Posted on 10/28/2005 10:29:03 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
Some great posts on this thread. A couple of obtuse questions from someone who hasn't kept on top of this story:
1. Exactly what percentage of U.S. voters had heard of Libby prior to this week? What do voters make of this investigation? Has anyone seen any good polling numbers?
2. Plame may have been responsible for sending someone who was manifestly unqualified, w/o a background in intelligence, on a investigation critical to U.S. security, knowing full well his animus to Bush's policies. Why hasn't she been the subject of an internal CIA investigation since Goss took over? Or has she?
Hmmm. I hope the WH keeps everything to themselves now. Bush could give little speeches like he's been doing to inform the public and the MSM could eat *&^%. They could send people out to talk to Rush and Snow and a few others and they could have all the scoop and the MSM could do what it already does report conjecture that rarely turns out to be true.
.
I thought Novak said that both were high administration sources but that they were not in the white house and they were partisan gunslingers. However, others have been saying WH and I guess Im getting confused. My first thought way back was that he got the info from someone in the state department such as Powell. It will be interesting when he finally releases the name of his sources.
"2) Wilson and his wife are completely irrelevant as to whether Libby lied to the grand jury or to investigators. Wilson and his wife were not witnesses to the conversations between Libby and the reporters so they can not offer any relevant testimony as to whether Libby is lying about the content of those conversations."
Not only were Wilson & his wife not privy to any conversations between Libby and the reporters, they never spoke to Libby at any time. Therefore, they can not offer any evidence as to what Libby knew and when he knew it. It's hard to see how a judge would allow them to be called as witnesses by the defense.
She didn't personally send him is my understanding. But to think she had no influence in it would be naive. Pretty stupid move for someone worried about their stealth. Which to me is proof of an agenda.
If I recall .. that little speech Cooper gave didn't mention a conversation with Libby
State Dept....how 'bout Armitage, or Powell himself. CIA...how 'bout Tenent? Or someone the average person has not heard of... Interesting that both those agencies are known for being anti-administration.
"Which to me is proof of an agenda."
There's no doubt that Wilson had an agenda. That's why Libby was so furious that Wilson had been sent to Niger. Why was a partisan-hack former diplomat sent on an intelligence mission?!? The only reasonable explanation was that his CIA-employed wife got him the job. Of course, Wilson mentioned none of this in his NY Times column or TV appearances. That's why Libby was so determined to make this known to the American public.
In the news conference he very clearly said his charge was to investigate the leak, find out what happened and then determine whether anyone committed a crime. If they did, then he would have to determine whether it was provable and of sufficient seriousness to warrant charging. His charge was not to determine whether a narrow statute was met and then figure out who committed the crime. He gave examples of this in relation to money missing from a bank. He would not go out attempting to determine whether someone was guilty of wire fraud, when in fact the money might have been taken by embezzlement or some other means.
The same thought has occurred to me...and it would explain a lot.
That's why this image of her as some nose-to-the-grindstone CIA spook makes me sick. These people are hacks.
What continues to be amazing to me is in the indictment things are stated regarding Wilson...that HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE. Like the VP's office through the CIA sent Wilson to Africa.
If she had been "covert" under the definition of the law under which he was investigated Miller would have been indicted for that. The author of that very law said she was Plame was not covert.
Because he was saying he first learned that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA from Russert which was not true from several standpoints. Russert says he didnt say it. Didnt discuss Wilson or his wife and didnt know his wife worked at CIA until he read Novaks column. Additionally, Libby's notes, testimony from Cheney and others indicates that Libby knew about Plame weeks earlier than the Russert phone call and had discussed what to do about it in multiple meetings.
"That's why this image of her as some nose-to-the-grindstone CIA spook makes me sick. These people are hacks."
I think a great deal of damage was done to their image when they posed for that photo layout in Vanity Fair. They came across as two publicity hounds. Even many Democrats distanced themselves from Wilson at that point.
This morning they had on David Gergen and that crazy Congressman-Conyers. Yuck.
P-I-N-G
Its always possible, however, when someone like Libby goes into detail explaining how he first learned of Wilsons wife from Russert and Russert said flat out says the discussion didnt happen and all kinds of evidence from Cheney and Libbys own notes indicates he was well aware of Plame weeks earlier certainly suggests to me who I would believe. Why Libby would be so stupid or arrogant is my biggest question. All I can think of he thought that if he said he heard from the media, they would all refuse to testify so there would be no way to prove his story untrue. But that is wild conjecture.
"This morning they had on David Gergen"
Of all the talking heads, David Gergen is the biggest whiner. He's a professional hand-wringer. What really makes me ill is when the MSM tries to present him as a Republican when in reality, Gergen is a political whore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.