Say Anything Blog

[...] UPDATE: Also, see Rob Port for why there'd be no indictments at all had Libby told the Feebs the truth in the first place.  // Used for showing and hiding user information in the comment form function ShowUtils() { document.getElementById("authorinfo").style.display = “”; document.getElementById("showinfo").style.display = “none”; document.getElementById("hideinfo").style.display = “”; } function HideUtils() { document.getElementById("authorinfo").style.display = “none”; document.getElementById("showinfo").style.display = “”; document.getElementById("hideinfo").style.display = “none”; } [...]

Well, he has been accused of lying, at any rate.  I can’t wait for the cross examinations to take place.

From everything I have read on this, he apparently"misremembered" conversations from 2 1/2 and 3 years ago. Then he found references in his daily logs and notes showing he had done so and pointed it out to the grandjury. Karl"Evilmastermind"Rove did the same. Seems to me there have been other people who"misremembered" while giving statements to grandjurys, they did not get indicted. Hell, one of them is a currently serving senator from a large northeastern state.

Frankly I have a big problem with any “he lied” or “He mislead us” indictments.  I don’t think a person has to tell the truth to the police.  Certainly you can not talk.

I don’t imagine that hamstrings the investigators that much.  One would think that they could learn more by someone lying than telling the truth sometimes. 

Still he’s an accomplished attorney and I doubt that he would do something intentionally.  Frankly until the Martha Stewart thing, I didn’t know it was a crime.  (Never came up anyway).

If he lied under oath that’s a different thing.  Then he deserves what he gets.

You might find this interesting and to the point of this thread:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/how_covert_was__2.html

That sounds right to me, and that’s what is so weird about this whole case. After two years of griping from the left about “violating national security” and “outing a CIA agent to smear a political enemy” it turns out that a) nobody was “outed” and b) no crime was committed.

If Fitzgerald had said that he has completed his investigation and that there will not be any more indictments forthcoming then I would agree with you. He didn’t say either thing though so I suggest that it is too early to say that your statements are correct.

So, Mike, not saying something is the same as saying the opposite of that something?

Gracious no...that would be a definite mistake although one too often committed I agree.

So, Mike, not saying something is the same as saying the opposite of that something?  It’s either black or white, I guess. If you watched or listened to the Fitzgerald announcement, it is clear that he is a master of legalspeak, not to mention a very competent politician.  His accomplishments, or the lack thereof, speak for themselves.

So, Mike, not saying something is the same as saying the opposite of that something?

Gracious no...that would be a definite mistake although one too often committed I agree.

If you watched or listened to the Fitzgerald announcement, it is clear that he is a master of legalspeak, not to mention a very competent politician. His accomplishments, or the lack thereof, speak for themselves.

Splendid commentary r108...I expect nothing less from you.

Well that’s a brutal posting for me...doubled up on my first point and stuck my response to your extended quote into the block. My apologies.

As for your link...I enjoy Maguire’s work and I have valued his contributions to the Plamegate discussion. I found this article by Marty Aussenberg interesting.

Mike:  Followed your link. Nice leftist spin.  They are obviously hopeful for more smear against the Administration, but I think there is no “there” there, no matter how hard the MSM tries to create one.

Mike: Followed your link. Nice leftist spin.

Glad you enjoyed it. I agree that it is good to get a variety of viewpoints as one side rarely has the entire story correct.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see them as two sides of the same story.

It’s not just you so please don’t think I’m singling you out. I see spinning and wishful thinking on both sides of the issue.

Mike: I notice a difference between the two articles.  The one you sent is mostly “this really means that” supposition, based on a view that this Administration is full of corruption that hasn’t been revealed yet.  The one I sent you is full of facts presented in a different way from the usual media spin and omission.  Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see them as two sides of the same story.

My wishful thinking is that the MSM would give us all the facts and not just the ones that support their leftist agenda, and that the CIA will be investigated for trying to influence an election.

Mike:  History teaches us, over and over, that the way to safety and security is through victory-military victory if necessary.  Appeasement only leads to aggression.

Whereas I’m hoping that this episode helps expose the neocon boobery faction in the White House and that American foreign policy returns to one that is more interested in a safer and more secure world.

Good thing dreaming is free.

Gandhi may disagree with that, Robert.

Mike:  You are half right.  If it takes violence to achieve victory over violence, then that is what has to be.  If you let people get away with violence toward you, it just encourages them.

History teaches us, over and over, that the way to safety and security is through victory-military victory if necessary.

I see...sort of like violence being the midwife of history I suppose.

Historically speaking, Gandhi was an anomaly.  Interesting, because the British, a reasonable people in the sunset of their colonial period, decided not to fight him.  We are faced by those who would occupy us, which is another whole kettle of fish.  Not if you are a Hindu, though.

BTW, Gandhi achieved victory, even though it was not a military one.

If you let people get away with violence toward you, it just encourages them.

Which makes me wonder why America invaded Iraq instead of persuing Al Qaeda but I know that puzzles a lot of people.

Dave: By my calculations, the odds are a lot better than 50/50, and the “other side” is the end of all human non-Muslms.

Which makes me wonder why America invaded Iraq instead of persuing Al Qaeda but I know that puzzles a lot of people.

It’s made it so there’s no way out except invasions of every Muslim-led country in the Middle East---not that that’s necessarily
a bad thing.

Dave: If we were to be unified behind success in Iraq, that is, making it a modern country, like Japan, for instance(a fanatical society converted into a fairly free one), might just be the nucleus of a modern revolution in the Middle East.  It is certainly worth a shot.  Otherwise, it might have to be as you suggest.

1. We are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, and all over the world.
2. Worldwide terrorism is our enemy, and Al Qaeda is only a part of it.  It’s all connected, despite the leftist propaganda to the contrary.

It’s all connected, despite the leftist propaganda to the contrary.

I hear ya r108...some folks even deny that Queen Elizabeth is the head of an international drug cartel. People just fear the truth.

Robert: I think there’s a 50% chance everything you said will happen. The other 50% would be the end of the human species some time this century. I don’t see much other option right now.