I ain’t gonna shout and won’t repeat my arguments. But you at least must have some intellectual curiosity about this: Why didn’t he indict for leaking?
I freely admit my arguments as to trying the explain the factual truth of there being no leaking charge, are speculation. You havn’t refuted those ideas, but they are nothing more than a tenderd explanation for something that is a hard core fact from the indictment. On outing Val, there are stories of Ames and the Soviets, Switzerland and the Cubans etc. And I can tell you, that if Val and lil Joe had been Russians, we, our intellieegnce services, would have outed Val a long time ago by cross correlation.
OTOH, I understand you may believe Libby outed Val. But your own sense of intellectual integrity should make you ask many more questions. I believe the hoopla over this is all political. But if Libby broke the law in telling about conversations with reporters, I guess he’ll have to pay the price, but I wouldn’t feel very pious about it on your end (Sandy Berger?).

Dugger

Does that about complete your vast web of supporting contexts and facts?

No, but I’m satisfied with the points I’ve presented. The information I provided was accurate, and my chain of logic was correct. My arguments stand on their own at this point.

I walk into a knife store. Walk around and walk out. Is this hard, cold evidence that I wanted to buy a kife? Is it enough evidence to charge me with murder?

By itself…no. In combination with other evidence the fact that you were in the store could be useful information. I’ve used a similar example when teaching students about evidence. Facts by themselves are not as meaningful as a group of facts within a unifying context.

BTW, you example would be a more accurate analogy if you added the fact that you had murdered people in the past, were threatening people in the present, currently harbored other known murderers, provided financial support for those who kill lots of people and call for their extermination, and had called upon the owner of the store to discuss “expanding commercial relations.” The store owner, knowing that he was not allowed to sell you a knife, “made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade.” You left without discussing knives.

Under those circumstances, the fact that you traveled a long way to visit a store that does nothing but sell knives after informing the owner that you wanted to discuss “expanding commercial relations” would have more meaning.

now I m talking to myself

I the Left encouraged masturbation!

I have no answer for why Fitz didn’t indict Novak because he didn’t speak to it in the indictment. I can definitely speak to why he didn’t you or me: Neither you nor I ever deliberately disclosed classified information involving Valerie Wilson. I don’t even know why you keep bringing this up. The information was no longer classified the minute Novak’s column hit the streets. There was, indeed, nothing classified to disclose after that. I assume, mind you, that Fitz was never focussed on any of the reporters for leak charges.

BTW, speaking of arguments left behind. Whatever happened to your “Wilson’s wife” is different from “Valerie Plame” line of reasoning? Doesn’t look like Fitz recognized your brilliant legal thinking here does it? Indeed, the indictments repeatedly use “Wilson’s wife” through out to describe the information that Libby revealed. And yet Fitz still concluded that: “Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson.

Nice try there buckaroo. Better luck next Republican scandal.

Is it the fact that Iraq met with Niger officials about trade? In and of itself, this doesn t prove anything about uranium.

What is it evidence of, then? That the Iraqi delegation was trying to increase their frequent flyer miles?

You use the phrase “in and of itself.” You would like to remove the travel to Niger from its context and isolate it. I do not.

It’s a fact that Iraqi officials visited Niger to dicuss reopening trade. At this meeting, Wilson reported, uranium was never discussed.

Now please tell me how this is evidence of Iraq seeking uranium. You want to argue that there nothing else Iraq would be wanting from trade with Niger. Be that as it may, is this evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium? I ask you, would this evidence, so-called, hold up in an American court?

On its face its evidence of the fact that Iraqi officials met with Niger officials to discuss trade.

 BLITZER: But is there any other export that Niger has?

WILSON: But it was not raised as a subject, so it is hard to get from there to saying that we have learned or the British government has learned that Iraq has attempted to purchase significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

What’s so fucking stunning about this statement is that Wilson said he collected no evidence because was there no evidence to collect. There was no evidence that Iraq sought uranium. Could you please tell me what evidence you think Wilson gathered that supports your claim that Iraq sought uranium?

Is it the fact that Iraq met with Niger officials about trade? In and of itself, this doesn’t prove anything about uranium.

Is it the fact that the Wilson was told by Niger officials that they assumed Iraq was seeking uranium? This again is not evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium. It’s not evidence at all. Would this hold up in an American court of law — a witness presuming to know the motives and state of mind of someone else?

It certainly can’t be the fact the Wilson was told uranium was never discussed at the meeting. Right?

Please, enlighten me again about the evidence Wilson supposedly unearthed that proves Iraq sought uranium. Please. For old time sake.

It goes without saying that Fitzgerald did not charge Libby with a crime involving the leaking of classified information. But that does not mean classified information was leaked. Fitzgerald himself said that Libby leaked classified information: “Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson.

Do you have a problem with what Fitzgerald said?

My language is born from the frustration of having to say again and again that I am not arguing anything. I am merely repeating what’s in the indictments and what Fitzgerald said at the press conference.

You’re arguing that Fitzgerald didn’t bring charges for leaking against Libby because Wilson’s status at the CIA wasn’t classified or that her cover has previously been blown, am I correct? There is nothing in the indictments that substantiates this reasoning as Fitzgerald explictly states that both her status was classified and that her cover was blown, the first sign of which was when Novak’s column appeared. He says these things directly. I can quote them and I have. You cannot quote anything from the indictments or the press conference that substantiates your line of reasoning. Except you insist that when Fitzgerald adds that “her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community” that what he means is that her status was known by people who should not have known it and that so her cover has blown long before Libby’s conversation with Miller and Novak’s column. Again, there is nothing in the indictments to support this interpretation. That’s you speculating. But your speculation means nothing besides Fitzgerald’s actual words:

“Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson s employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Disclosure of classified information about an individual s employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individual s future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them, the indictment states … ‘The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson,’ [Fitzgerald] added. (p2-3)

Did you read that last part of the official indictment summary?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_pr_28102005.pdf

Did you read where it says that Libby lied about how he “subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson”? All I’m saying is that Fitzgerald believes that Libby disclosed classified information. He says right there. That’s a direct quote. Do you want to dispute this? Take it up with Fitzgerald. He says right there, directly without qualification that Libby disclosed classified information.

Do you deny that Fitzgerald said this:

“The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson.

If you can quote it, I’ll concede your point. But you can’t because Fitzgerald says throughout that Wilson’s status was classified and that he cover was blown on or around the time of Novak’s column.

 Wilson s mission can t conclude anything. It takes a person to draw conclusions from Wilson s mission.

Exactly. So we agree that using that term makes more sense as a way to describe the evidence that was collected than as a way to describe a person’s conclusions. In other words, the evidence that was collected “can’t conclude anything.”

So when I state, “Wilson s mission confirmed that Iraq sought to purchase uranium,” it doesn’t make sense to attribute the statement to Wilson’s conclusions. It’s the same as saying, “The evidence collected during Wilson’s mission confirmed that Iraq sought to purchase uranium,” but less wordy. It’s entirely different than referring to “Wilson’s conclusions.”

We finally agree on something. I’m glad I could bring you around!

Still, the white house had no business fiddling with the identity of a CIA agent in an attempt to smear him.

Agreed. But that doesn’t make the other issues disappear.

Still, the white house had no business fiddling with the identity of a CIA agent in an attempt to smear him.

Libby knows that, that’s why he lied about it.

Allegedly.