No comments on Libby?

POINTER94 · Oct 29, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

PierBridge, Perhaps you will find this amusing. "Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:48 p.m. EDT John Kerry Outed Undercover CIA Agent Sen. John Kerry, who called for Karl Rove to be fired over allegations that he revealed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, outed a genuine undercover CIA agent just this past April - even after the agency asked that his identity be kept secret. Kerry blew the cover of CIA secret operative Fulton Armstrong during confirmation hearings for U.N. ambassador nominee John Bolton." I suppose you would like a special investigation of this as well. And this was some people's idea of good presidental material. All this cuz he had a political axe to grind. No party has a moral high ground regarding this type of leak/stuff. It all has to do with party politics - not the good of the American people. Sad.

DJ · Oct 29, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

No party has a moral high ground regarding this type of leak/stuff. It all has to do with party politics - not the good of the American people. Sad.

Agreed.

pjc · Oct 29, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

PW2 trolled you all.........

rodbolt · Oct 29, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

pointer I heard something about that but never could get any good dope on it. if he did it the CIA should ask for the same investigation if it has not already. both parties seem to be to entrenched anymore. its time to go with lifetime term limits on the congress,house and senate and see if a bit can be cleaned out. its funny almost, but I am down to voting for whoever I think will lie the least and do the least damage to the country while lining their pockets and prepping their library.

mrbscott19 · Oct 29, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

Originally posted by POINTER94: PierBridge, Perhaps you will find this amusing. "Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:48 p.m. EDT John Kerry Outed Undercover CIA Agent Sen. John Kerry, who called for Karl Rove to be fired over allegations that he revealed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, outed a genuine undercover CIA agent just this past April - even after the agency asked that his identity be kept secret. Kerry blew the cover of CIA secret operative Fulton Armstrong during confirmation hearings for U.N. ambassador nominee John Bolton." I suppose you would like a special investigation of this as well. And this was some people's idea of good presidental material. All this cuz he had a political axe to grind. No party has a moral high ground regarding this type of leak/stuff. It all has to do with party politics - not the good of the American people. Sad.

You got a link?

POINTER94 · Oct 29, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

yep. Check c-span as well they covered it live. www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/14/225202.shtml

12Footer · Oct 29, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

Originally posted by PW2: No one wants to comment on Libby being indicted? I'm disappointed! I hear bunches of pundits trying to spin this as a "technicality" and that is simply incredible to me. How can you get more serious than lying to investigators, and lying to a grand jury, on a matter of national security? Sadly, it does appear that he was successful, for now at least, in obstructing justice. I read the indictment, and it seemed to me a reasonably clumsy and transparent attempt at deceiving investigators, and from what I have heard of Libby, he may be a lot of things, but he is neither clumsy nor transparent. So you have to ask why now? I don't know the answer, but one has to assume he is purposefully falling on his sword to protect someone. Hopefully, someday we will learn the whole story. I can't wait for the trial, and the thought of getting Cheney and Fleischer et al on the witness stand, and under oath. It could be seriously informative

Just one comment, and that is that liberal intent is as transparent in this inquistition as it was with Sheehan's "vigil", innacurate reporting of post-Katrina in N/O, and the Bush/National Gaurd document creation episodes all combined. Ok, PW....One more. I predict a backlash to this latest witch hunt that will make Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' backlash to their fabrication look like an old Beavis and Buthead episode.

rodbolt · Oct 29, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

wow I found some interesting articles while trying to figgue out a timeline for who said what and to whom including some background. seems not only was a CIA operative outed, she was still employed by a also outed CIA front company according to her w2 form on a sec document, it seems to have affected a lot of others. I did not realize that she was a 20 year veteran NOC. a NOC is about the most dangerous you can get cause then the govt has the plausible deniability thing. some of the monky motions on the handling of secret documents are funny. I held a secret for some years, some things I still cannot confirm nor deny. yet to look at secret documents there are TWO materiel things, one is the proper clearence and the other is NEED to know. as an FC I could go down to the classified libray and requests secret pubs and documents pertaining to my NEC. I could not ask for documents or pubs pertaining to anything else even though I had the clearence. to so would have most likly ended with my immediate detention by the chief master at arms. so as far as passing secret documnts around that may have violated several laws. if I checked out a classified pub and an ET with the same clearence asked to see it not only was I mandated by federal law to safegaurd it,unless he had a need to know, I was mandated to report the possible attempt. the upcoming trial and any future indictments will be interesting. sad but interesting. this is not a time for either party to gloat but to find out how much damage was done and correct it. read some of these sites and let me know if they seem credible. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40012-2003Oct3&notFound=true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Justice_Department_investigation http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpchearing.cfm?A=23 seems some of the information is backed up by some credible sources. seems this is a lot broader than just some people mad at each other. the US taxpayer had quite a bit of time,training and money involved with Valerie as well as the CIA front company and the far reaching signals for future intelligence.

roscoe · Oct 29, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

future trial? Hardly. Plea deal to come. details to remain secret.

Haut Medoc · Oct 29, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

Rodbolt, I agree....When the manifolds/bellows get too old....Replace them....Many an engine has been lost due to improper maintenence..If you go to Dougrussell.com you can find out almost annithin'. There are alot of places to find out way too much or not enough. The emperor has no clothes! (and his lackeys, too)....And it's way overdue....Bill got a bj and lied, cos' he didn't want our next president to know about it....There are white lies, grey lies, yaller lies, & black ones .....One has to figure out what is really important & what really isn't...It's just lame to hear people blather about right and wrong when it suits their particular needs...I am neither a repulican or Democrat, I like to think of myself as an independant, but it always seems to me that the republicans always have alot of hard-core issues to cover up....Our governmemt is scary! IMHO....JK

rodbolt · Oct 29, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

wow its on the TV now. they are even saying bush needs to clean house before the state of the union address in jan. like Reagan had to. but I do find it funny that just as the dumbocrats stayed quiet while clinton did his thing the rehubs are now doing the same quiet dance. I am terribly glad I am not afflicted with either party. I just try to vote for whoever seems they will lie the least and do the least damage to the country while prepping their libray. I did find a funny slogan for the next election bumber stiker

it says"at least I was not indicted" Roscoe I sadly fear your right. its way beyond a matter of political backbiting and has devolved into something that may affect the intell community and national security for years. it has to be found who did what and if improprieties have taken place delt with with the utmost speed and to the full extent of the law with no leinency nor clemency nor presidential pardons.

Haut Medoc · Oct 29, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

Roscoe & Rodbolt, I agree again...Libby will take the fall and the rest will get swept under the rug, (if they will fit). I, personally take a large hammer to the rug when there is a bump, but I digress....I like to stay in the middle because the 'Dumbocrats'

Nice! & the Repubrehensibles

can't come to anywhere close to terms to try to run our nation...And it all suffers because of it..This nation is divided (seriously)....Political pardons should not be extended to politicians...Or executive pardons either....Ford ala Nixon...ET al...JK

12Footer · Oct 30, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

Originally posted by J.kopec: Rodbolt, I agree....When the manifolds/bellows get too old....Replace them....Many an engine has been lost due to improper maintenence..If you go to Dougrussell.com you can find out almost annithin'. There are alot of places to find out way too much or not enough. The emperor has no clothes! (and his lackeys, too)....And it's way overdue....Bill got a bj and lied, cos' he didn't want our next president to know about it....There are white lies, grey lies, yaller lies, & black ones .....One has to figure out what is really important & what really isn't...It's just lame to hear people blather about right and wrong when it suits their particular needs...I am neither a repulican or Democrat, I like to think of myself as an independant, but it always seems to me that the republicans always have alot of hard-core issues to cover up....Our governmemt is scary! IMHO....JK

The manifolds/bellows were shored-up with chewin gum and duct tape for yer boy Clinton, by an enterage of droogies nipping ast his heals. I can best describe my outrage over this dual-standard, through a quote from Rush Limbaugh on Friday's radio program; "I don't support perjury or lying to investigators, and I'm not going to fluff it off, and I'm not going to say, "What's the big deal?" I am going to point out the differences in these two cases, though. In the Clinton case, it wasn't just about sex. There was lying under oath, cited as such by a federal judge. There was suborning perjury on the part of Monica Lewinsky. He wrote for her a false affidavit that she presented. He conducted from the highest levels of this government, the Oval Office, Bill Clinton conducted an entire attempt to obstruct justice and lie, and he did lie under oath. That was the president of the United States, and he was not indicted. He had his law license suspended, and he was disbarred from the Supreme Court for a number of years from trying cases or working at the Supreme Court as a lawyer, but the independent counsel said, "Well, he's the highest man in the government. This just wouldn't be right. We're not going to indict," and Mrs. Clinton, by the way, the independent counsel said that she "made materially false statements in her grand jury testimony [the travel office firings], but they decided not to indict her, either. They thought that she had made materially false statements and that the statements couldn't be squared, but nothing was done. Now, what is this case? This case is about -- and we've been at it now for two years -- this case is about finding out who supposedly broke the law in leaking the name of Valerie Plame and making that name public. She, a valued and brave and courageous CIA agent, and after two years, we apparently don't have any evidence that a crime of such was committed. We don't have any evidence whatsoever that that was a crime. So after two years this independent counsel decides to indict Libby on perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators. Now, you're not going to have me sit here and defend any of that. I'm not going to defend lying to investigators but I am going to point out to you the differences in how justice is applied and let you make the call on this. To me, it's rather obvious---" (Rush Limbaugh) Given the fact that i lived that history too, and strill havent forgotten the shame i whitnessed on display ("I never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski"), i'll have to say "DITTOS, RUSH!" It's obvious to me what is going on here in actuality. No sugar-coating is required. No stretches of logical thought are required, to smell a first degree witch-hunt!! That's my only conclusion of the Libby inquisition as of now, (at least, until the magistrate hands-down his "conviction" -- (and given the liberal bias of the venue, I'll conclude independently to that magistrate). And if anyone here finds Libby guilty as of this time, they are as transparently-partisan, as this enbtire witch hunt has been up to this point. In the meantime, enjoy your lynch-mob. It is the last gasps of a dying political party.

POINTER94 · Oct 30, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

12footer, I am not with you or against you. I will say that the tempest in a teapot that we see here is clearly partisian politics. If it weren't why wasn't Wilson indicted for lying that his wife didn't get him the overseas gig? Throw in Hillary's lost billing records found under the bed after 3years of searching, (liar), buddist monks with a vow of poverty handing bags of money to our VP Gore, missile technology handed over to the chineese for campaign contributions, Sandy Burgler stealing top secret memo's and stuffing them down his pants and sock and he got what? This is series stuff. The legal system is in league with the politicians to just keep it quiet, I am sure for "the good of the American people". Hillary's secret meetings on the takeover of the healthcare industry, where is the outrage. Someone who openly outed a CIA agent, even after being warned prior to the hearing, John Kerry, doesn't raise any outrage with those would would try to link Libbys "indictment" based on information in a closed hearing. I wonder why. Because the outrage isn't about anything but politics. I find both parties guilty of lying and have equal contempt for each. Lying in public service should be punished harshly. Why, because currently there is little or no ramifications for doing so. Our judicial system relies on truthful testimony, but why tell the truth, there is no downside to it. Lying in court should be a crime against society. Because it is. I am a conservative, but Bush has not provided the specific approach to the idiologies that motivated me to vote for him. I also love the fact that yet another republican is painted as stupid by the left. (Reagan was a senile idiot, Bush 41 a mental marshmellow, Ford a bumbling fool) They don't get it. Like any good leader it is who you surround yourself with that makes a good team. Who would you rather have in a time of crisis, Al Gore or D. Cheney? Anyone getting wet in the pants over the Libby thing really should check their moral balance scale against what the past 50 years shows to be a pattern of government that looks more and more like an oligarchy.

rodbolt · Oct 30, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

even if no "laws" were broken several top officials have done irreparable damage to the CIA and the covert team. regardless of any technicality. the latest is the 5 year limit. now they say it was 5.5 years she was incountry. like .5 year is going to make a difference. GWaka backpeddale, needs to start fire folks and attempt to restore some confidence. the amount of truth twisting and quasi-legal things are beginning to undermine confidence both here and abroad. but I dont see a witch hunt, the CIA had some concerns, they turned it over to the justice dept. in the course of the investigation by an independant non washington investigator appearently some inconsistancies in testimonies appered. on further investigation seems maybe some of the inconsistancies were intentionly misleading statements. thats what the indictment of Libby is for. so at a trial by his peers,maybe, the truth can be found. was it a regan era"i dont recall" or an outright attempt to obstruct an investigation with misleading statements. the second thing that needs to be found is were any classified information confirmed by an officila. there are still things you can find about the USS Arliegh Burke in about any source like Janes fighting ships that are still classified. even though its in print its classified. if you ask about an article and I confirm it I am subject to prosecution because I have the knowledge its classified so I can neither confirm nor deny. I even had to sign some documnts about it when exiting active duty. looking at the amount of blacked out pages in the testimony it seems some damage to national security has been done. the CIA is also looking at damage to others using the CIA front company that was outed and the possibility of others being outed by association with valerie or the front company. I dont know how much you have done overseas but most non european places require a passport number for even credit card transactions or motel rooms. and foriegn intell operatives are almost as good as ours. its not hard to track a non citizen and their associates in a foriegn country. and without a black passort your pooched if caught. and not all countries have proof laws like ours. thats why anytime I am outconus I carry my passport and my military ID card. I would hate to be stopped and associated with the US military without my ID card. that alone could be treatred as espionage in some countries. so 12ftr your argument for any comparison to clinton dont hold water or holds it like a landing net. so even if the law on INTENTIONALY outing an operative was not broken there are several others that may have been concerning the handling of secret documents. I dont know how much actual training you have in the handling and safeguarding of secret documents but the book is about 3 inches thck. that is why there are TWO criteria for acessing secret documents, one is the clearence and two is the NEED to know, why would rove or libby need to know the status of a covert operative in the normal couse of looking at her husband? thats what the investigation is looking at. if you look at some of the references on the websites I posted above it gives the specific federal codes and the application of them as well as the penalties for violations. even if no one is actually convicted there is evidence of very poor judgement and heads need to roll to rebuild the confidence of those with their arse on the line. so I will wait for the trail,or the ple bargin, and see what happens. I was actually hoping nothing would be found but it seems there is more to it than the original CIA asking to look into one law being broken.

Skinnywater · Oct 30, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

No party has a moral high ground regarding this type of leak/stuff. It all has to do with party politics - not the good of the American people. Sad.

Agreed.

Yeah, let them argue if crap stinks if the wind blows from the North or if it blows from the South. We'll just say crap stinks.

rodbolt · Oct 30, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

im with ya skinny but I did see the anonomous star on the CIA honor board that the CIA says COULD be from the fallout of the outed CIA front company. time will tell and maybe we will never know who that star represents or why the operative lost its life. so if the crap stinks lets clean it up and properly dispose of it not just bury it in the sandbox.

K5WAS · Oct 30, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

Rodbolt: K5was maybe you can direct us to a CIA approved site that lists Plames previous CIA posts back to where she was covert. would make interesting reading. I never said that I was privy to any CIA information, You asked where I got my infomation and I replied the (tv) news (FOX). looking at the amount of blacked out pages in the testimony it seems some damage to national security has been done. the CIA is also looking at damage to others using the CIA front company that was outed and the possibility of others being outed by association with valerie or the front company. It seems that you are spinning here as you have no idea what is blacked out. Since the "front company has been "outed" how about telling us the name of the company. If that is not public knowledge it hasn't been outed, has it?

12Footer · Oct 30, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

Originally posted by rodbolt: so 12ftr your argument for any comparison to clinton dont hold water or holds it like a landing net. so even if the law on INTENTIONALY outing an operative was not broken there are several others that may have been concerning the handling of secret documents. I dont know how much actual training you have in the handling and safeguarding of secret documents but the book is about 3 inches thck.

Then, you and i are in agreement regarding the differences. I was not the one who originally stooped to drawing simularities, but was replying to it. As Pointer said (even tho he niether agrees, or disagrees with my opinion), "the tempest in a teapot that we see here is clearly partisian politics. "

Originally posted by rodbolt: that is why there are TWO criteria for acessing secret documents, one is the clearence and two is the NEED to know, why would rove or libby need to know the status of a covert operative in the normal couse of looking at her husband?

My personal answer is that it is probably because they advise the president, and other than having that right, they are supposed to. I am not being condecsending there, just finding it hard to complicate a simple question with 'law verbage'. The question should be, why does the media need to know? I mean, if the "leak was so detrimental to national security", (as claimed), why are the recent findings in the "FOOD FOR OIL" inquisition being totally ignored in the media, in favor of this story? Another good non-partison question to ask is , why do we allow for "American" media's and other's support of the enemy, by failing to indict under aiding and abedding the enemy durring wartime? The answer i suggest is that there is a genuine double-standard, and it is partison in nature. It is a battle for power, using tried and true weapons that have won victory in the past, for those that engage them (read:watergate).

Originally posted by rodbolt: thats what the investigation is looking at. if you look at some of the references on the websites I posted above it gives the specific federal codes and the application of them as well as the penalties for violations. even if no one is actually convicted there is evidence of very poor judgement and heads need to roll to rebuild the confidence of those with their arse on the line. so I will wait for the trail,or the ple bargin, and see what happens. I was actually hoping nothing would be found but it seems there is more to it than the original CIA asking to look into one law being broken.

No..this "investigation" is about bringing down the governemt, and installing a {shall we say}"friendlier" form of government in the anarchic vaccuum that is left. I think i see this "investigation" for just what it is. I will also wait for the hammer to drop on this one tho, before forming any opinion on all of those "participating".

demsvmejm · Oct 30, 2005

Re: No comments on Libby?

It's a political witch-hunt. It's all partisan politics and mudslinging. Do I sound like a pathetic Redumblican yet? As a mostly-intelligent American who can think for himself, I see a very profound similiarity between this "witch-hunt" of secret information being made public and the ruthless investigation that caused the last president to lie. Either way, the person being investigated lied, plain and simple. One caused us to inspect the oval office for certain stains in the carpet, the other caused us to fear for the security and safety of our spies. Which one seems worse? When Clinton lied, no one could have died. As I remarked to my wife last night, Clinton had his scandals, seems like two, Whitewater, and Lewinsky. I'm sure there were more, and I'm sure you all will make me acutely aware of them. But baby bush seems to have never ending bad news. Seems like baby bush is either doing a really poor job of being held to a higher standard (of job performance), or the party in power really is not the redumblican party. So get over it. Obviously Libby has some appearance of impropriety and some evidence against him of wrong-doing or else the Grand Jury couldn't have indicted him. Oh, yeah that's right it's a left-wing conspiracy to seat an entirely Democratic Grand Jury in order to guarantee an indictment.

No comments on Libby?

Vice Admiral

DJ

Guest

Lieutenant Commander

Supreme Mariner

Chief Petty Officer

Vice Admiral

Fleet Admiral

Supreme Mariner

Supreme Mariner

Supreme Mariner

Supreme Mariner

Supreme Mariner

Fleet Admiral

Vice Admiral

Supreme Mariner

Commander

Supreme Mariner

Seaman

Fleet Admiral

Master Chief Petty Officer