NBC/WSJ poll is out.
57% of Americans believe Bush deliberately misled in his case for the war in Iraq. According to David Brooks over half of the population is scribbling in crayon with tinfoil hats on.
80% believe that Scooter Libby leaking classified information to the press for political gain is a significant issue. Which is something like twice the amount of people who ever thought Monicagate was of any consequence.
38% believe Bush is doing a good job, an all-time low.
Tuesday was just the beginning.
What exactly did Scooter Libby “leak”?
The indictment that I read said that Libby told the grand jury one story about how he learned of Valerie Plame’s identity, while telling White House reporters another story. The grand jury was able to corroborate, through multiple witnesses, what Libby actually told reporters in July 2003. Thus the grounds for the perjury indictment were laid.
No one was indicted for “leaking” anything.
Who is wearing the tinfoil hat here? Or has watching too many episodes of The West Wing made it difficult to separate fantasy from reality?
And really, Oliver, if you insist on perpetuating the Bush Lied!!!! myth, then why don’t you vigorously defend it?
You can begin by factually refuting everything outlined here:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html
Perhaps the best place to start would be to explore every quote and policy in the above article that is attributed to the Clinton administration, years before the evil Rove-Cheney-Chimpy McBu$$HitlerBurton conspiracy was in charge. That should prove quite entertaining.
I hope Bush will continue to be exactly the kind of leader he is, and ignore all polls. Stay the course, W.
Tell a lie often enough and it becomes fact -
“Note here that no consideration is given at all to whether or not the claim is true — it clearly is not, or else every other western world leader, including many Democrats who are now cynically distancing themselves from their own forceful speeches (We are too stupid to lead! Look how gullible we are!) are liars, as well but rather what is being tacitly celebrated here is the ability of those who are misrepresenting events to convince others about their misrepresentations.
They are proud of this as if they ve just now discovered that truth really doesn t matter even after years of making that claim.”
>
But Libby is indicted for lying about his leaking. The charges against him could get him 30 years, but if he is convicted Bush would likely pardon him.
38% is probably that percentage of the population that would approve of Bush’s performance if he suddenly decided to invade Canada (come to think of it, I’d probably give him the thumbs up on that as well).
Staggering to think that FIFTY SEVEN PERCENT believe that they were deliberately misled on Iraq. Staggering.
JK
I know the neocons don’t quite grasp this, but those 2000 dead Americans had families, and friends. They weren’t just pieces on a chessboard.
Here ya go:
More. From Fitzgerald’s press conference:
Oh and Randy, the best reply to Podhertz’s piece so far is at Kevin Drum’s site. In the run up to the war it was awfully hard for anyone to be right about the WMD question because few if any of the dissenting intelligence was allowed to get to the people making the decsions. Kevin wrote:
“The problem Podhoretz doesn’t bother wrestling with, however, is that after the war concluded we discovered that there were also a fair number of people who had been skeptical about Iraqi WMD. INR, for example, thought the African uranium was bogus. DIA thought our prime witness for Iraqi-al-Qaeda WMD collaboration was lying. The Air Force found the evidence on drones to be laughable. DOE didn’t believe in the aluminum tubes. None of these dissents was acknowledged by the Bush administration.”
Read the rest here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007530.php
Mike –
What Quaker said, or rather quoted. Because you see, if you had actually read the indictment or listened to the press conference you would know that what you wrote is wrong. Your whole understanding of the case, as evidenced above, indicates instead that you have not read the indictments and that you didn’t listen to Fitzgerald’s press conference. It does, however, sound like you’ve simply regurgitated what the right wing noise machine wants you to think the case is all about. Libby was indicted for lying to the FBI and the grand jury about how he learned about Valerie Wilson’s job and what he did with that information. Fitzgerald says directly and explicitly in the indictments that Libby lied to the grand jury and that he leaked classified information. From the DOJ summary of Fiztgerald’s press conference:
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.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_pr_28102005.pdf
I’ll ask you what I asked Dugger the other day (and never got an answer): Tell me and my lying eyes that that doesn’t say Libby disclosed classfied information about Valerie Wilson.
Did I say Randy? I meant Mike.
Dugger –
You are beyond hope on this. Now you’re back arguing there’s a distinction between Wilson and Plame? Are you still arguing that if you and I repeat what we read in a public newspaper we are also guilty of leaking classified information?
Can you try dealing with the facts for once? Again, read this quote from Fitzgerald:
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.
How does this square with your assertions? Explain.
Quaker,
Sorry. Multiple indications that that info (re Wilson, Plame CIA) was already in the public arena. Libby clearly did not leak Plame (unless you and I are now leaking Plame).
Dugger
Or else explain how your assertions square with Fitzgerald’s assertion that the first sign that Wilson’s cover had been blown was when Novak’s column appeared? As Fitzgerald said:
“Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.”
You see Dugger, there’s what Fitzgerald knows and what you believe. Between the two, with all due respect, I’ll go with Fitzgerald.
frame,
Try and read carefully. Fitz says, PASSIVE VOICE, that Novak’s column was a sign that Val’s cover was blown. Then at some other point he says, not that Libby blew her cover, not that Libby was the first leaker, but that “Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson….”. Nothing here says Libby actually blew her cover. And then he does not indict Libby for leaking, blowing covers or for any espionage act violation.
I will concede that it is propbable that at some point Val’s cover was blown. But we have her ex boss testmoney, the words of Andrea Mitchell, and reports of the Cuban- Switzerland leak and Aldrich Ames as possible explanations of how that cover could hav eben blown. The man who looked at it most carefully does not allege that Libby blew her cover. He comes closer to saying Novak, but really doesn’t say that. And he prosecutes no one. Don’t see how that eludes you.
Dugger
Dugger –
You keep bringing up Aldrich Ames and whatever the hell Andrea Mitchell said to puff up her own insider status, but what does any of that mean in the face of this straighforward declaration by Fitzgerald:
“Valerie Wilson s cover was blown in July 2003.”
I take this to mean Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003. What do you think it means? I’d love to know.