Friday, October 28, 2005

Yep, Libby Indicted.

Can't wait for the press conference.

By the way, I'm happy about the indictment, hopeful for more, glad to see the Bush admin brought to justice (or begun to be -- this is an indictment only), but remember how shaky things were in the Nixon WH as the noose tightened.

This president, unlike Nixon or Reagan, has legal recourse to put anyone away without judicial review, is in the midst of a permanent total war (about which he's crowing quite belligerently today), and already had a plan (handed to him) to widen the "GWOT" to anyone or any nation he chooses.

Ergo, the danger of another military attack on, say, Syria or Iran, is pretty high. Quite incentivized.

Of course, this should all be pushed as far as it will go. Let's hope Patrick Fitzgerald is as tough, honest, and good as advertised (hoped?).

35 Thoughts:

Blogger pawlr said...

Read the indictment here - actual Libby testimony excerpted. pp. 18-22 show pretty clearly that either Russert, Miller, and Cooper are all lying, or Libby is completely screwed.

Friday, October 28, 2005 1:54:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

It just boggles the mind that Libby thought he could tell baldfaced lies about from where he heard of V. Wilson's status.

Did he assume that the press was so supine that they would let him lie and smear them under oath?? Well if the coverage of the war was any indication, he probably did :)

Friday, October 28, 2005 1:55:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

Fitz is being very cautious. His charges against Libby are air-tight. Even so, if everything breaks against Libby he could get up to thirty years - though Bush will spring him before he even serves a day.

This is the worst of possible outcome for the Administration. Fitz has one confirmed kill and Rove remains in serious jeopardy.

Bush's power of pardon is a major obstacle for Fitz. Normally he would be able to turn Libby since the guy would normally be facing up to 30 years. Bush's pardon takes that weapon away from Fitz.

What use has Fitz made of Hannah and Wermser? If it's true that they turned, then what are they talking about? There is not link between them and Libby. Fitz must be using them to pursue the leak charge.

Well, merry Fitzmass everyone.

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:28:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

OK, just watched Fitz. What interests me the most is whether or not Fitz's material can or cannot be shared with a Congressional investigation. He didn't know, and a Congressional investigation seems to be -- seems, mind you -- the only way to actually get further into this.

Unless, of course, Libby decides during his trial (if there is one) that he's not going to fall on the sword for Cheney or anyone else.

So, the political resolution of this (in the non-derogatory sense of that word, "political") is a bit hazy. Libby is in some kind of trouble, for sure. His motivation for lying seems pretty clear, but remains unproven, and so far outside the legal process, unless Fitz, et al, are indicting to force more information out of him. Which, I take it, is often the way these things work.

So, plenty of room for all kinds of spin on all sides.

This is not good for the President, but it is also not a body blow, once the dust settles.

In a sense, it's kind of beside the point. Do we need Patrick Fitzgerald to tell us what we know: that we were led into a war of choice based on lies? that doing so is an impeachable offense? that if the Congress were controlled by Democrats, impeachment would have already been in the works?

Not really, no. What matters a lot now is the 2006 election. With the caveat that the Libster might not want to face jailtime.

I did note that Fitz said had Miller not stonewalled him, we would have found out about all of this in "October 2004." Interesting; that's a quote. Her footdragging pushed this issue out past the election.

Look for Miller to be fired from the Times and land at AEI or somesuch place, nice and softly, unlike the 2,000+ dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis.

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:30:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

Orin Hatch is on CNN.

His claim. Wilson lied about the Niger Yellow-cake, Sadam did try to get Yellow-cake. Furthermore, Wilson was the one who exposed his own wife as a CIA agent in a "liberal publication." Hatch then went on to say that although Wilson blew her cover, she didn't have a cover but even so, Wilson should "be held to account for his crimes."

If this is any indication of the spin, we have a lot of fun to look forward to.

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:32:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Oh, my god, Andrew, how can you say this is the worst possible outcome?

Here's the worst possible outcome: multiple people under oath state either that Bush and Cheney leaked the info or that they obstructed the investigation or messed with it through political pressure.

Fitz "bluntly" denied ANY political pressure, and no one other than Libby has been indicted thus far. It's not even clear that Rove is still under investigation.

The simple fact is: we don't know what else is to come. Fitz said the bulk of the work is done; could mean that he's just wrapping things up; could mean 14 more indictments are coming. We. Don't. Know.

Live with a little doubt, Andrew; it'll do you some good.

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:33:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I might also point out that your "confirmed kill" is innocent till proven guilty. Did they not teach you that at Northwestern yet?

I'm sure you'll accuse me of defending my coreligionist, but that is the law.

Why Libby exposed himself to perjury is the big question -- and may or may not be beyond Fitz, et al, to figure out. Hence, my interest in a completely hypothetical Congressional investigation (which wouldn't happen till 11/2006, assuming a Dem victory in one or both houses), and to what extent that investigation could use Fitz's material.

Could you find out the rules on that?

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:35:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Sorry, Northeastern.

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:41:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

I'm waiting to see if Fitz impanels another grand jury to continue the investigation. My sense was that by implying the investigation was about done, he felt that he probably said too much. I do NOT think, based on his statement that the investigation is almost over (in fact that's what he said about a year ago).

The MSM has been better than expected (Matthews, Blitzer even) in tying this in with the larger question re: falsification of intelligence leading up to war. That's the one thing that gives me a little hope.

All in all a good Fitzmas with promise of more presents to come next year.

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:45:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I might also point out that were this under the independent counsel law, we'd get a report. We are not getting a report; moreover, Fitz did "opine" that he wasn't particularly in favor of the independent counsel law, now deceased -- "charge a person or keep quiet."

That creates quite a high bar, which Libby managed to leap over. The statutes on leaking, according to Fitz (and his opinion matters, obviously) is exactly what I've read: you have to prove a state of mind; did the person "appreciate" the damage that would be done -- not did the person know, or did the person leak -- did the person "appreciate" the damage.

Ah, well. Believe me, I'm all for this entire administration being put behind bars. But I can't let that shape my view of reality. We shall see; your report on Hatch is quite unsurprising.

I think the reaction will be to even further polarize the country, rather than cause the slide into oblivion we may want. But I don't know, and I'd love to be wrong. As I was about Miller.

And, no, not because she was Jewish. I had no idea she was till you told me, Andrew, as you apparently keep tabs on such things.

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:46:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

The Times, funnily enough, completely disagrees with me and characterizes this as "a body blow."

LOL.

Here's to hoping they're right, and not me!

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:53:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

Whether or not the investigation continues, I think an ongoing trial of Libby, in which all principles can be expected to testify, including Cheney, will do a great deal to sap the agenda of this WH. It will also continue to focus attention on the primary outrage of this Administration - the stovepiping of information from the CIA and Pentagon which created a false pretext for war with Iraq.

Not quite a "body blow" but a serious, long-term slog for Bush for the rest of his term. This is the first time in 130 years (since the Grant Administration) that a sitting WH official has been indicted. That's gotta hurt, and hurt bad.

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:57:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

Doug,

I really need to apologize . . . . I am sorry I said you were Jewish.

Why did I say this was the worst possible outcome for the Administration? Because I knew that nailing anyone higher up was virtually impossible without turning someone lower down. Also, the fact that Rove isn't indicted "yet" isn't important. He's still under investigation. Fitz isn't done yet.

Had Rove been indicted, the nightmare would have been over. Rove would have resigned and faced charges similar to Libby's and Bush would have had an opportunity to make a fresh start. Nobody would serve time anyway. Now all that Bush can look forward to is more indictments and even more damaging press speculation about indictments.

I said that Libby was a "confirmed kill" because the case against him is extremely strong. In my humble opinion, he's fucked.

Friday, October 28, 2005 3:59:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Good point: if this comes to trial, and all kinds of people are called, that is a bad scene.

Wasn't Nixon's veep indicted while in office? In any event, yeah, it sucks big time.

Rove and Libby would have been really disastrous. Too bad that didn't happen. (Yet, possibly.)

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:00:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

Paul also makes a good point. The political damage caused by attracting attention to the lies that lead us into war may be great. It's hard for us to even estimate how valuable this might be for Dem. candidates in 2006 since we don't know how fucked up the situation will be in Iraq by then. My guess is pretty fucked up.

I know that Doug pines for the days of the independant council law, but I disagree. The independant council was a great threat to democracy. In Clinton's case Star nearly reversed a landslide victory for a Dem. president based on lies about a blow-job. If that isn't an object lesson in abuse of power, I don't know what is.

The best way to protect democracy is to have the House, Senate and Presidency in different hands. Hopefully we'll have that in 2006.

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:07:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I'll pursue this a little further, Andrew: If what you write is true (about how great it is that Rove hasn't yet been indicted), then do you or do you not accept what Paul just wrote about how damaging an ongoing trial for Libby would be? If you do, why wouldn't it be doubly damaging if Rove were in the same bag? Apparently, you do hold out the hope that Rove will be in the same bag. Why, if it doesn't matter?

No, sorry, this isn't "the worst thing" that could have happened.

Note, again, that I'm drawing attention to your inability to moderate your statements, or to bend them back from the singularity of your desire -- which, in this, as in 98% of political cases, I happen to share. That's not the point.

You go on and on, insulting people who I worked to get on this blog, making an ass of yourself on theirs, making statements of 100% certainty that only hurt your cause and cause others not to take you all that seriously.

Dude, with all due respect to Allen, who is not the idiot or child you think him, when a rightwinger can run circles around you, you know you have a problem with your argumentative skills.

That's what's annoying, not anything having to do with Jews or Libby or the price of tea in China.

Merely annoying, and you well earned this response from me, which is exactly what it seems like -- exasperation with your inanity.

Don't ever complain about a certain sister's style of argument or treatment of people until you heal thyself and go forth and sin no more!

I'm done.

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:10:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

Agnew resigned than pled "no contest" to charges that he accepted bribes while governor of MD. He did a lot to put "vice" back into the vice presidency, but he wasn't indicted while a sitting VP.

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:10:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I agree -- focusing on 2006 is what really matters here, though the prospect of a public trial of Libby is more delicious the more I think of it.

Rove would be icing on top.

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:11:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Ah, thanks for the clarification on Agnew...I forgot that was unrelated to Watergate...

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:11:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

Doug,

Will you chill out? There is absolutely nothing that I have posted here that deserves this sort of childish response from you. What the hell is your problem. By the way, you often make statements that clearly exhibit the exact same errors you attribute to my comments.

As for Allen, he was openly insulting to me on a number of occations. By the way, this isn't "your blogg" so stop being so territorial. If Allen and Co. can't handle the rough and tumble political discussions we have here, then they can pack up their things and go hang out on the Hello Kitty blogg.

I happen to think that not having Rove indicted today is worse for the administration for the reasons I stated quite clearly in previous posts. If you want to attack this opinion of mine, don't tell me that I am an idoit, tell me why I am wrong. Clearly you are the one who is making a mountain out of a molehill and resorting to ad hominum attacks rather than logically reasoning things out.

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:19:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I said "this blog," not "my blog," but that doesn't matter, as it's an inconvenient fact. As is the fact that I never called you an "idiot." Your intelligence far outweighs your conveyance of your opinions; that's the problem. If you were an idiot, we'd have never gotten very far at all as friends.

You say I do the same thing as you, but don't bother to show it.

You write what you've written in the way you have written it, and for the umpteenth time in four years, and then get all surprised when I respond.

You were insulting to Allen, and continued to be so. Your my friend; he's a blog friend. There's a big difference. But facts are facts. Not that that will bother you.

You dive in, blast away, then retreat and yell "don't call me an anti-Semite" (or accuse Allen, or whomever else, of something equally ass-covering) over your shoulder. It's the same pattern, and it blows up every few months between you and me.

This is what Allen & Co think of you:

"Cyberpols: Our favorite lefties are a bit over-the-top in their criticism these days, I have to sorrowfully report. It seems that they find the GOP Boogeyman around each corner and behind each tragedy. But reasonable debates can still be had, and that's what keeps me coming back. Here's one about Big Oil and whether or not they are price-gouging. [Note: As always, you'll want to ignore Demotiki's eruptions ... in this instance I am described as "autistic," "a brainwashed moron," "dead weight," and "a nasty little brat." Unbelievable. Why Pawlr and Doug - both smart thinkers with keen debating skills - keep this guy around is beyond my comprehension.]"

http://thethornblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/what-others-are-saying.html

You can dismiss that, and what my high-school friends think of you, and on and on -- I do quite a bit of defending of you -- but at some point you're going to have to come to terms with your actions.

These "dust-ups" may amuse Paul, but they are really not all that amusing to me, not at this point, and NOT (for the nth time) because of the content of your views, but the way you blast them out. Of all the people involved with this and Thornblog, you're the only one who's really not learned a thing from the interaction.

The main critique I get from our college friends is, "Why do you bother?" As in, why take him at all seriously? I actually take you seriously; maybe I shouldn't. I actually think you have something to say; those who remain quiet aren't necessarily in agreement with you.

So, call me childish or whatnot. I'm sending you a message. You can take it or leave it.

This doesn't affect my friendship with you, but if you want to get all faux-tough, then take what you consistently and periodically dish out without whining or change your tune.

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:33:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

Doug,

It's just this simple, you have no right to try to censor or otherwise attack the free speach of anyone on this blogg. If you don't like what I write, tough shit. I will write whatever the fuck I want to write and I'll WRITE IT IN ALL CAPS IF I WANT TO.

As for what Allen thinks of me, like I give a shit. He is always wrong. I would far prefer that he be occationally right than that he follow the Duke of Kingbury rules you are so beholden to. You also refuse to admit the reality that Allen and his fellow bloggers directly insulted me when I posted to their blogg. Not that I give a shit. I couldn't care less what Allen "thinks" about anything, he's a robot.

Despite your claims to the contrary, you are being possessive about the blogg and you have no right to be. Have I ever once atttacked you the way you have attacked me for speaking your mind? Have I ever criticised the way you post to the blogg or the content of your posts? No, I haven't, because I believe that a blogg is valuable as a place where we can hash out our ideas, or even practice our propaganda.

When I write something on this blogg it doesn't necessarily represent the most logical possition I could adopt. Often times I employ a violent anti-Republican rhetoric to effect an emotional response in Republican bloggers. I am not even sure that this technique works, but I have the right to try it, just as you have the right to try your "reason based" approach, which I for one, feel is almost totally worthless. Have I ever criticised you for using your prefered rhetorical techniques for effecting social change? No, I haven't because I respect your right to say what you want. Please try to show me the same respect.

However, in this particular instance, you are just being difficult. There was nothing I said today on this post that was worthy of your arrogant attacks. I happen to feel that the White House will suffer more having Rove be indicted months from now after a big lead-up on the networks than if he had been indicted now with Libby. That's an opinion. It's not even a crazy opinion. You may disagree, but that's the whole point of having a blogg. We don't all have to march in lock-step with the dear leader. If you want that, go to Allen's blogg.

Friday, October 28, 2005 5:13:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Amazing how you have to cling to the fantasy that I am claiming ownership of the blog or censoring you in any way. None of that ever came up.

I didn't censor the white supremacist who came on here -- what makes you think I'd censor you?

You'll have to find another cross to drag around.

Feel free to continue to act and write any way you like; I could care less. Your actions, and your words, are your own.

I sent you a message, and I think, underneath the self-righteousness, you get it. Do what you want with it.

Friday, October 28, 2005 5:46:00 PM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

Get what? That you want others to adopt your manner of blogging? No thanks. I'll keep on bloggin' and you can keep on whinen'.

By the way, there are three Stanford educated lawyers with more than 40 years of combined years of experience having dinner downstairs at the moment. They all agree with me that Rove's delayed indictment is worse for the administration than if he were rung up today. So I guess reasonable people can disagree with you.

Friday, October 28, 2005 6:51:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

You're right, Andrew: that matter of opinion is all this dispute was about.

I imagine I've fueled your self-righteousness for some time to come now. Keep on fighting the hordes, O Paladin of Truth!

Friday, October 28, 2005 9:05:00 PM  
Blogger pawlr said...

C'mon guys, its FITZMAS! Can't we all get along?

Saturday, October 29, 2005 12:02:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

I'm not pissed off, not really. Was just expressing my periodic frustration.

This morning, it's just funny, again.

Saturday, October 29, 2005 10:11:00 AM  
Blogger Demotiki said...

No offense taken, we Greeks have tough skins. When are we going hiking?

Sunday, October 30, 2005 6:55:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Sometime this month -- it's picture-perfect down here in RI. I've finally started biking...awesome.

Monday, October 31, 2005 10:20:00 AM  
Blogger Jamie Dawn said...

If he lied, he should be convicted. I will hold judgment until he is convicted, but lying to a grand jury and to the FBI are serious matters.
We will see what comes of it.
I do hope you were just as vigorous about lying when Clinton did it. I don't know if you were, but I hope you were. Would you be outraged if you heard that Libby shoved classified documents in his pants?
I don't excuse it for anyone. I don't think Libby withheld documents, etc.... since his own written words supposedly caught him in some discrepency. For this reason, I think we should see what comes of all of this.
If he did intentionally lie, I want him to be convicted and face punishment. This should happen for all people in all positions regardless of party or status.
I am thankful that President Bush isn't in the center of this storm. He may admire Libby and appreciate his friendship and advice, but I believe he will do what is right and if Libby is found guilty, he will not make excuses for him.
The man has not yet been convicted. He may not be convicted at all. Who knows? All the talk swirling around really has no merit until he is.
Also, no other indictments have been made. If and when they are, they will be brought to fruition as well. Give me facts... meat.... not hype.

Happy Halloween!! For liberals, I don't find you TOO scary!

Monday, October 31, 2005 12:02:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Happy Halloween, Jamie!

Absolutely, Libby is innocent (at least in my mind) till proven guilty.

Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes, no doubt. What the person was obstructing is also of some merit; hence, I wasn't too upset about Clinton's slipperiness. I don't recall that he was criminally indicted on perjury charges, though.

In any event, lying to cover up a political hitjob on a former diplomat who simply gave his opinion in public in order to forestall an illegal war that actually kills people based on lies is a bit different that lying to cover up an extramarital affair with absolutely no impact on the structure or function of government.

While that witch hunt was going on, Clinton, wrongly, didn't go after Bin Laden beyond the airstrikes that the very same folks who wanted him impeached and hate his guts now were accusing him of using to deflect attention from Lewinsky.

Ironic, no?

Monday, October 31, 2005 4:03:00 PM  
Blogger Darrell said...

...an illegal war that actually kills people based on lies...

You people have repeated this so much that, at this point, you actually believe it? Don't you? It boggles the mind.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:34:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Hey, Darrell:

Welcome! (Really.)

Yes, we do believe it, and not through force of repetition.

Feel free to educate us as to our self-propaganda, but you'll have to marshall evidence that that quote isn't correct.

Tx, Dug

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:59:00 AM  
Blogger Jamie Dawn said...

This is totally off topic. When I told my son last night that he could NOT go TP cars, he resorted to TPing our family room. He had streamers hanging from the fan and then strung up his Lamchop puppet from the fan and turned it on low speed. With all the lights off, except for a flashlight, Lammy looked pretty darned freaky spinning around up there.
I don't have anything else to add to this discussion, so I thought I'd just tell about my silly son.
Have a good week. I'll check back again soon to see what's brewing here.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005 5:54:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Now that's acting out. LOL

See you back soon...

Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:14:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home