Criminality is at the heart of the Bush Administration

[FeelTheLove]

Now that we know that Dick Cheney chooses as he Chief-of-Staff a liar and a perjurer, a traitor who betrays our nation's national security information in order to pursue vendetta and political gain, isn't it time for ALL OF US to admit that Mr. Libby is simply an example of the Culture of Criminality that has always been at the heart of this administration, an adminstration that lied 2,000 soldiers to their deaths? Cheney simply picked the man who would act as he would - as a liar, a ruthless cutthroat who stops at nothing, men who consider themselves above the law as they lie about Saddam possessing nuclear weapons, as they lie on government websites about scientific issues, as they pay "reporters" to plant lies in the press, as they lie us into ruinous wars -lies, lies and more lies - this is simply the way these men operate. Cheney fulfills the same role to Bush as Libby did to him - Chief of Conniving, Chief of Backstabbing, Chief of Lies To the American People. Well, its all coming home to roost now. They are now being shown as people who are NOT ABOVE THE LAW. Nobody is afraid of these bastards anymore.

[JimSmith]

The basic criminal approach to solving problems comes from having so few other skills or capabilities to bring to bear. This man and his band of thugs are really the most destructive group of people to happen to America in my lifetime. I think this guy Fitzgerald seems to have them by the short hairs though, and he is letting them squirm in the bright light of an objective viewing of their actions. Cheney's boy demonstrated by his willingness to lie to a man who obviously would not stand for that, that there must be some really big, ugly, syphyllitic, shitcovered oosick in his closet that he just couldn't admit he had. And now Fitzgerald knows its there. Jim

[guage]

Right

[JimSmith]

guage - 10/29/2005 1:16 PM

Right

Congratulations! As noted in the other similar thread, I have to give you credit for seeing the light when I would have expected you to be vigorously defending the need for Bush's adminstrative officers to lie to any and all Americans to push their agenda of criminal aggression against our own and the citizens of the world for greed. Great to see not everyone from the Bush League is permanently blinded by that splat of Clinton cum in their eyes. Jim

[FeelTheLove]

I think the real regrets will come when all those nice precedents the Repugs set as far as Presidents having to testify in open court come back home to roost. Let's get Cheney and Bush under oath, and see if they want to talk about something a little more important than having their cocks sucked.

[FeelTheLove]

Libby takes the fall
But Bush still needs to come clean on the White House's role in abusing classified information for partisan purposes.

By Joe Conason
salon.com

Oct. 29, 2005 | While the full implications of the Scooter Libby indictment have yet to emerge -- including the question of whether Karl Rove, aka "Official A," ultimately escapes prosecution -- special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has convincingly exploded right-wing disinformation about the CIA leak affair.

For many months now, Republican politicians and pundits have floated misleading spin to deflect attention from the fundamental truth: For partisan political reasons, leading figures in the White House and the Bush administration leaked an important national security secret.

The purveyors of GOP spin have proclaimed that Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA identity was no secret at all; that the exposure of her identity merited no investigation whatsoever; that she was responsible for sending her husband Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger to investigate alleged uranium trading with Iraq; that the special counsel investigation somehow represented the "criminalization of politics"; and that the special counsel himself is overzealous and unprofessional.

Within the first few pages of his indictment, Fitzgerald swiftly dismisses the false notions about Wilson's mission to Niger, his wife's role in that mission and the nature of her work at the CIA. Paragraph 1e notes that the CIA "decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations regarding Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore." That statement in the painstakingly worded document clearly attributes responsibility to the agency and not to her. (And as he noted at his press conference, the notion that she played a role in dispatching her husband to Niger -- which he pointedly did not endorse -- was of no relevance to the charges against Libby.)

Whether Valerie Wilson endorsed or even suggested that her husband could assist in that endeavor mattered not at all to Fitzgerald, who plainly assigns the responsibility for her husband's mission to the agency -- and not to her.

The indictment's ensuing paragraphs debunk the lie echoed incessantly by nearly every right-wing megaphone, from Rush Limbaugh down, concerning the secrecy of Valerie Wilson's CIA position. Contrary to claims that "everyone in Washington knew" she worked for the agency, including her friends and neighbors, Fitzgerald declares: "At all relevant times from January 1, 2002, through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

Dispassionate as those facts appear on the printed page, the prosecutor sounded grim as he went on to explain their deeper meaning: "The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well known, for her protection [and] for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security ... This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important."


Fitzgerald's serious demeanor, exceptionally careful remarks and narrowly drawn indictment make all of his critics look foolish. He is obviously no "loose cannon," as the Wall Street Journal editorial page shrieked last summer.

And as for the "criminalization of politics," he noted that from his perspective, the charges brought against Libby have nothing to do with partisan interests. He laughed off such accusations by noting that despite accusations that he is a "Republican hack" or a "Democratic hack," he is registered in neither party and serves no interest except the law.

Yet within the limits of the law and without rhetorical flourish, Fitzgerald's investigation has exposed elements of a White House conspiracy to abuse classified information for partisan purposes.

The complete story is yet to unfold, even as Libby takes the fall, but the Bush White House clearly bears responsibility for the original offense and the subsequent coverup. Neither the vice president nor the president has claimed that Libby misled them about his involvement in the exposure of Valerie Wilson -- which suggests that Cheney and Bush have known about Libby's complicity for many months, and did nothing to discipline him.

The same can be said of Rove, to whom the indictment alludes under the rubric of "Official A," the unnamed "senior official in the White House" who spoke with columnist Robert Novak about Valerie Wilson's work for the CIA. The special counsel may not believe that Rove could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a federal offense, but he clearly believes that Rove participated in this nefarious scheme.

As Fitzgerald explained more than once Friday, the law bars no witness before the grand jury from discussing his or her testimony. So despite all the blather from the press podium and the president himself about the restrictions imposed by an "ongoing investigation," Bush has long been able to determine precisely what part Rove played. He could now fulfill his promise to dismiss any official who exposed a CIA officer, an act that supposedly fills him with revulsion. He need not wait for an indictment that may never come.

In the grim light cast by the indictment of Libby, the president himself should now be required to answer an updated version of the classic Watergate question: What did he know about the national security offense and the apparent coverup perpetrated by his vice president and his chief political advisor? When did he know it? And why, with the facts laid before him, has he still done nothing about this outrage?

[GermanStar]

Was it the 9/11 commission that found Bush afraid to testify alone?

[MS Fowler]

You guys must be heart broken, disappointed and frustrated that the idictments were pretty slim pickins.

You think if there was evidence of Rove, Cheney, Bush etc lying, or other criminality that they might have been indicted. After all, all the hopeful leftists were predicting massive indictments.
Maybe there is no rampant crimminality as you guys think.
Who is living in the world of their own choosing?

I guess its another case where the evidence is not important; its the severity of the charges that matters.

Better luck next time.

[old300D]

MS Fowler - 11/1/2005 2:48 PM

You guys must be heart broken, disappointed and frustrated that the idictments were pretty slim pickins.

You think if there was evidence of Rove, Cheney, Bush etc lying, or other criminality that they might have been indicted. After all, all the hopeful leftists were predicting massive indictments.
Maybe there is no rampant crimminality as you guys think.
Who is living in the world of their own choosing?

I guess its another case where the evidence is not important; its the severity of the charges that matters.

Better luck next time.

Not really. The fact that Libby was found obstructing the investigation allows Fitzgerald to justify continuing it. We shall see.

[MS Fowler]

I actually agree with you. There is no need for a rush to judgment; time WILL tell, and we shall certainly see. I think most true conservatives agree with me that violations of law are out of bounds, and should be punished. Those who are simply members of the republican party probably disagree. I wish I felt that democrats, as a group, were also opposed to law breaking--at least the Washington democrats seem to circle the wagons and protect their own when there are questions of violations of law.
There is a time to rise above politcal issues, and this is one on which we should all agree---not just now whan a republican administration is under investigation, but also when a democrat one is similarly under investigation. That is probably too much to expect.