make the case that Iraq was a nuclear threat? They wanted to invade Iraq. * A CBS News polling report in late 2002 made clear, "there is no consensus on adopting a pre-emptive strike policy in general--except where a nuclear attack against the United States is contemplated..." [4] * Only well after the war had begun would the Washington Post report on "a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates...made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views." [5]
Wilson Strikes Back--Exposes Bush's Lie In Lead-Up To War
* Six months after the President's 2003 State of the Union Address, as Bush's WMD and nuclear claims began to unravel, Wilson went public and exposed the Bush Administration's false nuclear claims in a New York Times op-ed [6]. * The full July 6, 2003 op-ed, "What I Didn't Find In Africa," can be read here: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1070 * The White House saw Wilson as a major threat. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was so angry about the public statements of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a Bush administration critic married to an undercover CIA officer, that he monitored all of Wilson's television appearances and urged the White House to mount an aggressive public campaign against him, former aides say." [7]
White House Retaliates--Outs Valerie Plame Wilson As CIA Agent
* The week after Wilson's op-ed in the New York Times, "two senior administration officials" were cited by conservative columnist Robert Novak in his column outing CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson [8]. * The White House Iraq Group (WHIG), originally formed to sell the war to the public, "morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at critics who questioned its claims." [9] WHIG was run out of Vice President Cheney's office, and included Cheney's Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby, top Bush strategist Karl Rove, and other top Bush administration officials. * Not only did this leak end Valerie Plame Wilson's 20-year career as a CIA covert agent, but it also exposed a longstanding CIA front company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, where Plame worked and put at risk many of the undercover agents who had worked with Wilson in the past [10].
Today's Indictment--White House Official Obstructed Investigation Into The Lie
* Today's indictment says Libby illegally obstructed the investigation into the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson. He also was charged with perjury and making false statements to FBI agents. The ongoing investigation of Karl Rove revolves around the same issues, among possible others. * Former President George H. W. Bush was right in 1999 when he said, "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors." [11] * Former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie was right when he said, "I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative--it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime." [12]
* Former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie was right when he said, "I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative--it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime." [12]
and this didnt happen, because it didnt satisfy the statute, so its essentially obstructing an investigation into a crime that never occured.
* Former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie was right when he said, "I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative--it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime." [12]
and this didnt happen, because it didnt satisfy the statute, so its essentially obstructing an investigation into a crime that never occured.
no i totally understand, its the coverup, not the crime that gets you. Im actually suprised Rove was stupid enough to let this happen. But I also think that there probably isnt going to be much more to this.
no i totally understand, its the coverup, not the crime that gets you. Im actually suprised Rove was stupid enough to let this happen. But I also think that there probably isnt going to be much more to this.
I think Libby is probably going to be found guilty.
He told the FBI and the Grand Jury more than once that he wasn't sure where he found out about Plame's identity from, but that it was probably reporters that told him, and that he only passed it along later.
In truth, Cheney told him the name and he passed it along to Rove and to reporters as part of a concerted effort to undermine Wilson for questioning Bush's claims about Iraq buying uranium from Niger.
He also told the Grand Jury that when the Wilson story broke he didn't know Wilson, Plame or even whether Wilson had a wife.
In truth, he and Cheney were deeply interested in Wilson's trip to Africa and his wife before Wilson even wrote his editorial saying the Administration was making things up about Iraq's WMD program.
Comments
it is now, bitch.
Here's their case:
* In his January 2003 State Of The Union, President Bush made his case
for war in Iraq. He included this now-infamous 16-word deception about
Iraq's nuclear capability: "The British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa." [2]
* But the White House had known for nearly a year that this claim was
false. In February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson
to Niger to investigate the unsubstantiated claim that Saddam Hussein
tried to buy uranium from Niger for use in nuclear weapons [3].
* Wilson had discovered that the claims were bogus and documents used to
support the claims had been forgeries. He reported this to the CIA,
and the CIA told the White House [3].
Why Did The President Ignore Wilson's Findings And Lie? It's About Iraq
* Why did President Bush use the discredited nuclear claims in his
January 2003 State of the Union Address to make the case that Iraq was
a nuclear threat? They wanted to invade Iraq.
* A CBS News polling report in late 2002 made clear, "there is no
consensus on adopting a pre-emptive strike policy in general--except
where a nuclear attack against the United States is
contemplated..." [4]
* Only well after the war had begun would the Washington Post report on
"a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their
subordinates...made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons
program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat
than the data they had would support. On occasion administration
advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views." [5]
Wilson Strikes Back--Exposes Bush's Lie In Lead-Up To War
* Six months after the President's 2003 State of the Union Address, as
Bush's WMD and nuclear claims began to unravel, Wilson went public and
exposed the Bush Administration's false nuclear claims in a New York
Times op-ed [6].
* The full July 6, 2003 op-ed, "What I Didn't Find In Africa," can be
read here: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1070
* The White House saw Wilson as a major threat. According to the Los
Angeles Times, "Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was so
angry about the public statements of former Ambassador Joseph C.
Wilson IV, a Bush administration critic married to an undercover CIA
officer, that he monitored all of Wilson's television appearances and
urged the White House to mount an aggressive public campaign against
him, former aides say." [7]
White House Retaliates--Outs Valerie Plame Wilson As CIA Agent
* The week after Wilson's op-ed in the New York Times, "two senior
administration officials" were cited by conservative columnist Robert
Novak in his column outing CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson [8].
* The White House Iraq Group (WHIG), originally formed to sell the war
to the public, "morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at
critics who questioned its claims." [9] WHIG was run out of Vice
President Cheney's office, and included Cheney's Chief of Staff
"Scooter" Libby, top Bush strategist Karl Rove, and other top Bush
administration officials.
* Not only did this leak end Valerie Plame Wilson's 20-year career as a
CIA covert agent, but it also exposed a longstanding CIA front
company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, where Plame worked and put at
risk many of the undercover agents who had worked with Wilson in the
past [10].
Today's Indictment--White House Official Obstructed Investigation Into The
Lie
* Today's indictment says Libby illegally obstructed the investigation
into the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame
Wilson. He also was charged with perjury and making false statements
to FBI agents. The ongoing investigation of Karl Rove revolves around
the same issues, among possible others.
* Former President George H. W. Bush was right in 1999 when he said, "I
have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by
exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most
insidious, of traitors." [11]
* Former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie was right when
he said, "I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of
an undercover CIA operative--it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime,
and it is a crime." [12]
and this didnt happen, because it didnt satisfy the statute, so its essentially obstructing an investigation into a crime that never occured.
Why obstruct it then?
I think Libby is probably going to be found guilty.
He told the FBI and the Grand Jury more than once that he wasn't sure where he found out about Plame's identity from, but that it was probably reporters that told him, and that he only passed it along later.
In truth, Cheney told him the name and he passed it along to Rove and to reporters as part of a concerted effort to undermine Wilson for questioning Bush's claims about Iraq buying uranium from Niger.
He also told the Grand Jury that when the Wilson story broke he didn't know Wilson, Plame or even whether Wilson had a wife.
In truth, he and Cheney were deeply interested in Wilson's trip to Africa and his wife before Wilson even wrote his editorial saying the Administration was making things up about Iraq's WMD program.
How's he going to get out of that?
That said, what they were covering up and its consequences...
...I can't finds words.