On Tuesday, jury selection began in the trial of Lewis Libby. And "Good Morning America" reporter Claire Shipman couldn’t resist spinning this occasion into an attack against President Bush. Libby, the former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. He does not, however, face prosecution for publically outing Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame. However, through sloppy phrasing and omission, Shipman encouraged the assumption that this is yet another example of the Bush administration’s misconduct. The most brazen example is the GMA reporter’s description of the "original crime":
Claire Shipman: "Prosecutors are trying to show that Libby lied to investigators about conversations he had with reporters regarding CIA officer Valerie Plame, the undercover agent who was outed. Libby blames a faulty memory. And in classic Washington style, Libby isn't in trouble for the original crime, outing Plame, but, rather, the, quote, ‘the cover up,’ according to the prosecutor."
No government official has been charged with revealing the identity of Valerie Plame. So, how can there be an "original crime?"
Just a few minutes earlier, Shipman began the piece, which aired at 7:12am, by allowing Lanny Davis, former Special Counsel to Bill Clinton, to make the case that this is one more woe for the Bush White House:
Diane Sawyer: "Well, now we turn to the trial that has all the makings of a political thriller. The white hot center? A former White House insider, one of Vice President's Dick Cheney's inner circle. Jury selection begins today in the trial of the Vice President's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, who faces charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. And GMA Senior national correspondent Claire Shipman has more from Washington. Claire?"
Claire Shipman: "Good Morning, Diane. Well, Scooter Libby has been called Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney, a master of discretion. And this public trial promises to be something of a high profile blood letting. It will pit senior White House officials against senior Vice Presidential officials, those Vice Presidential officials against prominent journalists. And, of course, the central subject matter, Iraq is just devastating for the White House right now. The brutal spotlight falls on Vice President's Cheney former right-hand man, Scooter Libby, and the questionable tactics used to justify the war in Iraq, just as the President is trying to gain some traction on the unpopular war."
Lanny Davis (Fmr. Special Counsel to President Clinton) "I can also imagine Tony Snow behind closed doors saying, ‘Oh my God, of all things we have to face is a trial when we're facing all this stuff in Iraq. This couldn’t happen at a worse time.’"
Again, this case is about perjury. And yet, Shipman chose to focus on the questionable tactics Libby and others used to "justify the war in Iraq." She continued:
Shipman: "On the star studded witness list, the Vice President, former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, and prominent journalists, like ‘Meet the Press’ host Tim Russert. Prosecutors are trying to show that Libby lied to investigators about conversations he had with reporters regarding CIA officer Valerie Plame, the undercover agent who was outed. Libby blames a faulty memory. And in classic Washington style, Libby isn't in trouble for the original crime, outing Plame, but, rather, the, quote, ‘the cover up,’ according to the prosecutor."
Michael Isikoff (Investigative correspondent, Newsweek) "What he's arguing in court is that Scooter Libby lied about what he did know and what he did say to reporters about her."
Shipman: "Indeed, Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff in his book ‘Hubris,’ revealed that it was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who originally leaked Plame's identity. Still, prosecutors are hoping to show that the Vice President and his staff had an organized and memorable campaign to leak negative stories about Plame and her husband, retired ambassador Joe Wilson. Why? Wilson had traveled to Africa for the CIA to check on reports that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. When he got back, Wilson publicly discredited those reports, angering the Vice President. So far, all the Vice President has said is that he stands by his man."
Dick Cheney: "I believe he's one of the more honest men I know."
Shipman: "Now, this will be a hard case for prosecutors to make. If Libby is convicted, though, he could face up to 30 years in prison. There will be no cameras in the courtroom, Robin, but in something of a twist, bloggers for the first time, will be allowed in the federal courts. We'll be able to see the proceedings on the blogs as well."
Shipman neglected to cite some extremely salient facts in her report. For starters, there’s no mention of the fact that Wilson’s wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, actually sent Wilson on the trip to Africa. Secondly, the former ambassador, who "publically discredited" Bush administration claims about WMDs, has himself been discredited. Clifford May recounted the undoing of Wilson’s claims in a July 12, 2004 NRO piece:
"And for the New York Times, [Wilson] was happy to put pen to paper, to write an op-ed charging the Bush administration with ‘twisting,’ ‘manipulating’ and ‘exaggerating’ intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs ‘to justify an invasion.’ In particular he said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: ‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate. The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was ‘reasonable’ (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger."
In July of 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee published a report essentially saying that everything Joseph Wilson said was a lie. All of this, however, went unmentioned in Shipman’s piece.
Finally, the ABC reporter noted that "prosecutors are hoping to show that the Vice President and his staff had an organized and memorable campaign to leak negative stories about Plame and her husband, retired ambassador Joe Wilson." Since when is that a crime? Perhaps Ms. Shipman didn’t notice, but the Clinton administration waged a few organized campaigns against people like Ken Starr and Paula Jones.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This just in...
January 16, 2007 - 17:55 ET by JJVThis just in....Claire Shipman story on a real national security breach, Sandy Berger stealing documents from the National Archives, still has yet to appear.
Shipwreck!
January 16, 2007 - 21:21 ET by BBallleaperI saw this brazen bitch live this morning (flipping channels) and I literally wanted to climb through the TV screen and strangle her! The arrogance, the conceit, the bold face lying. Her smug visage revealing her hatred. It was nauseous TV at it's worst. Probably still mad that the "Bent One" didn't do her in the pantry!
I remember seeing her on CSPAN once
January 16, 2007 - 23:30 ET by terrigThis stupid bitch was at this awards thing that President Clinton had at the White House for someone or another and it was on C SPAN. Well all the press was there but there was old Claire looking at him like he was the "it" boy in seventh grade. She was tilting her head and shifting her legs. It was funny as hell.
terri,That was one heck of a
January 16, 2007 - 23:39 ET by Blondeterri,
That was one heck of a word pic you just painted!
Laughing.
Glad I could make you laugh
January 16, 2007 - 23:45 ET by terrigGlad I could make you laugh, Blonde. I guess I have to stop for a while. The little boy is calling for his momma. He was all day playing with another little boy with their Thomas the Tank Engine toys. I trip over those things every day!
In the post on the criticism
January 16, 2007 - 18:01 ET by Chris NormanIn the post on the criticism of 24, the guy charges that it causes "the public to lose some of it's perspective on what's real and what's not". I commented that it was actually the MSM that caused this result every day on their newscasts. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
amen to that bro. i was goin
January 16, 2007 - 20:15 ET by buddycamen to that bro.
i was going to say no 24 does not cause the public to lose some of its perspective but msnbc and the ny times do!
This whole case is a fraud dr
January 16, 2007 - 18:10 ET by mattmThis whole case is a fraud dreamed up by a bunch of Bush-haters trying to get revenge for the impeachment of the Sex-Offender in Chief.
If Libby is exonnerated, which is what should happen, the lying slimebags in the MSM will spin it as a crook getting away with it because of corruption.
...but, of course, Sandy Burglar was just sloppy...
Hate to give Clinton credit, however...
January 16, 2007 - 18:13 ET by Gary HallI hate to give President Clinton much credit here -- of course the media Did Not want the public to hear what he said on Larry King Live on July 22, 2003 - but Clinton did put the entire 16 words in their proper perspective. Had the media made Clinton's view a part of the discussion, the dialog, the debate for the many months that followed Joe Wilson's conspiracy-like effort to defraud the administration, would have been rather tame, and I suspect Libby would not have a court date.
KING: President, maybe I can get an area where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats, in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt with nuclear weaponry in Africa?
CLINTON: Well, I have a little different take on it, I think, than either side. (note: not what King expected to hear - love it)
First of all, the White House said -- Mr. Fleischer said -- that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn't have put it in.
Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.
I mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.
KING: What do you do, Mr. President, with what's put in front of you?
CLINTON: Well, here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11 -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought. They maybe have a difference of opinion, but on balance, they decided they should leave that line in the speech.
I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks...
DOLE: That's right.
CLINTON: ... of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there.
KING: Yes.
CLINTON: And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?
We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq. We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way. But this State of the Union deal they decided to use the British intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence. Then they said on balance they shouldn't have done it. You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think.
One out of 100 times he stumb
January 16, 2007 - 18:59 ET by mattmOne out of 100 times he stumbles onto the truth... Credit? Not much.
99.9% of Clinton's comments about Bush have been negative. He has defied all traditional decency and tact in his unprecedented criticism of his successor.
Only twice, since 2000 have I heard anything remotely positive from him about Bush: this thing you refer to, and in 2004, when he warned Kerry not to underestimate Bush's campaigning ability. (Probably why Hitlery is waiting for '08 to run)
Credit for Billy? Nope. Uh-uh. no way. zilch.
When Clinton says "we never g
January 16, 2007 - 19:34 ET by blarsenWhen Clinton says "we never got to go back in there" he means U.N. weapons inspectors during his administration. Weapons inspectors went back in during late 2002 until early 2003. It was a fallacy that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in, they were already there. Bush/Blair pulled them out only to have the military continue looking for WMD which they never did find.
From CBS News:
Some of the inspectors were wearing their blue U.N. caps and waved to reporters as they left the terminal Tuesday.
"It's unfortunate we have to leave now," Ueki said at the airport. "I think all the inspectors and support staff have done our best."
U.N. weapons inspectors arrived in Baghdad for the first time in four years on Nov. 27, 2002 and resumed inspections two days later. During four months of inspections, arms experts traveled the length of the country hunting for banned weapons of mass destruction.
Just remember that the casus
January 16, 2007 - 21:01 ET by UnsaneJust remember that the casus belli existed as soon as the jets patrolling the "no-fly" zones got lit up by SAM radar.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Why would you not acknowledge
January 16, 2007 - 21:24 ET by Andrew H.Why would you not acknowledge the inspectors were not allowed to inspect?
God, I wish people--and this dense reporter would stop MAKING UP "NEWS."
We are at war. Hussein was a threat. He is gone and now there is murder being committed by Iran and al qaeda--and factions in Iraq. If we leave it alone, we will be attacked again. What is so hard for the left to understand about that?
You are wrong and you know you are--what is your motive to suggest there were inspections?
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Validation
January 16, 2007 - 22:08 ET by acumen"....what is your motive to suggest there were inspections?"
As I am sure you already know Andrew, the motive is validation for hatred of GWB, Republicans and anything/one remotely similar. Best I can figure, we owe it all to Hillary, spinning her best to validate her promiscuous husband. Instead of blaming her husband for his adulterous behavior, she created the mythological VRWC to blame, in effect dividing the Country between some supposedly evil, incredibly large, ultra-conservative organized group of conspirators out to get her man against the humble, everyday-folk, Big Mac eating, villified Clintons just trying to work so hard for the American people. In the right corner, wearing red trunks, the evil VRWC. In the left corner, wearing pretty in pink trunks, the victim tag-team Bill and Hill. Choose sides America - validation of adultery is at stake here.
Unfortunately for the left, they can no more defend their positions with factual substance than they can demonstrate the existence of some VRWC. So the left resorts to make-believe (it's not a baby in the womb, this is the worst economy since the great depression, Bush doesn't like blacks, Saddam was bad for the US, If we invade Iraq the Arab street will erupt, global warming causes hurricanes, tax cuts only help the rich, and more to the point - inspectors were allowed to inspect under Saddam, etc., etc). If the facts don't validate the left's silly arguments they seem to resort to yet more outrageous claims for validation - if for nothing else, only to massage their massive egos. Kerry's "botched joke" comes to mind.
Mattm, blarsen
January 16, 2007 - 21:27 ET by Gary HallI could not agree more with both comments - yet I wonder if you got a bit twisted on my first couple of words, and missed the point - the entire point of what I noted in reference to Clinton was one of media bias. Clinton's view takes the wind out of so much of the media's entire agenda - on WMD's and on the Wilson/Plame/Libby story. This media, which is always there to quote Clinton when it suits their agenda, is quick to look the other way when they don't like what he had to say. what say you?
again, I noted:
I knew what you meant. I jus
January 17, 2007 - 02:14 ET by mattmI knew what you meant. I just couldn't help myself...
The U.N. weapons inspectors w
January 17, 2007 - 02:22 ET by mattmThe U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out in 1998, after being taken on a wild goose chase for at least two years. This was one of several violations of the cease-fire agreement that ended the first Gulf War. Any single violation justified military action against Saddam's regime-WMD or no WMD.
Clinton, dropped a few bombs and talked tough, Bush took Saddam out. The only thing to do now is keep hammering the Islamo-fascist terrorists until they give up or until they're dead...it would help if certain people in America would join our side, instead of abetting the enemy...
blarsens probably one of tho
January 17, 2007 - 02:44 ET by mastersofdeceitblarsens probably one of those people that go around parroting such nonsense as "Hans Blix was satisfied" (blix was not 100% satisfied with the co-operation they got) and " Iraq was secular ".
These bloody inspectors could
January 17, 2007 - 03:31 ET by NL207These bloody inspectors couldn't have been looking very hard for WMD. We found plenty of them in small lots all over Iraq. Somehow, 20 tons of these turned up in the hands of Al Qaeda in 2004. This last lot were siezed when Jordanian authorities broke up the planned Al Qaeda chemical attack on Amman. If you lke refrences, they've been citred many times here in the past.
The only fallacies here are the myriad 'no WMD lies' goof bags like you are promoting, people who go around saying things like "These aren't the weapons we were looking for." Isn't that some cheesy line from the original Star Wars movie? Or was that 'droids they were talking about And aren't the audiences who believe this liberal clap trap about no WMD about as guillible as the Stormtrooper goons in Star Wars were?
The Media Mind Trick
January 17, 2007 - 03:51 ET by UnsaneThe Media Mind Trick is quite effective on weak, non-critical thinking minds.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???" - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
WMD's
January 17, 2007 - 20:12 ET by JimboWhat the liberals love to forget (or intentionally omit) is that it was never the job of the United States to prove that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction. It was Sadaam's job to prove that he didn't. He refused to do that, either becasue he truly believed he had them, or made the worst bluff of the last 100 years. Either way, invasion was completely justified and lawful.
If it was a bluff, he miscalculated by assuming President Bush would be as passive and poll driven as his predecessor. Bad move on Sadaam's part.
Locking onto US fighters in the no fly zone, mass murder, rapes, etc. were just icing on the cake.
Period.
End of story.
Libby
January 16, 2007 - 18:34 ET by iveseenitallLibby is a white male from the Bush administration. Just as those "criminals" in the Duke "rape" case, he's guilty as charged. No trial necessary. And, oh yeah, Shipman is just another dumbass liberal in the MSM.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
If there was no underlying cr
January 16, 2007 - 18:46 ET by robert108If there was no underlying crime, how can there be a coverup? There is nothing to cover up.
Fitzgerald
January 16, 2007 - 18:51 ET by iveseenitallFitzgerald, the prosecutor, is the one who should be on trial. He knew the truth about the leaker from the beginning, yet forged ahead with his shit. He's as bad as Nifong from the Duke "rape" case. In both instances there's more than a whiff of corrupt politics in the air.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Prediction.... Libby will wal
January 16, 2007 - 20:04 ET by Clear thinkerPrediction.... Libby will walk. Liberals will howl and groan.
If the libs lose this because Libby is proven innocent, they (libs) should pay for Libbys lawyers!
Related to Nifong?
January 16, 2007 - 20:23 ET by acumenSpinning. Skipping over facts. There's something that sounds so familiar here.....Is Shipman related to NIfong?
I was gonna let this one go, but this is out of the belief arena
January 16, 2007 - 21:11 ET by acaiguanaI was gonna let this one go, but this is out of the belief arena
"Prosecutors are trying to show that Libby lied to investigators about conversations he had with reporters regarding CIA officer Valerie Plame, the undercover agent who was outed."
What's that all about? Conversations with reporters. Libby lied?
Let's see, is it a crime to lie to reporters? Not yet.
Outed.
I'm so tired of this canard. "Outed"
Can we get an itty bitty taste of reality here? Come on MSM and you, Shipman, going to bed with a little smug smile on your face. Put one over again?
Even a blind monkey could do better.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
This was a great read tonight
January 16, 2007 - 21:59 ET by EdhenryThis was a great read tonight. Great job everyone.
It must be an unusual high to please so many cohorts in the news business, yet miss the truth. "Oh Ms Producer, please like what I'm saying" This co-dependency and group think by the MSM reveals such weakness and now due to blogs, so transparent.
"I'm so tired of this ca
January 16, 2007 - 23:04 ET by Indiana Joe"I'm so tired of this canard. 'Outed'"
ACA,
The whole concept that Plame was "outed" is flawed by one simple fact: she is NOT a "covert operative." IIRC, she's an administrator, a "desk jockey" who works out of CIA headquarters in Langley. A building that everyone who passes by KNOWS is the headquarters of the CIA. Hardly a hard-core "cloak and dagger" assignment.
The only thing "outed" by this story is that she was the one who recommended her husband for this supposed "fact-finding" mission. A free trip to Africa, and a chance to get some "face time" in the media for bashing Bush. Who could ask for more?
Or am I mistaken in her job description? Is she truly "an undercover agent" who also makes recommendations on ambassadorial appointments?
IJ
It's not the "crime"
January 16, 2007 - 23:14 ET by mdokrIt's not the "crime" that got him in trouble, it's telling a story about his faulty memory that the grand jury didn't believe, in a case presented by a republican prosecutor. I don't think many people anymore buy the "I can't recall, I have no recollection" b.s., it's really been overused, and conveniently at that. This whole situation should sound familiar to most of you, after all, getting a bj in the oval office wasn't a crime, but lying to the grand jury was, and you didn't have any problems with it when it was bj Bill. I think ol' Scooter is gonna walk on this, and he probably should. The timing of the trial is unfortunate for the administration though, they have enough on their plate already. I think Shakespeare wrote "When troubles come they come not as single spies, but in batallions". That sure fits the problems the President has had the last few weeks.
mdokr
January 17, 2007 - 00:39 ET by SportPoliticsmdokr, I'd sure like to see you remember a conversation you have a few years ago with one of a hundred different reporters for 3 minutes, where a name may or may not have been mentioned. The funny thing is the reporters don't even remember the conversations. Miller couldn't find her notes, and the couple of other people had notes on other subjects for the convos in question. When Al Gore says he didn't know "the whole event" was a fundraiser at the Bhudda temple, that's stretching it too far. If Al couldn't remember a name in a phonecall about the event 2 years later, I'd say that's par for the course.
If someone wants to know if a name was mentioned on a telehpone convo 3 years earlier as a tangental subject to the actual nature of the call, noone would remember. I agree with your premise that " It sure was ok when Clinton lied on the stand, to get him." - However, as I read Fizty's flapping lip accusation document, his claim was that Libby lied in the initial 2 person FBI interview, not on some testimony stand to a grand jury. Turns out Fitz has already lied to all of us, when he claimed Libby was the first to spread Plames name outside the government. That's such a JOKE. It's been a joke there that there ever was a crime for years. Whatever, it's so stupid I'm ashamed as an American to even see it going on. I'll NEVER get to see a transcript of the initial 2 FBI people interviewing Libby. So, the ghost of Fitz's 2 year kookball quest is already over for me. There's powers that be in DC that we don't see, in that bureaucray, that have been there a long, long time. I won't even get to see a pic of the construction trailer Berger threw the stolen documents under. Not even a line drawing map layout. It's all a bunch of BS to me. I checked into Joe Wilson's claims, and even into Richard C's when he started whining at the 911 commission. The best I can tell is France stung OUR CIA, and the CIA will do anything to never admit it. France owns the Niger mines, France paid for the forged documents through an Italian agent, and France sold yellowcake to Saddam in the past, and didn't want the USA's show of power and dismantling of their nuclear deals with Saddam to occcur, again, and again. Isreal blew up their 80's reactor deal, and the first Gulf War put France on the hot seat hosting the OIL FOR FOOD banking at their big 'ol French bank in France. I don't hold it all against France, they're only doing their thing, but then again it certainly is NOT the USA's fault. Have a good one.
Great post, Sport. I'd like t
January 17, 2007 - 06:35 ET by Indiana JoeGreat post, Sport. I'd like to add one more thing to it, though.
If it was SO important to find out who told Novak about Valerie Plame, why isn't (hasn't, wasn't, take your pick) Richard Armitage doing that "perp walk" that everyone was so anxious to see Rove or Cheney do if they were found to be at the bottom of it?
I think that's a pretty good question that NO ONE seems to be asking.
Heck, Sport / Joe, I can't remember my conversation in the middl
January 17, 2007 - 11:30 ET by acaiguanaHeck, Sport / Joe, I can't remember my conversation in the middle of it.
"What were we talking about?"
"Where's my ice?"
Sitting in my rusty ol' pickup on blocks in the front yard with ol' Blue under the Porch. Mean ol' dawg. Can't keep him there.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Who was the first to spread P
January 17, 2007 - 16:46 ET by MikeBWho was the first to spread Plame's name outside the government? I'm not sure *cough Aldridge Ames cough*. Durn cold. I need some nyquil.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
What is so sad that the MSM
January 16, 2007 - 23:57 ET by Red JeepWhat is so sad that the MSM is going to try to make sure that Mr. Libby is guilty in everybody’s mind. To make sure that everyone knows that the eeevil Bushies were so desperate to go war in Iraq they outed a CIA undercover operative, a mother with little kids, and the facts be damned! They are going to have their scandal that they hoped would bring down a president, screw the truth.
So every night it will be more of the same lies and innuendo that have been uttered for years now about Plamegate.
When this is over someone could write a lesson based on the reporting in this case, about how the MSM lies and distorts to suit its political agenda. Why does Claire Shipman do reports like this? She knows better. Are the invitations that she and her husband get to Nancy the Tuna Pelosi and Harry Reid’s parties that important? You would think that she and the rest of the MSM are afraid that George Bush will run for president again.
I hope when this is over and Mr. Libby is found Not Guilty he can sue somebody/thing for millions and collect the money.
The Press' power.
January 17, 2007 - 00:43 ET by SportPoliticsThe power of the press is their ability to lie with impunity, daily, and forever.
This is probably the best exa
January 17, 2007 - 01:58 ET by karris56This is probably the best example of lib and media bias. Cheney is not happy when he reads an article about someone who says Cheney sent him on a mission.Cheney circles comments in the article and probably asks Libby , Who sent this guy? Libby finds out is was his wife who works at a desk at the C.I.A. Cheney has to be upset like any normal person would,most likely had Libby leak it. After all, this guy lied about the report,he lied about who sent him,he has his wife get him the job, and then instead of doing his job and bringing the info to his boss, he runs to the media. Cheney thinking once the media finds this out the guy will be gone. But what does the media do? Common sense says you cant take the word of a liar but they dont care. Bush and Cheney are evil. The media was running with Wilson's claim that this was leaked to punish his wife. Elections were coming up and I think Cheney realized if they admitted they leaked it but only to expose the lies and not Wilson's wife, they would not get a fair shake. He probably told Libby not to say anything until after the election. After all no matter what they say the media will be against them. And of course the media sensing blood demanded an investigation into who leaked to Novak. They were so sure it was a Bush Hawk. They find out different and finally back off. Now that the trial is here they are back to speculating. Not the obvious that Wilson was a liar and should be exposed but that Libby lied to cover up the lies to war. Now I am just speculating also but put your self in Cheney's shoes. He knew Wilson was lying or wrong about the report. He knew he was lying about who sent him. He then finds out who sent him. His Wife. What would you do? The media knows all this yet it just makes too much common sense. They know that there is something sinister behind this. After all the liar told them so.
Shipman:"...Libby isn't
January 17, 2007 - 09:05 ET by fosstenShipman:"...Libby isn't in trouble for the original crime..." implying that someone else is or that someone else should be.
There WAS NO ORIGINAL CRIME! This is a bald-faced LIE, and she should be shut down for slandering the President.
Exactly......
January 17, 2007 - 10:22 ET by Timothy HExactly, I was just watching Fox nd friends, where they were questioning this issue. The actual subject was why Libby is being prosecuted for "likely" misremembering the order of the people he spoke to, while Sandy Burgler....oops....Berger was slapped on the wrist, before the investigation was complete, for destroying classified documents concerning the way we handled Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11.
Rather than waiting for the investigation, Berger was slapped on the wrist with a $50,000 fine and a loss of security clearance for 3 years..........
3 YEARS?!?!?!?! This guy broke the public trust, and destroyed classified documents in order to cover up for the Clintons, and he can have a security clearance after just 3 years?!?!?!?
But, I digress. The panel came to the conclusion that the media focuses on Libby and not Berger because to prosecute Berger would hurt the Clintons, especially Hillary and her '08 run, and help Bush, and prosecuting Libby does the opposite. But the panel was also quick to point out that even the leak was not a crime, so why is Libby being prosecuted, but Berger commited a felony, at the very least, and is not.
Which leads me to the question of why is the AG allowing this waste of tax-payer money over a non-issue that has no crime involved? Because to not prosecute Libby would be to appear corrupted, and give more fuel to the MSM. Libs don't care about appearances, because they believe that if the say it enough, even if "it" is a denial, it will be true.
- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints -
Sandy Burger should be on the
January 17, 2007 - 11:14 ET by lehmanSandy Burger should be on the witness stand, not Libby. The libs are just salivating over this because they want this trial to look bad for the President. Chrissy Matthews said months ago when Armetidge was revealed as the leaker that the case was too complicated to talk about anymore. That was after he talked about it for months. I haven't watched him for months, but I'll bet he works this trial back into his shows so he can slam the President some more.
January 17, 2007 - 11:15 ET by lehman
Sorry for the double post.
January 17, 2007 - 11:22 ET by lehmanSorry for the double post. I don't know how to delete one of them.
I did that once. You can't de
January 17, 2007 - 11:25 ET by pbanks7I did that once. You can't delete, but you can rewrite it into nothing, using the edit feature. Just delete everything.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Thanks pbanks7.
January 17, 2007 - 11:54 ET by lehmanThanks pbanks7.
Typical BS from the MSM!You k
January 17, 2007 - 13:45 ET by sembyTypical BS from the MSM!
You know how many people criticize the Administration; and why was Joe Wilson only singled out; as if he had so much power; so think about it ~ that is Wilson's talking point; because what he said the Administration became full of fear; I mean there are liars and there are liars all in the same!
This is vicious BS from the
January 17, 2007 - 14:17 ET by Red JeepThis is vicious BS from the MSM.
The United States war with Iraq started on 03-19-03. The Bob Novak column that first mentioned Mrs. Wilson’s name was published 07-14-03. It was just 8 days before that that Ambassador Wilson accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to justify going to war, AFTER the war had already begun, and AFTER the Iraqi military was defeated. Nobody heard about Wilson until after the war started. He did not have to be discredited to make the case for the war. There was nothing to fear from him. He was an after the fact event, blown out of proportion by the media that hates the President.
It seems apparent that after Wilson accusations that the MSM began to ask questions about whom sent Wilson etc. The White House personnel knew they hadn’t. Inquiries were made. Then the MSM was told the CIA sent Wilson to Niger. Who at the CIA did that? We hear it was his wife.