http://tinyurl.com/6z6fy6
- - - This "news" article is flabbergasting. It is a classic example of how low journalism has sunk. There is no mention of the following pertinent facts whatsoever: 1. The "leaker" was determined very early on to be Richard Armitage at the State Department, an internal adversary of Cheney, Libby and Rove on matters related to the war in Iraq. The suspense over this fact alone that Fitzgerald allowed to continue through the multiple grillings of Rove and Libby was a miscarriage of justice, and prove the whole charade was just a perjury trap. 2. The "leak" was no such thing because Plame was determined by Fitzgerald also rather early on NOT to be a statutorily "covered agent" under the law, based on having been benched at a desk job at the CIA for more than five years prior. The fact that Fitzgerald didn't reveal this fact when he determined it is also a miscarriage of justice because the whole thing was predicated on the assumption that there was a "leak" in the first place. For it to have been a leak she would have to have been a covered agent, which she was not. It also is therefore completely WRONG in the following statement: "Plame's CIA identity was leaked to the news media by several top Bush administration officials in 2003, including Libby and former top White House political adviser Karl Rove." Neither Libby nor Rove were guilty of leaking her name and neither was charged with having done so. The only thing they got on Libby were some inconsistent statements that were construed as perjury. The one person who DID leak her name to Novak -- Richard Armitage -- was never at any point even threatened with legal action. Finally, this following paragraph proves what a political tempest in a teacup the whole thing was, is and will continue to be: "At Libby's trial, witnesses testified that Cheney, Libby and other Bush administration officials mounted a campaign to counter criticism of the Iraq war by Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson. Cheney's spokeswoman, Cathie Martin, testified that Cheney personally wrote out statements and talking points for Libby and other aides to give to reporters to rebut Wilson's allegations." Oh my God! How awful! Political advisors to the president mounting a political defense against somebody's political accusations! Never before in the history of the Republic has this ever happened! Give me a f****g break already. Hello? Anyone remember the Clinton War Room????? Don't get me wrong--Libby IMHO is indeed a bottom feeder, and the whole crew was utterly incompetent in this affair by not defending themselves with the facts but instead playing the lawerly game of cat and mouse in the first place. I suspect they "felt" guilty because they in the end weren't sure whether she was covered or not, and they indeed did mount a vigorous defense of the President using her identity -- a pertinent fact also, by the way, in discrediting "humble" Joe Wilson's so-called "objectivity" in the matter -- and so, since Fitzgerald kept holding the only two relevant facts in the whole case close to his chest the whole time, even they thought _maybe_ they did something wrong inadvertently. But going after Joe Wilson's credibility on this matter was not a crime. Tacky maybe but not a crime. And the Dems are milking the fact that the public, thanks to our wonderful journalists, is totally clueless about the reality of the case for continued political advantage. Politics in DC is sickening, and those of you who think B. Hussein Obama is going to change that are smoking crack. - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
