Mike the Usurper wrote:

Why did Cheney’s chief of staff call and complain so fatefully when Wilson’s claims were repeated on “Hardball?”

Could it be that Cheney feared that if the country knew it was his inquiry that led to the Africa trip then he, the president’s right-hand man, could be expected to have gotten a full report on the trip’s findings.

In that case, Cheney would have known a year ahead of time that there was no deal by Saddam Hussein to buy uranium yellowcake in Niger. He should therefore have kept the president from making that assertion in his 2003 State of the Union that “British intelligence” reported a Saddam effort to buy uranium from Africa. That assertion of a nuclear threat from Iraq is what tilted this country toward war.

Ya think? Chris is coming to this party a little late, but the blunt answer is, they wanted a war with Iraq, marketed a war with Iraq, sold a war with Iraq, and if you disagreed with that, you were a traitor helping the terrorists.

It's time for the current administration to go. To jail.

There's a compelling arguement that part of this can be attributed to a personal vendetta between Fitzgerald and Libby. They have history and a grudge.

Hijexx wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Why did Cheney’s chief of staff call and complain so fatefully when Wilson’s claims were repeated on “Hardball?”

Could it be that Cheney feared that if the country knew it was his inquiry that led to the Africa trip then he, the president’s right-hand man, could be expected to have gotten a full report on the trip’s findings.

In that case, Cheney would have known a year ahead of time that there was no deal by Saddam Hussein to buy uranium yellowcake in Niger. He should therefore have kept the president from making that assertion in his 2003 State of the Union that “British intelligence” reported a Saddam effort to buy uranium from Africa. That assertion of a nuclear threat from Iraq is what tilted this country toward war.

Ya think? Chris is coming to this party a little late, but the blunt answer is, they wanted a war with Iraq, marketed a war with Iraq, sold a war with Iraq, and if you disagreed with that, you were a traitor helping the terrorists.

It's time for the current administration to go. To jail.

There's a compelling arguement that part of this can be attributed to a personal vendetta between Fitzgerald and Libby. They have history and a grudge.

No, it's not compelling at all. That link leads to a quote from an unsigned editorial from WSJOnline. There is no way to establish the veracity of any charge made in the original. Lefty debunking of that theory can be found here, some whining about the case from Post editorial page hack Victoria Toensing where even she doesn't make this claim. In fact, the only place this claim ever shows up is that WSJO piece.

And while we're at it, let's make sure something is clear. That article goes in at least two directions. First, that Fitz went after Libby over a 10 year old grudge from the Rich case, and second? There wasn't a crime committed in this case, so how can you have perjury or obstruction of justice about it? The point of the piece is an unsigned slap at Fitzgerald's integrity, coupled with a "this is stupid" because no law was broken dismissal. This is of course a complete lie.

When Novak popped out the name, he may not have broken the law, but how would Armitage have known the name of a NOC agent? That there was a law broken is not a question. NOC's don't officially work for the government, the fact that Armitage knew at all means someone told him. Who has that kind of clearance? Armitage probably didn't, so who told him?

Further, the fact that public origination may have started with Armitage does not mean there was not a concerted effort to discredit Joe Wilson. It is obvious there was. That's one of the things that came out in all of this.

The bottom line? The WSJO piece is not especially credible, is not particularly right, and Scooter can expect to go to Danbury.