The other side of the argument (at least Libby's lawyer's side) is that the leak was justified because it revealed a conflict of interest in the decision to send Joe Wilson to Nigeria, i.e. his wife's recommendation that he go- countering the notion that Wilson was an inside guy with the administration instead of a crony. So it had little to do with vindictiveness and a lot to do with spin control.
As for the effect of the leak, it might have put her (and her former intelligence contacts) in danger, but it does not look like it did major damage to national security. A deeper argument is about whether the President, in authorizing the leak, essentially de-classified the information. Apparently there is no clear legal understading whether the President is authorized to de-classify information on his own. If not the President, then who? Not sure I understand the argument there. This is the core of Libby's defense- Bush said do it, and that made it legal, so this whole case is about nothing. At this point, I'm not sure Libby has enough credibility left to get a jury to believe anything he says. On 4/6/06, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Don't....isn't that... > I think that's crazy. > Isn't that jeopardizing national security for pure vindictiveness? > > > That's what many people think. > > --------------- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:203202 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
