Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Wow, and after some here were certain he'd go free. After the November elections and this, the powers of forcasting seem a bit suspect.
Originally Posted By jonvn what it shows is that the Bush admin lied about what they knew was going on in Iraq, and lied about the reasoning for us going to war. And this was looked into, this particular guy lied to the investigators in order to cover up the misdeeds of those higher up. He fell on his sword for Karl Rove and the VP. It's almost an honorable thing he did, except for the thousands of Americans dead and wounded, and the destabalization in the middle east and the making of Iran into a world power oh and the weakening of our military and the lack of completion of the task in Afghanistan, and the lowering of our prestige all around the world. So, yeah, honorable. Thank goodness for guys like this. I suspect he'll get a full pardon from our fine President.
Originally Posted By DAR Wow someone in a government position lied. Wake me when someone actually has the stones NOT to lie.
Originally Posted By jonvn No, he didn't just lie. He was convicted of obstruction of justice. And these lies? Well, gee. How would you like it if your son/daughter/sibling was killed in Iraq for absolutely no reason? Or maimed. Oh and then I guess once they are maimed, our fine Administration who cares so much for our troops will warehouse them in a filth ridden hospital run by some incompetent political appointee. I don't even support the troops that much. They were volunteers, and this is what they signed up for. But it is a complete and total waste for them to be sent into a war for NO VALID REASON and be killed in vain. This entire thing will go down in history as the biggest disgrace to ever hit our nation. I think it's worse than watergate at this point.
Originally Posted By DAR <<And these lies? Well, gee. How would you like it if your son/daughter/sibling was killed in Iraq for absolutely no reason? Or maimed.>> You believe there wasn't a good reason, some will disagree. I for one think our intentions were decent and noble.
Originally Posted By jonvn This conviction shows that people lied about the reasoning behind the war in Iraq. If our intentions were decent and noble, there would have been no need to lie. That's all there is to it. Decent and noble was Afghanistan. Yes. And we have support from NATO and the rest of the world there. Iraq was neither decent or noble, and we now have an obstruction of justice conviction of someone about as high up in the Administration as you can get. This guy wasn't just a minor functionary. He was at the very top. And he obstructed justice. The only reason he would have to do that is to cover up. And the only thing he would have been covering up is the lies this Administration was engaging in.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Unfortunately this investigation stops here. There will be plenty of others, extending long after bush's term expires. More corruption will be revealed, and republicans will continue to shrug it off as 'business as usual'. But they'll still wag a finger at clinton over a sex scandal. And this kind of partisan compartmentalization is what's necessary to be be a republican - you have to excuse blatant lies that seek to justify a war based on falsehoods, yet remain shocked SHOCKED about sex.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> You believe there wasn't a good reason, some will disagree. << Perhaps you believe what the administration told us in the run-up to the iraq war - connections between al qaeda and iraq, implicit involvement by iraq in the 9/11 attacks, stockpiles of WMD, nuclear weapons programs - all of it lies. >> I for one think our intentions were decent and noble. << Weren't our intentions - ostensibly - to respond to the terror attacks of 9/11? That's just not true. William Clark has recently given an interview in which he was told - by a representative of wolfowitz - that we were going to invade iraq. He was told this less than TWO WEEKS after 9/11/01 - before we had any information about what happened or who did it. Specifically, we was told about a five year plan to attack seven mid-east nations - including iraq, syria and iran. Curiously, no mention of saudi arabia - where almost all of the 9/11 perpetrators came from. The comment at the time was "when you have a hammer, you look for a nail". That doesn't sound like any part of "decent and noble" to me.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>And this kind of partisan compartmentalization is what's necessary to be be a republican - you have to excuse blatant lies that seek to justify a war based on falsehoods, yet remain shocked SHOCKED about sex.<< Actually, I haven't seen anyone here rushing to defend Libby's lies. As it turns out (of course) he really didn't need to, since the actual focus of the investigation ended up tarring any number of people. (Not the least of which Joe Wilson himself.) And what Libby lied about had little of nothing to do with the actual build up to the Iraq War. This Republican has consistently maintained that it didn't matter what Clinton lied about-- he lied under oath, in a court of law. He lied knowing full well that he was saying was a lie. He lied to his family, he lied to his closest associates, and he encouraged them to lie. He encouraged others to file false affidavits. It's not about the sex, it's about the lies. You know-- what Scooter Libby was convicted of.
Originally Posted By jonvn Libby was convicted of: obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame; making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert; perjury when he lied in court about his conversation with Russert; a second count of perjury when he lied in court about conversations with other reporters.
Originally Posted By gadzuux What did clinton lie about? Sex. What did libby lie about? The actions of his boss - and his administration - in smearing a critic who was leveling accusations about the false reasons given to justify the iraq war. And those two things - sex and war - equate with you?
Originally Posted By jonvn And even if clinton did lie, and i'm not saying he did not, what was he lying about? A personal sex act. This guy is lying about something a bit more important. And yes, this does involve the buildup to the iraq war, because it was about Plame, and the outing and smearing of her when the Administration was criticized for LYING about the WMD in Iraq. Here was an intelligence officer out in the field who found out directly the truth, and when it did not coincide with what the Administration wanted it to, they exposed her. It's a disgrace.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Some people feel that perjury is perjury no matter what the reason, and that Clinton and Libby were both guilty, and their reasons are 'the same.'
Originally Posted By jonvn They can feel that, but they are unrealistic and I think ridiculous. There are varying degrees to criminal behavior. It's why you have murder in the first, second, third degree, then manslaughter, and so on. There are all sorts of things in the law to differntiate crimes in their severity. These rules are there for a reason.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I agree with you, jonvn. I'm always amazed when I hear people say 'guilty is guilty in the eyes of the law.'
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Wow, it took only 11 posts to bring up Clinton. And seriously, was Clinton on trial here? What is it with this predilection lately of bringing up someone else's transgressions as a way of excusing other things? I doubt very much Scooter Libby is fretting about Clinton right about now. Libby purposely tried to obfuscate the facts as he knew them in order to impede the investigation. THAT'S the obstruction. Some posters around here should know all about obfuscation. This Administration took that practice too far and then threw Libby under the bus. Nice.
Originally Posted By retlawfan Libby is just as guilty as Clinton was. They both lied to investigators and Grand Jury. The CONVICTION has nothing to do with the war efforts or the administration. It has to do with LYING to a Grand Jury. Same as Clinton's IMPEACHMENT was not about sex, it was about LYING to a Grand Jury. It's the same thing that happened to Martha Stewart. It wasn't the insider trading that got her in trouble, it was the Lying about it. It a court of law, the other information, reasons, political hatrid, is irrelevant.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I found the link to the interview with wesley clark I referenced earlier ... <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234" target="_blank">http://www.democracynow.org/ar ticle.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234</a> Pertinent excerpt - >> About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.†He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.†This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?†He said, “I don’t know.†He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.†So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?†He said, “No, no.†He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.†He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.†And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.†So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?†And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.†He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs†-- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.†And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.†I said, “Is it classified?†He said, “Yes, sir.†I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.†And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?†He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!†<< There's your "honorable and decent intentions" right there.
