Some Thoughts On The Libby Verdict

Bob Schieffer Wonders If The Verdict Was Worth The Trial In The CIA Lead Investigation

(CBS)  Weekly commentary by CBS Evening News chief Washington correspondent and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer.

---

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald convinced a jury that Scooter Libby – the Vice President's top aide and confidant – lied to a grand jury.

That is serious business.

But, here's the part I don't understand. What the prosecutor had set out to do – what the case was all about – was to determine if someone had broken the law by knowingly revealing the identity of secret intelligence agent Valerie Plame.

Did any of that ever happen? Was a law actually broken? If the prosecutor found such evidence, he must not have found much because no charge was ever filed. We don't even know if she was a secret agent covered by that law.

Nor will we ever.

Fitzgerald spent millions of dollars, hauled reporters before grand juries, forced them to reveal sources, even put one in jail and kept her there for months. But, once he convicted Libby of lying, he said he planned no other action.

Sure, the trial produced valuable information. We found out that top officials of the government apparently lie, spend a lot of time trying to manipulate the press, are quick to demean and discredit their critics, and when such hardball tactics backfire, find themselves paying an embarrassing political price.

But when these investigations drag on for years, when prosecutors spend millions of our tax dollars, when reporters are forced to tell grand juries who in the government they have been talking to, shouldn't we expect more for our money?

Shouldn't we at least be told if a law was broken, and whether Ms. Plame's identity was even covered by that law?

---

E-mail Face the Nation.

[gkc99]

Neocons are forever claiming that the only reason they wanted to impeach Clinton was because he lied under oath, not because he got from Monica what they can only dream of getting from Anne Coulter. Well, isn't suborning perjured testimony a felony? Why isn't there an ongoing investigation about Cheney's role in this, and why hasn't the House initiated impeachment proceedings against Cheney. It seems very unlikely that Libby did this all on his own. He's a total subordinate; he was following orders--Cheney's orders--to lie. Therefore, Cheney is impeachable.

[cbslogin12]

Well said B130! You make some valid and important points. I agree with you completely.

[imprisonbush]

Bob Sheiffer: you have been listening to the nonesense pandering by the neo-nuts again. Who cares whether Al Capone was ONLY convicted of tax evasion, do you really need someone in government to come out and validate for you that he was a crook? From this trial, the prosecutor established the following undisputable facts: Cheney and Bush partnered to disclose the identity of covert CIA agent Valarie Plame in order to try and discredit her husband because he was exposing their lies to justify this illegal war. Whether Fitzgerald was able to convict him of a crime that covered all of these improper actions should be close to immaterial. Their dirty tricks are incredibly dishonest and damaging, threaten the security of our country and should spark outrage in the general population as well as the presumably "more informed" political reporters. The fact that you cannot apparently understand and condemn these actions without some kind of formal, external validation from someone else is an ominous predictor of the sad state of this country and what the average Joe in America must be able to understand.

It is illegal to out a CIA operative and, yes, the law was broken when Plame was outed. But proving it in a court of law is another thing. Therefore, it is typical prosecutor tactic to take a person to court on what he can prove. Americans know that Cheney was behind the outing, that Rove was involved, that the Bush Administration orchestrated the whole affair to further their war agenda with Iraq. Republicans don't think this is a very serious matter. The fact that we have gotten ourselves into a disastrous predicament in Iraq is very serious! To act like Libby is being picked on for doing nothing is typical spin by this corrupt administration and I am disappointed that Mr. Schieffer is advancing their opinion.

[opfor311]

BI30,

Youare mistaken in your assesment in several points:
1. Plame was not a covered covert agent in accordance with the act since she had been back in the country for more than 5 years. Just because CIA asked for an investigation does not mean that she was a qualifed covert agent.

2. Brewster/Jennings was not outed by any overt action, but by the fact that an agent connected to them was now in public view. This happens all the time since we do not keep people under cover for life. The fact that Plame used this cover in public records means that whenever she come into public sight, the front company is blown.

3. Any forgein government who wasn't aware the the spouse of any U.S. government official COULD be an undercover CIA agent is composed of brain dead individuals. All governments watch all embassy personel, the embassy offical's family, all press members from foreign countries, and anyone else they think might be a undercover agent.

The reason why Fitzgerald didn't try anyone else is very simple...Armitrige was the leaker, and there is NO reason why he would have done this to help the Bush administration. Hed was just explaining to Woodward and Novak why the CIA would sent an ex-Clinton staffer who opposed going to war with Iraq to investigate this.

Fitzgerald has no case against anyone else.

[skyk-2009]

I am so tired of this CORRUPTION and even MORE tired of the Excuse makers. It should be plainly obvious to anyone how can INDEPENDENTLY think for them selves that THIS President and THIS Administration no longer has the backing and support of the American People. THAT is the problem. This constant harping and snipping at those who are ATTEMPTING to clean up the mess is just that HARPING and SNIPPING. The mess we have left those who care, the REAL Republican's (those that are left), democrats and independents, we have to stop it. We need to get behind those who were elected to change things AND demand that they do so. We MUST stand behind our FELLOW American, who is being HARMED by all this corruption and LYING, and force OUR representatives to get with the program. It's time to be an AMERICAN or just shut up. This Guy Bush is a FRAUD people and his Administration is a LIE, built on the backs of the Most simple and vunerable amoung us. It's time to resign Mr. President!!

[samthetvcat]

Yeah, I think the danger is in believing that because a sinister motive can't be proven in court that Cheney's defacto immunity to out covert agents actually falls within his intended scope of authority to declassify agents. The argument that Valerie Plame was 'not covert' hinges on Cheney's authority to declassify agents at whim. Likewise, the argument that it isn't clear that Armitage didn't 'knowingly' out Plame too hinges on Cheney's authority to declassify agents at whim. Whether or not Plame was covert and whether or not the outing was done knowingly thus hinges on the good faith of Cheney's declassification of her status. I haven't seen many people willing to make that leap of faith that Cheney was on the side of angels. And if you don't believe Cheney outed Plame with good faith, then Bush and Cheney have established absolute power to defy the law within this realm - we ought to see this absolute power culminate in Bush's pardon of Libby before serves time in jail.

[samthetvcat]

oops - when I said 'ought to see' I guess I meant 'will likely see' :)

[samthetvcat]

PS Bob - sinister intent is often only pursued if prosecutors are able to get an insider to turn. Perhaps Fitzgerald was hoping Libby would cut a deal (?) I'm not sure, but I think this is what prosecutors did with Enron - started with the little fish and then worked up their Ken Lay, Jeffery Skilling, etc.

[samthetvcat]

(Part 4 - omg! lol)

But I guess the difference between Enron and Bush/Cheney is that Ken Lay didn't have the authority to get his buddies off the hook through a pardon.

[dallison7]

opfor311

I have read your gleeful explanations of the various elements of this case, and I understand that you are on a mission to defend the honor of any republican who may be tainted by this. I did not, however, read anything in all of your ramblings about the reason this crime took place. (and yes, I know you will say there was no crime, that is one of the current talking points of the republican party) If we accept your assertion that 'this' member of the administration, and not 'that' member of the admisistration was the one quilty of this deed, we are still left with the question 'why'. Don't you find it curious that this agent was outed after her husband made public one of the Bush administration's lies? If it was not an act of revenge, why did it happen? Be careful when you answer... if you answer. The American people are on to this administration now. No one believes the old story about how her name and job desctiption 'just casually came up in a conversation about Joe Wilson'.

[jbinthe757]

potty mouth..humancitizen!

[mechadavef]

Bob said,
"Did any of that ever happen? Was a law actually broken? If the prosecutor found such evidence, he must not have found much because no charge was ever filed. We don't even know if she was a secret agent covered by that law.

Nor will we ever."

***, Bob! Wake up and smell the coffee! Of course Plame was a secret agent covered by that law! Why else was a special prosecutor appointed? Why was there an investigation, if Plame's identity was not disclosed?

As far as whether or not Libby or anyone else is guilty of breaking that law, the perjury and obstruction of justice by members of the Bush administration has prevented the truth from getting out.

Libby lied under oath to federal law enforcement officers in order to cover up the crime. That is why he was prosecuted, that is why he was convicted. The fact that the Bush administration's criminal stonewalling has foiled the original investigation does not discredit the investigation and its steep cost should be blamed on the very people who obstructed it.

I'm getting sick and tired of "journalists" like Schieffer covering for Bush's failings.

[johnshaft4]

The whole Bush administration is continuing criminal enterprise that must be shut down pursuant to the RICO racketeering statutes with vigorous individual prosecutions. Another Christain/Zionist organization exposed for criminal con artists they really are...

[mechadavef]

Posted by SamTheTVCat-

*** Cheney has no authority to declassify anyone or anything. He's the Vice President, not the director of the CIA.
Cheney's legal duties include ONLY:

1. Waiting to succeed to the presidency.
2. Presiding over the Senate, where he may cast a tie-breaking vote.

The VP does not possess exectutive authority over anyone in the exectutive branch, whatever vainglorious delusions *** Cheney entertains.

[neojoker]

Yes it was worth it. Now we know for sure that something is very ugly and dirty at the top. We have gotten a good whiff of it, with this side show.

[opfor311]

Folks,

Before you go off half-cocked please read the following:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

This is the text of the law in question concerning Ms. Plame.

Note the following:
The term "covert agent" means%u2014

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency%u2014
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and%u2014
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

This is why she does not qualify under the act.

This is not a Repbulican talking point...this is the law in question.

[joecwilson]

Karl Rove escaped jail and so did Cheney. The real question is why Bush and Cheney still refuse to comment on this case to explain why this happened. The secrecy will not prevail and someone will squeal after they are out of office. It's too bad that Bush has two more years to twist in the wind. He is irrelevant and his government would have fallen in just about every other western democracy. No one has any confidence in this group. More harm has been done to this country than all of Nixon's efforts to undermine our Constitution and democracy. Karl Rove's involvement in the firing of prosecutors is just coming out. Too bad he will not be joining Scooter in prison.

[rbfain]

It was really bad that 11 people found him gulity. They should be in jail, not Libby. Better yet BUSH should be in jail.

[jabberwock11]

Opfor311, Posting a small piece of text out of some law is not the end all of the discussion. I would rather hear lawyers argue it out before making up my mind on this. In any case it doesn%u2019t really matter since Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction. Bush will pardon him sooner or later anyway so I%u2019m sure he will walk.

[opfor311]

dallison7:

"If it was not an act of revenge, why did it happen? Be careful when you answer... if you answer."

It's pretty simple. When they were confronted with Wilson's editorial in the NYT, they reponded to them. One of the questions that both Woodward and Novak had for Armitrage was 'Why was Joe Wilson sent by the CIA?' Armitrage answered that it was his wife who worked for the CIA who recommended him.

By the way, it was not the Administration who lied. From the Washington Post, July 10th, 2004:

"Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said."

[opfor311]

jabberwock11,

I encourage you to follow the link and read the entire text from the U.S. Code.

I agree with you that Libby was convicted of purjury and obstruction of justice. Those charges stemmed from the statements that he made to the Grand Jury and the FBI. But the reason why he was not even charged under the Intelligence Identies Protection Act, was that Fitzgerald had no evidence that Libby or anyone else had violated it.

That's why Fitzgerald has gone back to his day job.

[esmunro]

Bob, you are mis-informed or are deliberately mis-informing your audience on two important points. First, you state that it has not be shown that Ms Plame was undercover, however, that was a fact submitted into evidence by Mr. Fitzgerald (copies are on his website!). The defense submitted no evidence that the Administration de-classified that fact. Second, you claim that the sole purpose of the special prosecutor was to identify the source of the leak. Yet you ignore the prosecutor's claim that he was like an umpire getting sand kicked in his face while he was attempting to establish the facts. Americans like me used to hold you in esteem, however, now that we get the real news from outside the CBS/ABC/CNN/FOX corporatocracy, you and CBS are nothing more than schills for the administration.

[clemenhagen1]

Bob, while I appeciate your candor as opposed to the outright lies of the right-wing in trying to dismiss the relevance of this case, I think you are being a bit too cautious when you say "we don't know" about the core issues of this case. Let us begin with one absolutely clear and irrefutable fact: Robert Novak exposed Brewster-Jennings, an active CIA front-company. Brewster-Jennings operated under the pretense of being an energy consulting firm when in fact they investigated issues related to weapons proliferation. With these facts not in dispute, the question becomes obvious: why would the administration knowingly and deliberately expose the identity of a covert CIA operation?

I can think of no other reason than to fire a shot-across-the-bow to the intelligence community? Can you come up with a more rational explanation than that? The administration had woven a web of lies, fabrications, and deceits to sell their war of choice. When Wilson publicly challenged the administration on one piece of their fiction they went on the offensive. This outting of Brewster-Jennings sent a clear message to the intelligence community: sound off about the truth and we will stop at nothing, including targeting your family, to destroy you. Anyone got a better interpretation than that? What possible other motive did they have to expose Brewster-Jennings?

[clemenhagen1]

OPFOR with another Talking Point Lie: "C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency. This is why she does not qualify under the act. This is not a Repbulican talking point...this is the law in question"

Are you telling me that Brewster-Jennings, which was deliberately revealed IN PRINT by Novak at the behest of the administration did not fall under this act? Brewster-Jennings had relied on information provided by foreign nationals: none of them qualified as individuals "whose past or present intelligence relationship with the United States was classified information?" Are you kidding me here? How could they print the name of an active covert operation in the newspaper and not have serious collateral damage? Even if Plame wasn't covert (I disagree as she has been identified as a NOC - non-official cover), what justification do they have to out her? What possible gain, other than a war on our very intelligence community, were they seeking? Your lame justifications for these acts amount to nothing other than excuses for treason.

[clemenhagen1]

DECEPTION POSTED BY OFER: "I agree with you that Libby was CONVICTED OF PERJURY & OBSTRUCTION of justice. Those charges stemmed from the statements that he made to the Grand Jury and the FBI. But the reason why he was not even charged under the Intelligence Identies Protection Act, was that Fitzgerald had no evidence."

Why does a prosecutor pursue perjury? Because of obstruction of justice! Why pursue obstruction of justice? Because the obstruction of justice prevents the resolution of the central crime in question. Cheney orchestrated a campaign of petty revenge against Joseph Wilson for telling the truth about their lies for war. In the process, Cheney & Bush sent a message to the entire intelligence community: mess with our fabrications and fictions about this war and we will stop at nothing, including your families, to make you pay! Why perjury and obstruction of justice? Because Fitzgerald himself said the obstruction reached such a severe level he could not complete his investigation. Libby and other central players lied to the extent that the true crime got effectively covered up. To hear Republicans talk, that obstruction of justice should be rewarded because Fitzgerald could never prove the "underlying crime." Classic spin, but it's still treason.

[clemenhagen1]

Another lie by the aptly named Ofer: You are zero for the truth in your posts.

"One of the questions that both Woodward and Novak had for Armitrage was 'Why was Joe Wilson sent by the CIA?' Armitrage answered that it was his wife who worked for the CIA who recommended him."

Why was Joe Wilson sent? Because Cheney was sweating the CIA to find out about the supposed purchases? Why were they after this? Because they knew there were documents (forged of course) that suggested such? Why was Joseph Wilson sent? He was the former ambassador of Niger AND also had been in the diplomatic corp in Iraq. Who else had his credentials in both countries? Why was it necessary to expose his wife, Plame, and her CIA front-company, Brewster-Jennings? That comes across as sheer and petty political vengeance, pure and simple. Treason too!

[opfor311]

clemenhagen1,

Go read the U.S. Code. Brewster/Jennings is not an individual. It is a front company. Thus it does not fall under the act.

Secondly, Armitrege didn't name Brewster/Jennings. Novak was able to piece that together from unclassified sources, such as Wilson's who's who article, and statements by Ms. Plume about where she worked.

Thirdly, while Armitrege did work in the Bush admistration's State department, he was aligned with the faction that was attemping to go the diplomatic route, and did not want to go to war.

Just because I have a different point of view from yours does not mean I'm wrong.

[jabberwock11]

"I agree with you that Libby was convicted of purjury and obstruction of justice. Those charges stemmed from the statements that he made to the Grand Jury and the FBI. But the reason why he was not even charged under the Intelligence Identies Protection Act, was that Fitzgerald had no evidence that Libby or anyone else had violated it."

They are investigating a crime. If it turns out there is no crime then everyone goes home. However during the investigation you still can't lie under oath. That's a crime in itself. My guess is Libby himself probably thought the original crime had been committed or he would not have lied. Or possibly he just thought it would look bad. Either way, he lied; he was caught; he was convicted; the end. I see no reason why he should get special treatment. If the police come to your house to arrest you for murder and you bash one of them in the head with a pipe you are going to get changed with resisting arrest and probably a few other things. If it turns out later that you are proven innocent of the murder you can still be guilty of the other crimes.

[clemenhagen1]

"Go read the U.S. Code. Brewster/Jennings is not an individual. It is a front company. Thus it does not fall under the act."

This is pretty coy, Ofer. Identify "the company" in the paper, expose anyone who had ever associated with the company to harm, and then claim that because you didn't identify any specific individual you do not qualify under the act. Do you enjoy parsing such fine hairs to defend treason? Here's the sequence of events: They reveal Plame as CIA; by exposing Plame they expose Brewster-Jennings, thus blowing the front, which immediately alerts hostile governments and terrorist organizations that anyone remotely associated with Brewster-Jennings was either a CIA operative OR an informant. A front-company, by it's very definition purports to be legitimate, in the case of Brewster-Jennings an energy consulting firm. Exposing the front reveals the identity of all who worked there, thus violating the law. You're not wrong because you have a different view from me; you're wrong because you are wrong. They exposed, knowingly and willingly, a CIA operative, thus compromising an entire CIA front operation. The CIA asked for a justice department investigation because of the obvious damage to the agency, the operatives in question, and our national security. Treason, orchestrated and perpetuated by the Office of the Vice President. Quite a sight to behold my fellow patriots.

[opfor311]

clemenhagen1,

You remind me of the Queen in 'Alice in Wonderland' saying 'Verdict First! Trial Afterwards! Off with their heads!'

You can't make a law be what you want it to be. It is what the courts have interpreted it to be.

The IIPA is crafted to only apply to a narrow set of conditions. Ms. Plame and/or Brewster/Jennings do not fall under that law. There could possibly be violations of other sections of the U.S. Code (like those that Libby was convicted under), but it is clear from the fact the Fitzgerald did not get an indictment for anything else that he didn't believe that he had enough evidence to convict.

Secondly, Atricle III of the Constitution defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. Technically, none of this qualifies as treason, or Fitzgerald would have sought inditemnets on those charges.

[hines80583]

I watched a 60 minutes show about the anthrax incident. But, here's the part I don't understand. Did any of that ever happen? Was a law actually broken? If the FBI ever found any evidence, no charge was ever filed. The FBI spent millions of dollars, hauled scientists to their offices, forced them to reveal information about their colleagues, even leaked information on one to the press.

But when these investigations drag on for years, when the FBI spends millions of our tax dollars, when reporters are forced to publish dubious stories that accuse an innocent man, shouldn't we expect more for our money? Shouldn't we at least be told if a law was broken? A few people are dead, but that doesn't mean it was murder, does it? NO CHARGES WERE EVER FILED.

I copied much of the above from Schieffer%u2019s article, just altering words to fit the 60 minutes program. We do know that a jury of his peers found Scooter Libby guilty of four felony counts. We also know that Valerie Wilson's identity was bandied about to reporters shamelessly by people at the highest echelons of government. We know the Prosecutor said that HER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CIA WAS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. We don't know whether it was intentional or inadvertent or if there was a conspiracy to leak.

Insofar as Bob has influence over the public%u2019s perceptions, Bob has done the public a disservice by so glibly and arrogantly dismissing the Prosecutor%u2019s judgment and supplanting it with his own.

[clemenhagen1]

"Atricle III of the Constitution defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. Technically, none of this qualifies as treason"

So revealing the names of CIA operatives and CIA front-operations investigating terrorist groups and enemy regimes does not "give them aid and comfort?" What would give them aid and comfort? Brewster-Jennings and Plame were actively involved in the intelligence aspect of this war. Contrary to Bush's approach of invade and occupy, this war can best be fought via intelligence gathering and negotiation with regional powers. The Bush administration "sold-out" our operatives in the field out of petty political spite. This not only put the operatives lives at risk but destroyed any ability to gather further intelligence against our state enemies. Why would a foreign national decide to cooperate and provide information to our intelligence community? The Bush administration proved they would sell-out anyone they desired, regardless of the human cost? What more aid and comfort to the enemy do you want? You continue to try to parse definitions of what is a fairly simple concept: treason. CIA officials fall into the same category as soldiers on the front-line; I can think of no more heinous crime than to sell them out in a naked act of betrayal. Libby got convicted of obstruction because he was part of a conspiracy of lies to cover up the treason.

[samthetvcat]

RE: mechadavef
Do you have case law to substantiate your claim that a VP can't be delegated declassification authority by the (cough cough) President as Commander in Chief? I was just conceding that point for the sake of simplicity because I don't see the outcome as hinging on that point (like it isn't a point that could be successfully used to impeach him imo). Apparently you disagree? I look forward to your arguments...

RE: opfor311
It says on Wikipedia that according to a colleague in the CIA Plame did go overseas within the 5 years before her outing (she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed...) That's why the CIA is so pissed about her cover being blown...

[samthetvcat]

(ooops - the part in brackets below should have quotation marks around it! :) )

[samthetvcat]

Oh, so anyway I guess the follow-up point I wanted to make was just that it is totally possible that Cheney and his henchmen dispatched Armitage to let it out that Plame worked for the CIA without first telling him of Plame's covert status so that they'd all have maximum insulation from being charged - like this way Armitage doesn't 'knowingly' divulge Plame's covert status, and then Cheney's little chimps could then go around all over town spreading the message. Cheney may be the anti-Christ, but he's very cunning and weasily. Circumstantial evidence of a guilty conscience are Ari Fleisher initiating contact with Fitzgerald and making a deal, and Libby's lying to investigators and the Grand Jury. Armitage may not have known Plame was covert, but my gut says those two did. And if those two chimps knew it then Cheney the anti-Christ probably knew it too. And if Armitage DIDN'T know it as an insider, then that seems to perhaps point to a conspiracy to out a covert agent.

[clemenhagen1]

Attention Cat: Great call on the Armitage as pawn ploy. Reports of his reaction described him as being genuinely upon finding out he had unwittingly revealed an agents status. No such conscience displayed by the others. Another interesting detail: the exposure of the front-company Brewster-Jennings. Robert Novak exposed Brewster-Jennings, an a front that operated under the pretense of being an energy consulting firm when in fact they investigated issues related to weapons proliferation. With these facts not in dispute, the question becomes obvious: why would the administration knowingly and deliberately expose the identity of a covert CIA operation?

I can think of no other reason than to fire a shot-across-the-bow to the intelligence community? Can you come up with a more rational explanation than that? The administration had woven a web of lies, fabrications, and deceits to sell their war of choice. When Wilson publicly challenged the administration on one piece of their fiction they went on the offensive. This outting of Brewster-Jennings sent a clear message to the intelligence community: sound off about the truth and we will stop at nothing, including targeting your family, to destroy you. Anyone got a better interpretation than that? What possible other motive did they have to expose Brewster-Jennings?

[samthetvcat]

Oh yeah, the CIA are REALLY pissed about the exposure of Brewster-Jennings too . . . I wouldn't be surprised if it was retailation against them for not going along with Keith Feith's agenda to reshape the intelligence to suit their needs (kill two birds with one stone - barf!)

PS I'm feeling guilty about calling Cheney the anti-Christ - please ignore that even if it does seem to be true :(

[samthetvcat]

(pissed according to Wikipedia! :) )

[samthetvcat]

oops - is name is Douglas Feith, not Keith . . . a little bit on him from Wikipedia:

Feith led the controversial Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon from September 2002 to June 2003. This now defunct intelligence gathering unit has been accused of manipulating intelligence to bolster support for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. According to Feith's former deputy, Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, the Office of Special Plans was "a propaganda shop" and she personally "witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president."

At CIA Director Michael Hayden's Senate confirmation hearing, Senator Carl Levin asked nominee Michael Hayden about Feith's Office of Special Plans:
- Senator Carl Levin: "Were you comfortable with Mr. Feith%u2019s office approach to intelligence analysis?"
- CIA Director Michael Hayden: "No, sir, I wasn%u2019t. I wasn%u2019t aware of a lot of the activity going on, you know, when it was contemporaneous with running up to the war. No, sir, I wasn%u2019t comfortable."

[samthetvcat]

(more - lol)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

In an interview with the Scottish Sunday Herald, former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson said the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. [The OSP] lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated." (Mackay, 2003)

etc . . .

[adian1-2009]

Fitzgerald was hired to investigate, not to illustrate journalists in law. For that you should go to some school of law. Trivializing his job and findings shows a shallow insight on your part. If you feel that your return is not enough for the money spent, too bad. How much did Republicans spend in Clinton's pecadillo? Wasn't Gingrich preaching morality with his pants down? Didn't Feingold seek and spend a lot of money to investigate the composition of the farts of cows? The big contribution of Fitzgerald is finding out information that CONFIRMS what we all know: there are as many crooks in the excecutive branch as in the House and Senate. But you just wait. After so much money spent, Libby will be pardoned. Why? Because he saved Cheney. Pardon will be his payback.

[r9119111]

May God have mercy on all of the Middle and Lower Class Americans who voted for what is taking place in America today. I am proud of all of the Americans who have better sense.

[katg21]

Libby committed no crime here, it's clearly a witch hunt. Perhaps Richard Armitage has a little more explaining to do? Oh, that's right he's a democrap, he'll be fine. The double standards here are astonishing! Wake-up people!!!

Can somebody please explain to me how Sandy Berger, Richard Armitage and William Jefferson are getting a pass on the CRIMES they HAVE committed?!

[notblue]

A total waste of taxpayers money all in the name of politics.

[oleander8]

President Clinton was impeached for lying to the grand jury on a personal matter. I think Libby's lying had a lot more importance and impact than Mr. Clinton's.

[Razzl]

Every presidential administration since Nixon's has been hamstrung by these special-prosecutor investigations. While I'm not sympathetic to any of the objects of the investigation, It's becoming clear that such investigations damage the ability of the executive branch to function and are so routine that one can be expected to crop up for each president, Republican or Democrat, effectively hurting our ability to have a normally functioning government. I've come to the reluctant conclusion that Presidents should hand such charges to the Justice Department to handle, even though Congress and the press will complain that those appointed by the administration can't properly investigate it, because a special prosecutor is almost guaranteed to find somebody guilty of something and turn our government upside down while they're doing it. It's unlikely Congress will ever sanction any President who declines to appoint a special prosecutor, however much they may complain.

That said, Libby is the servant of extraordinarily evil men and I'm not prepared to shed the tears for him that some of his juror seem willing to. If he's willing to fall on his sword for a monster like Cheney and give up his life with his wife and family for misbegotten loyalty to the ideals of this regime then he deserves his punishment...

[karlimhof]

LIBBY :


GO TO JAIL SCOOTER - DO NOT COLLECT $200

GOOD BYE AND GOOD RIDDENS

[skyk-2009]

total waste of taxpayers money all in the name of politics.
Posted by notblue at 09:32 AM : Mar 12, 2007

How so? If you were talking about that insanity concerning the Blue Dress I could agree but when we are addressing an issue of the outing of a CIA Agent I have to disagree. It seems you fascist have a very warped sense of Justice here. It's okay to pursue Clinton to the point of IMPEACHMENT for Lying about a BJ yet it's a waste of money when the VP has LIED to the people and outed a CIA Agent to stop the debate about those lies. Strange folks the Fascist... very strange. Sieg Heil.

[clemenhagen1]

Again and again the right-wing treason apologists argue the "no underlying crime" cannard. Again and again we must refute their simplistic arguments. Why does a prosecutor pursue perjury? Because of obstruction of justice! Why pursue obstruction of justice? Because the obstruction of justice prevents the resolution of the central crime in question. Cheney orchestrated a campaign of petty revenge against Joseph Wilson for telling the truth about their lies for war. In the process, Cheney & Bush sent a message to the entire intelligence community: mess with our fabrications and fictions about this war and we will stop at nothing, including your families, to make you pay! Why perjury and obstruction of justice? Because Fitzgerald himself said the obstruction reached such a severe level he could not complete his investigation. Libby and other central players lied to the extent that the true crime got effectively covered up. To hear Republicans talk, that obstruction of justice should be rewarded because Fitzgerald could never prove the "underlying crime." Classic spin, but it's still treason.