Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 99
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State. He's the guy who's responsible for the "treasonous" act which triggered Joe Wilson's unsupported accusations that Rove and Cheney leaked Plame's identity to get back at Wilson for opposing the war. The problem is, Armitage doesn't fit into this paranoid delusion.
    Hmm...or there may be another side of this story:


    Media still repeating false claim that Armitage role in Plame leak exonerates Libby

    Following President Bush's decision to commute the prison sentence for former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, media figures have continued to repeat the false claim that former deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's role as columnist Robert D. Novak's original source for Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative proves Libby was not involved in the leak of her identity. However, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the fact that Armitage was the original source for Novak's column revealing Plame's identity is not inconsistent with Libby's disclosure of Plame's identity -- specifically, to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller -- before the publication of Novak's column.

    On the July 3 edition of NBC's Today, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol claimed: "Scooter Libby does not deserve to go to jail. I would remind Joe Wilson that Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's name. Richard Armitage told Robert Novak, we now know, about Valerie Plame's name, so this was an investigation that should never have happened. There was no underlying crime." Kristol was referring to former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, Plame's husband, who reportedly issued a statement saying that "the president's actions send the message that leaking classified information for political purposes is acceptable" and that "Mr. Libby not only endangered Valerie and our family, but also our country's national security."

    As Media Matters has previously documented, journalist Murray Waas noted in his book The United States v. I. Lewis Libby (Union Square Press, June 2007), Miller testified on January 30 that Libby had disclosed Plame's CIA employment to her at a July 8, 2003, breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C., well before Novak publicly revealed it in his July 14, 2003, column. As Media Matters has also noted, it is likely of little significance whether Libby disclosed Plame's name, as opposed to the identity of Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA employee, to a reporter.

  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Hmm...or there may be another side of this story:
    Not really. Armitage leaked Plame's identity to Novak, Novak published, and Wilson accused Rove and Cheney. Wilson was shown to be a nutjob.

    Your Media Matters excerpt deals with the argument of whether there was an underlying crime. Libby leaked Plame's identity to Miller. Miller didn't publish, and so her identity was never revealed through Libby's actions. Fitzgerald knew all this, and he didn't charge Libby with violating the Identities Act.
  3. #63  
    He was charged with those offenses to which the prosecuter felt had the best chance at obtaining a conviction. He did leak Plame's name, but you may be right that Armitage was the one that connected the dots that Plame as a CIA agent. But none of this changes the fact that Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice - in other words, obstructing the investigation to learn the truth as to why and how a CIA agent's identity was leaked for political purposes. Technically the crime may not be treason - those are my words as I believe that is what it would be called if an airman or naval officer leaked an undercover CIA agent's name - but Libby did commit a crime and was convicted and there are many who have been charged with less who have served their time. But this President doesn't care about the legal system since he feels he is above the law - just as his Vice President does.

    Lost in all of this is a career and livelihood of Plame, whom the President has yet to express so much as a simple apology for ruining her career - be it intentional or accidental.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    He was charged with those offenses to which the prosecuter felt had the best chance at obtaining a conviction. He did leak Plame's name, but you may be right that Armitage was the one that connected the dots that Plame as a CIA agent. But none of this changes the fact that Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice - in other words, obstructing the investigation to learn the truth as to why and how a CIA agent's identity was leaked for political purposes. Technically the crime may not be treason - those are my words as I believe that is what it would be called if an airman or naval officer leaked an undercover CIA agent's name - but Libby did commit a crime and was convicted and there are many who have been charged with less who have served their time. But this President doesn't care about the legal system since he feels he is above the law - just as his Vice President does.
    The President is given the power to pardon, and in this case, commute a sentence, by the Constitution, and so this act is entirely lawful.

    That said, I think many pardons, including those of Scooter Libby, Susan McDougal and Richard Nixon, are unethical.

    Lost in all of this is a career and livelihood of Plame, whom the President has yet to express so much as a simple apology for ruining her career - be it intentional or accidental.
    Why do you insist on blaming Bush, and not Armitage and Novak?
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    How's that then?
    This will not be ignored by congress. Just wait and see
  6. #66  
    Let Congress look at it - it will be a show only for show purposes. Nancy and her gang are just sore losers. Nothing will come of it as there is nothing they can do about it.

    In a way though, I would like to see this practice end.
  7. #67  
    i'll bet you would like to see it end.
  8. #68  
    I do. It goes against the grain to pardon someone found guilty. However, when you limit it for one, you limit it for others. What is good for one party is good the other.
    Ben
  9. #69  
    but it won't, there will be consequences.
  10. #70  
    I believe that what congress will be doing will be part of the checks and balances of our American system. I love the American system. And the American people are not as stupid as some would make them out to be either. I have faith they will recognize when justice is being served or tampered with. We will see. at any rate I expect the 4th of July in Hawaii must be wonderful, enjoy! I gotta go back to barbequingm happy 4th.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    That said, I think many pardons, including those of Scooter Libby, Susan McDougal and Richard Nixon, are unethical.
    Agreed.

    Why do you insist on blaming Bush, and not Armitage and Novak?
    Whether he was involved or not - intended or not - it happened because a member of his staff, on his watch, leaked the information. I mean, he is the "decider" is he not?
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I do. It goes against the grain to pardon someone found guilty. However, when you limit it for one, you limit it for others. What is good for one party is good the other.
    Ben
    What? My god not only do you talk in circles but it seems you rationalize hypocrisy in circles too.

    He lied. He was convicted. He was sentenced. He should do his time.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Let Congress look at it - it will be a show only for show purposes. Nancy and her gang are just sore losers. Nothing will come of it as there is nothing they can do about it.
    Sore losers in what way? Like lets-spend-$75MM-in-tax-payer-dollars-to-chase-Clinton-until-we-find-something-he-did-wrong kind ot way?
  14. #74  
    Which is exactly what the democrats are doing. What is the difference? You condone the democrats doing it and blast the republicans for doing it. Sore losers. Nancy and her group are so down in the polls they just gotta do something to get back in good grace and try as she is, it just is not happening.
  15.    #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    This will not be ignored by congress. Just wait and see
    Actually by commuting the sentence but not providing a pardon Libby's appeals still are in process so in any congressional hearing Libby can simply invoke his 5th amendment rights.

    And at the end of the Bush nightmare he will receive a pardon.

    Legal check & mate. Morally? Disgusting!
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Which is exactly what the democrats are doing. What is the difference? You condone the democrats doing it and blast the republicans for doing it. Sore losers.
    WTF are you talking about Ben? I don't condone either side doing it and have said so numerous times in this thread. And now you are name calling as well?

    As I said, I always knew you were full of sh*t and this just confirms your claim that personal responsibility is important to you is clearly only important when used as a talking point to attack moderates and liberals and basically anyone that doesn't drink the same koolaid you do.
  17. #77  
    DA thanks for the clarification. like you say, this pseudo-pardon seems well calculated to prevent the investigation from reaching the vice president. It is an obvious attempt to obstruct justice.
  18. #78  
    Well, let us take it a bit further.

    Did not Ms. Clinton state once not that long ago something like, “Nonviolent offenders shouldn’t be serving hard time in our prisons!”

    Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    WTF are you talking about Ben? I don't condone either side doing it and have said so numerous times in this thread. And now you are name calling as well?

    As I said, I always knew you were full of sh*t and this just confirms your claim that personal responsibility is important to you is clearly only important when used as a talking point to attack moderates and liberals and basically anyone that doesn't drink the same koolaid you do.
  19. #79  
    A pardon does not stop an investigation - the investigation such as this ends when something is either found or not found. If it reaches the VP, then fine. If he is guilty then he should serve. Let us look back a few years and remember that not too many in the democrat leadership complained when Clinton held his pardoning parties.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    DA thanks for the clarification. like you say, this pseudo-pardon seems well calculated to prevent the investigation from reaching the vice president. It is an obvious attempt to obstruct justice.
  20. #80  
    I understand that you do not condone either side doing it - but you sure are complaining a lot about the republican boys doing it and with that much complaining done, it sure shows that it upsets you more now then it did about 6 years ago.

    As for so loosers - that is not name calling and as for attacking moderates, liberals, et cetera, no not at all. The attack is against the leadership of the democrat party - they are the loosers and are trying very hard to get their backers behind them again.

    The Speaker of the House has not a leg to stand on in this process; it is all for show. The pardon parties have been a right of the administration and will continue to be. With the White House up for grabs, the democrat leadership would be very foolish to attempt to really clamp down on presidential authority - it would hurt them badly if they were to gain the White House.

    There was *****ing before Clinton got it and how many times did he claim presidential rights? Far more than George Bush.

    So let me apologize for the term sore loosers. I am not terming you a sore looser, maybe an angry person who cannot seem to forget the presidential elections. Gore has and probably never will forget it.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    WTF are you talking about Ben? I don't condone either side doing it and have said so numerous times in this thread. And now you are name calling as well?

    As I said, I always knew you were full of sh*t and this just confirms your claim that personal responsibility is important to you is clearly only important when used as a talking point to attack moderates and liberals and basically anyone that doesn't drink the same koolaid you do.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions