Libby found guilty

[polluxlm]

Trial testimony made clear that President Bush secretly declassified a portion of the prewar intelligence estimate that Cheney quietly sent Libby to leak to Judith Miller of The New York Times in 2003 to rebut criticism by ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson. Bush, Cheney and Libby were the only three people in the government aware of the effort.

That sounds pretty serious.? Is that an impeachable offense?

It's a very impeachable offense. If it were a citizen he'd be rotting in San Quintin as we speak.

But hey, if they can get away with false wars, rigged elections, illegal arrests and failing to act on a terror attack I guess there's not much we can do.

[Surfrider]

This is the biggest story of the year, why isn't the "liberal" media all over it?

I am assuming that they are getting ready for the indictment to come from Sandy Berger's false statements regarding his removal of classified documents. 

The story has been all over the news.  Maybe you should change the channel from Al Jazeera.

[The Dog]

This is the biggest story of the year, why isn't the "liberal" media all over it?

I am assuming that they are getting ready for the indictment to come from Sandy Berger's false statements regarding his removal of classified documents. 

The story has been all over the news.  Maybe you should change the channel from Al Jazeera.

BLAME CLINTON!!!

hahah this is one of the biggest joke posts I've read all year. 

[Surfrider]

Trial testimony made clear that President Bush secretly declassified a portion of the prewar intelligence estimate that Cheney quietly sent Libby to leak to Judith Miller of The New York Times in 2003 to rebut criticism by ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson. Bush, Cheney and Libby were the only three people in the government aware of the effort.

That sounds pretty serious.? Is that an impeachable offense?

Even assuming this was clear from the testimony, what is the problem with this paragraph?? Is the government not allowed to declasify intelligence in order rebut criticism that it believes is unfounded?? How the heck is that impeachable?

[Surfrider]

This is the biggest story of the year, why isn't the "liberal" media all over it?

I am assuming that they are getting ready for the indictment to come from Sandy Berger's false statements regarding his removal of classified documents.?

The story has been all over the news.? Maybe you should change the channel from Al Jazeera.

BLAME CLINTON!!!

hahah this is one of the biggest joke posts I've read all year.?

The post was a sacrcastic response to the ridiculous post.?

[The Dog]

Trial testimony made clear that President Bush secretly declassified a portion of the prewar intelligence estimate that Cheney quietly sent Libby to leak to Judith Miller of The New York Times in 2003 to rebut criticism by ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson. Bush, Cheney and Libby were the only three people in the government aware of the effort.

That sounds pretty serious.  Is that an impeachable offense?

for the AP to put that statement in the story is downright irresponsible. 

kinda like starting a war for no reason and letting the defeceit get to record highs???

[The Dog]

This is the biggest story of the year, why isn't the "liberal" media all over it?

I am assuming that they are getting ready for the indictment to come from Sandy Berger's false statements regarding his removal of classified documents. 

The story has been all over the news.  Maybe you should change the channel from Al Jazeera.

BLAME CLINTON!!!

hahah this is one of the biggest joke posts I've read all year. 

The post was a sacrcastic response to your ridiculous post. 

too bad it wasn't my post though.....and no offense, but i don't think you were being sarcastic 

[Surfrider]

Trial testimony made clear that President Bush secretly declassified a portion of the prewar intelligence estimate that Cheney quietly sent Libby to leak to Judith Miller of The New York Times in 2003 to rebut criticism by ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson. Bush, Cheney and Libby were the only three people in the government aware of the effort.

That sounds pretty serious.? Is that an impeachable offense?

for the AP to put that statement in the story is downright irresponsible.?

kinda like starting a war for no reason and letting the defeceit get to record highs???

What a witty comeback!

[The Dog]

Trial testimony made clear that President Bush secretly declassified a portion of the prewar intelligence estimate that Cheney quietly sent Libby to leak to Judith Miller of The New York Times in 2003 to rebut criticism by ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson. Bush, Cheney and Libby were the only three people in the government aware of the effort.

That sounds pretty serious.  Is that an impeachable offense?

for the AP to put that statement in the story is downright irresponsible. 

kinda like starting a war for no reason and letting the defeceit get to record highs???

What a witty comeback!

it was a sarcastic response to your ridiculous post.

you seem to be more concerned with how stories are written by the AP than you are by what your government is doing behind closed doors.  I think your priorities are seriously messsed up dude.

[Surfrider]

This is the biggest story of the year, why isn't the "liberal" media all over it?

I am assuming that they are getting ready for the indictment to come from Sandy Berger's false statements regarding his removal of classified documents.?

The story has been all over the news.? Maybe you should change the channel from Al Jazeera.

BLAME CLINTON!!!

hahah this is one of the biggest joke posts I've read all year.?

The post was a sacrcastic response to your ridiculous post.?

too bad it wasn't my post though.....and no offense, but i don't think you were being sarcastic?

No offense taken. ?No offense, but I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "sarcastic."

[Surfrider]

Trial testimony made clear that President Bush secretly declassified a portion of the prewar intelligence estimate that Cheney quietly sent Libby to leak to Judith Miller of The New York Times in 2003 to rebut criticism by ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson. Bush, Cheney and Libby were the only three people in the government aware of the effort.

That sounds pretty serious.? Is that an impeachable offense?

for the AP to put that statement in the story is downright irresponsible.?

kinda like starting a war for no reason and letting the defeceit get to record highs???

What a witty comeback!

it was a sarcastic response to your ridiculous post.

you seem to be more concerned with how stories are written by the AP than you are by what your government is doing behind closed doors.? I think your priorities are seriously messsed up dude.

He gave some false statements.  He should be prosecuted for it just like Clinton and others should.  The only problem I have is that people extrapolate from his false statements to indict people where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.  I have a problem with that more.  I hate the politics that are involved in these things from both sides.  I am simply tired and worn out from it.

[GeorgeSteele]

Trial testimony made clear that President Bush secretly declassified a portion of the prewar intelligence estimate that Cheney quietly sent Libby to leak to Judith Miller of The New York Times in 2003 to rebut criticism by ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson. Bush, Cheney and Libby were the only three people in the government aware of the effort.

That sounds pretty serious.? Is that an impeachable offense?

Now the media is making conclusions based on testimony instead of reporting testimony. ?This is absolutely false. ?There is no evidence supporting this from the trial. ?This paragraph is completely the writer's own extrapolation. ?Noticeably, the write fails to cite from which testimony this is "clear" from. ?Not to say that this couldn't have happened, but for the AP to put that statement in the story is downright irresponsible. ?

Even assuming this was clear from the testimony, what is the problem with this paragraph?? Is the government not allowed to declasify intelligence in order rebut criticism that it believes is unfounded?? How the heck is that impeachable?

First of all, there's no need to assume anything. ?Bush admitted to declassifying the prewar intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq, he just denies that the information he declassified included Valerie Plame's identity.

At a minimum, it was a blatant misinformation campaign. ?U.S. intelligence at the time bolstered the position that the Iraq WMD claim was not supported by evidence. But the information that the White House selectively released (which was proved to be false) supported the administration's stance.

[freedom78]

i have to say that i dont condone voting for extremist parties.

i was just asking where do the votes of the people who are tired of this bullshit go?
i mean, this whole admnistration is blatently liars, crooks and incompetents ....

There are a few basic responses:

1.) Unlike France, we don't have "rounds" in our Presidential election.  So, you can't cast a protest vote in round 1, and then a major party vote in round 2.  Many feel that casting their vote for a third party is "wasting" a vote.  Some will point to Nader voters in 2000, and ask "Did those votes allow Bush to win?"  In politics, any government seat that is decided by majoritarian rules (winner-take-all) usually comes back to a two party system.  In some places, the UK for example, the two parties that dominate given districts tends to vary by region.  So, it APPEARS that the UK has a multi-party system, when in fact there are usually two parties that are truly competitive for each seat.  Places where the Tories, for example, do poorly, are contested more hotly by Labour and Liberal.  In Scotland, the SNP and Labour tend to dominate...and so on.  In the US, though, two parties have managed to get their greasy hands on the whole map.

2.) We're ALL tired of the bullshit...but apparently we have short memories.  So, every so often we stop voting for a party that has proved inept and corrupt, and vote for another party that has proved to be inept and corrupt, but probably hasn't been as inept or corrupt, recently.  Then, when that goes bad, we switch back again. 

3.) I wouldn't call our three most important third parties (The Green, Libertarian, and Reform parties) "extremist" parties, so it has little to do with that.  Parties that are based on racism, for some reason, do much better in Europe, despite the fact that the US has a very racist past (and some would argue a somewhat racist present).     

[Bodhi]

Fox news have the best sources

i believe they are talking about the one out of 5 things Libby was actually Not Guilty on...but still that headline on the screen is very misleading...should have said something like "libby found guilty on 4 out of 5"  or something like that....

[Jim]

This is the biggest story of the year, why isn't the "liberal" media all over it?

Our ''liberal media'' are, the Independent ran it front cover.   

[SLCPUNK]

My post was more of a slam against our joke of a media who have been obsessed with Ann Nichole, before anything else. I  wrote it poorly.

Anybody take a stab at Gekko's question yet?

[polluxlm]

This should/could have gone higher up the food chain.? No way Cheney is 100% innocent here.

There are sooooo many things since Bush got elected that could/should be investigated, I just hope I'm still alive for when most of the investigations are complete.....

The questions the conservatives on this forum need to answer is this: if Libby, one of the key architects of the Iraqi War propaganda rationales lied here, why would one think that he and his boss Cheney were not lying about everything?

From the obvious answer to that, the next logical conclusion is that the justifications for the War in Iraq were fabricated in order to con this country and its Congress into a war. Which brings up another interesting question: can the President pardon someone who is part of the same criminal conspiracy the President himself is a party too? Did the Founders intend that the President could use pardons to further his own lawlessness?

The founders principles are all but a memory at this point, and has been for a long long time.

There can be little doubt among intelligent people that this administration is nothing but a bunch of criminals with the law in their hands (sometimes not even that) looking to further their own agenda. The question is what can we do about it? Next to little it seems. A revolution seems the only viable option left, but the medias firm grip has prevented the public from accepting such steps, yet.

[Surfrider]

This should/could have gone higher up the food chain.? No way Cheney is 100% innocent here.

There are sooooo many things since Bush got elected that could/should be investigated, I just hope I'm still alive for when most of the investigations are complete.....

The questions the conservatives on this forum need to answer is this: if Libby, one of the key architects of the Iraqi War propaganda rationales lied here, why would one think that he and his boss Cheney were not lying about everything?

There may be other instances of lies.  However, one lie by one person in one circumstance does not mean that other people lied about unrelated matters.  Your illogic an be used to prove anything against anyone.

From the obvious answer to that, the next logical conclusion is that the justifications for the War in Iraq were fabricated in order to con this country and its Congress into a war.

That is an absurd and huge leap from the statements above.

Which brings up another interesting question: can the President pardon someone who is part of the same criminal conspiracy the President himself is a party too? Did the Founders intend that the President could use pardons to further his own lawlessness?

This begs the question as to which law exactly you believe the President violated?