Double Plus Un-Ungood

Turn-about is fair play.

Thus, I’m assuming that you now support imprisoning Daniel Ellsberg.

Don’t know what Henry will say, samchevre, but motives matter to me. Daniel Ellsberg was exposing massive governmental deception about the justifications for an immoral war. Libby outed a CIA agent because her husband exposed massive governmental deception about the justifications for an immoral war.

I’d pardon Ellsberg, but not Libby. (Don’t know if Ellsberg was convicted, actually. I’ll google it in a second.)

Libby should be in jail with Clinton. Bad eggs, the pair of them. And throw her husband in too.

For the record, Ellsberg was not convicted. He almost surely would have been, except that the Plumbers were found to have broken into his psychiatrist’s office during the Watergate investigation. The judge threw out the case.

IIRC, that was actually the Plumbers’ first job.

I was genuinely, genuinel shocked when I heard about this on the BBC news. If something like this can really be done, then US politics has gone way beyond the pale, as far as this non-US observer is concerned.

But it’s been beyond the pale for a few years now. This is really a very minor incident.

Thag, not an expert, but it seems that at the very least some related impeachment proceeding would have to have been formally initiated for that theory to fly.

It would be interesting to have someone with the relevant expertise offer an opinion as to whether there’s anything in that. It could be an argument for introducing an impeachment resolution, even one that is allowed to idle in committee. In fact, wasn’t one introduced at one time?

“if the mafioso can pardon his underlings before any US Rep introduces a bill, then he gets away with it.”

Well, the House could initiate impeachment proceedings on obstruction of justice and political corruption theories (quid pro quo), at the very least. I wouldn’t be surprised if we get there. (But wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t, either.)

Remember the Rich List?

“It’s also interesting that in 2003 Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was one of several leaks.”

Not interesting, unless you think Armitage had the requisite scienter. And no one (not even the nuttiest wingnut) thought that.

john m.

Heh, couldn’t find a link, could you?

Dear Jet: No, you’re the wingnut. You folks call us moonbats and communists and traitors and so forth. I don’t blame you for being jealous of snappier and more descriptive soundbite, but you can’t have it. We’re too polite to switch to morons.

Well, david, you’ve got to admit that they *did* convict Libby. And since The Decider and the Fourth Branch both consider Libby to be a good guy, that means that the jury Hates America and Freedom.

Ah yes, intentions. This gets us back to the wing nut theory (yay lets stand in a circle and shout that at each other, shall we) that Cheney ordered his men to “out” Plame which would, in some never described manner, discredit Wilson.

“Like oh my god, you mean his wife works for the CIA? He must be like a total idiot and not know what he’s talking about.”

So rather than speaking of Plame innocuously,as Armitage did, those loveable rascals in power did it with grave malice and meany hurtfulness (look at those hurt feelers) to make Wilson look like he was connected to credible sources, which would, strangely, make him look bad, or so The Nation would have us believe (but perhaps to them saying a person is connected to the CIA is the highest of insults).

Or perhaps you are saying that The Loveable Gang did it to out Plame on purpose, knowing her status? I guess that is hardly provable, and completely lacking in evidence (or so says Fitzgerald), which explains the tactics in the case. The left burning scum who dare to attack the scum they had just bought. But the only evidence we have (recalled conversations and interview notes) would have us believe the conversations involving Plame were indeed in innocuous. But OMG WTF, BSH teh D3V1L!!!!11!

народовластие созерцания мертво, камрад. Пройдите водочку.

Don’t you now, juries never get it wrong [www.breitbart.com]

Jet, was the notion that the administration willfully outed Plame to stick it to Wilson (his wife’s career after all having been significantly, negatively impacted) a “wingnut” theory ex ante? If so, why do you suppose Fitzgerald disagreed with your assessment? Please show your work.

“Q” the Enchanter,
Here [http://www.washingtonpost.com]. Now you say Fitzgerald accused/stipulated/hinted/made snide remarks that Libby intentionally outed Plame? Where’s your “homework” Dr. McFartyPants? Seeing as how I’ve read many times that Fitzgerald refused to comment on people outside of the investigation and kept comments concerning those under investigation sans speculation, you need to pull a rabbit out of your arse to keep from looking …. well you know (and if you don’t I’m sure anderson can help).
And as far as her career being “significantly, negatively impacted”, that’s a laugh. Her career was over for the colossal screwup that was the Niger investigation. Her marriage to Wilson had already mostly ended her fun as a spook, but the incredibly shoddy work coupled with Wilson’s duplicity ensured her cheerios would only be floating in piss.

I’m not saying it is a “wing nut” theory that the administration did it to end her career (can’t you educated fucks read?). Just that the evidence so far says otherwise, and her career was already ended. I said it was a wing nut theory that outing Plame somehow magically discredited Wilson (although this does make sense for The Nation types).

blog,
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. I bet you’re just getting started?

The OVP vomited out these talking points and the wingnut dogs lapped it up and ran with it. That’s what happened and you are vomiting it forth even now.

Whatever, that is what it was effectively intended to do, as you yourself are so amply demonstrating.

You think I can get inside the wingnuts depraved minds? Look at what they did with the info and stop playing dumb for once in your deluded wingnut life.

I don’t know how the wingnut mind works, but Rove knows how to push all their atavistic, primitive, lizard brain buttons so effectively that it worked spendidly. All the wingnuts now believe Wilson is discredited because he is a mint tea drinking, subserviant to a woman, pussy who can’t be believed about anything. That’s how the wingnut mind works. Don’t ask me to explain it.

Her career was over for the colossal screwup that was the Niger investigation.

Oh bollocks upon bollocks upon bollocks. Where are you getting this from? The Niger investigation confirmed that Saddam could not have got uranium from Iraq — and he hadn’t!

Yes, but what means did they chose to do this?Nasty, filthy innuendo that was meant to discredit them. That is the sick tactics they chose to get their revenge.

Matt Weiner,
You misspelled “The Niger investigation confirmed that Saddam was actively trying to get uranium…”.

And “could not have got”? Is that what it said? I thought it said the trade minister wouldn’t meet about the subject with the Iraqi delegation, but the minister was contemplative that they probably wanted uranium. So I’m going to have to go all Dr. McFartyPants on you and ask for a cite.

As for the screwup, Plame asked to have assigned someone who couldn’t keep his story straight when he came back (her husband), and botched his reporting enough that he had to take out an op-ed in the NYT’s to contradict what he reported to his debfriefing officer, oh and what he said in the Senate hearings.

And I seem to recall, but don’t have time to verify, either the Senate committee or 9-11 commission deriding the job the CIA did in tracking down all the leads in Niger, along with their reliance upon forged documents. But if you say they did a great job and she deserved a medal or something, then by all means lets start the parade.

“Q” the Enchanter,
Do you even remember the question? Do you realize that reading my response, your quoting the wrong quote, your changing the subject (I think they call it “moving the goal posts”), and then you call me unkind things, makes you look like an unserious seeker of truth.

Okay, I’ll recap slowly for your obvious imparement. You implied Fitzgerald had said that Libby tried to out Plame on purpose and asked for my info. I gave you a link, which you apparently couldn’t read to the middle for the money quote. I reciprocated the challenge and you responded with vitrolic empty conjecture.

We should just agree to disagree as we don’t appear to be having the same conversation.

Do you know what a fact is, jet? All the facts contradict you. Why are you lying?

Jet: “your” does not mean the same as you are. However, you seem to be rather confused as to the meaning of quite a few things. To say nothing of understanding them. I will grant that you got the spirit of impairment right. As in “my spell checker is impared.”

I said it was a wing nut theory that outing Plame somehow magically discredited Wilson (although this does make sense for The Nation types).

Not that I care much about secret agents and ambassadors (dog eats dog, fair enough), but isn’t it a proven fact that Mr. Cheney personally suggested that perhaps Mr. Wilson’s wife “sent him on a junket”?

It seems that it would indeed discredit Mr. Wilson and his advocacy if they could make it look like his CIA wife got this gig for him to enjoy free airline food and tea in Niger. I thought that was a common knowledge.

July 5, 2006, the AP reports: Bush Told VP To Rebut Wilson

(CBS/AP) President Bush told the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case that he directed Vice President Dick Cheney to personally lead an effort to counter allegations made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson that his administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq, according to a published report.

Mr. Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004 interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, sources told the National Journal.

[…]Fitzgerald has not ruled out calling Cheney as a witness. It has been previously reported that the vice president cut out Wilson’s article with a pen knife and scrawled questions on it wondering whether Plame sent her husband on a “junket” to Niger to determine the accuracy of allegations that Iraq had tried to buy material to make a nuclear weapon, Plante has reported.

This could, conceivably, have been an interesting thread.

Whatever happened to “Don’t feed the trolls”?

By the way, in my opinion Mr. Libby’s sentence was considerably too light. He was, effectively, committing treason for party-political purposes, presumably because some high-up commanded him to. Sentence the bugger to death, I say, and let him blurt out the truth to save his sordid skin as he walks to the lethal chamber.

Then strap him down and flip the switch.

# 60 is correct in re “jet”. The thread should be about the post, out of courtesy to the author.

The comment threads in Volokh were particularly interesting. Apparently there are a lot of people out there who insist that there is a liberal cabal out to get poor persecuted Republicans, and view the commutation as the triumph of the little guy (President Bush, VP Chief of Staff Libby) against the powerful liberal establishment (Fitzgerald, judges, journalists, juries, the legal system, the CIA, the FBI, the government, liberal bloggers, Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Eugene Volokh, American voters, and so on). I mean, people at that point must be pretty aware of how partisan they are being, but the whole upshot of partisanship is that you don’t care.

Seriously, I can’t even remotely figure out what happened in the Plame thing, but it sounds to me like complaining about the chipped paint while the ship’s taking on water.

Joshua Holmes,
You’ve hit the nail on the head. It is about deliberation breaking down on both sides, with gossip and rumor being held as absolute truth. Just look at the thread above where by asking for any sort of evidence, I was called a wing nut and worse.

I only started commenting because the post was about Republicans/Conservatives saying stupid things, but Democrats/Liberals were doing the exact same thing by saying Libby was part of some Bush conspiracy to out Plame. Where is the evidence? Because the evidence we do have (notes and testimony from reporters) would directly contradict this. The only evidence “the left” has is Bush sold a war he wanted based on the CIA’s (and others’) intelligence, that was shoddy (Yay Wilson and Plame, great job on Niger), hard to believe, and distorted. So he must be evil and thus Libby had to have done it on purpose, whilst poor old innocent Armitage just happened to make the same mistake at roughly the exact same time. So the next time a soldier for “the left” has legal troubles, the right will feel completely justified in the same treatment. Are there no grown ups left in this country?

Scott McLemee should follow Joshua Holmes’ line that Libby&trade is just a symptom of a much sicker problem.

Scott McLemee,

So then you agree with me? In a post pointing out the ridiculous things X is saying, it is perfectly acceptable to also point out the ridiculous things Y is saying?

I started on this thread trying to figure out why it was okay to bash X with stupid things from Y. It is good to see you agree they can both be pointed out at the same time.

I think there may be a misunderstanding. I’m not saying it is okay to bash Y just because we are bashing X. I’m saying if X is saying stupid things in order to bash the stupid things Y is saying, then pointing them out is reasonable.

Heck maybe I’m wrong, and there is compelling evidence that Libby did it on purpose because the VP told him to, and “Libby Did It On Purose”TM wouldn’t destroy conversations between the left and right if only the right could see/hear/understand this evidence.