Skip to main content

Op-Ed Columnist - Two Cheers for Rod Blagojevich - Editorial - NYTimes.com

Link

Two Cheers for Rod Blagojevich
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 13, 2008


ROD BLAGOJEVICH is the perfect holiday treat for a country fighting off depression. He gift-wraps the ugliness of corruption in the mirthful garb of farce. From a safe distance outside Illinois, it’s hard not to laugh at the “culture of Chicago,” where even the president-elect’s Senate seat is just another commodity to be bought and sold.

But the entertainment is escapist only up to a point. What went down in the Land of Lincoln is just the reductio ad absurdum of an American era where both entitlement and corruption have been the calling cards of power. Blagojevich’s alleged crimes pale next to the larger scandals of Washington and Wall Street. Yet those who promoted and condoned the twin national catastrophes of reckless war in Iraq and reckless gambling in our markets have largely escaped the accountability that now seems to await the Chicago punk nabbed by the United States attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald.

The Republican partisans cheering Fitzgerald’s prosecution of a Democrat have forgotten his other red-letter case in this decade, his conviction of Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. Libby was far bigger prey. He was part of the White House Iraq Group, the task force of propagandists that sold an entire war to America on false pretenses. Because Libby was caught lying to a grand jury and federal prosecutors as well as to the public, he was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. But President Bush commuted the sentence before he served a day.

Fitzgerald was not pleased. “It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals,” he said at the time.

Not in the Bush era, man. Though the president had earlier vowed to fire anyone involved in leaking the classified identity of a C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame Wilson — the act Libby tried to cover up by committing perjury — both Libby and his collaborator in leaking, Karl Rove, remained in place.

Accountability wasn’t remotely on Bush’s mind. If anything, he was more likely to reward malfeasance and incompetence, as exemplified by his gifting of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to George Tenet, L. Paul Bremer and Gen. Tommy Franks, three of the most culpable stooges of the Iraq fiasco.

Bush had arrived in Washington vowing to inaugurate a new, post-Clinton era of “personal responsibility” in which “people are accountable for their actions.” Eight years later he holds himself accountable for nothing. In his recent exit interview with Charles Gibson, he presented himself as a passive witness to disastrous events, the Forrest Gump of his own White House. He wishes “the intelligence had been different” about W.M.D. in Iraq — as if his administration hadn’t hyped and manipulated that intelligence. As for the economic meltdown, he had this to say: “I’m sorry it’s happening, of course.”

If you want to trace the bipartisan roots of the morally bankrupt culture that has now found its culmination in our financial apocalypse, a good place to start is late 2001 and 2002, just as the White House contemplated inflating Saddam’s W.M.D. That’s when we learned about another scandal with cooked books, Enron. This was a supreme embarrassment for Bush, whose political career had been bankrolled by the Enron titan Kenneth Lay, or, as Bush nicknamed him back in Texas, “Kenny Boy.”

The chagrined president eventually convened a one-day “economic summit” photo op in August 2002 (held in Waco, Tex., lest his vacation in Crawford be disrupted). But while some perpetrators of fraud at Enron would ultimately pay a price, any lessons from its demise, including a need for safeguards, were promptly forgotten by one and all in the power centers of both federal and corporate governance.

Enron was an energy company that had diversified to trade in derivatives — financial instruments that were bets on everything from exchange rates to the weather. It was also brilliant in devising shell companies that kept hundreds of millions of dollars of debt off the company’s bottom line and away from the prying eyes of shareholders.

Regulators had failed to see the iceberg in Enron’s path and so had Enron’s own accountants at Arthur Andersen, a corporate giant whose parallel implosion had its own casualty list of some 80,000 jobs. Despite Bush’s post-Enron call for “a new ethic of personal responsibility in the business community,” the exact opposite has happened in the six years since. Warren Buffett’s warning in 2003 that derivatives were “financial weapons of mass destruction” was politely ignored. Much larger companies than Enron figured out how to place even bigger and more impenetrable gambles on derivatives, all the while piling up unseen debt. They built castles of air on a far grander scale than Kenny Boy could have imagined, doing so with sheer stupidity and cavalier, greed-fueled carelessness rather than fraud.

The most stupendous example as measured in dollars is Citigroup, now the recipient of potentially the biggest taxpayer bailout to date. The price tag could be some $300 billion — 20 times the proposed first installment of the scuttled Detroit bailout. Citigroup’s toxic derivatives, often tied to subprime mortgages, metastasized without appearing on the balance sheet. Both the company’s former chief executive, Charles O. Prince III, and his senior adviser, Robert Rubin, the former Clinton Treasury secretary, have said they didn’t know the size of the worthless holdings until they’d spiraled into the tens of billions of dollars.

Once again, regulators slept. Once again, credit-rating agencies, typified this time by Moody’s, kept giving a thumbs-up to worthless paper until it was too late. There was just so much easy money to be made, and no one wanted to be left out. As Michael Lewis concludes in his brilliant account of “the end” of Wall Street in Portfolio magazine: “Something for nothing. It never loses its charm.”

But if all bubbles and panics are alike, this one, the worst since the Great Depression, also carried the DNA of our own time. Enron had been a Citigroup client. In a now-forgotten footnote to that scandal, Rubin was discovered to have made a phone call to a former colleague in the Treasury Department to float the idea of asking credit-rating agencies to delay downgrading Enron’s debt. This inappropriate lobbying never went anywhere, but Rubin neither apologized nor learned any lessons. “I can see why that call might be questioned,” he wrote in his 2003 memoir, “but I would make it again.” He would say the same this year about his performance at Citigroup during its collapse.

The Republican side of the same tarnished coin is Phil Gramm, the former senator from Texas. Like Rubin, he helped push through banking deregulation when in government in the 1990s, then cashed in on the relaxed rules by joining the banking industry once he left Washington. Gramm is at UBS, which also binged on credit-default swaps and is now receiving a $60 billion bailout from the Swiss government.

It’s a sad snapshot of our century’s establishment that Rubin has been an economic adviser to Barack Obama and Gramm to John McCain. And that both captains of finance remain unapologetic, unaccountable and still at their banks, which have each lost more than 70 percent of their shareholders’ value this year and have collectively announced more than 90,000 layoffs so far.

The Times calls its chilling investigative series on the financial failures “The Reckoning,” but the reckoning is largely for the rest of us — taxpayers, shareholders, the countless laid-off employees — not the corporate and political leaders who led us into the quagmire. It’s a replay of the Iraq equation: the troops, the Iraqi people and American taxpayers have borne the harshest costs while Bush and company retire to their McMansions.

As our outgoing president passes the buck for his failures — all that bad intelligence — so do leaders in the private and public sectors who enabled the economic debacle. Gramm has put the blame for the subprime fiasco on “predatory borrowers.” Rubin has blamed a “perfect storm” of economic factors, as has Sam Zell, the magnate who bought and maimed the Tribune newspapers in a highly leveraged financial stunt that led to a bankruptcy filing last week. Donald Trump has invoked a standard “act of God” clause to avoid paying a $40 million construction loan on his huge new project in Chicago.

After a while they all start to sound like O. J. Simpson, who when at last held accountable for some of his behavior told a Las Vegas judge this month, “In no way did I mean to hurt anybody.” Or perhaps they are channeling Donald Rumsfeld, whose famous excuse for his failure to secure post-invasion Iraq, “Stuff happens,” could be the epitaph of our age.

Our next president, like his predecessor, is promising “a new era of responsibility and accountability.” We must hope he means it. Meanwhile, we have the governor he leaves behind in Illinois to serve as our national whipping boy, the one betrayer of the public trust who could actually end up paying for his behavior. The surveillance tapes of Blagojevich are so fabulous it seems a tragedy we don’t have similar audio records of the bigger fish who have wrecked the country. But in these hard times we’ll take what we can get.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
The Times calls its chilling investigative series on the financial failures “The Reckoning,” but the reckoning is largely for the rest of us — taxpayers, shareholders, the countless laid-off employees — not the corporate and political leaders who led us into the quagmire. It’s a replay of the Iraq equation: the troops, the Iraqi people and American taxpayers have borne the harshest costs while Bush and company retire to their McMansions.



WOW, the best statement in that piece.

Revelation Ch.6 vs. 6 " And i heard a voice say in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny, and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine."

Notice in this verse that a days wage " a penny" will give you one meal of wheat or three meals of barley but the oil and wine which is symbolic of the luxury of the rich is spared. Meaning that the poor will suffer, but the rich will make sure they don't.
quote:
He mentions Libby's perjury conviction as being part of one of the larger Bush administration scandals



The Libby conviction was a turning point for me. I was a true blue republican up till then. To this day most republicans do not understand or grasp the magnitude of what his conviction means.
Nixon resigned over less than what was involved here.
I think the bill clinton administration started a new brand of politcal thinking in this country. The amount of things he was guilty of will never be known because there was SO MUCH, prosecutors couldn't get their arms around all of it, plus Hillary stole, doctored and destroyed critical files in some of the cases and many people conveniently died during that time. It kind of gave a sense to people that no matter what the crime, whether it was fraud, sexual harrassment, rape, and even worse; its ok, he's the president. I'm afraid we'll never erase "the stain" of his presidency from the White House.
This is a good example of why 'editorials' go in the Opinion section of a newspaper.

Mr. Rich, like most of his ilk, speak of the ramp-up to the Iraq war and the intelligence on which it was based as some unquestionably and verifiably criminal act of deceit, something that has never and can never be proven.

Get over it already. Trying to hang the man from a proverabial tree using conspiracy theories as a rope just makes you look desperate.

There was intelligence from sources foreign and domestic that the weapons existed and Congress voted to approve the action based on said intelligence.

The intelligence turned out to be incorrect. Either the weapons were never there or were moved, but they were never found.

Oh. That HAS to mean that they knew all along and just wanted to pull the golden fleece over the eyes of the whole country for their own private cash cow for Halliburton and oil revenues. There's no other explanation.

Seriously, anyone who sinks to such Limbaugh-esque levels of unsubstantiated proselityzing shouldn't be working at a major newspaper, even if it is an opinion writer. But sadly, the "Bush lied, men died" mantra has become as gospel as "the sky is blue" to the majority of anti-war movement, with or without factual basis.

If you disagree with the war, then say so. Question it's wisdom, it's financial burden, it's philosophical arrogance.

But stop regurgitating the same old theories and hoping that saying them enough will make them true.
quote:
Originally posted by SardonicPoet:

There was intelligence from sources foreign and domestic that the weapons existed and Congress voted to approve the action based on said intelligence.

The intelligence turned out to be incorrect. Either the weapons were never there or were moved, but they were never found.


I'm in the camp that says they did exist and as a result, they still do. They ARE OUT THERE somewhere. Madam hussien didn't kill half a million of his own people without them. I just hope the new kid some of us have hired as our guardian-in-chief realizes that.
quote:
Originally posted by kperk:
quote:
Originally posted by SardonicPoet:

There was intelligence from sources foreign and domestic that the weapons existed and Congress voted to approve the action based on said intelligence.

The intelligence turned out to be incorrect. Either the weapons were never there or were moved, but they were never found.


I'm in the camp that says they did exist and as a result, they still do. They ARE OUT THERE somewhere. Madam hussien didn't kill half a million of his own people without them. I just hope the new kid some of us have hired as our guardian-in-chief realizes that.


Exactly.People don't seem to realize that Saddam Insane had plenty of time to move his weapons while Bush was going along with the left wing wishes of dicking aroung with the stupid ass UN to keep from taking a unilateral aproach.I for one could give a **** what the UN or a bunch of terrorist camel humpers think about this country.
Libby was convicted of Perjury on lying to the Grand Jury in the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name. Her husband Wilson had been sent by the CIA to investigate whether there was any evidence of Saddam purchasing uranium from Niger. Even though the evidence showed it wasn't true Bush repeated it. Even Tenet told him to remove the remark. Wilson wrote an OP-Ed to the NY Times and then Plame's name was leaked.

George Bush and his cohorts knew Saddam had no weapons and lied and took the Nation to War. US wants to control the oil and the region and needs to establish Military Bases in the region. It's why they began building the bases as soon as they took over.

As Former Treasury Secretary Paul O' Neil wrote Bush made Iraq a focus point in 2001, before the 9/11 attacks. Richard Clarke also wrote he downgraded Al Qaeda as a threat and instead focused on Iraq. He tried to tie Saddam to the 9/11 attacks.

He and Cheney created the Office of Special Plans which filtered all the information from Intelligence and omitted intelligence that doubted Saddam had weapons.

There is even better evidence presented by former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. Bush lied straight out. There is some technical problems at the begging of the interview.

Here is an excerpt

Democracy Now! | Citing Iraq War, Renowned Attorney Vincent Bugliosi Seeks "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"

Link

June 13, 2008


"AMY GOODMAN: Today we’re joined by the renowned lawyer and author Vincent Bugliosi. His latest book is just published; it’s called The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. He joins us from Los Angeles.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Amy and Juan, I’m very happy to be on the show. I was told we’d have about forty, forty-five minutes. Now I’m told twenty minutes, so I’m going to have to make my answers very, very, very quick, unfortunately, and I don’t think we’re going to be able to get into too much. But I was hoping we’d have a long time to talk about the many issues.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, why don’t we start off by you just laying out your case and how you arrived at this, at this argument, decided to write this book?

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Well, in my book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, I set forth an airtight legal case against George Bush that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that George Bush took this nation to war under false pretenses, on a lie, in Iraq, and therefore, under the law, he is guilty of murder for the deaths of over 4,000 young American soldiers in Iraq fighting his war, not your war or my war or America’s war, but his war.

Interestingly enough, there have been billions of very harsh critical words written and said about George Bush, none of which he could possibly care less about. So the words are absolutely meaningless. But up until now, other than words, no one has done anything at all to George Bush. No impeachment, no investigation of him.

But this book here, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, in it, I put together a case against George Bush that could result—it absolutely could result in his being prosecuted for first-degree murder in an American courtroom. I set forth the legal architecture against him, the overwhelming evidence of his guilt and the jurisdiction to prosecute him. And I say that if justice means anything at all in America, and if we’re not going to forget about these 4,000 young American soldiers who are in their cold graves right now as I am talking to you and who came back from George Bush’s war in a box or a jar of ashes, I say we have no choice but to bring murder charges against the son of privilege from Crawford, Texas.

I may be sounding presumptuous to you right now, Amy and Juan, but I’m telling you this: I am going after George Bush. I may not succeed, but I’m not going to be satisfied until I see him in an American courtroom being prosecuted for first-degree murder.

In our segment here, I would like to talk about a couple things. You people are the general, but I’d like to get into some of the evidence against Bush, and I’d also like to talk about how he’s conducted himself throughout the entire war: having fun, smiling, laughing, enjoying himself. And you also might be interested in the story behind the story. What’s happened with this book right here, for the first time in my thirty-year career, the national TV and print media have completely blacked it out. They haven’t succeeded. The book just came out. It’s already this Sunday going to be on the New York Times bestseller list, but it’s all by word of mouth. But those are the three things I’d like to talk about. But whatever else you want to ask me, go ahead.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, let’s start off just by giving us some of the key points in the evidence, especially in the early days of the war, that you lay out in the book, from the National Intelligence Estimate, his lying about that, and so forth?

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Yeah, OK. OK, now, there many, many things in the book, but let’s talk about a couple key pieces of evidence.

In George Bush’s first speech to the nation on Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7, 2002, he told the nation that Hussein was a great danger to America either by his attacking us with his weapons of mass destruction or giving those weapons to some terrorist group to attack us. And he said this attack could happen, quote, “on any given day,” meaning the threat was imminent.

Unfortunately for George Bush—and I don’t know how he could get around this at his trial—on October the 1st, six days earlier, the CIA sent George Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a report from sixteen US intelligence agencies—there’s a strong sound in my ear here, there’s a big rattling sound here. Anyway, he was sent this report representing the consensus opinion of all sixteen US intelligence agencies on the issue of whether Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country. There’s a lot of noise in my left ear, a constant rattle; if you can get rid of it, I’d appreciate it. And—well, it’s not stopping. And on page eight of this ninety-one-page report, page eight, it clearly and unequivocally says—and, by the way, what I’m about to tell you, to my knowledge, has never appeared in any national newspaper or magazine in America; it may have, but to my knowledge, I’ve never heard this said before in any of the major magazines or newspapers of America. Page nine—page eight, ninety-one-page report, clearly and unequivocally says that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country, that he would only be a threat if he feared that America was about to attack him. In other words, he would only be a threat if he was forced to fight in self-defense.

So we know—not “think,” but we know—that when George Bush told the nation on the evening of October the 7th, 2002, Cincinnati, Ohio, that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. So if we had nothing else at all, this alone shows us that he took this nation to war on a lie, and therefore, all of the killings in Iraq of American soldiers became unlawful killings and therefore murder.

But it gets worse. October 4th, three days after the October 1st classified top-secret report, Bush and his people had the CIA issue an unclassified summary version of the October 1st classified report, so that this report could be issued to the American people and to Congress. And this report came to be known as the “White Paper.” And in this White Paper, the conclusion of US intelligence that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country was completely deleted from the White Paper. Every single one of these all-important words were taken out. And the question that I have is, how evil, how perverse, how sick, how criminal can George Bush and his people be? And yet, up to this point, unbelievably—and there’s no other word for it—he’s gotten by with all of this.

I’ll touch upon another piece of evidence. January 31st, 2005—2003—by the way, you’ve all heard of the Downing Street memo, got a lot of attention. If I prosecuted Bush, that would be a very insignificant part of the case, because it’s ambiguous. This is the Manning memo that seems to have gone over the head of everyone. It’s a hundred times more important than the Downing Street memo. January 31st, 2003, George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair met in the Oval Office with six of their top aides, including Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser for Bush, and Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning. Now, two months later, they go to war, because they say Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they had to go in there and disarm Hussein and these weapons of mass destruction.

After the meeting, Manning prepares a five-page memo stamped “extremely sensitive,” in which he summarizes what was said at the meeting. And Manning writes that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any weapons of mass destruction would ever be found in Iraq, although two months later they went there because they said they had the weapons and we had to disarm them. But it gets much, much, much worse. Manning wrote that Bush was so worried, so upset, over the failure of the UN inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction, that he talked about three ways to, quote, “provoke a confrontation with Hussein,” one of which, Bush said, was to, quote, “fly U2 aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, over Iraq, falsely painted in United Nations colors,” and Bush said if Hussein fires upon them, this will be a breach of UN resolutions and justify war.

So here we have George Bush telling the American people, telling the world, that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, so we had to strike first in self-defense, but behind closed doors, this very small man was talking about how to provoke Hussein into a war. The very last person in the world that someone acting in self-defense would try to provoke is a person who he’s in deathly fear of, the person who’s about to kill him. If George Bush actually believed that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which was the main reason he went to war, the very thought of provoking Hussein into a war obviously would never, ever, ever have entered his mind.

Now, I don’t know if you’re aware, but what I just told you is extremely powerful evidence of George Bush’s guilt. I was on the radio with Dennis Miller a couple days ago in LA, and I told him about the Manning memo, and I said, “Now, Dennis, you’re representing George Bush. You’re his defense attorney. After you hear Manning testify to the Manning memo on the witness stand, other than trying to hide beneath the counsel table, what would your response be?” And Dennis is very quick, very smart. He gave a good answer: he said, “I would call for a recess.” There is no answer to the Manning memo.
"Libby was convicted of Perjury on lying to the Grand Jury in the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name. Her husband Wilson had been sent by the CIA to investigate whether there was any evidence of Saddam purchasing uranium from Niger. Even though the evidence showed it wasn't true Bush repeated it. Even Tenet told him to remove the remark. Wilson wrote an OP-Ed to the NY Times and then Plame's name was leaked."

As Richard Armitage inadvertantly disclosed Plame's identity. Which, resulted in the information being disclosed in Novak's article. Therefore, Scooter Libby's disclosure, had no effect. Which, pretty much describes the entire article.
quote:
As Richard Armitage inadvertantly disclosed Plame's identity. Which, resulted in the information being disclosed in Novak's article. Therefore, Scooter Libby's disclosure, had no effect. Which, pretty much describes the entire article.



Howie,
He lied under oath to a special government investigator concerning an issue of national security..

I thought perjury was a serious crime..... I guess it's only if the offender is democrat.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Extra,

Libby claimed a lapse of memory, perhaps so, perhaps not.

You are missing cause and effect -- logic. Libby did not profit from disclosure, nor would his denying disclosure profit him or protect him from any consequences.



But he could have been protecting higher ups, like Chaney.... After all, that was the purpose of the investigation.

It is quite possible that Libby lied to cover up for his boss, Chaney. It is also possible we still don't have all the facts about the Plame affair. It is also possible that Libby knows more than he told.

He was convicted in a court of law with the best counsel that Chaney could get him. I would say the evidence was compelling enough to get a conviction.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
[QUOTE]As Richard Armitage inadvertantly disclosed Plame's identity. Which, resulted in the information being disclosed in Novak's article. Therefore, Scooter Libby's disclosure, had no effect. Which, pretty much describes the entire article.[/QUOTE)


Howie,
He lied under oath to a special government investigator concerning an issue of national security..

I thought perjury was a serious crime..... I guess it's only if the offender is democrat.


Nothing happened to bull clinton for lying repeatedly under oath in civil court. He served out his full term, getting blown in the oval office by his employee who was very nearly a minor. What a guy.
Libby was convicted of perjury for lying to the Grand Jury. Richard Armitage is a veteran official and he also surfaced as a player in the Iran Contra scandal under Reagan. The ideas that he "inadvertently" let Plame's name slip is hard to believe. Plame was an under cover agent who worked on Nuclear issues in foreign countries. She had to end her work.

Clinton was impeached but the Senate did not vote to remove him because the majority of the American people did not feel that lying about a private sexual affair between two consenting adults merited removal from office. More people support the impeachment of Bush then Clinton yet there is silence from the Corporate Media and Congress.

If your having trouble understanding the article Kperk let me just post an excerpt. I posted more of the interview so people could see it in context.

As I pointed out earlier there is some technical interference at the start of the interview.



VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Yeah, OK. OK, now, there many, many things in the book, but let’s talk about a couple key pieces of evidence.

In George Bush’s first speech to the nation on Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7, 2002, he told the nation that Hussein was a great danger to America either by his attacking us with his weapons of mass destruction or giving those weapons to some terrorist group to attack us. And he said this attack could happen, quote, “on any given day,” meaning the threat was imminent.

Unfortunately for George Bush—and I don’t know how he could get around this at his trial—on October the 1st, six days earlier, the CIA sent George Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a report from sixteen US intelligence agencies—there’s a strong sound in my ear here, there’s a big rattling sound here. Anyway, he was sent this report representing the consensus opinion of all sixteen US intelligence agencies on the issue of whether Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country. There’s a lot of noise in my left ear, a constant rattle; if you can get rid of it, I’d appreciate it. And—well, it’s not stopping. And on page eight of this ninety-one-page report, page eight, it clearly and unequivocally says—and, by the way, what I’m about to tell you, to my knowledge, has never appeared in any national newspaper or magazine in America; it may have, but to my knowledge, I’ve never heard this said before in any of the major magazines or newspapers of America. Page nine—page eight, ninety-one-page report, clearly and unequivocally says that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country, that he would only be a threat if he feared that America was about to attack him. In other words, he would only be a threat if he was forced to fight in self-defense.

So we know—not “think,” but we know—that when George Bush told the nation on the evening of October the 7th, 2002, Cincinnati, Ohio, that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. So if we had nothing else at all, this alone shows us that he took this nation to war on a lie, and therefore, all of the killings in Iraq of American soldiers became unlawful killings and therefore murder.

But it gets worse. October 4th, three days after the October 1st classified top-secret report, Bush and his people had the CIA issue an unclassified summary version of the October 1st classified report, so that this report could be issued to the American people and to Congress. And this report came to be known as the “White Paper.” And in this White Paper, the conclusion of US intelligence that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country was completely deleted from the White Paper. Every single one of these all-important words were taken out. And the question that I have is, how evil, how perverse, how sick, how criminal can George Bush and his people be? And yet, up to this point, unbelievably—and there’s no other word for it—he’s gotten by with all of this.

I’ll touch upon another piece of evidence. January 31st, 2005—2003—by the way, you’ve all heard of the Downing Street memo, got a lot of attention. If I prosecuted Bush, that would be a very insignificant part of the case, because it’s ambiguous. This is the Manning memo that seems to have gone over the head of everyone. It’s a hundred times more important than the Downing Street memo. January 31st, 2003, George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair met in the Oval Office with six of their top aides, including Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser for Bush, and Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning. Now, two months later, they go to war, because they say Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they had to go in there and disarm Hussein and these weapons of mass destruction.

After the meeting, Manning prepares a five-page memo stamped “extremely sensitive,” in which he summarizes what was said at the meeting. And Manning writes that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any weapons of mass destruction would ever be found in Iraq, although two months later they went there because they said they had the weapons and we had to disarm them. But it gets much, much, much worse. Manning wrote that Bush was so worried, so upset, over the failure of the UN inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction, that he talked about three ways to, quote, “provoke a confrontation with Hussein,” one of which, Bush said, was to, quote, “fly U2 aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, over Iraq, falsely painted in United Nations colors,” and Bush said if Hussein fires upon them, this will be a breach of UN resolutions and justify war.

So here we have George Bush telling the American people, telling the world, that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, so we had to strike first in self-defense, but behind closed doors, this very small man was talking about how to provoke Hussein into a war. The very last person in the world that someone acting in self-defense would try to provoke is a person who he’s in deathly fear of, the person who’s about to kill him. If George Bush actually believed that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which was the main reason he went to war, the very thought of provoking Hussein into a war obviously would never, ever, ever have entered his mind.
Extra & Pogo,

quote:
But he could have been protecting higher ups, like Chaney.... After all, that was the purpose of the investigation.

It is quite possible that Libby lied to cover up for his boss, Chaney. It is also possible we still don't have all the facts about the Plame affair. It is also possible that Libby knows more than he told.

He was convicted in a court of law with the best counsel that Chaney could get him. I would say the evidence was compelling enough to get a conviction.



The evidence was basically he said one thing and the other guy said the opposite -- not any physical evidence. The jury decided against Libby. Who may well have been guilty of dropping the information or bad memory.

However, he protected no one. The information was already leaked by Armitage and presented by Novak. Scooter did not profit from disclosure. Cheney was not protected from a disclosure that was already made -- the horse was already out of the barn.

Fitzgerald is a bulldog of a prosecutor. I would not wish to be anyone in Illinois even slightly tainted with the Blagojevich scandal. He will hunt them down and prosecute for even minor violations. Obama may have to cut some of his staff, just to satisfy the prosecution.
Howard,
Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent who's husband is Joseph Wilson. Wilson was a U.N. weapons investigator who not only had first hands on experience with Iraq, but was sent to Niger to investigate the Bush Administration claim that Saddam was there trying to buy Yellow Cake Uranium.
Wilson concluded that the claim was bogus, the result of nightmares from eating too many chilidogs. When the Bush administration continued to pound out the claim that Saddam was trying to build nuclear weapons and citing the Niger connection, Wilson first privately and then publicly refuted the presidents claims. Bush had in his possession the report from Wilson so he was not ignorant.

This conflict peaked when Wilson to out a full page ad in the newspaper refuting Bush's nuclear claims. Within a few days, his wife's name was leaked to the press and her career ruined. The timing of this and the fact that the name came from the White House clearly shows intent to retaliate against Wilson for the fact that he publicly opposed the president. Time has shown Wilson right, and Bush wrong.
The common belief is that Carl Rove was the one behind the leak, because he is a no prisoners type of person, and this is his style.

The sad truth to this all is the over 4000 Americans dead and countless #s maimed as well as the Iraqi's killed and maimed. All of this because you had a President who felt it was O K to start a war of agression to settle a personal score. Such is the sad legacy of G. W. B.
Extra,

The first two paragraghs of your statement are well known and not arguable, with the exception of the claim being bogus. Its been publicized for years and what bearing it has upon anything, I fail to see.

As to the third paragragh -- Novak's article leaked Plame's linkage with the CIA. Also, well known. Novak's source was Richard Armitage. Novak stated his source was Armitage. Armitage admitted he was the source of the information for Novak's article. Fitzgerald agreed that Armitage was the source of Novak's information. Fitzgerald also determine that Plame's position was no protected by law and declined to prosecute Armitage.

How may Karl Rove be brought into the equation, when all the players are known, including all sources of information?

The left mounted hobby horses and charged in all directions oblivious to common sense or the actual trail of evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
I have already refuted it. After a while even a cat gets tired of playing with a dead mouse.


You've refuted nothing. You've only enhanced the perception that the left, after being fed drivel by the liberal media for so many years, has been darwined into the state of being unable to accept anything factual that goes against what other idiots have told you. What surprises me is that you could actually use the word, "obfuscation". Congratulations. Unfortunately, what Howard did was NOT obfuscation. Of course, the actual series of events won't fit on a bumper sticker or a t-shirt, so the left can't handle it.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
I have already refuted it. After a while even a cat gets tired of playing with a dead mouse.


You've refuted nothing. You've only enhanced the perception that the left, after being fed drivel by the liberal media for so many years, has been darwined into the state of being unable to accept anything factual that goes against what other idiots have told you. What surprises me is that you could actually use the word, "obfuscation". Congratulations. Unfortunately, what Howard did was NOT obfuscation. Of course, the actual series of events won't fit on a bumper sticker or a t-shirt, so the left can't handle it.



Zippee,
You remind me much of a parrot on a sailors shoulder. You can repeat what youve heard but haven't a clue the meaning of the conversation.

Let me help you:Howards post and my response:

My Name

Posted 16 December 2008 09:41 PM Hide Post
quote:
As Richard Armitage inadvertantly disclosed Plame's identity. Which, resulted in the information being disclosed in Novak's article. Therefore, Scooter Libby's disclosure, had no effect. Which, pretty much describes the entire article.



Howie,
He lied under oath to a special government investigator concerning an issue of national security..

I thought perjury was a serious crime..... I guess it's only if the offender is democrat.

"Brother, Can you spare a dime?"

Howards Response:

Extra,

Libby claimed a lapse of memory, perhaps so, perhaps not.

You are missing cause and effect -- logic. Libby did not profit from disclosure, nor would his denying disclosure profit him or protect him from any consequences.

My response:

But he could have been protecting higher ups, like Chaney.... After all, that was the purpose of the investigation.

It is quite possible that Libby lied to cover up for his boss, Chaney. It is also possible we still don't have all the facts about the Plame affair. It is also possible that Libby knows more than he told.

He was convicted in a court of law with the best counsel that Chaney could get him. I would say the evidence was compelling enough to get a conviction.



Now are you following? You really need to read a thread before you post in it.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
I have already refuted it. After a while even a cat gets tired of playing with a dead mouse.


You've refuted nothing. You've only enhanced the perception that the left, after being fed drivel by the liberal media for so many years, has been darwined into the state of being unable to accept anything factual that goes against what other idiots have told you. What surprises me is that you could actually use the word, "obfuscation". Congratulations. Unfortunately, what Howard did was NOT obfuscation. Of course, the actual series of events won't fit on a bumper sticker or a t-shirt, so the left can't handle it.
_____________________________________________________________________

Zippee,
You remind me much of a parrot on a sailors shoulder. You can repeat what youve heard but haven't a clue the meaning of the conversation.

Let me help you:Howards post and my response:

My Name

Posted 16 December 2008 09:41 PM Hide Post
quote:
As Richard Armitage inadvertantly disclosed Plame's identity. Which, resulted in the information being disclosed in Novak's article. Therefore, Scooter Libby's disclosure, had no effect. Which, pretty much describes the entire article.
____________________________________________________________________


Howie,
He lied under oath to a special government investigator concerning an issue of national security..

I thought perjury was a serious crime..... I guess it's only if the offender is democrat.

"Brother, Can you spare a dime?"

Howards Response:

Extra,

Libby claimed a lapse of memory, perhaps so, perhaps not.

You are missing cause and effect -- logic. Libby did not profit from disclosure, nor would his denying disclosure profit him or protect him from any consequences.

My response:

But he could have been protecting higher ups, like Chaney.... After all, that was the purpose of the investigation.

It is quite possible that Libby lied to cover up for his boss, Chaney. It is also possible we still don't have all the facts about the Plame affair. It is also possible that Libby knows more than he told.

He was convicted in a court of law with the best counsel that Chaney could get him. I would say the evidence was compelling enough to get a conviction.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
But, of course, Extra let off this:


The evidence was basically he said one thing and the other guy said the opposite -- not any physical evidence. The jury decided against Libby. Who may well have been guilty of dropping the information or bad memory.

However, he protected no one. The information was already leaked by Armitage and presented by Novak. Scooter did not profit from disclosure. Cheney was not protected from a disclosure that was already made -- the horse was already out of the barn.
quote:
The evidence was basically he said one thing and the other guy said the opposite -- not any physical evidence. The jury decided against Libby. Who may well have been guilty of dropping the information or bad memory.

However, he protected no one. The information was already leaked by Armitage and presented by Novak. Scooter did not profit from disclosure. Cheney was not protected

from a disclosure that was already made -- the horse was already out of the barn.


Howard,
I left off nothing. You just seem to observe the passover on the fact that LIBBY WAS CONVICTED OF LYING to a federal investigator in a federal investigation of the potentially federal and treasonous crime of outing a covert CIA agent.

Did you catch that? CONVICTED.
From Wiki

Irve Lewis "Scooter" Libby (born August 22, 1950) is a former Assistant to the President of the United States, George W. Bush, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs, serving from 2001 to 2005.[1] [2][3]

Libby resigned all three government positions immediately after he was indicted on federal charges of obstruction and perjury resulting from the grand jury investigation into the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame. In his trial for his role in the Plame affair, United States v. Libby,[3][4] the jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment: one count of obstruction of justice; two counts of perjury; and one count of making false statements to federal investigators.[5]

at the end:

On December 10, 2007, Libby's lawyers announced that he would drop his appeal of his conviction in the "CIA leak case", leaving intact his remaining sentence and fine and leaving on his record his felony conviction, unless he were granted a full Presidential pardon.[20] The next day, December 11, 2007, President Bush issued 29 pardons but did not include Libby among them.[21][22] As a consequence of his conviction in U.S. v. Libby, his license to practice law was suspended by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in December 2007.[23] On April 3, 2007, the District of Columbia Bar suspended his license to practice law in Washington, D.C., and recommended his disbarment pending his appeal of his conviction.[24][25] On March 20, 2008, after he dropped his appeal, he was disbarred by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in Washington, D.C., at least until 2012, when he is eligible to apply for reinstatement.[26]

This does not sound like much todo about nothing to me.This man's law career is over.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
I left off nothing. You just seem to observe the passover on the fact that LIBBY WAS CONVICTED OF LYING to a federal investigator in a federal investigation of the potentially federal and treasonous crime of outing a covert CIA agent.

Did you catch that? CONVICTED.


Yeah, we did. Saw a politically-motivated trial about a he said-she said kind of situation. Saw a travesty of justice in action. It's my hope that none of us ever have to rely upon our memories for an insignificant fact (which his "lie" was) in a one-on-one conversation that happened far enough in the past for a memory to be hazy to protect us from an overzealous federal prosecutor. But you moonbats were able to howl at the moon in glee when he was convicted.

What was the most interesting about it was it was the exact same charge that was brought against Clinton. And it wasn't the "majority of American people"...it was some stonebrained members of our congress that kept him from impeachment. Clinton deliberately lied; he didn't forget or have a hazy memory. He lied. You should be proud.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
I left off nothing. You just seem to observe the passover on the fact that LIBBY WAS CONVICTED OF LYING to a federal investigator in a federal investigation of the potentially federal and treasonous crime of outing a covert CIA agent.

Did you catch that? CONVICTED.


Yeah, we did. Saw a politically-motivated trial about a he said-she said kind of situation. Saw a travesty of justice in action. It's my hope that none of us ever have to rely upon our memories for an insignificant fact (which his "lie" was) in a one-on-one conversation that happened far enough in the past for a memory to be hazy to protect us from an overzealous federal prosecutor. But you moonbats were able to howl at the moon in glee when he was convicted.

What was the most interesting about it was it was the exact same charge that was brought against Clinton. And it wasn't the "majority of American people"...it was some stonebrained members of our congress that kept him from impeachment. Clinton deliberately lied; he didn't forget or have a hazy memory. He lied. You should be proud.




Ha Ha Ha. You just can't stand the truth.
quote:
The evidence was basically he said one thing and the other guy said the opposite -- not any physical evidence. The jury decided against Libby. Who may well have been guilty of dropping the information or bad memory.

[b]However, he protected no one. The information was already leaked by Armitage and presented by Novak. Scooter did not profit from disclosure. Cheney was not protected from a disclosure that was already made -- the horse was already out of the barn. [b/]

Fitzgerald is a bulldog of a prosecutor. I would not wish to be anyone in Illinois even slightly tainted with the Blagojevich scandal. He will hunt them down and prosecute for even minor violations. Obama may have to cut some of his staff, just to satisfy the prosecution.



Howard,
According to the prosecutor:

quote:
In his October 28, 2005 press conference about the grand jury's indictment, Fitzgerald had already explained that Libby's obstruction of justice through perjury and false statements had prevented the grand jury from determining whether the leak violated federal law.[87][88]

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×