Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

January 2025
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Archives

More on the Libby debacle (UPDATED)

Dan has been quite adamant that we should not allow the upcoming Waxman-Plame show hearing to turn into yet a further reification of the bogus victim narrative Plame, the Reid Democrats, and professional liar Joseph Wilson have been peddling for the last several years—a narrative they have been trying to bolster by finessing the outcome of the Libby trial not as an example of an appalling procedural conviction but as a symbolic conviction that speaks to a larger underlying conspiracy, one that they “prove” by noting that Libby was convicted of not just of perjury but of obstructing justice.

Of course, that there was no underlying crime—else, why no prosecution of Richard Armitage?—seems not to stop those intent on pinning something on Dick Cheney and the Bush administration that carries with it the patina of criminality.  Which is why they’ve allowed themselves to imagine deeper, darker conspiracies while conspicuously ignoring the failings of their star “witnesses,” Plame and Wilson—which in turn has allowed them to conclude that this conviction in fact means more than it does, as witnessed by Harry Reid’s appalling “summary” of the Libby conviction as reflective of a culture of corruption within the White House.

I wrote about all this last week—and I also discussed the issue on an upcoming “Blog Week in Review” with Austin Bay and Neo-neocon—but it’s worth noting again and again, if only to push back against concerted efforts to ossify as “truth” a narrative of events that simply does not track with fact or evidence.

To that end, here’s Charles Krauthammer from his March 9 column calling for an expeditious pardon:

There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you’re Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.

Scooter Libby has just been convicted of four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for . . . what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson’s wife.

[…]

Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had.

Obviously, one is not telling the truth. But there is no reason to believe that either one is deliberately lying. Pincus and Fleischer are as fallible as any of us. They spend their days receiving and giving information. They can’t possibly be expected to remember not only every piece but precisely when they received every piece.

Should Scooter Libby? He was famously multitasking a large number of national security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby’s misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information—Mrs. Wilson’s identity—the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut.

Why? Because on his essential charge as special prosecutor—find and punish who had leaked Valerie Plame’s name—he had nothing. No conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law. Fitzgerald knew the leaker from the very beginning. It was not Libby but Richard Armitage. He also knew that the “leak” by the State Department’s No. 2 official—a fierce bureaucratic opponent of the White House, especially the vice president’s office—was an innocent offhand disclosure made to explain how the CIA had improbably chosen Wilson for a WMD mission. (He was recommended by his CIA wife.) Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald’s perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC’s Tim Russert. Libby said that he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert said he had never discussed it. The jury members who have spoken said they believed Russert.

And why should they not? Russert is a perfectly honest man who would not lie. He was undoubtedly giving his best recollection.

But he is not the pope. Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert’s memory could have been faulty?

I have no idea. But we do know that Russert once denied calling up a Buffalo News reporter to complain about a story. Russert later apologized for the error when he was shown the evidence of a call he had genuinely and completely forgotten.

There is a second instance of Russert innocently misremembering. He stated under oath that he did not know that one may not be accompanied by a lawyer to a grand jury hearing. This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the case, except that, as former prosecutor Victoria Toensing points out, the defense had tapes showing Russert saying on television three times that lawyers are barred from grand jury proceedings.

This demonstration of Russert’s fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand—his perfect Fifth Amendment right—after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.

Toensing thinks this might be the basis for overturning the verdict upon appeal. I hope so. This is a case that never should have been brought, originating in the scandal that never was, in search of a crime—violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act—that even the prosecutor never alleged. That’s the basis for a presidential pardon. It should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial. It should be granted now without any further delay.

This case, as others have noted, was never supposed to be about manipulation of intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq—though that it is how it was pursued, and that is how it is being spun.

But there is no reason why the White House should not have corrected the record on Wilson’s lies, and there was no crime in doing it the way it is typically done inside the beltway, though on-background leaks to reporters.

The fact is, as the trial showed definitively, that Valerie Plame recommended her husband for a diplomatic mission, the report from which the CIA analyzed and found, per the findings of bipartisan Senate Intel Report, to bolster Administration claims that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.

That Wilson never saw the larger picture—which enveloped not only his report but the intel of the British—is not the fault of the Administration; that they sought to correct the record of an arrogant, politically-motivated attention seeker who was being immediately embraced by those who have always wanted to prove that the administration “lied” us into war, then, is hardly surprising.

That it was Armitage who leaked the story doesn’t, of course, fit with the conspiracy narrative.  But no matter:  who needs facts when you have gut instincts and emotion, and when you are absolutely set in your belief that Dick Cheney is evil, and that the Administration is filled with liars and fiends.

Can’t prove it?  No problem.  “Massage” the truth a bit.  After all, it’s for the greater good to do so—and if doing so leads to the defeat of EVIL, well, then the ends justify the means, right?

Remember your Glenn Greenwald(s):

There are some people who treat our conflicts with the Bush administration and their followers as just a matter of basic, friendly political and policy differences—along the lines of “what should the rate of capital gains tax be?” or “what type of laws can best encourage employers to provide more benefits to their employees”—and therefore, we treat people who support the administration with respect and civility and simply have nice, clean discussions to sort out our differences among well-intentioned people.

That isn’t how I see that, and nobody should come to this blog expecting that. I don’t think I’ve done anything to lead anyone to expect otherwise. I see the Bush movement and its various component parts as a plague and a threat, as anything but well-intentioned. My goal, politically speaking, is to do what I can to undermine it and the institutions that have both supported and enabled it.

Or, if you like your agendas more baldly announced, here’s Greenwaldian lapdog Mona, writing in the comments at High Clearing yesterday in response to, of all people, BRD—who is cordial to a fault with the various trolls who seek to re-direct threads around these parts:

You operate from assumptions I find politically dangerous and which it is among my goals to render impotent in the national conversation.

You are part of the political pathology whose effectiveness I seek to neutralize; dialogue isn’t on my agenda.

Well then.  While remarkably anti-liberal, it certainly doesn’t suffer from the typical obfuscation Greenwald likes to beard his rhetorical gambits with.

Chalk that up to inexperience, I guess.

[all emphases mine].

*****

update:  Mona accuses me of dishonestly representing her comment.  I did no such thing, as, not wanting to revisit her cesspool, I simply quoted a comment left by BRD.  So there was no intent to be dishonest.

For sake of fairness, though, I post more completely Mona’s thoughts below (all emphases mine)

Ladies and Gentlemen: I have zero intention of engaging BRD in a substantive discussion springing from the deranged, absurd spewings in his posts. I do not undertake exchanges with persons who “think” at that level and thus risk legitimatising their fevered and obnoxious premises; what I do do is highlight how the modern GOP/right-wing has destroyed civil discourse in the body politic by foisting repugnant memes, themes and narratives on the public, and I intend to hold examples of same up for the ridicule and exposure they merit, so as to “unmainstream” them. That is not my only interest nor the only focus of my blogging, but it most definitely is one of them.

BRD: I do not believe I could have made it any clearer that my disdain — contemptuous amusement, really — is for your premises, far, far more than for your prose. You operate from assumptions I find politically dangerous and which it is among my goals to render impotent in the national conversation. Debating those premises with you would not be fruitful, any more so than I found it to be useful to engage Jeff and his commenters in attempts at reasoned exchange quite some time ago.

I no longer aspire to “understand” or persuade people who think as Protein Wisdom bloggers/fans do. You are part of the political pathology whose effectiveness I seek to neutralize; dialogue isn’t on my agenda. I mean that with no animus or snark; Cernig is a nice guy and I see he engaged you at his comments section. I, however, have been down that road and learned it is futile, and have no intention of going down it again.

Exactly right. Back in the 90s I was no particular Bill Clinton fan, but I began to become uncomfortable with the right’s vile, base and sheerly maniacal hatred of both him and his wife. Nothing was to [sic] grotesque or extreme to say about the Clintons — or their daughter. The right’s real sickness began then.

At this point, I don’t think a lot of neocons and other Bush supporters see — or can be made to see — how gross their views and assumptions are, and some are coy enough to only imply them or to obfuscate and deny the only reasonable (repugnant) meaning of what they do publish. Many righty bloggers, with right-wing radio and Fox leading the way, have imposed some pretty foul memes and narratives and made these “normal” discourse; this normalization needs to be undone.

I do what I can to effect that undoing.

Goldstein is entirely correct about one thing he wrote in comments above: I’m a moralist, and not infrequently I do find him and his ilk outrageous; I don’t generally stifle my outrage. What he said about all that is completely accurate.

I don’t believe this substantively changes the clipped version quoted earlier, but there you have it.

The “right” is vile, maniacal, deranged, absurd, contemptuous, pathological, base, gross, foul, manipulated by FOX News and rightwing radio, and filled with haters suffering from sickness—when they aren’t being obfuscatory and cleverly disguising their pernicious, non-normative memes as somehow just a difference of opinion rather than as a CANCER to “proper,” “civilized” discourse that those views “truly” are (particularly when Mona gets to define those parameters).

Which is why, while free speech is well and good in theory, in practice, engaging the speech of “the right” is to give credence to poison and hate, and so it is the goal of Mona and Greenwald, et al., to SAVE DISCOURSE ITSELF from those vile, maniacal, deranged, absurd, contemptuous, pathological, gross, foul puppets clever enough to try to use it to poison people far less sensitive to their gambits than Mona, Greewald, and others like them—who, GOD BLESS THEM, are able to see through the lies and save simple, good-hearted, innocent Americans from being caught in their AWFUL RHETORICAL SNARES!

Gee.  I hope somebody at least sends you a card, Mona! 

And here I thought those two couldn’t find a way to become MORE arrogant.

****

as this post is now off the front page, I will publish this update as a separate post.

100 Replies to “More on the Libby debacle (UPDATED)”

  1. Dan Collins says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:00 pm

    I would like to add one thing to Jeff’s consideration.  Recently, I’ve witnessed the spectacle of certain conservative commentators lauding Dennis Kucinich for taking the Dems to task for not following up on campaign promises to end the war immediately.  I heard Kucinich on Jerry Doyle’s radio show castigating his party members and inveighing about the proposal that he’s put forth.  What I didn’t hear was Jerry Doyle mock him off of the program when he repeated the Lancet numbers of killed.

    It’s not worth it, man.

  2. mishu says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:02 pm

    Mona=Hitler

  3. dicentra says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    Shorter Mona/Gleen:

    “We don’t want anything from you; we just want you gone.”

    Where have we heard that before?

  4. RC says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:12 pm

    The one bit that Charles Krauthammer gets wrong is that “Scooter” shouldn’t be pardoned.  At least, not until the entire judicial process is complete.  I think he makes a splendid case for why an appellate court should throw out the conviction, and that’s how it should be.  If the appellate court gets it wrong, then an immediate pardon along with a press release mentioning a special prosecutor run amok would be in order.

    Either eventuallity will have the current moonbats flapping their wings all about screaming injustice.  That can’t be helped, but history will judge what happened a little more even handedly, especially if helped along by allowing our in-built processes to correct a wrong.

  5. alppuccino says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:12 pm

    Is the Berger case now a precedent that I could use if I happen to be at the Smithsonian and I accidently stuff the original design of the Wright Brothers’ Flyer into my pants?

    If I get caught, that is.

  6. N. O'Brain says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:14 pm

    So when do the reactionary leftists open the political reeducation camps?

    Thugs.

    Fascists.

  7. mishu says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    Christ.  This guy is so full of himself it’s a wonder he hasn’t knocked himself up—or at least drowned himself in a flood of him.

    That’s still gold.

  8. Major John says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    dialogue isn’t on my agenda.

    And whenever was it?

  9. N. O'Brain says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    Waaaayyyy OT, Jonah Goldberg used my joke.

    Leonida…

    I’m grinning from ear to ear…..

  10. alphie says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    How soon we forget:

    Q Given—given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name?

    THE PRESIDENT: That’s up to —

    Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

    THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

  11. Jeffersonian says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    Whaddya expect from the southpaws?  They have been panting so long for a holly, jolly Fitzmas that they’re bound and determined to see any old lump of coal in their stockings as a shiny, new Daisy Red Rider BB gun.  They wanted Rove and Cheney perp-walked out of the White House on a treason rap…they managed to nail a little bitty Scooter on a perjury rap that will likely be overturned or, failing that, with a presidential pardon.

    They’re trying to inflate this party balloon into a zepplin before the air goes out of it completely.

  12. Jeffersonian says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    So, Alphie, is Armitage out on his ear yet?

  13. McGehee says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    So Alphie—you want Bush to fire Armitage?

  14. McGehee says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    Dagnabbit!

  15. Mark Poling says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:45 pm

    So was Armitage fired?

    I am so over92 alphie’s lame hijack attempts.

  16. alphie says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    And Rove.

    And Cheney.

    And himself.

  17. BoZ says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    Mona=Hitler

    Not reductio enough.

    People don’t know what Stalin and Mao did, so Hitler has defaulted to the position of the most successful politician in living memory, the embodiment and defining figure of politics itself as our age knows it. There is no “end” to that politics (in any of its rhetorical guises) but Auschwitz (wherever it lands), so anyone whose interest in politics extends beyond disgusted rubbernecking–anyone who wants anything done by political means–wants to be, or at least to be like, Hitler. He’s everyone’s hero. Only Nazis admit it, and only Nazis don’t lie. They should be admired for their unique self-knowledge, and for their rare commitment to nondissimulation.

    AbracaQED:

    Anyone who’s not a Nazi = Hitler.

  18. Jeffersonian says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    The reporter’s question was a lie, Alphie.  Bush said he’d fire anyone convicted of leaking a covert agent’s name to the press.  Since no one was, there’s no reason to fire anyone.

    Now let’s see if this blade of grass will make it through the vast slab of concrete that is Alphie’s consciousness.

  19. Major John says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    alphie is the very junior “Mona” of PW.

  20. alphie says:
    March 12, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    So, Can we get away with it? is the standard for how an administration should operate, Jeffersonian?

  21. Major John says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:01 pm

    Armitage did get away with it – off with his head!

  22. Mark says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    “We don’t want anything from you; we just want you gone.”

    Where have we heard that before?

    In Goldfinger first I believe: “Do you expect me to talk?” “No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.”

    Oh, and from a variety of terrorists around the world, of course.

  23. ed says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:04 pm

    Hmmm.

    @ Jeff

    Don’t bore me any more with this Plame nonsense.

    Why is it a complete mess?  Because Bush allowed it to become a complete mess.  Instead of passively going along with this ridiculous bullshit he should have come out and engaged it head-on.

    IMHO the only damn thing that Bush seems to be able to track on a regular basis is selling this country out to the fucking Mexicans.

  24. BumperStickerist says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:14 pm

    alphie,

    the problem isn’t ‘how soon we forget’ – the problem is that you (and your ilk) never knew to begin with. That was not Bush’s pledge regarding the CIA leak investigation.

    A smart guy like you could figure that out in about two minutes with Google.  Unless you’re more comfortable sticking with what you think you know.

    cheers.

  25. BJTexs says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:14 pm

    I propose we build a Mile High Dirt Bermâ„¢ around the White House until January, 2009.

    Oh and the Action Chimpâ„¢ get a CAT scan and release the results. Wooo doggie, that would be some serious fun.

    ed; Man, I feel your frustration. Where has the leadership gone?

  26. SteveG says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    alf…. really. Who do you think should be fired?

    How is it that the evidence discovered at the Libby trial resulted in nothing more than perjury charges?

    The jury found that Libby lied about whether or not he had discussed Plame and Wilson with reporters and the dates and times of those discussions. Turned out that Plame’s name was already out and the guy who put it out there (Armitage) was found to have broken no laws. Libby tried to cover himself a little too much in the early days of the grand jury and he got caught up in his “deer in the headlights” lies.

  27. Jeffersonian says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:21 pm

    So, Can we get away with it? is the standard for how an administration should operate, Jeffersonian?

    Get away with what, Alphie?  Countering the lies told by a CIA operative and his Company-employed old lady?  I thought you parlor pinks were against the CIA destablizing governments with false stories planted in opposition media outlets?

  28. Spiny Norman says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    There’s one thing you guys are missing: alpee refuses to believe Richard Armitage had anything to do with Plame’s “outing”. The “leaker” being a stubborn and persistant critic of Bush Administration foreign policy does not fit the “narrative”. It can only be Rove. And Cheney. And Bush. And [insert latest talking point Neocon villain]…

    Parlor pinks. Heh-heh. Is that anything like Mastercard Marxists?

  29. alppuccino says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    And Rove.

    And Cheney.

    And himself.

    My apologies to BRD, but if stupid were lethal, the DoD needs to develop a rocket-lauched alphie post haste.  His dullwittedness is measured by the megaton.  I know this gets too personal, but GODDAM!!!  ENOUGH!! 

    alphie, you are a wet booger.  You’ve always been a wet booger and you always will be a wet booger.  It is not cool to be a wet booger, FYI.

  30. angler says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    RC,

    You mention above your preference for withholding a pardon until after the appeals process has taken its course; that if the appellate court does not make the right decision, then the pardon should be granted.

    The problem is that from what I understand Libby’s potential grounds for appeal, even if he “wins” in the court of appeals, the remedy will not be an automatic “acquittal,” but a new trial. 

    Why wait for that?

  31. alphie says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:42 pm

    Jeffersonian,

    At the time Bush was pledging to the American people he would “get to the bottom” of the leak, he already knew who did it, he himself was one of the leakers.

    At the time Bush hired a prosecutor to investigate the leak, he already knew who did it, he himself was one of the leakers.

    If you wonder where Bush’s 90% approval rating went to, look no further than this sad little tale.

    What story the few remaining true believers choose to believe doesn’t really matter, does it, as long as there’s a neocon triumph and a liberal bad guy somewhere in the fairy tale?

  32. friend says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    Its so odd that we must continue to have this discussion.  I mean has it really come down to this, where we simply must defend against a drug-induced narrative, that however false, will grant the deranged left some kind of victory?  What is that victory?  Soley to destroy Bush?  Is that all this is about? This is so baffling.

  33. BJTexs says:
    March 12, 2007 at 7:53 pm

    Action Chimpâ„¢

    Please provide sourcing for this contention that George Bush knew who the leaker was before the investigation.

    Not someone’s opinion, a bon fide source. Think you can handle that?

  34. Squid says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    If only Fitz had called A.L.P.H.I.E. to the stand, this whole investigation & trial could have been wrapped up in just a few days.

    Such confidence!  Such certainty!  Surely no defense could stand against the damning evidence of A.L.P.H.I.E.’s opinion!

  35. Ric Locke says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:03 pm

    At the time Bush was pledging to the American people he would “get to the bottom” of the leak, he already knew who did it, he himself was one of the leakers.

    At the time Bush hired a prosecutor to investigate the leak, he already knew who did it, he himself was one of the leakers.

    Which is a lie, and remains a lie no matter how many times you repeat it.

    At most, Bush—who, as Chief Executive, has the power to do so—properly declassified the matter so that the question could be decided in open court, rather than a Star Chamber proceeding that would have endangered your blood pressure even more.

    What story the few remaining true believers choose to believe doesn’t really matter, does it, as long as there’s a liberal triumph and a neocon bad guy somewhere in the fairy tale?

    There, I fixed it for you—you had a couple words reversed.

    Regards,

    Ric

  36. Karl says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:06 pm

    Will alphie provide a link that doesn’t actually contradict his point? 

    The Magic 8-Ball says “All signs point to NO.”

    And unlike alphie, the Magic 8-Ball manages to be right on occasion, if only by accident.

  37. BJTexs says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:11 pm

    Oh, ric, any minute now the Action Chimpâ„¢ is going to provide us multiple links and incontrovertable sourcing for this grand assertation, this noble and truthy pronouncement…

    ***crickets***

    Yup, any minute now … 

    ***crickets***

    Ooooo, fireflys….

  38. Just Passing Through says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:11 pm

    At the time Bush was pledging to the American people he would “get to the bottom” of the leak, he already knew who did it, he himself was one of the leakers.

    At the time Bush hired a prosecutor to investigate the leak, he already knew who did it, he himself was one of the leakers.

    If you wonder where Bush’s 90% approval rating went to, look no further than this sad little tale.

    What story the few remaining true believers choose to believe doesn’t really matter, does it, as long as there’s a neocon triumph and a liberal bad guy somewhere in the fairy tale?

    What?!?!? I mean, WHAT?!?!?

    Where the hell do you get this stuff? It doesn’t make any sense. Are you even marginally aware of current events? Cause and effect? Rules of logical association? Facts????

    Anyone with any self-respect wouldn’t dream of showing his ass as consistently as you do. I think what someone suggested in another thread should be acted on and you be sent on your way for good. It’s one thing to participate in a conversation around the coffee table and disagree, but it’s quite another to keep marching around the living room banging on a pot.

  39. BJTexs says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:15 pm

    JPT

    It’s one thing to participate in a conversation around the coffee table and disagree, but it’s quite another to keep marching lounging around the living room banging on a smoking pot.

    Fixed that for you.

  40. Patrick Chester says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    BumperStickerist wrote:

    the problem isn’t ‘how soon we forget’ – the problem is that you (and your ilk) never knew to begin with. That was not Bush’s pledge regarding the CIA leak investigation.

    A smart guy like you could figure that out in about two minutes with Google.  Unless you’re more comfortable sticking with what you think you know.

    No, he’s comfortable hoping people won’t Google the original statement by the President and will believe his twisting of it.

    It’s things like this that convince me that alphie is, in fact, not an idiot. He’s a damned liar. Though I suppose it’s possible he’s a damned idiotic liar.

  41. tachyonshuggy says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    At the time Bush was pledging to the American people he would “get to the bottom” of the leak, he already knew who did it, he himself was one of the leakers.

    Alphie, shut the fuck up.  You are so incredibly, willfully, blindingly stupid that I wonder how you manage to log on to the intartubes.

    So now Bush was a leaker?  Bush?

    Alphie, please listen to me.  If you believe this, if you really, truly believe this, then you are crazy.  Not you-have-a-difference-of-opinion crazy, but actually crazy.  Bad, debilitating, life-becrapping crazy.

  42. N. O'Brain says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    Posted by Just Passing Through | permalink

    on 03/12 at 02:11 PM

    That ain’t no pot, that’s his head.

    TW: lack41. Ain’t it the truth?

  43. Ric Locke says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:34 pm

    Patrick, thanks to the Washington Post we have a perfect characterization for alphie: Ignoranus n. a stupid asshole.

    No, he won’t provide any backup for his statement. He can’t; it doesn’t exist. He may very well post a link to some obscure press conference statement that doesn’t say what he appears to think it says, but the only possible corroboration for his assertion would be at least charges and better grand jury indictments to that effect.

    If there were grounds for them, it would have given “Fitz” a threefer: He could have (a) followed his own political inclinations to (b) unquestionably serve the causes of Truth and Justice (though we might carp) and (c) assure himself of riches well within, if not beyond, the dreams of avarice from book sales and six-figure speaking fees over the next two years. There simply isn’t any downside to it.

    But if nothing else, we should have long ago internalized the realization that alphie is a good-to-excellent predictor of what the next set of moonbat Goebbels Points™ will be. Expect “Bush was one of them” to be shouted from every op-ed column, teevee “commentatary”, and pseudoLeftie blog for the foreseeable future.

    Regards,

    Ric

  44. RC says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:35 pm

    Angler,

    I was probably over optimistic to assume that if the appellate court sent a reversal back down to the trial court that the government would choose to not retry the case.

    Wouldn’t it be a hoot if the appellate court returned it for retrial, Fitzgerald (poop be upon him) retried the case and the Justice Department appeared at trial in support of the defense.  Talk about really showing the special prosecutor run amok.

  45. Just Passing Through says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:39 pm

    JPT

    <blockquote>It’s one thing to participate in a conversation around the coffee table and disagree, but it’s quite another to keep lounging around the living room smoking pot.

    Fixed that for you. </blockquote>

    That’s a useful image also and does capture his sublime bovine stupidity, but it doesn’t capture the logical cacophony he means to introduce into every thread. That’s offensive on a lot more levels than some sprawled out dopey clown could trigger.

  46. RC says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:39 pm

    How stupid can you be.  By definition the President is the Commander In Chief and is the ultimate command authority of the military in this country (which really chaps congress’ ass, both R’s and D’s).

    As National Command Authority the President can spill any old beans he wants and since he really is “The Decider” his act of spilling the beans is de facto declassification of the material.

    It is literally impossible for the President to “leak” anything.

  47. Merovign says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:40 pm

    One does wonder if alphie is ever actually embarrassed by any of the myriad of severe flubs that come out of its keyboard, or whether it is just really a 33rd-degree black-belt in the “blink, ignore and repeat” theory of debate.

  48. RC says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:42 pm

    Sorry, focused too much on the military and military classified material.

    For the record, though, the President is also the highest Executive in the country too and has the authority to declassify intelligence and state material just as readily.

  49. alphie says:
    March 12, 2007 at 9:20 pm

    That’s true RC, but we kind of expect the Prez to come somewhere near the truth when he speaks to the nation on important matters.

    Quite a game he was playing back in the Summer of War.

    Not only was he back-dating the declassification of carefully selected portions of very classified documents to aid the Wilson swiftboating, he was also keeping up a brave front that we’d still find Saddams’ nukes:

    Q Mr. President, in his speech to Congress, the Prime Minister opened the door to the possibility that you may be proved wrong about the threat from Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

    THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

    Q Do you agree, and does it matter whether or not you find these weapons?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, you might ask the Prime Minister that. We won’t be proven wrong —

    PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: No.

    PRESIDENT BUSH: I believe that we will find the truth. And the truth is, he was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction.

    Now, you say, why didn’t it happen all of a sudden? Well, there was a lot of chaos in the country, one. Two, Saddam Hussein has spent over a decade hiding weapons and hiding materials. Three, we’re getting—we’re just beginning to get some cooperation from some of the high-level officials in that administration or that regime.

    But we will bring the weapons and, of course—we will bring the information forward on the weapons when they find them. And that will end up—end all this speculation.

    Poor Tony Blair looks like an Oxford lad who was caught with his pal drunkenly having their way with some farmer’s livestock.

  50. Matt, Esq. says:
    March 12, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    Look, it feels like Bush, Cheney and Rove all leaked it.  Thats all the matters.  Truth is irrelevant, feelings are all.

    I note the village idiot continues to blather…

  51. Farmer Joe says:
    March 12, 2007 at 9:44 pm

    Wow, I’ve heard of moving goalposts, but Alphie just teleported himself to a completely different football field!

  52. TODD says:
    March 12, 2007 at 9:52 pm

    Put the crack pipe down alpo, you are definately going off the deep end.. You see? This is what happens when hatred just plainly blinds you from the facts, you just start making up your own facts to support the hatred…

    Seek some help, spend some time in a pink room blowing bubbles and chasing Butterflies, then maybe, you might calm down a bit.  Your passion is poisoning you alpoo

  53. dicentra says:
    March 12, 2007 at 9:54 pm

    That rushing sound that just blasted past us all was alphie moving the goalposts.

    Way to stay on topic, dood.

  54. happyfeet says:
    March 12, 2007 at 10:12 pm

    Would it be better in terms of managing pardon fallout if Libby were sentenced to the full 25 years or would that exacerbate things? Just wondering…

  55. mar says:
    March 12, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    Hasn’t patterico already settled all this bs?

  56. Bravo Romeo Delta says:
    March 12, 2007 at 10:20 pm

    Alpuccino,

    If stupid were explosive, Alphie would be…

    Alphie would be… um…

    Well, we’d probably be tuning in to watch Security Council debates on whether or not the existing Resolution authorized use of force in the PW comments section.

    But, on the flipside, he may be dense, but while a sophist, he’s not an abusive sophist.

    BRD

  57. E. Nough says:
    March 12, 2007 at 10:20 pm

    You operate from assumptions I find politically dangerous and which it is among my goals to render impotent in the national conversation.

    You are part of the political pathology whose effectiveness I seek to neutralize; dialogue isn’t on my agenda.

    Wow.  Who knew the Netroots had a Commissariat?

  58. BumperStickerist says:
    March 12, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    I just figured it out, alphie is JukeBoxGrad’s slightly slower kinfolk.

    The reliance on snippets from press conferences to ‘prove’ ………….. something …… gives it away.

  59. Major John says:
    March 12, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    TIme to find a new moniker monkyboy, er…alphie.  This one has worn out.

  60. Ric Locke says:
    March 12, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    Who knew the Netroots had a Commissariat?

    Hunh? They’re all Commissars. If you don’t believe it, just ask ‘em. Every one a volunteer, too.

    All Vanguard and no Proletariat makes Jack a dull Leninist.

    Regards,

    Ric

    tw: soviet11

  61. Major John says:
    March 12, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    So much for being a fish swimming in a peasant sea – more like a fish flopping around on a commentariat boat deck.

  62. Great Mencken's Ghost! says:
    March 12, 2007 at 11:11 pm

    You are part of the political pathology whose effectiveness I seek to neutralize; dialogue isn’t on my agenda.

    Tolja.  Now concentrate on getting your message to people who will listen.

  63. Bravo Romeo Delta says:
    March 12, 2007 at 11:11 pm

    Major John,

    I was thinking more along the lines of a sea cucumber doing whatever it is – cucumbering, I suppose – on the beach or something.

    BRD

  64. CCS says:
    March 12, 2007 at 11:13 pm

    Jeff, you need to get a Trunk Monkey. When alphie get to ranting, all you need to do is press the button. Problem solved.

    Link

  65. alphie says:
    March 12, 2007 at 11:25 pm

    Geez, CCS, I linked to the Trunk Monkey weeks ago, ya can’t use it against me now!

    Not sure I have drifted off topic, just questioning the selective memory some are claiming now.

    Look at this press conference that Steven Hadley gave a week after Novak outted Valerie Plame where he admitted Joe Wilson was telling the truth and the Africa – Saddam – uranium story was wrong and should never been included in the SOTU speech…and then offered to resign because it had been.

    The effort to swiftboat Joe Wilson has nothing to do with the phony uranium claim, we know Wilson was right and the administration has already has admitted he was right.

  66. Jeremy says:
    March 12, 2007 at 11:30 pm

    Alphie’s “contribution” to this thread prove that he has nothing to add to any real debate. He posts absurdities and when called on it, ignores the facts and then changes topics.

    Why is he still here?

  67. dicentra says:
    March 12, 2007 at 11:32 pm

    The effort to swiftboat Joe Wilson has nothing to do with the phony uranium claim, we know Wilson was right and the administration has already has admitted he was right.

    It’s so hard to debate people who live in Bizarro world. We keep forgetting that everything alphie says needs to be flipped 180° so that it reads right in our world.

    So yeah, alphie, right on! You’re getting in!

  68. alphie says:
    March 12, 2007 at 11:42 pm

    The National Security Advisor also wants, Condi wants it clearly understood that she feels a personal responsibility for not recognizing the potential problem presented by those 16 words. And we both agree that in permitting the inclusion of those words, the high standards that the President sets with his speeches were not met.

    Stephen Hadley, Deputy National Security Advisor, July 22, 2003

    everything alphie says needs to be flipped 180° so that it reads right in our world

    How true, dice.

  69. SDN says:
    March 12, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    You know, one of the best reasons for starting a blog would be to use the referrer logs, etc. to find out the actual addresses of people like alphie and mona and publish them for appropriate attention from whatever good elves were available….

  70. Matthew O. says:
    March 12, 2007 at 11:46 pm

    What is this “Swiftboating” you talk about?  You mean telling the truth about someone?

    Mr. Wilson was & is a liar, one can clearly see that if one actually reads the facts behind the Plame situation.

  71. OHNOES says:
    March 13, 2007 at 12:00 am

    You know, one of the best reasons for starting a blog would be to use the referrer logs, etc. to find out the actual addresses of people like alphie and mona and publish them for appropriate attention from whatever good elves were available….

    NO!

  72. Toby Petzold says:
    March 13, 2007 at 12:07 am

    Bush should pardon Libby —and I believe he will. But if he does it at any other time but in his last few days in power, he will be giving these stupid hippie turds something to adhere to each other and blather about that would not have been there before.

    Secret jack-off Hollywood ending? Libby gets pardoned tomorrow about five minutes before word comes down that Joe Wilson has been indicted for being a lying asshole. That’s when I bump into Valerie somewhere and give her a proper seeing to.

  73. Ric Locke says:
    March 13, 2007 at 12:26 am

    Bush shouldn’t pardon Libby until the Mark Rich Moment, essentially the last thing he does before putting on his coat and leaving the Oval Office for his successor’s swearing-in ceremony.

    What he should do, and can as Chief Executive, is order Libby released on his own recognizance until and unless all the appeals, etc. are completed.

    The nutroots will howl. So what? They’re howling now, and will continue to howl until Bush commits seppuku on the Capitol’s west steps, with Fox news cameras excluded from the coverage, or until the sun gutters out, whichever comes first in point of time—then they’ll start howling that it didn’t happen soon enough.

    Regards,

    Ric

  74. Toby Petzold says:
    March 13, 2007 at 12:40 am

    That’s interesting, Ric. I didn’t know that was an Executive power, but I am glad of it because I am a partisan for this Administration and I believe the anti-war Left are, in many instances, traitors to our country. I want these pansy-assed degenerates to defend liars like Wilson until the next election cycle. Focusing a whole lot on Libby’s unjust conviction and craphounds like Fitzgerald, Tenet, and the NYT for the next 18 months suits me just fine.

  75. Ric Locke says:
    March 13, 2007 at 12:55 am

    Eh?

    Of course it’s an executive power. In the end, law enforcement in the United States reports ultimately to the President. If the President orders law enforcement not to hold an individual, law enforcement is obliged to obey, just as a police chief can order his subordinates to concentrate on one part of town and/or one particular class of violations. No difference.

    Regards,

    Ric

  76. Mark says:
    March 13, 2007 at 1:02 am

    What he should do, and can as Chief Executive, is order Libby released on his own recognizance until and unless all the appeals, etc. are completed.

    I don’t think it’ll come to that, do you? I mean his sentencing comes up in a few months and I can’t imagine the judge ordering him jailed pending appeal.

    If the judge were to pull such a stunt, then yes Bush needs to do that immediately—in fact the defense attorney needs to have that signed and sealed order in his briefcase, just in case.

  77. Jeff Goldstein says:
    March 13, 2007 at 1:05 am

    Forget Hadley, alphie.  Concentrate on the bipartisan senate intel report, etc.

  78. Robin Roberts says:
    March 13, 2007 at 1:08 am

    Alphie, “Wilson swiftboating” ?  The repetition of your brazen lies doesn’t improve them.

    Wilson was “swiftboated” in the same way that Kerry was – discredited by the simple truth.

  79. Kirk says:
    March 13, 2007 at 1:23 am

    I believe that Libby should be pardoned immediately. 

    I’m sorry, but regardless of this guy’s politics (which lean decidedly to my left,) what mortal man can truly afford the costs of the unwarranted litigation that he has been forced to endure?

    Ok, maybe there is a book deal in the future beyond a pardon.  Good for him.  It will take a book deal for him to break even on this fiasco. 

    Just my two cents worth.  Well, maybe a penny of mine and a penny of Papov’s.

  80. alphie says:
    March 13, 2007 at 1:55 am

    I prefer Hadley’s timely, unspun testimony to a carefully crafted CYA document put out so late after the fact.

    But “bipartisan” Senate intell report?

    Won’t the Waxman led hearings also be “bipartisan?”

    Why worry about it?

    I’m sure the Republicans will have their say.

  81. Robin Roberts says:
    March 13, 2007 at 1:57 am

    Alphie,

    Again, you are showing your ignorance of basic facts, the intelligence committee report was actually “bipartisan” in that it was approved by all the members of the intel committee.

    Its time for you to grow up.

  82. wishbone says:
    March 13, 2007 at 2:10 am

    “Swiftboating”–leftard for “truth.”

    “Lies”–leftard for “the same things that Bill Clinton said for 8 years about Iraq”.

    “alphie”–leftard for “poodle brain”.

  83. Big Bang hunter says:
    March 13, 2007 at 2:16 am

    “What story the few remaining true believers choose to believe doesn’t really matter, does it, as long as there’s a neocon triumph and a liberal bad guy somewhere in the fairy tale?”

    – Not really “bad guys”. Just emotion driven haters of Bush that long ago lost any pretense to objectivity. You nutroots are ready and willing to believe Bush kills puppies in a blender for his ranch cookouts, and while you’re at it you’re deaf and blind to any discussion of fact. Your minds are closed on the subject, so when you bloviate your hate-speeches, and bullshit narrative, you sound anything but elite. You lose by default because no one listens to a closed minded bigot who refuses to discuss, or listen, to counter views and factual evidence. You not only don’t discuss or listen, often times you try to silence desenting views using all manner of Gestopo tactics.

    – Try posting the most straightforward counter-view on Sec-Prog websites like HuffPo or LiarDogFake. They get redacted now even before they get posted. Hampsher runs and hides under her desk, rather than actually debate the simplest issue. Yet you come over here, and go to other classic Liberal/Cpnservative sights, and belch your pathetic Lerft-wing propaganda all over the joint freely, and then turn around and accuse any opposition as being Hitler inspired.

    You guys are just plain full of shit. As someone once said, “The truth…..you can’t handle the truth.”

  84. alphie says:
    March 13, 2007 at 2:19 am

    By “growing up” do you mean I should “believe” Robert?

    Had the neocons followed Hadley’s honesty lead, they’d still control the Congress today.

    Instead, they’re left trying to spin a document that contains this conclusion:

    Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.

    as somehow supporting their position.

    Ouch!

  85. wishbone says:
    March 13, 2007 at 2:49 am

    A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.

    By every intelligence agency on the planet.

    And where in your gotcha moment, alphie, is the “Oh, yeah–Joe Wilson is not full of shit.” since that WAS the topic at hand, you know.

    Or better yet, where in the statement above do you get to the “Bush lied” narrative of the left?

  86. Old Texas Turkey says:
    March 13, 2007 at 2:59 am

    2002 NIE Pg 45

    The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article…which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.

    2002 NIE Page 73

    The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be wiling or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

    Page 123

    We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

    ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa was well-founded.

    Take your pick.  Pick your poison.

    From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

    a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

    b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

    c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.

    d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.

  87. Good Lt says:
    March 13, 2007 at 3:25 am

    Old Texas Turkey just PWN3D alphie’s curious topic-shift of the “16-words.”

    Cue alphie’s next topic in 3…2…

  88. alphie says:
    March 13, 2007 at 3:37 am

    The Mission Accomplished banner again Good Lt?

    Couldn’t you guys give that poor old thing a rest?

    Are you sure your excerpts come from the 2002 NIE, OTT?  They seem to have stuff from 2003 in them, which would be a neat trick.

  89. Mark says:
    March 13, 2007 at 3:53 am

    Alphie, … … … eh … this is all old rehash stuff, it matters not (as your position has been soundly trounced many years ago).

    Though why you revisit it consistently remains a mystery, or is it?

    To plagiarize a Biden Sunday morning sound bite:

    “What’s the plan Stan?”

    What exactly is the point of your trolling? Do you have a plan? Cut and run? Divide and lose? What?

  90. section9 says:
    March 13, 2007 at 3:53 am

    Stand by for great fun. Waxman wants to drag Condi in front of his political show trial.

    Methinks he’s actually foolish enough to try and match wits with her. Oh wiil, fool and his money and all that…..

  91. alphie says:
    March 13, 2007 at 3:59 am

    Not everyone on the prowar side decided to jump on the “blame the CIA” bandwagon after it turned out Saddam had no nuke program afterall, Mark.

    As you can see in the link above, Condi and Hadley were all for admitting the truth.

    Will nobody ever learn the lesson Nixon taught us?

    It’s always the coverup that brings you down.

  92. Drumwaster says:
    March 13, 2007 at 4:00 am

    The Mission Accomplished banner again Good Lt?

    Damn, alpo, you’re slowing down. It took you 12 whole minutes in order to change the topic. Did getting bitchslapped rattle your teeth that hard?

    What “mission” was Bush talking about? The overthrowing of Saddam’s regime had, in fact, been accomplished, and in less time (and with MUCH fewer casualties per capita) than Janet “The Linebacker” Reno managed to overthrow the Koresh compound in Waco. Or do unpleasant facts like that not get to be used against you?

    Cue new topic shift in 3… 2…

  93. Drumwaster says:
    March 13, 2007 at 4:02 am

    it turned out Saddam had no nuke program afterall

    WMD are not limited to nukes, alpo.

    See, there is this site called ‘Google’ where you can discover things like this without looking like a freaking moron…

  94. Mark says:
    March 13, 2007 at 4:08 am

    Alphie,

    I’m not interested in yesterday, that’s done. I want to know, “what’s the plan Stan?”

    Are you with the Murtha Muddle? the Pelosi Pomposity? the Moran Morass? or do you have an Alphie Apocalypse?

    If the latter, please lay it out: ________

  95. alphie says:
    March 13, 2007 at 4:15 am

    The arguments of the true believers are more like a kitten’s lick, drum. 

    It kinda tickles.

    Jow Wilson was correct.

    The administration admitted he was correct.

    Saddam’s not haveing a nuke program also proved Wilson was correct.

    Even Bush has admitted Saddam didn’t have WMDs or ties to al Qeada.

    Not sure what there is to gain by pretending the facts are otherwise.

  96. jr565 says:
    March 13, 2007 at 4:23 am

    Alphie you keep bringing up this war and deliving off topic so I thought I’d address you about it.

    I’m just curious. Who are the good guys in this whole narrative, according to you? We got it that Bush is the evil warmonger who manipulated intelligence, but of the parties involved who acted above board?

    Was it the UN? Was it the Democrats? Was it Sadaam Husseing?

    I mean with all the vitriol from the left and from the democrats you would think that they were arguing either for the UN (ie bush shouldn’t have acted so unilaterally, he should have adhered to the UN) or that the democrats are somehow better (remember all the caterwauling from all the people in the know about how bush “betrayed us”. Or is Sadaam the only honest broker. Or did he lie too?

    So, tell us when officially it was known or when you believe that Iraq didn’t have weapons? Was it right before Bush took office? Was it right after the first Gulf War? Did they never have weapons? Because all of the assumptions will then determine courses of actions that should have been taken.

    I hear on the left that containment worked. Should we have contained Iraq at all? If you believe that Iraq never had weapons then it would be pretty evil of the US to contain a country that was no threat, and to continue that containment policy for two terms under Clinton? Does mr Inconvenient Truth have no culpability here, considering the left was accusing the US of comitting genocide for imposng sanctions. If Iraq had no weapons to begin with, and obviously it would have to have been known, then wouddn’t the Clinton administration be far worse moral monsters than Bush ever was? After all, under the sanctions half a million to a million Iraqi children died,because the sanctions were so harsh.

    And didn’t congress pass the Iraqi liberation, including the entire cast of characters who said they were duped by Bush – including Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Reid, etc etc etc. Were they acting on what they believed was correct, that Iraq had WMD’s and was a threat? Because, the alternative is pretty devastating for the democrats otherwise? How could someone say we should elect a Kerry or even worse a GOre (remember the outrage that the libs felt when they said Bush STOLE the election?). If Gore, along with Clinton oversaw a genocide, and in fact caused it, by sanctioning an innocent country then why would you ever want that person in office. Isn’t that person as bad as a warmonger? Because you can’t have it both ways. Why would the Dixie Chicks and all the people so desirious of speaking truth to power now, and so quick to call Bush then next incarnation of Hitler now, why would they get so up in arms about hanging chads during the stolen election. Because based on your logic, the dems in power commited genocide, and the congress, in passing the Iraqi liberation act abeted in the lies. Clinton wagged the dog after all. Why then is Clinton held in any esteem, why does Gore get a standing ovation at the Oscars? Weren’t Clinton and Gore extolling the horrors of Sadaam and his regime? Weren’t they, in passing the Iraqi liberation act, saying that the regime was so bad that there was no choice but to remove sadaam from power?

    How about the UN? How did they act in all of this? If Sadaam was no threat, why did they stand by and pass resolution after resolution against an innocent country, especially if they knew that Iraq posed no threat at all. How could you sign on to an organization that would be so callous as to do that to a country,knowing its no threat. They went along with the US from the first resolution to the last, signing 1441 unanimously. Doesn’t that speak ill of every country that signed 1441? Even worse, knowing that Iraq was in fact weaponless and posed no threat, certain members then, on the backs of poor Iraqis, enriched themselves with oil for food money. And this is the organization that we should sell our sovereignty to, an organization that disingenous and evil? Yo say that this is a war over oil? Wasn’t containment all about the oil too? Peace bought for cheap oil on the backs of poor Iraqis.

    And what about Sadaam? was he truthful in all of this? There are a few narratives that are floating around about Iraqs weapons, many of them contradictory. On one hand he had weapons all along. He continually obfuscated beucase he was trying to hide stuff, and always maintaned programs. This would explain Clinton and others sanctioning and the UN passing resolutions against Iraq. Also,in this narrative, it would make sense that Iraq desetroyed its stockpiles right before the war or as Sadaa suggested moved them into Syrai. We do have satellite imagery of trucks being driven from various sites out of the country, and we do have satellite imagery of sites being looted to the ground. So that’s one possibility. ANother one is that Sadaam was lying the whole time. He suggested this at his trial. He was; trying to project strength to his neighbors, but didn’t realiy pursue any weapons. Then the question is, if someone is a convincing liar, and is convincing enough to suggest to neighbors that he has WMD’s wouldnt’ the world body and the US tyring to “contain” Iraq also beleive the lie. There’s no way you could project strenght by pretending you had WMD’s and at the same time let the UN know that you had no WMD’s and didn;t pose a threat. This might explain some of Sadaams actions, I suppose, but it would also explain the UN’s actions, and it woudl also explain why the Congress would pass teh Iraqi LIberation act, but would also explain why Bush thought Iraq was such a threat.THerefore you coudn’t say that Bush lied, any more than you said that Clinton lied. Or maybe they all lied. However, this doesn’t jibe with what the scientists said. THey said that Sadaam tried to continue producing WMD’s but that they were unable to successfully do so, but were afraid to tell him they were unsucessful out of fear for their lives, so strung him along. THis then would be a case of a regime trying to procure weapons, having the intent of producing weapons, tyring to get uranium from africa because they think they can start their nuclear program, but it would also be perceived as a threat by those trying again to “contain” Iraq.

    Don’t you see though, that whatever the true case is, they’re all legitimate threats? If he moved his weapons then obviously he was a threat that needed to be contained. if he was lying about being a threat then obviously we would believe him if he was convincing therefore he would need to be contained. If he was trying to get weapons but was incompetent, hes’ still trying ot get weapons therefore is a threat.

    So, alphie after 9/11 what is a president to do with Iraq? The same Iraq that the previous admin labeled a threat, the UN labeled a threat, no matter which way you slice it was a threat.

    Contain Iraq further?

    So you would suggest containing Iraq, despite the fact that cointaining Iraq meant continuing tough sanctions that would impact on poor Iraqis, for a country you knew never had weapons? Isn’t that a little cruel? Or would you lift sanctiosn and stop containment? Considering your argument that Iraq would need to maintain at least the threat of having WMD’s to protect itself form its neighbors and considering just across the way the Iranians are building nukes wouldn’t it be logical that they would have to maintain a WMD program if only to keep up with their neighbors? So by lifting containment you would guarantee that Iraq rearmed itself or at least pretend to rearm itself, which if at all convincing would be the equivalent of rearming itself.

    Which narrative are you going to champion, becuase which ever way you argue it, you’re arguing for arming Iraq or harming Iraq. Was containment good or bad. You can’t argue that containment worked and that its a good thing and still believe that Iraq never had weapons, becuase then containing Iraq woudl in fact be a great evil and the people who suffered would be the weakest Iraqis. All for a lie. And if you argue that containment should be done away with, then clearly the world has every reason to fear Iraq becuase Iraq would be arming itself again.

    If no matter which way you slice it Iraq is either disarmed and Sadaam removed or rearms itself, then clearly the solution is to do what Clinton and Gore and the democrats in congress knew had to be done but didn’t have the cojones to carry off – and that is regime change.

  97. Big Bang hunter says:
    March 13, 2007 at 4:26 am

    “Not sure what there is to gain by pretending the facts are otherwise.”

    – Then why do you keep beating a dead horse alphie? Never mind. We all know why. You’ve gone through some 34 AnythingGates+, and so far BushCo is beating you brains out. I feel your frustration, but you, and the Wilson’s, are headed for another fall eventually. A total loser, but apparently for you amd your surrender monkey crowd, its the obly game in town. Its a bit ironic that the very group least able to cope with setbacks, just can’t help sticking their collectivistic asses in the woodchipper.

  98. alphie says:
    March 13, 2007 at 4:35 am

    Who, exactly is BushCo, BBh?

    We know the NSC (Rice and Hadley) at least had some honesty after the fact.

    And we know the State Department wasn’t willing to sign on to the pre-war scam.  They said so right on the front page of the NIE everyone thinks backs their case that the neocons were just fools, not liars:

    The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons.

    Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment.

    Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening.

    As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.

    So who, exactly, are BushCo?

  99. Mark says:
    March 13, 2007 at 4:39 am

    Alphie,

    If the latter, please lay it out: ________

    tick

    silence

    tick

    deafening

    tick

    Bzzt.

  100. alphie says:
    March 13, 2007 at 4:43 am

    My plan, Mark?

    Let the Iraqis vote on whether we should to continue to occupy their country, then abide by their decision.

Comments are closed.