It didn't take long for Chris Matthews to launch into his rant against Dick Cheney after news of the Lewis Libby verdict broke. Just 11 minutes into MSNBC's live coverage of the Libby decision the Cheney-obsessed Matthews to jumped into his anti-Iraq war routine as he repeated Patrick Fitzgerald's charge there the is now "a cloud" around the Vice President. Matthews also asserted Cheney was "now in the cross-hairs of national debate," and charged "This isn't like a hunting accident where he can walk away for two days and let someone else answer the questions. He's gonna have to answer the questions. Let's see if he puts out a statement. If it's anything more than remorse, well let's hope that it's something more than remorse because there's a lot of questions here."
The following is the Hardball's host immediate reaction to the verdict:
Chris Jansing: "And so it looks like jail time and a fine and also an appeal for Scooter Libby. But for more on those political implications let's go to Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball and your reaction to this, Chris."
Chris Matthews: "Well of course this is all about the war in Iraq. Of course it's a perjury case but to limit itself to the legal aspects is to limit the Alger Hiss case of 1950, that great Cold War spy case, to simple, the simple matter of perjury. This is not about perjury it's about the larger question of how we got in this war with Iraq and the case that was made by the Vice President and his chief of staff that we faced a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein, a threat which was challenged very effectively by Joseph Wilson after coming back from Africa. He said, ‘My trip proved there was not a threat of any kind of a uranium deal with the government of Niger.' That caused what Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, called ‘a hullabaloo,' in the Office of the Vice President.
It has left, as the prosecutor said in his summation in his trial, ‘a cloud over the Vice President himself.' It's gonna be very hard for this Vice President to separate himself from this verdict."
Jansing: "How does the President react to this? Does he say something about this and what does he say about his support for Dick Cheney at this point."
Matthews: "It gets back to the questions of these levels of coverup. The case, the faulty case for WMD, why we went to war. The attempt to destroy and discredit Joe Wilson by saying his trip to Africa was a junket put together by his wife, when in fact, under sworn testimony two officials from the CIA in this trial swearing by oath, a State Department official under oath, all three testified it was the Vice President's query that led to this trip to Niger. And for the Vice President and his chief of staff to spend weeks trying to separate themselves from this trip is the question, it is the cloud. It is the hullabaloo that Fitzgerald put at the heart of this case. He only prosecuted the chief of staff. He's up to a bigger question and we're gonna see in the weeks ahead whether Scooter Libby negotiates with the prosecutor as to the role the Vice President may have played in what went on here."
Then after a report from Kelly O'Donnell and David Shuster on Libby, Jansing returned to Matthews, who refocused the discussion back to Cheney:
Matthews: "Well I imagine the Vice President is having a very hard time. I think the Vice President who obviously cares about Scooter Libby, they're very close friends, a very close confident relationship, confidant relationship. They work together. But on the brutal level of criminality and guilt beyond that of the legal system the question of political guilt here. Clearly throughout this trial the name that was mentioned most often by the prosecutor over and over again besides that of Scooter Libby himself was his boss. He talked about the, the prosecutor talked about how it was the Vice President who instructed Scooter Libby how to deal with the press. Who told him, when he was confronted with the fact that he was the source of information about Mrs. Plame or Mrs. Wilson not Tim Russert, he said, ‘Me?' And then he said, ‘Don't get into the details when you're talking to the press. So all kinds of instructions starting with the trip to Africa that the Vice President was on we're getting testimony showing the role the Vice President played with regard to Scooter Libby's handling of this matter from Day One. And of course most people watching the trial know that Scooter Libby did not lie under oath because he was trying to make some money or for some venal reason. He was lying under oath, according to the prosecution case, to protect his job. But he went beyond that. He kept defending the role of the Vice President. He kept saying, ‘I didn't learn this from the Vice President about Valerie Wilson. I learned it from Tim Russert. I never learned it from the Vice President.' He didn't have to go that far. It's clear in watching this case he was a loyal servant not just of his country but of his boss and now the Vice President has to deal with this matter. He has to recognize as he goes to bed at night and certainly as he thinks about this today that he's very much involved in this case. He was not indicted, he was not charged but he was the man who worked everyday with Scooter Libby and Scooter Libby under oath, well let me put it this way Scooter Libby refused to go under oath. He refused to defend himself in this case. The Vice President of the United States did not come forward to defend Scooter Libby. They had their opportunity to save Scooter Libby's career and his freedom and neither chose that opportunity. The jury couldn't use that against them but they still found him wanting in terms of telling the truth. But the person who has the cloud over their head, according to the prosecutor, is, is Vice President Cheney. The man who caused this hullabaloo, who was racing around trying to discredit Joe Wilson, trying to say his wife sent him on a junket, doing anything he could to separate himself from this trip is the person that's now in the cross-hairs of national debate here right now. We're gonna have to watch and see what Vice President Cheney says. This isn't like a hunting accident where he can walk away for two days and let someone else answer the questions. He's gonna have to answer the questions. Let's see if he puts out a statement. If it's anything more than remorse, well let's hope that it's something more than remorse because there's a lot of questions here. I still want to know the question we put up in the days after Joe Wilson wrote his article, the question we kept asking: If it was the Vice President whose query triggered this trip to Africa to check out a deal, a possible deal by Saddam Hussein to buy nuclear materials in Africa why didn't the Vice President didn't get a report. That is the question at the heart of this case. And when you talk to George Tenet, as I did, the former CIA Director he said, ‘Ask Cheney.' Well we still gotta ask Cheney to find out what his role was here. Back to you Chris."
—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Matthews...the drooling, spew
March 6, 2007 - 16:43 ET by bigtimerMatthews...the drooling, spewing, defeatist little pit bull.
I heard all of his and this particular blather.
Agenda agenda agenda.
This is going to bite them in the arse in the end...one way or the other.
I despise these gleeful people.
The enemy within in full force today...and every single day, just showing their colors for all to see today...with bells on.
Other than the drooling thi
March 6, 2007 - 21:15 ET by BigBOther than the drooling thing..this is the best I've ever seen....A 10 minute beat down of Chris ....by a Democrat no less...
http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/dishonor/2005/zellmiller05/segment1.ram
Oldie but a goodie......The grinning idiot doesn't even realize he's just getting Bi**h slapped all over the place...It really warms my heart....
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....
pardon
March 6, 2007 - 16:50 ET by john ryanShould Bush consider a pardon for Libby ?
Not 'till his final lame-du
March 6, 2007 - 16:55 ET by sarcasmoNot 'till his final lame-duck Christmas. Libby could easily get off on a technicality before then, especially considering the way today's "15 minutes of fame" juror blabbed to the cameras, as that almost seemed designed to assist an appeal -- assuming this juror's actually that smart...I know, big assumption...
JMR
good question, john ryan
March 6, 2007 - 16:59 ET by tumbler_2007W in the past hasn't been prone to questioning or overturning a court's decision or a sentencing. He was held to much scorn in Texas for not commuting death sentences.
Because Bush is nothing if not consistent, my guess is, Libby's hopes rest completely on an appeal. We can pray otherwise. But to have Bush cut him loose now would be a real boon to his detractors. They'd brand his administration "corrupt". I don't think he'll allow that easily.
Just how many more detractors
March 6, 2007 - 17:14 ET by bigtimerJust how many more detractors are there tumb?
They are all there for all to see at all times...can't get anymore than he already has if you ask me.
They already brand his administration as corrupt.
This has been the agenda from day one.
They will stop at nothing to hurt this man.
It is sick, despicable, and disgraceful.
I despise the left...they are my enemy.
yes, the left sucks
March 6, 2007 - 17:20 ET by tumbler_2007But I only stated that Bush is consistent. Believe me, he's feeling badly today. But he's a gamer.
That's what I love about W. That's why they'll never whip him. COURAGE.
LOL tumb...I wasn't trying to
March 6, 2007 - 17:24 ET by bigtimerLOL tumb...
I wasn't trying to argue with you...just stating how I see things.
I am taking a cool shower....to cool off.
Enough of my ranting for awhile.
He should, but won't. What
March 6, 2007 - 17:04 ET by Russell6He should, but won't. What a disgrace this trial has been. The Libs smelt blood and went out to lynch someone in the administration. It didn't matter if Joe Wilson lied they wanted to make someone pay for their liberal rage and now someone will pay, with 25 years of his life for a politically motivated trail. This is what happens when politics enter the courtroom.
libby is all right
March 6, 2007 - 17:13 ET by tumbler_2007He'll serve maybe 18 months of a light sentence. It's very apparent, because this was a show trial. He'll serve in miminum security, some desk job. Maybe he'll get religion, like Colbert, er, G. Gordon Whuzzisname. Bad luck, but cancer is worse. My Pop died from cancer. I only wish he were doing short time today.
And your point is...what?
March 6, 2007 - 16:53 ET by MobiusStripAgain
March 6, 2007 - 17:03 ET by iveseenitallSo this "trial" was about all the things mentioned. You just admitted it, Mobius. There you go. Proof positve about the politics of personal destruction. This was never about Libby's memory or "lies". It was about the liberals' desire to destroy anyone who disagrees with their politics. And it was about the destruction of our President. This is a sad day for the republic. For Fitzgerald to use the law for politcal purposes is unconsionable. Continue this, liberals, and our children won't have a nation which lives under the law.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
The law is the law
March 6, 2007 - 18:01 ET by MobiusStripPolitics of personal destruction? Nation not living under the law? This was a trial, not a "trial", under code of law. Who appointed Fitzgerald- those pesky libs? I believe it was ultimately Gonzales, who works for- Bush! So Bush helped to destroy Libby. Sad day for your children when you have no clue as to how things work. You break the law, you pay. Libby is convicted because his peers found him guilty. You would have given him a kitchen pass because of YOUR personal politics, eh? And you must know more than the jurors, because you're always right and you never lie and you spent the last number of weeks dealing with every detail regarding this case. A fine man to talk of a nation of laws, you are. I hope your kids have a decent civics teacher.
Read history
March 6, 2007 - 18:49 ET by iveseenitall"break the law, you pay." like O.J. ,Kennedy, Berger, Clinton.
Juries can be wrong. Juries can be swayed. Just ask O.J. When the law is used to foster a political agenda, rather than for honest motives, nations fall. Read a history book some time, Mobius.
NEVER, NEVER trust a liberal
Ah- the "he did it first" defense!
March 6, 2007 - 19:38 ET by MobiusStripSo I'm a cop and find a guy selling crack to kids for sex. I bust him. Then later that night, I find another guy doing the same thing. I think- "wait, I just got someone for this! Just how much of a cop am I supposed to be?" So I let the second guy go.
This is how prosecutors should approach their jobs, too- in your way of thinking. If you want to talk about the law being used as a political agenda, let's discuss the dissolution of habeus corpus in the terrorist detention affair; the unprecendented firing of US Attorneys investigating corruption, or anything else.
A crime is a crime is a crime. Libby was found guilty- get over it. He has appeal- unlike Jose Padillo, whose charges have been changed, changed and changed again by this administration.
You sound like a bleeding heart liberal, you do. Mitigating circumstances, harsh environment, unfair jury, blah blah blah.
trial
March 6, 2007 - 20:44 ET by iveseenitallIf you refuse to see the obvious, Mobius, there's nothing that will change your mind. Even Matthews sees that there are broader implications to this. This was government entrapment in a case in which no law was broken in the first place.( Fitzgerald knew that and went on with the case until he found a "criminal"!!). ).To possibly go to jail because you got your time lines confused or misspoke should be chilling to all Americans. It happened to thousands under the Nazis and the Communists. I hope it never happens to you. Those who see the truth and don't speak out do so to their own detriment. Again, read some history books. Thank God for the internet and sites like this.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Sorry but, Gonzales was appoi
March 6, 2007 - 18:54 ET by mattmSorry but, Gonzales was appointed by Bush, he does not "work for Bush." This is a representative republic, not a dictatorship.
Those "peers" you speak of are D.C. Democrats with an agenda, as they inadvertently revealed in their post-verdict press-conference when they let it slip that they felt Cheney should be the one on trial. If that's the case, why find Libby guilty unless you have a political agenda?
Detais of the case? How is it that the jurors needed to have the judge define what the evidence means and how to interpret it? They were obviously trying to find a way to convict Libby INSPITE of the evidence.
Even if one can technically argue that Libby lied and deserves the verdict, it wouldn't change the fact that this whole trial was a politically motivated travesty that never should have happened because it was based on Joe Wilson's accusations which the Senate hearing proved were false!
DC Democrats?
March 6, 2007 - 19:23 ET by MobiusStripI hadn't seen your citation as to the political affiliation of the jurors. Can you offer one, and references? Were all 11 Democrats? Would it be legal for people to be removed from the jury pool because of their political party affiliation? Was the normal vetting /exclusion process obviated here- in which the defense can eliminate potential jurors to their advantage? Was Libby's legal defense team so stupid as to let 11 Democrats be on the jury? Did they know how the jurors vote, and is that a legal option? Do you have an answer to any of these questions?
The answer to one ofyour ques
March 6, 2007 - 19:37 ET by James2306The answer to one ofyour questions is that one of the jurors ias a Wash. Post reporter. that alone should have disqualified him. Another juror shared info from outside the trial with the others and was removed, the proper legal response would be a mistrial but the judge wouldnt allow that.
No, you're wrong
March 6, 2007 - 19:43 ET by MobiusStripONe of the jurors WAS a former WP reporter. Is that grounds for disqualification? I didn't think our Constitution singled out occupation as a litmus test for all voting citizens REQUIRED to do this civic duty. Do you have anything otherwise? And, to reiterate, the defense had every ability to not choose that particular juror. Why didn't they? I have yet to hear an answer to any of me questions.
Each side is only allowed a c
March 6, 2007 - 20:22 ET by James2306Each side is only allowed a certain number of challenges. If a person already has a bias towards a group why should they be allowed on a jury. When you consider the fact that even the MSM admits that they are registered Dems. by a 4 to 1 margin (80%) then that bias alone should disqualify them, kind of like a black man being tried in front of a jury of neo-nazis, klansmen and skinheads. Your are correct our constitution does not have a litmus test but that has never stopped a judge from using his power to prevent people from being on a jury , or having a jury madeup that he approves of, for an example look at the person whos conviction was overturned by the 9th circuit because there were not enough people of the same skin color as him, did you applaud that decision
Can you tell me where you read she Shared?
March 6, 2007 - 19:49 ET by MobiusStripMy understanding is that she was exposed to media information regarding the trial. Can you tell me where it states she shared that information? I haven't seen that yet- if true, you are right, it is a mistrial. If not, well then...
It states that in the report
March 6, 2007 - 20:11 ET by James2306It states that in the report that had to be filed about her being removed from the jury
C'mon James- bring it on!
March 6, 2007 - 19:56 ET by MobiusStripDoes it matter in the law?
Why weren't they better vetted?
Should newspapermen be excluded constitutionally from jury duty?
Can you answer any questions at all?
Dont KnowYes the judge would
March 6, 2007 - 20:30 ET by James2306Dont Know
Yes
the judge would not allow it
yes as they said in the war on terror we cant take the side of our country we are newsmen If you arent allowed by your profession to take a side then you should not be allowed to affect anything that requires taking a side
I believe that answers all your questions
Can you remember what you said to the person you dealt with at work on march 17 2002.
...and Matthews and the MSM w
March 6, 2007 - 16:54 ET by Chris Norman...and Matthews and the MSM will just keep expanding that "cloud" until everyone in the Administration is under it.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
To be fair, Chris, to Matthew
March 6, 2007 - 16:57 ET by bassndudeTo be fair, Chris, to Matthews and most of the MSM. They live in a fog and just think it is a cloud they see, when in reality, what they see is their own confusion and lack of vision.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Well, they'll at least try, C
March 6, 2007 - 17:13 ET by GalvanicWell, they'll at least try, Chris. But I don't see it going anywhere. Even liberal talking heads agreed weeks ago when Armitage went public, that this story was DOA, as further confirmed when Fitzgerald acknowledged that there would be no other prosections (Matthews must've forgotten that one).
In his absolutely apoplectic assessment, Matthews fails to mention (1) that Fitzgerald couldn't get enough evidence to try the VP (let alone convict him), (2) that Cheney had a right to be angry over Wilson's op-ed piece because Wilson said the VP sent him, when Cheney didn't even know who he was, (3) that the 'leak' culprit turned out to be Armitage, whom Fitzgerald declined to prosecute because (4) the 'outted' Plame didn't meet the criteria of an undercover CIA case officer. The ONLY crime Fitzgerald could identify was this perjury case, which had absolutely no impact on the investigation because Fitzgerald already knew it was Armitage befor he question Libby.
There'll be no cloud over Cheney's head, nor Bush's. Little Chrissy will have to go somewhere else with his doomsday story.
The biggest jack-ass in the whole episode was Wilson himself -- who got his 15 minutes of fame by boasting that he was going to bring Karl Rove down, making him the champion of the DP for about a week. Runner-up jack-ass is Fitzgerald.
Galv, What torques me is t
March 6, 2007 - 17:24 ET by Chris NormanGalv,
What torques me is that Wilson and Plame get a movie deal out of this. A movie? For Pete's sake...Who in the hell will want to see that - other than Matthews and them?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
A movie? Let me guess: Ti
March 6, 2007 - 19:13 ET by GalvanicA movie? Let me guess: Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon are being considered for the leads?
I guess the movie deal is the DP's way of having the Wilsons compensated for their once-promising/ultimately-quixotic power play. Spielberg or Streisand or the like will back the producer.
Yeah Chris.. .....but it will
March 6, 2007 - 19:18 ET by bigtimerYeah Chris.. .
....but it will sweep the Academy Awards...and any other awards they can throw in from any other organizations that takes their self-importance seriously.
"Well of course this i
March 6, 2007 - 16:58 ET by Dave R"Well of course this is all about the war in Iraq."
Exactly what did the war in Iraq have to do with any of this?
Would one of you terrorist-enabling trolls around here (and you know who you are) kindly produce a link to any video or transcript that shows that the GWB or Dick Cheney ever said that we were going to war in Iraq because Saddam had nukes, or was trying to obtain them?
Did I miss a speech or something?
libs
March 6, 2007 - 17:11 ET by iveseenitallLibs are not about being truthful, Dave. They are the destroyers--of truth, of logic, of common sense, and of decency--to name just a few things. All that they practice is the opposite of what they preach.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Dave, I just got finished
March 6, 2007 - 17:11 ET by Chris NormanDave,
I just got finished with a knock down, drag out argument with my brother, with who I share an office. He is a Bush/Cheney hater (because of the War)- but claims he's not a Liberal. I just told him that his obsession and constant harping on Cheney and the War was driving me nuts. He shut up about it for now, but I'm sure he'll will start again tomorrow. He's like one of those inflatable clowns you knock down and then tilts right back up - still smiling. By the way, I know NBs had problems earlier - and it's still acting weird - is it just me or are you experiencing it also?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Please--someone make FREE SCO
March 6, 2007 - 17:19 ET by iveseenitallPlease--someone make FREE SCOOTER T-shirts. How about one of those student sit-ins or walk-outs? Maybe not, if their not in support of the liberal causes, the schools will severely punish them. Nevertheless, NO JUSTICE - NO PEACE. (How 'm I doin', Jessee, AL?)
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
iveseenitall,You know, the
March 6, 2007 - 17:54 ET by Dave Riveseenitall,
You know, the libs will get their boxers in a huge knot over a cop-killer going to prison (remember "Free Mumia") but they'll jump for joy when a guy like Scooter Libby gets put away for 20 or 30 and call it justice.
Michael Savage was right. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
they're (sp)
March 6, 2007 - 22:06 ET by iveseenitallthey're (sp) -sorry
Chris,I work in a land surv
March 6, 2007 - 18:32 ET by Dave RChris,
I work in a land surveying/engineering operation, so we don't get too many libs around here. However, we had one for about a week early last summer. Hea started working out in the main drafting area, then for some reason (probably because I tend to be rather patient with training newbies) they moved him in with me, as I have an extra work station in here, and at the time we were pressed for space.
Being that I have Boortz on nearly every day, it led to a few interesting conversations. It soon was obvious that this guy was hopeless. We even got into a couple of arguments. Fortunately, this guy turned out to be an Autocad illiterate (I ended up re-doing most of his work) and he only lasted a week with me, or one of us was going to be found in the dumpster out back. :-)
I always tell my brother, &qu
March 6, 2007 - 18:35 ET by Chris NormanI always tell my brother, " No court (outside the 9th Circuit) will convict me...". :)
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Dave R, your playing of Boort
March 6, 2007 - 21:44 ET by GalvanicDave R, your playing of Boortz will offset the torture my wife was subjected to for months. She worked in a small store where the self-professed socialist manager played Air America all day, quoting Al Franken and Randi Rhodes at will.
Fortunately, he skipped town a year ago, but not before emptying the store's bank account and grabbing all the cash in the register.
Why is it I'm not surprised?
March 7, 2007 - 11:24 ET by Dave RWhy is it I'm not surprised? :-)
No, I'm not High. :-)
It's true, this has to do wit
March 6, 2007 - 17:24 ET by mattmIt's true, this has to do with the Iraq war - or, rather, how the libs have spun and continue to spin it.
It's all about the Left's claim that "Bush Lied." They've banked their entire political future on cementing this idea in the minds of the public. They can't afford for the truth to be established (i.e. that it was Wilson who lied and started this entire travesty), because that would undermine their claim, and call into question the last 3 years of Leftist media spin.
They can't even afford for it to be established that the Iraq policy was merely ill-advised. They need it to be an issue of corruption, not merely policy differences.
Why? Because they are still covering up for the fact that the Clinton administration was the single most corrupt in American history.
Is it just me, or does Chri
March 6, 2007 - 17:36 ET by Tim the EnchanterIs it just me, or does Chrissy remind one of the smart-aleck little kid who would taunt and throw stones at bigger kids, then go running to hide behind his Momma's skirts?
Who's been keeping the Secret
March 6, 2007 - 17:48 ET by JayTeeWho's been keeping the Secret that a Washington Post Juror was on the Jury ? The Liberal Media ? ? ? That's like assigning the Dems to reside over the proceedings. Those Newspaper guys have NO INPUT buffers.
At Times like these, it becomes more than just a Moral Obligation to express ones opinion, it becomes a Pleasure.
JT...I responded to this befo
March 6, 2007 - 18:45 ET by bigtimerJT...
I responded to this before and lost the whole site...anyway, I bet this guy will have a book deal/movie coming soon...he alos wrote for other liberal papers besides WaPo.
I am appalled that this guy got on the jury, I also heard a next door neighbor of Russert's was on the jury a couple of weeks ago...don't know if this is the same guy or not...nevertheless, how did either get on the jury?
The whole thing is horrendous to me.
Speculation and Paranoia
March 6, 2007 - 20:28 ET by MobiusStripOh My God! Horrendous and Horrific! Lions and Tigers and Bears! Chicken Little crushed by the weight of his own Convictions! Pollyanna kills Pandora! Conspiracies everywhere- food tasters in high demand! I've never seen a bunch of handwringers like this. Floyd's Barbershop is a much safer for you sensitive types- and you can get there in DVD!
Collins was the neighbor of Russert too
March 6, 2007 - 19:54 ET by bigtimerJT...
As an aside as what you and I have both posted and others on here...
Denis Collins was the neighbor of Russert's too!
Makes one wonder doesn't it...
Not.
It's about time. There are s
March 6, 2007 - 18:16 ET by mostlymoderateIt's about time. There are so many skeleton's in Mr. Cheney's closet that it isn't even funny anymore. From Halliburton to his negligence before 9-11. If this is the only thing that clouds Mr. Cheney then he will get off easy. What a discrace.
Hardball
March 6, 2007 - 18:24 ET by austinhookGWB may as well pardon now, and get this stupid story off the table. There is nothing more to be learned. The entire episode was pretty transparent from the start. The president has a right to out whichever CIA agents he wants to, if he feels it will prevent weakening the war effort. Sure it was political hardball, but so what. It's not like the truth wasn't known before, during and after his state of the union address, by anyone who had been paying attention to the gossip around diplomatic circles. Both Joe Wilson and the administration were correct about yellowcake access, It wasn't possible to get it at the time, and that doesn't mean Saddam wouldn't have wanted to get some. The so called opposing facts are merely different perspectives on the same set of facts, and what aspects of them you want to emphasize.
The administration owes a debt to the loyal service of it's aide, and being overly legalistic about such serious matters as the running of a war is ridiculous. Yes, there are excesses that should be curtailed, but this one is totally overblown.
story
March 6, 2007 - 19:06 ET by iveseenitallThis story is not going to go away. The media is going to use this over and over until the next election. Libby was railroaded and the libs love it. Some libs on this site actually support the governments' using the law in this manner. They can't see the danger in it. Ignorance is bliss for them.Our children will suffer for it.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Some libs on this site actua
March 6, 2007 - 21:47 ET by GalvanicSome libs on this site actually support the governments' using the law in this manner. They can't see the danger in it.
The same way they love the Supreme Court's outrageous ruling in Kelo v. New London.
There is no similarity betwee
March 7, 2007 - 00:21 ET by mostlymoderateThere is no similarity between this case and Kelo v. New London. Only a complete "moron" would think the Kelo ruling was "good for America". I was happy that Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas all dissented in that ruling. That is "true conservatism" at work right there. This issue with Cheney and Libby is a discrace to the Nation and has nothing to do with whether you are a liberal or a conservative.
The president has a right to out whichever CIA agents he wants t
March 6, 2007 - 20:14 ET by MobiusStripI would appreciate that infor
March 6, 2007 - 20:33 ET by mostlymoderateI would appreciate that information too. Where does it say the President has a right to out whichever CIA agent he wants to? I am scouring Westlaw and Lexis and can't find anything on such a matter. Thanks.
I dont think that he can.
March 6, 2007 - 20:37 ET by James2306I dont think that he can.
Exactly!
March 6, 2007 - 20:43 ET by mostlymoderateExactly!
Austin
March 6, 2007 - 21:34 ET by iveseenitallAustin---this is a more than Fitzgerald being "overly legalistic". Fitzgerald knew that he had no case against the President or anyone else. No crime had been committed. But instead of dropping the matter,he pushed on so that he could find a "criminal". This was political, pure and simple. And it's scary. Watch out for the next knock on your door. It may be a government prosecutor asking you what you said to your mother six months ago.Tell him you don't recall; anything else can and will be used against you ( especially if you are a Republican). This is Salem revisited.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
On what the president can do
March 7, 2007 - 06:31 ET by austinhookWell this President has done so many things I didn't think he could do that it didn't even occur to me that he couldn't decide what is a state secret and what is not. You are saying, I gather, that this is more specific than that, not just about the revealing of a state secret, but having an additional protection by law.
It seems odd to me that the President couldn't direct operational changes in what the CIA does, that agency being quasi military and from what I understand, reporting directly to the President, not even needing a cabinet member approval from congress. So it just seems to me that that the moment that the President agrees with outing an agent, well then, that agent is no longer covert, plain and simple, and the law against outing agents is to assist the President in keeping operations effective, rather than to tell the President how he runs it.
IANAL, and I only wish I had access to such resources as Westlaw and Lexis. Does my sense of practical political power wash with you, or do you think the President has to tiptoe through the garden of legal tulips, even here?
Of Course He Did
March 7, 2007 - 11:39 ET by emjem24Didn't we all know that Chrissy Sissy, like all Bush haters and their liberal propagandists, would go after VP Cheney? This is his track record. Instead of reporting the news, he makes irrelevant comments that do nothing to shed light on ANYTHING. Count on PMSNBC and the like, to "attack," "probe," and "shred." Unfortunately, Chrissy Sissy sees it only as fair because the Republicans won the presidency and this is the reward for winning: being the subject of a liberal "jouralist's" diatribe.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.