Stones Cry Out

Looks like perjury during a politically motivated investigation is a crime again. I thought Clinton and the Dems taught us it was OK?

Only if it was about sex. So if Libby would have done something nasty in the GJ room, maybe he would have caught a pass... yeah, right.

It is the criminalization of all things conservative.

How is the investigation politically motivated? Fitzgerald is a Republican. He was appointed by a Republican Attorney General. The Executive and Legislative branches of government are controlled by Republicans. The Democrats have no power, but as always Republicans view themselves as victims.

To me the victims are the American people, especially the 2000+ dead and tens of thousands of maimed American soldiers who went to Iraq to protect us from a threat that didn't exist - a threat the Bush administration lied about to the American public and to the world.

When Clinton lied it was about sex, and nobody died. That cannot be said about the Bush/Cheney administration. The two crimes are not comparable. In the 2000 campaign Bush spoke about "not only doing what is legal but what is right." Do recent events conform to your definition of what is right? Do you really think that these are the "values" that the American public thought it was voting for when it (barely) re-elected Bush last fall?

Joe Wilson was right. There were no WMD. Libby was indicted - and Rove may soon be - because, in Fitzgerald's own words:
"The harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make."
And:
"We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime."

That is, Libby's lies have obstructed the investigation to such an extent that Fitzgerald can answer neither the question of intention nor the question of who else was involved. Of course, it has been reported that Libby was told about Plame by Cheney and that Bush knew in 2003 who had leaked her identity to the press despite his protestations to the contrary. So it doesn't take a genius to conclude that a cover-up is going on. Why else would Libby lie?

Speaking of values, on a party-line vote, a Republican-run House committee voted to cut food stamps by $844 million on Friday, just hours after a new U.S. Agriculture Department report showed more Americans are struggling to put food on the table.

You guys need to clean house now, or voters will do it for you next fall.

How is the investigation politically motivated?
Who said it was? This straw argument begins your post full of such arguments. Wrong side of the bed?

I think you'll find a few hundred thousand Iraqis who are grateful to those 2000 Americans for giving them the right to self-government. Perhaps you'd rather live under Hussein than under Bush.

I wish someone would've explained the different grades of perjury during the Clinton years. Who knew that lying under oath was so nuanced? Are these your values?

Joe Wilson was right. There were no WMD.
'Cept that's not what Joe Wilson said. He said that Hussein hadn't tried to buy uranium in Niger. The CIA, examining said report, didn't see it as extremely convincing, and British intelligence, using alternate channels and standing by this intelligence to this day, say that Wilson's report was wrong. Wilson even misrepresented his report to the Senate when he wrote his op-ed piece, making it more damning to the administration that it really was. He was hoping folks would just read the article rather than find out what he really thought. Guess he made a good bet, at least in your case.

And why are you lecturing me about what is a serious crime? I acknowledged that this is serious in the original post. (You did read it, right?)

I wonder if you were as eager to pronounce Clinton guilty when he was charged? Doubt it. I get the feeling you, too, were arguing what "is" is. Doesn't take a genius to conclude that a cover-up is going on; simply takes a partisan. A partisan who would, say, cherry-pick a single vote and not note that it's part of a 5-year, government-wide, spending reduction, and that's it's a small part of the $51 billion food stamp budget, and that it'll help reduce waste by not giving folks double-stamps becuse they're getting them from another agency for the same reason.

This is always so much work I don't know why I bother. You'll never change your mind no matter what the facts are. In fact I wonder what Bush or the ethically challenged Republican leadership would have to do for you to seriously criticize them.

As to your points:
1) "How is the investigation politically motivated? Who said it was? This straw argument begins your post full of such arguments. Wrong side of the bed?"

Try to pay attention. Bruce, the first person to post a comment in this thread, called the investigation politically motivated. You see, I wasn't limiting my criticism to you.

2) "I think you'll find a few hundred thousand Iraqis who are grateful to those 2000 Americans for giving them the right to self-government. Perhaps you'd rather live under Hussein than under Bush."

Your attempt to equate criticism of the war with an embrace of Saddam is so 2002. Liberals aren't going to be cowed by that kind of sloppy intimidation anymore. You might try screaming "9/11! 9/11!" but somehow I don't think that is going to work anymore either. As to the limited content of your argument, it fails on several counts. First, according to a recent British poll, the majority of Iraqis want us out now, and 65% of them think that suicide bombings of Americans are justifiable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
So contrary to your wishful thinking, most Iraqis are NOT happy with what has happened to their country. (Strange. I thought Dick Cheney told us we’d be greeted as liberators and that the insurgency was in its last throes.) Second, getting rid of Saddam is only worthwhile if it leads to something better. But in fact, our invasion has inflamed the Middle East, led to increased terrorist recruiting, and according to many predictions could easily result in either an Iranian-style or Iranian-allied theocracy in Iraq. There is also a distinct possibility that a continued civil war could lead to the Kurds seceding, which would almost certainly cause the Turks to invade.

3) "I wish someone would've explained the different grades of perjury during the Clinton years. Who knew that lying under oath was so nuanced? Are these your values?"

Lying is wrong, no doubt about it. But your reference to “nuanced” differences between Clinton’s lie and the possibility that Bush/Cheney lied about why we had to go to war is either disingenuous or just plain crazy. In the real world, not your bizarro one, most people would agree that lying about sex is not tantamount to lying to convince a nation of the need to go to war. In other words, sex is less important than war. So you can apply your legalistic equation if you want, but reasonable people think otherwise. In fact according to a current poll, the majority of Americans think that ethics in the White House have gotten worse since Clinton left office. Ignoring for a moment the inability to find those pesky WMD, one reason for the public’s low opinion of the Bush White House is probably because Bush told reporters he didn't know who in his administration might be responsible for the Plame leak, but his aides have admitted than in fact he knew 2 years ago:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html
So in fact, that case alone demonstrates that Bush is a liar. Since Bush didn’t make that claim under oath perhaps that doesn’t mean anything to you. In that case maybe anytime Bush is asked a question he should be required to answer under oath.

4) “British intelligence, using alternate channels and standing by this intelligence to this day, say that Wilson's report was wrong.”

What report? I thought the Bush administration said they never received his report. Funny how the British managed to get a copy. Or are you referring to Wilson’s overall charge that Saddam never sought to buy uranium from Niger, as Bush wrongly asserted in his State of the Union address? Because if that’s the case, please tell me what source the British had for their contrasting conclusion. You see, based on what I have read, their source (like that of the Americans) was a forged set of documents that supposedly came from the Niger embassy in Rome. The radical right likes to point out that the British had a second source, but they never say what it was. I’ll tell you who many people think that is: either the French or the Italians, who were passing on the same bogus documents!

5) “I wonder if you were as eager to pronounce Clinton guilty when he was charged? Doubt it. I get the feeling you, too, were arguing what ‘is’ is.”

How nice of you to insert not only words in my mouth but thoughts in my brain that I never had. For the record, I thought Clinton was a good President but a slimeball who hurt the office and undermined the Democratic party for years. Since you obviously don’t remember the incessant press coverage of the scandal, you don’t recall that the so-called “liberal press” eviscerated him for his bad behavior, as did all the liberals I knew at the time, including myself. But as I said, his behavior really pales in comparison to misrepresenting the need to go to war. Oh, and by the way, Clinton wasn’t “charged”, as you claim. In fact, no member of the Clinton White House was indicted for anything despite the constant investigations. This of course is very different than what we have seen in both the Reagan and Bush administrations.

6) As to my “partisan” criticism of the Republican vote to cut food stamps by $844 million, as usual, you dismiss criticism as partisanship without examining the validity of the claim. In the article you referenced, the only person who defended the Republican vote was a Bush appointee. However, here are what some nonpoliticians in the same article said:
“Antihunger activists said hunger rates were up for the fifth year in a row, so the cuts were a mistake. ‘It is hard to imagine any congressional action that is more detached from reality,’ said James Weill of the Food Research and Action Center. ‘Cutting food stamps now is a scandal,’ said David Beckman of Bread for the World, pointing to losses from hurricanes.”
Maybe you missed those parts.

Perhaps you’d like to defend Cheney’s recent attempt to convince Congress it should legalize torture too. I’d like to hear how that sits with the Christian values of the Bush administration’s base. Or how your support of the war conflicts with the Pope’s opposition to the American invasion. Either he was a liberal, or opposition to the war went beyond mere partisan bickering and some evangelical Christians need to reexamine their so-called values.

Like the slow response to Katrina and the (also indicted) DeLay’s query to children left homeless in the Astrodome (“Is this kind of fun?”), your party’s definition of compassionate conservatism is a misnomer and a dismal failure. And yet you continue to promote it. The cognitive dissonance must be deafening to you.

Try to pay attention. Bruce, the first person to post a comment in this thread, called the investigation politically motivated. You see, I wasn't limiting my criticism to you.
You are correct sir. I apologize for my comment. For the record, I'm disinclined to consider the Fitzpatrick investigation politically motivated.

I do, however, have to continue to take issue with calling American soldiers "victims". Iraqis, I believe, consider them heroes. Consider this first paragraph from a Guardian article (no right-wing rag they) entitles "Children run cheering as troops roll in":

It was a surreal way to invade a country. As a huge British convoy crossed into Iraq yesterday hundreds of children came to greet them. In the end British soldiers were greeted, not with gunfire, but with laughter and smiles.

Have you forgotten the joy at the removal of Hussein statues? I indeed find it disheartening that polls are suggesting that most Iraqis now don't prefer having the troops there. After 2 and a half years, it is understandable, but I wonder how much of that is regional. If you live in an area where there's a lot of terrorism going on, I imagine you'd want them. If you're not facing that problem, you'd probably wonder why they're still there. But I have to take the poll results with a grain of salt when "less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security". I mean, that simply isn't true. If the Americans and British were to leave tomorrow, would things get better? Much of the violence now is directed against the Iraqi government. Agreed, violent acts directly at Brits and Yanks would subside, but does that mean "security" for all would be better? I highly doubt that, so these poll results don't really seem to track with the facts on the ground.

Your hypothetical disaster scenarios are just that; hypothetical. Given the track record of hypothetical disaster scenarios during the Iraq war, I don't give these new ones all that much credence at this point.

Lying is wrong, no doubt about it. But your reference to “nuanced” differences between Clinton’s lie and the possibility that Bush/Cheney lied about why we had to go to war is either disingenuous or just plain crazy.
I'm just saying that each should be treated the same way in the legal sense. Perhaps we should just censure Libby and MoveOn(.org).

...Bush told reporters he didn't know who in his administration might be responsible for the Plame leak, but his aides have admitted than in fact he knew 2 years ago
The article you linked to noted that Bush "rebuked" Rove for his role in the Plame affair. Don't say what that role was. Could've been something big or something like not telling the President who the leak was. One reason for the public's low opinion of the Bush White House is probably folks who say Rove broke the law what that's not been said or proven yet.

Regarding "What report", I'm talking about Wilson's report to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Wilson's op-ed said Saddam didn't buy yellowcake from Niger, but he failed to mention that Iraq did approach Niger, and the Nigerian PM believed this was an attempt to procure yellowcake. I guess what I should have said is that Wilson's portrayal of his report to the public was wrong. His selectively quoted to do the most damage.

Meanwhile, the Butler Report further discredited Wilson's public pronouncements. As per the BBC's summary:

British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was "credible". There was not conclusive evidence Iraq actually purchased the material, nor did the government make that claim.

As per Wikipedia:

Britain had multiple sources for the intelligence that Iraq sought uranium from both Niger and the Republic of Congo.

The report itself doesn't say what those sources were, so I'm sorry I'm unable to supply them to you.

I apologize for having put words in your mouth regarding Clinton's behavior. I do recall, though, the myriads of Clinton administration officials proclaiming his innocence to all who would hear. I do recall the liberal pundits carrying his water, suggesting that lying under oath is no big deal depending on the circumstances. When you're the President, however, everything's a big deal. We should all be thankful that Lewinsky was just a starstruck intern and not an agent looking for blackmail opportunities.

You suggest the press "eviscerated" him. That I don't agree with. My favorite example is the blue dress. Drudge reported it 9 months before the press even hinted at it. When even the press couldn't hold back anymore and they simply had to cover things, they did so. Otherwise they'd lose what credibility they hung on to.

Whitewater happened before Clinton was in the White House, so obviously no one in his administration was charged. However, there were quite a number of people charged with crimes associated with the original wrongdoing, in addition to those committed during the investigation. We're asked to believe that Clinton surrounded himself with manure while continuing to smell like a rose. Of course, dozens of people surrounding Clinton were convicted of crimes, pled the 5th, fled the country or stayed out of country to avoid questioning. He just made sure didn't involve his cabinet (as far as we can tell). The idea that ethics have gone down from there just doesn't fly with me.

Quick takes on the tangents:
* Cheney didn't try to "legalize" torture. The McCain bill was redundant.
* The Pope has his own reasons. I don't necessarily agree with him. Agree that support/opposition to the war isn't neatly cut along ideological lines (what issue is?), but it generally does.
* Many Christians value the idea that far, far fewer people in Iraq are dying per day now than under Hussein.
* James Weill, the "nonpolitical" person, gave $1250 to John Kerry for President and $1000 to Hillary Clinton. Doesn't mean his opinion's wrong, just that he's not "nonpolitical".
* David Beckman's press release doesn't note that this cut will reduce government waste, reducing duplication of benefits. He's looking just at absolute dollars for a program he's has concerns for, and is, in my opinion, not seeing the larger picture.
* The DeLay indictment is so rife with problems. Now that's one I'd call politically motivated. Earle has a poor track record with indictments that come after needing multiple grand juries to find a friendly one.

Regarding the Plame affair, and regarding the original post, at this point it doesn't look like anyone's being charged with actually "outing" a "covert" CIA employee.