Skip to main content

View Diary: Fitzgerald Has Proof That Bush and Cheney Were At Center of NIE-Plamegate Leaks (Poll)! (367 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Apparently Cheney said that (5+ / 0-)

    parts of it were declassified, not all of it. That's a big part of this story; they cherry-picked the parts of the NIE that were favorable to their case for war, and kept the parts that were not classified.

    "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightening..." Frederick Douglass

    by WISCONSIDINK on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 06:28:34 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What I don't get... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      Was Valerie Plame's identity in the NIE? - That doesn't sound right.

      Libby is up on perjury charges about Plame. If Plame isn't in the NIE (?) how is the NIE even relevant to his defense?

      Either way it incriminates Bush/Cheney, but how does this specifically help Libby? Anyone?

      •  NM - kovie addresses this a few posts down. n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  Damn right (0+ / 0-)

          Pen rai = It is something (significant)

          Mai pen rai = It's nothing (significant), forget about it.

          (Thai language) I'm American, living in Thailand. Sometimes people say Mai pen rai about something political (Not Thai politics - I don't get involved as a guest here.) or some dishonest immoral act, and I reply Pen Rai! Usually doesn't go over as well as I would hope.

      •  It doesn't help Libby's defense (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sanuk, HoundDog

        of the obstruction charge. I believe this all came about because his attorney was requesting certain documents, and this somehow came to light because of that activity.

        "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightening..." Frederick Douglass

        by WISCONSIDINK on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 06:46:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Cherry-picking problem (8+ / 0-)

      If the White House motive was to discredit Wilson with information from the NIE, then one must ask why did not the WH hold a press conference? At this conference Bush could say that he was taking the extraordinary step of releasing part of the NIE which conclusively refuted Wilson's "partial evidence". Why go the leak route with Miller when that risked not having the story printed (which it wasn't I think)?

      The reason not to hold a press conference at which there would be an official declassification announced is that strategy would risk someone in the State Department leaking in public the other parts of the NIE which were in disagreement with was said in the press conference. The Bush cherry-picking would be exposed by someone acting as an identified whistle-blower. By the WH leaking to Miller, and having her conceal the identity that it was the WH doing the leaking, then any State Department official would think twice about leaking the contradictory parts of the NIE.

      After leak strategy with Miller failed, then more deperate measures were needed. Hence the leak of Wilson's wife as a CIA agent.  Naturally that information could not be released in a press conference.

      •  Good points. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HoundDog

        Another strategy they could have used was declassifying the entire document, and letting the American people know all the facts,and they chose not to go that route either.

        "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightening..." Frederick Douglass

        by WISCONSIDINK on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 06:56:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Laundering the disinfo (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jimreyn

        The WH plants lies in a friendly newspaper, then cites the newspaper as a source.  Remember Cheney citing Judith Miller's reporting on the talk shows?

        The other advantage is, unnamed sources can't be questioned openly, can't be put on the spot.  You can leak the conclusions, without ever being challenged to provide the evidence

    •  Even CNN picked up on this and was talking about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cfk

      the cherry picking with derision.

      But remember again, that all crucial for another set of charges.

      The obstruction of justice charge of Bush and Cheney making false statemens to Fitzgerald that they new nothing of the leaks and had not involvement will be illegal regardless of whether push appropriatly desclassified them or not.

      If you intentially make a false or misleading statement to a Federal Prosecutor in the context of a criminal investigation it is a felony.

      If your are under oath is is also perjury.

      Don't be suckored in tomorrow or whenever this breaks into MSM by GOP talking points that Bush and Cheney were not under oath.  It makes no differnce.

      Thsi is why Martha Steward went to jail.  

      I think the penealties can be up to five years in a federal penitentiary.

      Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

      by HoundDog on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:32:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (58)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Elections (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Environment (19)
  • Education (18)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Racism (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Media (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site