tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post3239034131087527976..comments2023-10-17T02:52:22.037-07:00Comments on David's blog: The latest Libby messDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-84642768934729122452007-07-31T10:22:00.000-07:002007-07-31T10:22:00.000-07:00N-tell appears absolutely correct. Ironically, it ...N-tell appears absolutely correct. Ironically, it was fact checking which messed me up. My belief was that Bush I had pardoned Weinberger (which is true) but when I checked the facts (which I try to do when I am not certain) I got bad information. I should have checked further (especially re: Gates). Thanks to N-tell for correcting me should you read this. However, it does not change my opinion on the overall post.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-42052233159533460312007-07-30T20:21:00.000-07:002007-07-30T20:21:00.000-07:00"Of the six pardoned by his father after Irangate,...<I>"Of the six pardoned by his father after Irangate, four of them have served in this president’s administration including Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, Deputy Secretary of State, John Poindexter, who briefly served under Bush II, and Charles Allen (who quite possibly deserved the pardon most), Chief Intelligence Agent in the Department of Homeland Security..."</I><BR/><BR/>I personally believe that all of the above should have rightly served their last days in government during the George H.W. Bush administration. However, you need to fact check. The four you mention weren't pardoned -- but were "rehabilitated" in that they did return to government service after involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. None were pardoned and I believe only Poindexter faced criminal charges. Pardons granted by George H.W. Bush in connection with Iran-Contra included those for Elliott Abrams (still in the George W. Bush administration); Robert C. McFarlane; and Caspar Weinberger. A <A HREF="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iran_Contra:_Rehabilitation" REL="nofollow">good resource here</A>.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09577707712926003594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-3459365525191157042007-07-06T09:43:00.000-07:002007-07-06T09:43:00.000-07:001)Richard Armitage was the first to out Plame to B...1)Richard Armitage was the first to out Plame to Bob Novak. Libby was next in line. That's from Novak himself, as well as from Wilson and Plame.<BR/>2)The average length of sentence being served by the folks convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury is 60 months. Bush says 30 months is excessive. He is a moron. Yet we get what we deserve since so many people voted for him. Amazing how hard it is to find them now. At least you have the courage to admit that you were one of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-47172531802936703452007-07-03T13:23:00.000-07:002007-07-03T13:23:00.000-07:00Actually, being out of the country on a mission is...Actually, being out of the country on a mission is part of the statutory definition of covert (obviously, her CIA connection had to have a cover - which it did). I watched her testimony three times straight through. I'd like to know the inconsistencies. Her husband may have said some inacurrate things or puffed. That, at least, is not a crime. Are you aware how angry the CIA was about this, and that it asked for an investigation they never got, even though in the administration sits an officer whose sole job is investigating these matters? <BR/><BR/>You'll like the Supreme Court blog better I suspect.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-69801693845837609032007-07-03T12:09:00.000-07:002007-07-03T12:09:00.000-07:00Being out of the country is not the same as being ...Being out of the country is not the same as being on a covert mission. The $ that CIA spends is (or wastes) is not dispositive, or even indicative of status. In fact, her veracity in her testiomony is being questioned and she may be being called back for further testimony due to her "inconsistent" answers. We won't even get into her lying husband- who might actually be closer to the Rosenbergs in that he lied to effect foreign policy in a lead up to war. And, much info is given to Journalist by way of background or off the record that we wouldn't want generally known (cuban missile crisis, D-day etc) If some of it comes out that is a far cry from criminalizing the original speaker- depending on the magnitude of the info revealed. This was not big at all.<BR/>-DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-11922605923402673362007-07-03T11:21:00.000-07:002007-07-03T11:21:00.000-07:00She absolutely was out of the country during the r...She absolutely was out of the country during the requisite time. Watch her testimony on C-<BR/>Span archives. If driving to Langley means you are not covert (and it does not in any legal sense) then there are very few covert agents and the CIA, which spends millions every year by law to protect their covert status, is wasting a lot of money. Secret agents aren't what they used to be. Again, even were it not illegal, b/c the law is admittedly, badly written, it was a heinous act to reveal the identity of someone who goes undercover investigating foreign nuclear proliferation under guise set up by the agency. This administration, which feels it necessary to take steps that many people, conservative and liberal, are uncomfortable with, to say the least, like secret wiretapping programs and restrictions on habeus corpus, should not feel justified in revealing an agent's identify if there is even a tiny possibility that it is covert or better left unsaid. As Plame testified to at her hearing, virtually everyone in her section is covert and everyone at the agency knows it. <BR/><BR/>I can't compare Berger to E&J Rosenberg b/c they were stealing to give to our enemy, and he was trying to protect himself (from what, no one seems to know) as was Libby. Nevertheless, Berger deserved jail time for what he did and so does Libby. Their public service is only a factor to be considered in sentencing.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-91578564367005409292007-07-03T10:22:00.000-07:002007-07-03T10:22:00.000-07:00She was not, within the time period of the statute...She was not, within the time period of the statute, covert in any sense of the word. In fact she probably was never covert. But CIA policy is never to comment on the staus of employees; much like the Navy won't confirm or deny whether a particular ship is armed with nuclear weapons. If one can follow you from your home driveway to the employee lot at CIA headquaters you are not covert. This is not talk radio spin but fact. Also there is no comparison to Sandy Berger stealing classified documents. If you want to compare Berger to a similar case try Ethel & Juliuis Rosenberg.<BR/>-DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-74838924493904492552007-07-03T08:54:00.000-07:002007-07-03T08:54:00.000-07:00Knew Don and I would part company on this one. Sor...Knew Don and I would part company on this one. Sorry, but I believe his comment is talk radio spin, much of which has been bought by the more liberal media outlets who do not bother to investigate anything. Although there are a few facts which are in doubt, Libby admitted at his Grand Jury hearings to outing Plame (there is no record that he knew what Armitage did, and, given the antipathy between VP and State doubtful he did). Nevertheless, the fact that Armitage blabbed does not exonerate Libby. Next, Plame was covert. Although the right spent a lot of time parsing difficult statutes and orders, everything points to the fact that she was. They do not give a 00 number to their "secret agents" or issue them weapons for what she was doing. It is meaningless that she went to work at Langley. The definitions of covert only require a little time out of the country under cover,in a long time frame, which she did in the recent past. When overseas, she had a cover, and worked with a few people who knew (and who were put at risk by the revelation). It is also not true that the information was in the public domain. Her neighbor and sometime lawyer did not even know. Friends and family (except her husband did not know). Read her transcript of testimony on C-Span and her review the testimony on Libby's trial. Forgetting even that there was a law concerning this matter, the VP's office, including Libby (all who learned through a source that she was CIA)recklessly through her away (she can no longer perform her job) for political purposes. What do you think Cheney would have said if this was a Gore administration and Lieberman had let this information out. As to Don, a conservative/libertarian with an independent streak, not enough homework on this one -- and do go back to my March post on this topic. I am not a congenital Bush basher and although I regret voting for him, I don't regret voting for him over Kerry. However, on this one, his team was wrong, wrong, wrong. And the complete commutation of Libby's sentence was as wrong as when Sandy Berger walked away from prison after his guilty plea. Who among us unprotected souls would get such leniency? People lie in testifying, and should not always go to jail for it. But when it involves the government, and it is a betrayal of their duties or privileges, greater punishment is needed, not less. People who are lecturing us about a war on terror and confronting Iran should not be so cavalier about these things.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17038118012770250140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33957555.post-62757809201926869472007-07-03T06:48:00.000-07:002007-07-03T06:48:00.000-07:00Hey,What is this Soviet history?Lobby NEVER was ac...Hey,<BR/>What is this Soviet history?<BR/>Lobby NEVER was accused of, or in fact did reveal anything about Plame. Richard Armitage did. Nor is it wrong to mention that which is known generally in the public domain (that someone driving into Langley evryday works for the CIA. Which he also did not do.<BR/>This was a witch hunt in which a supposed crime was invented after the prosecutor knew that the crime which he was commissioned to investigate never took place.<BR/>-DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com