Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Not according to the author

"Perhaps it will turn out that there is some mistake in the memos, or in the interpretation of them, and that the generally-accepted version of the story remains accurate. But if the story told in the newly-public memos is correct, our entire understanding of how the CIA leak affair began will have to change."

The author is taking a question between the dating
of 2 memo's to build a fairly large chain of supposition that
even he points out the limits of his theory.

Not that Simberg the Neo-con cares.

Posted by anonymous at February 7, 2007 08:06 AM

This is such a bogus investigation. Even the people doing it know it's bogus. The liberals, who thrive on revealing secrets, are suddenly up in arms because Mrs. Wilson's name was accidentally released to the press. The investigation will continue until late January 2009, at which point not even the liberals will pretend to care about it any more.

I propose a useful technique, whenever some liberal brings up "Plamegate" in conversation: ask them to actually _explain_ what happened, and how it is a crime. They can't.

Posted by Trimegistus at February 7, 2007 08:42 AM

The accepted version of events is that Vice President Dick Cheney got things started when he asked for information about possible Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium in Africa.

Accepted by who? Whenever a controversial subject is introduced in this manner "The accepted version of events" we can be certain spin will follow.

= = =

Libby's problem is that he testified under oath that he never mentionied Plame to Judith Miller.

Judith Miller says he did.

Libby also testified under oath (repeatedly) that it was Tim Russert who told Libby certain key facts about Plame. Russert denies that he did.

Perjury is perjury and this perjury impeded Fitzgerald's ability to discover what really did happen, something that is not yet clear.

Libby's defense is that he "forgot" but as I wrote before, if Libby does not take the witness stand it would seem difficult to persuade the current jury that Libby's grand jury testimony was mistaken rather than false.

= = =

As for WMD, we didn't find any.

That reality trumps everything else:

Colin Powell's UN speech;

Condi's "mushroom cloud scenario"

Blair's "Saddam can attack us in 45 minutes"

The President's 16 words in the SOTU.

Posted by Bill White at February 7, 2007 09:32 AM

Perjury is a crime. A felony.

Fitzgerald's argument is that Libby interfered with the investigation into whether a crime was committed regarding Valerie Plame and associated events. That is obstruction of justice. Another felony.

Posted by Bill White at February 7, 2007 09:35 AM

Is perjury a crime if it's about sex? I thought there was some kind of exception (which wouldn't apply in this case anyway).

Just wondering.

Posted by Lurking Observer at February 7, 2007 09:45 AM

Is perjury a crime if it's about sex?

No, all these things are only crimes when Republicans do them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 7, 2007 09:54 AM

Is perjury a crime if it's about sex?

Yes.

Kenneth Starr chose impeachment. Direct your complaints to him.

Posted by Bill White at February 7, 2007 09:55 AM

Trimegistus asks

"Explain what was the "crime" in "Plamegate""

Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed undercutting much of the
white house pretexts for invading iraq.
Numerous white house officials began leaking
classified material to rebut the wilson article and stymie
journalistic investigation including the fact that valerie plame
was a CIA deep cover official.

Complaints were issued to DoJ by CIA and the IC that
classified material was being leaked, including Plame's
employment and contents of the NIE.

Bush appointed Fitzgerald as a special investigator.

During the investigation Libby allegedly perjured himself
to FBI agents and the grand jury about what he knew and when
and the behaviour of other white house officials.

Libby was indicted when it became apparent that this
was material information that impeded the investigation.

The investigation continues on wether the Intelligence identities
protection act was breached, wether classified material
was leaked in violation of the national security act of 1947
and wether perjury and obstruction of justice occurred.

Posted by anonymous at February 7, 2007 10:25 AM

Fitzgerald's argument is that Libby interfered with the investigation into whether a crime was committed regarding Valerie Plame and associated events. That is obstruction of justice. Another felony.

Except that Fitzgerald knew within a week of starting the "investigation" that 1) no crime had been committed, and 2) who the actual leaker was (not Libby).

Posted by Larry at February 7, 2007 10:28 AM

I see that Anonymous Moron just regurgitated the false and leftist fantasy version of the story. As Byron York notes, almost everything that Anonymous Moron knows is wrong.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 7, 2007 10:29 AM

I'm surprised this one is still dragging along, one would think that the proponents of the trial themselves could and would realize that this trial hurts them and theirs more than anything else. I'm not one of those proponents and never have been but sometimes it's just too painful to watch your "enemies" (please note the quotation marks) hurt themselves.

What started as rabid warcries has become something which can, and is, easily brushed aside by a simple "hmm yes I see I must have been mistaken and forgotten that I had already been told" --an admittance of involutary and non-intentional error-- which is the non-legaleze version of what Libby is saying.

It doesn't matter whether people find the statement convincing or not; there actually are demands upon trials to be conducted properly and with sufficient evidence, even though this specific trial would make people think otherwise.

If Libby gets convicted on perceived intent without any hard evidence (they have used all they've got and all it got them was the current nonsense) then it is all nothing but a showtrial by definition. One would think most should realize what that entails. Who cares about the noise regarding the current administration and their alleged wrongdoings when their very critics have blown away the justice system itself...

I feel sorry for Fitzgerald either way - is he simply stupid (building a case upon hearsay and prolonging it due to simple human error) or is he (consciously or unconsciously) being used and manipulated?

p.s. could people please stop dragging Clinton into it all as if it was some sort of counter-argument? I thought his impeachment was ludicrous and I think the current anti-Bush nonsense is as well, anyone with half a brain knows there's plenty of ******** on both sides of the aisle and beyond.

Posted by Exasperated Scandinavian at February 7, 2007 10:32 AM

Kenneth Starr chose impeachment.

Kenneth Starr had no choice in the matter. He wasn't a member of Congress. Do you fantasize that he could have actually indicted a sitting president and gotten away with it?

Once more, I'm astonished to think that you're supposed to be a lawyer, Bill. Frankly, I wouldn't hire you, since you don't seem to have even learned the basics of constitutional law.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 7, 2007 10:33 AM

"Perhaps it will turn out that there is some mistake in the memos, or in the interpretation of them, and that the generally-accepted version of the story remains accurate. "

Not that Simberg the Neo-con cares about this

Posted by anonymous at February 7, 2007 04:48 PM

Anonymoron:

Most of us are familiar w/ Goebbel's observation that a big enough lie told often enough will come to be accepted as truth.

And, no, that's not in relation to Bush, but to your pathetic repetition of the claim that Simberg is a neo-con (or a 100% Bush supporter, or a Republican). You know, if you didn't raise it five times a day on each thread, whatever the topic, you might actually persuade a new visitor that it was true.

But your SDS (Simberg Derangement Syndrome) is long-marked around here.

Good gawd, get a life!

Posted by Lurking Observer at February 8, 2007 07:07 AM

What makes Simberg not a neo-con?

Posted by anonymous at February 8, 2007 07:56 AM

Simple.

I'm the neo-con membership coordinator, and Rand Simberg's name is not and has never been on the list.

Moron.

Posted by Lurking Observer at February 8, 2007 08:07 AM

well check the neo-neocon list, you'll find simberg's name
there.

Moron.

Posted by anonymous at February 8, 2007 02:29 PM

And for a different view, here's Sullivan's take on this..:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/in_front_of_our.html

Anyone agree? If true, how is this Fitz's job? Count me confused...is this where it is headed?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at February 8, 2007 05:19 PM

"Most of us are familiar w/ Goebbel's observation that a big enough lie told often enough will come to be accepted as truth."

Actually LO, A J-H serves well as an example of the weak minded who are easily taken in by the moonbats and their big lies. Look at his screed espousing his fantasy beliefs regarding the Plame case. He is the poster child for Goebbels target audience.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 8, 2007 06:04 PM

Mike

if the story is so bull, how come the judge has continued
the case?

I've known people who got directed verdicts or the Indictment
quashed.

How come Libby is still on trial?

Posted by anonymous at February 8, 2007 07:09 PM

Here's another angle to this story. There was a claim that Iraq had tried to seek yellowcake from
Niger. The CIA sent a former logistics technician
from the State Department, to Niger, to second
what the other perfunctory conversations had not
been able to uncover. Wilson talked to some Niger
officials, in this carousel of puppet parliaments;
rather than executives of the Cogema French state
monopoly;over some tea. His report ignored the fact that at least two contacts had been made with Nigerien officials by Iraqi envoys; one in
Algiers, one in Niamey. Not just any officials,
but the former delegate to the IAEA, Zahawie; and
the former foreign minister, later minister of
propaganda, Al Sahhaf; Yes, Baghdad Bob. These facts along with other data from the Congo comprise the "16 words" the Bush administration,
retracted but both the Hewitt Report and the Senate SSCI report found plausible. Interestingly
the amount alleged in the forgeries, some 500 tons
of yellowcake, can be converted into the 1.77 tons
of uranium found at the Al Tuwaitha and other nuclear sites, at the time of the Iraq invasion.
Wilson, only had an argument on that one point, at
the time he still thought Iraq had WMDs, just not those nuclear ones. An after action report by Doug
Rohn, at INR ferrited out Valerie Wilson's role in
sending her husband to Niger. He was rewarded with
Consul General in Karachi; not exactly a promotion
considering the target countries aversion to nuclear oversight.

officials

Posted by narciso at February 8, 2007 08:33 PM

BTW, I checked w/ my counterpart Apathetic Bystander, and he tells me that Rand isn't on the neo-neocon list, either.

Still a moron.

Posted by Lurking observer at February 9, 2007 09:02 AM

Tell your friend to check under Simberg's German name.

Look under the entry for Liegenschwein.

Posted by anonymous at February 12, 2007 03:49 PM

citing Baghdad bob as a key player?

You guys slay me.

Posted by anonymous at February 12, 2007 07:42 PM

Post a comment