Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If Libby Hadn't Lied

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 06:41 PM
Original message
If Libby Hadn't Lied
The right has no one to blame but Libby himself. If he had been truthful before the Grand Jury there would have been no charges at all. Bush was making no effort to determine who had leaked the information, apparently Armitage (sp?) didn't meet all the criteria to have committed a crime with his original disclosure. In short the Bush administration would have got a good bill of health had not this one silly self indulgent man simply told the truth. They have no one to blame but one of their own, and they should be reminded of it constantly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rudylarusso Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Suppose
It’s 1997: Suppose that Bill Clinton had got it in his head that Timothy McVeigh was aided and abetted by Uzbekistan on the way to the Alfred P. Murrah Building. Uzbekistan is ruled by a fierce dictator—Shavkat Mirizyoyev. The Uzbek government is known for its human rights violations which include such horrific practices as boiling people alive. Uzbekistan also sits on some (not a lot of) oil reserves. Hillary Clinton is convinced that there is a connection between Mirizyoyev and the Oklahoma City bombing and that, worse yet, Uzbekistan is developing weapons of mass destruction. Bill Clinton orders the CIA to develop a dossier. Unconvinced by initial results, Hillary and George Stephanopoulos pressure the CIA. William Cohen, with the aid of Sandy Berger, creates his own internal intelligence arm. The raw data is cherry picked and stove piped. They learn of a report by the British that Tajikistan was supplying Uzbekistan with aluminum tubes suitable only for nuclear warheads. Hillary hears reports that the evidence is shaky. She asks the CIA to investigate. The CIA sends Howard Baker to Uzbekistan to look into it. He reports back to the CIA that the tubes are too small to be compatible with use in a nuclear device. Bill Clinton gives his State of the Union address and makes the case against Uzbekistan, including the dubious aluminum tube report. Baker believes that the President (who he voted for) is taking the wrong path and prints an article in the Washington Times—“What I did not find in Uzbekistan.” Hillary Clinton is livid. She finds out that Baker’s daughter is a CIA agent (she doesn’t care, or bother to find out, if she’s undercover) working on WMDs. She concludes that Baker was sent on a boondoggle as a result of nepotism. She instructs Dee Dee Myers to “leak” the news to selective sources. Sandy Berger and George Stephanopoulos join in the fun. Finally, Robert Scheer prints an article exposing the young Ms. Baker and the cover firm she used—Scaife & Ailes. The CIA, naturally, is upset by this obvious breach of security and reports the matter to the DOJ. Janet Reno refers the matter to Patrick Fitzgerald—an independent attorney of impeccable credentials. An investigation ensues. In the process, Sandy Berger lies repeatedly and often to the Grand Jury and the FBI. He is indicted. Tried. Convicted. Question: how would Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Anne Coulter react? Would they say that it was a travesty that Berger was convicted and that he should be immediately pardoned? Would they say that Hillary at all times acted above board and simply is the victim of blogging moonbats? Would they say that it is simply off the radar to consider impeaching Bill Clinton for leading us into a foolish war against Uzbekistan? I thought not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theoldman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sorry to disagree but Libby lied to protect his boss.
He made himself an easy target. If he had been honest, Cheney would have been in the hot seat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. If You'll Recall Cheney's Mere Utterence Declassifies
I recall that George and Dick gave themselves that particular power at the drop of a hat - if they tell anyone anything it is no longer classified by virtue of them having made the utterance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Cheney "maybe" allowed to declassify documents, but not people
Edited on Wed Mar-07-07 06:58 PM by emulatorloo
So yes, Cheney would be in the hotseat.

--

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001253.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elfin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. If he hadn't lied Cheney, Rove and Artimage would be put to death
for treason in outing a covert agent during a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-07-07 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
6. Don't buy the Wingnuttery "NO UNDERLYING CRIME WAS COMMITTED"
Libby lied to cover for Cheney's conspiracy to out Plame, and for that matter, there was probably a coverup conspiracy between Cheney and Libby, which Libby is also lying about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC