| |
Bush seeks to put Libby issue to rest - Yahoo! News
by Mike the Usurper at 2:05 pm EDT, Jul 12, 2007 |
The president had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed Plame's identity. "It has been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House, and it's run its course, and now we're going to move on," Bush declared. Several Bush administration officials revealed Plame's identity. White House political adviser Karl Rove and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage were the primary sources for a 2003 newspaper article outing Plame. Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer also admitted telling reporters about her. And jurors apparently believed prosecutors who said Libby discussed Plame with reporters from the New York Times and Time magazine. Libby was the only one charged in the matter.
Well that's at least four people who did it. Since some people are still clinging to the impression this was all political, it was. At least four different members of the administration blew the cover of a covert agent. That is not an accident. That's a political move to damage someone who disagreed with why these dolts went to war. Fitzgerald's prosecution was political? Let's see, Fitzgerald, appointed to be a US Attorney by Bush, was named prosecutor by Ashcroft, appointed by Bush, after Ashcroft recused himself, appropriately, because he worked with the likely targets of the investigation every day. Judge Walton, appointed by Bush, sentenced Libby to 30 months. The appeals panel, one Bush41, one Reagan, and one Clinton appointee, unanimously agreed with Judge Walton that the sentence was in line, and that there was no reason to allow bail during appeal as the presumption made there is that there is a likely chance of overturning on appeal. The only politics from the left in this are, we're happy to see an administration scumbag getting sent to jail. (and "scumbag" in the original meaning is apt here, Libby lied to the grand jury to protect whoever decided leaking the name would be acceptable, the question that remains is, "was that person Bush, Rove or Cheney?") |
| |
RE: Bush seeks to put Libby issue to rest - Yahoo! News
by dc0de at 2:32 pm EDT, Jul 12, 2007 |
Mike the Usurper wrote: That is not an accident. That's a political move to damage someone who disagreed with why these dolts went to war.
I'm sorry, I just don't see where this is true. I can see where you feel that this is important, but in fact, it sounds just like more blustering from the wings. The fact that a NOC was exposed, is bad.
The people who exposed the NOC should be punished.
The people who PUBLISHED this data should also be punished. (it's against the law to publish National Security Information, regardless of the source) The Fact that Flame was a NOC is mostly irrelevant, IMAO, in respect to the greater fact that this information was available to these senior staffers. The main purpose of information classifications in the covert operations world is protect the source. Those people who have released any information that injures a source, or in this case, burns a source, need to be punished. The politics around who/what/why/where/when & how are totally irrelevant to me. Anyone can spin the big 7 above to their own ends, and since politicians lie at a drop of a hat, (regardless of what "camp" they're in), what's the difference? We should be more concerned with the news outlet, the people who gave this information out about Flame, and to determine if Flame herself was spouting off her NOC status... it seems to me that Libby, with a very distinguished background and understanding of the classified covert operations world, would break a cardinal rule as basic as protecting your sources... it sounds like Libby is another scapegoat... And before you dismiss that, just think back to Ollie North, and many other people who "took one for the team" to protect a higher ranking official. That's just my 2¢, YMMV.
|
|
| | |
RE: Bush seeks to put Libby issue to rest - Yahoo! News
by Mike the Usurper at 11:17 am EDT, Jul 13, 2007 |
dc0de wrote: Mike the Usurper wrote: That is not an accident. That's a political move to damage someone who disagreed with why these dolts went to war.
I'm sorry, I just don't see where this is true. I can see where you feel that this is important, but in fact, it sounds just like more blustering from the wings. The fact that a NOC was exposed, is bad.
The people who exposed the NOC should be punished.
The people who PUBLISHED this data should also be punished. (it's against the law to publish National Security Information, regardless of the source) The Fact that Flame was a NOC is mostly irrelevant, IMAO, in respect to the greater fact that this information was available to these senior staffers. The main purpose of information classifications in the covert operations world is protect the source. Those people who have released any information that injures a source, or in this case, burns a source, need to be punished. The politics around who/what/why/where/when & how are totally irrelevant to me. Anyone can spin the big 7 above to their own ends, and since politicians lie at a drop of a hat, (regardless of what "camp" they're in), what's the difference? We should be more concerned with the news outlet, the people who gave this information out about Flame, and to determine if Flame herself was spouting off her NOC status... it seems to me that Libby, with a very distinguished background and understanding of the classified covert operations world, would break a cardinal rule as basic as protecting your sources... it sounds like Libby is another scapegoat... And before you dismiss that, just think back to Ollie North, and many other people who "took one for the team" to protect a higher ranking official. That's just my 2¢, YMMV.
I understand the point here, but think there are a few things not right. First, this is not politics as usual. Burning an agent as part of political damage control is beyond insulting. The point is who did it, who ordered it, and why? Just like Ollie North wasn't running Iran-Contra all by himself, Scooter Libby didn't do this all by himself. And I think you're right, Libby is a scapegoat, and his silence is why we don't know more. He lied to the grand jury to protect people above him who put all of this together, and until that gets sorted out, this won't go away. |
|
|
|
