 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Woody Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:29 PM WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Word came Wednesday that Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame, knew the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame before it was published in a July 2003 column. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/16/cnna.downie/ ----------------- November 16, 2005 Woodward Says His Plame Source Not Libby http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/16/national/w105011S11.DTL ------------------ By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, November 16, 2005; 1:18 PM Bob Woodward apologized today to The Washington Post's executive editor for failing to tell him for more than two years that a senior Bush administration official had told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame, even as an investigation of those leaks mushroomed into a national scandal. "I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601286.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Rapparee Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:43 PM Nope, 'fraid not. The indictment stands. Whatever comes next -- perhaps a trial -- will answer the question. Moreover, Libby is indicted for more than what Woodward admits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Amos Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:44 PM The indictment, for you of very short memory, was for lying to an official investigative body. Funny -- when Clinton was being harassed for the same offense, it was fair meat for the jackals of public opinion, despite the fact that it was about something profoundly irrelevant to his conduct. This falsification by Libby is MORE actionable and should not be whitewashed no matter whether he had sex with that woman or not. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Jim Dixon Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:47 PM I don't quite understand why this news--about Woodward, I mean--is supposed to be important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Bobert Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:07 PM Yeah, this doesn't let anyone off the hook but sho nuff would be nice if Woodward would name the un-named senior White House staff(person).... If it's Rove, which I believe it is then he and Libby might get to share a cell... Hey, yeah, I understand that the prosecutor has to prove "intent" but guess what... You put this trial in front of a jury and if I'm the prosecutor I close with: "Ladies and Gentlemen... Had Ms. Plame been married to some gung-ho Marine General would Mr. Rove had chosen to 'out' her? But she wasn't. She was married to a man, Joe Wilson, who the CIA sent to Niger to investigate the claim that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uraninim from Niger. After Mr. Wilson found the claim unfounded and after the Bush administartion decided to play the yellowcake card in a State of the Union address, Mr. Wilson, as any patriotic citizen would do, went public. Just todasy, ladies and gentlemen the distinguished Republican Senator from Nebraska, the highly respected Chuck Hagel, declared that " to question your governemnt is not unpatriotic- to not question your governemnt is unpatriotic"... Ladies and gentlemen, it is Mr. Wilson who is the patriot here and, sad as it is, it is Mr. Rove who has stepped way over the line. Yes, intent, ladies and gentalmen, is hard to prove but given the sequence of events here you, as patriotic Americans yerselves, have no choice but to return a verdict of guilty... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: CarolC Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:05 PM So my question would be, when are they going to make Woodward testify and name the "senior administration official" who outed Plame to him. Having said that, since there are reports that there was more than one "senior administration official" who leaked that info to various people, that means Libby isn't necessarily off the hook on that score either. I guess we'll find out eventually. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Rapparee Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:10 PM Tomorrow, tomorrow, indictments tomorrow They're only a day away....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: robomatic Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:36 PM Curiouser and curiouser! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:17 AM For Sale! Whitewash by the tanker load! Contact Haliburton... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:22 AM "By the way, Scooter lied -- just like he was charged with. Doesn't much matter whether he had sex with Judy or not, because what he is charged with is falsifying evidence before the committee." Amos, The following is also true: By the way, Clinton lied -- just like he was charged with. Doesn't much matter whether he had sex with Monica or not, because what he is charged with is falsifying evidence before the committee. The law works on precedence: The DEMOCRATS have established that lying to a grand jury is no big deal. I think BOTH of them should be jailed: BUT if you let Slick Willy off, you have to let Scooter off, to be fair. Isn't that what justice is about? Or are you saying there are two sets of laws, one for those you agree with and one for those you dislike? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Rapparee Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:33 AM No, BB. Both are wrong. But "outing" a CIA -- or any intelligence agency -- operative puts not only the life of the operative at risk, but also the liveS of those with whom that operative came in contact. And this doesn't even begin to address the national security issues. Look at it this way: Agent X-12 is exposed. X-12's in-country contacts are rounded up, the innocent and the guilty. One or more crack under questioning, leading to other arrests. Given the "questioning" techniques used in some countries others might be maimed or die, guilty or not. At the very least the US is embarassed, at the middlin' worst the intelligence operation is compromised, at the very worst innocent people die and all earlier steps also occur. If you doubt the results of intelligence work, look at the results of the Zimmerman Telegram or Gary Powers' U-2 flight. Look at the US Marines at the US Embassy in Moscow who traded (low-level) intelligence information for sexual favors. No, there's a definite difference in "quality" between a President getting a BJ and outing an intelligence agent. Lying under oath is wrong, but consider the implications of each as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:16 AM Rapaire, But, as I understand it, there was no "outing" as the time limit had passed. No crime there, but a crime in the lying under oath to a grand jury. As I said, BOTH are guilty of that. Or are you saying that the seriousness of the ACCUSATION of one crime should determine the penalty for a later proven crime? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Amos Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:32 AM The largest differentiator is the legal issue of relevance. There was little justification for interrogating Clinton on personal sexual activities, moral or immoral. IIRC, there is actually nothing illegal about spouting falsehoods in a court of law if they are not germane to the purposes and principles of the case. How relevant is closet sex to the repute of the country or the effectiveness of its management? Marginally. How relevant is the exposure of an undercover agent to his or her effectiveness, the security of his network, contacts, and projects, the reliability of his or her intell? Primary importance. Regardless of this, BB, let me refresh your memory. William Jefferson Clinton was not "let off". You'll recall the Republicans made such a press storm about his pecadilloes and cover-up of them that he was practically impeached. Let's not compare orangutans and apples, here. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:45 AM Amos, Impeached he was - that means brought to trial. He was let off with a slap on the wrist. "There was little justification for interrogating Clinton on personal sexual activities, moral or immoral. IIRC, there is actually nothing illegal about spouting falsehoods in a court of law if they are not germane to the purposes and principles of the case. How relevant is closet sex to the repute of the country or the effectiveness of its management? Marginally." EXCEPT that the investigation was about Slick Willy's SEXUAL attacks on others, NOT about " the repute of the country or the effectiveness of its management" Seem relevent given the investigation. "IIRC, there is actually nothing illegal about spouting falsehoods in a court of law if they are not germane to the purposes and principles of the case." I will remember this- IF any Republican is brought to trial for any reason, he gets to decide what requires him to speak truthfully. IF no crime was committed, than Scooter had no reason to tell the truth, according to what you say. So,... I still think BOTH should serve jail time. If someone shoots a policeman after actually running a red light, I do not think he should get a lesser penalty than someone who shoots a policeman after being accused of robbing a bank. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: kendall Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:11 AM Hang them all, let God sort them out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Bill D Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:21 AM once again, bruce, your answer to any Republican offense is to assert the some Democrat, sometime, somewhere did something similar. Whether is is falsehoods to bad language near a camera. If you make no effort to distinguish the relevance of the offense, you subvert the concept of justice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:24 AM BillD, I repeat, I still think BOTH should serve jail time. If someone shoots a policeman after actually running a red light, I do not think he should get a lesser penalty than someone who shoots a policeman after being accused of robbing a bank. ANd if there was no crime to begin with ( re the time limit) YOU will state that Scooter should get off? (I don't think he should). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Bill D Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:25 AM Bill Clinton should not have been ASKED about his stupid monkey business. He should not have done it, but it was not worthy of a huge investigation! Earlier presidents were not "pressed by the press" for their personal idiosyncrasies. If he were accused of spilling grape juice on the Oval Office carpet, and lied about it, would you have him jailed? If Richard Nixon had merely used all the bad language heard in the tapes when complaining about his 'enemies', I would not have supported him being prosecuted for it....but he did SERIOUSLY illegal stuff...and THEN lied about it! As did Spiro Agnew...and yes, as did Dan Rostenkowski, a Democrat! Good grief! I can 'set up' almost anyone so that they are tempted to 'lie' in order to sidestep embarassment, but you want to make all the possible lies equal. Piffle! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Amos Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:27 AM Personally, I would rather have a competent and humane leader who was also randy as hell in his private life, than a bloodthirsty numbnuts mindless warmonger who got his rocks off talking to imaginary playmates and using their directivres to justify inhumane and anti-intellectual policies. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:33 AM Sorry, BillD and Amos, I just thought that when someone choses to lie to a grand jury, a felony, they should be punished. I guess if you are the right person, that is not so. Should Scooter have been asked if there was NO CRIME COMMITTED? Was Clinto being investigated for his actions with Monica? NO- it was for a different act of sexual harrassment. I would presume that you consider that women should not be able to have such acts investigated in a fair and truthful manner, when criminal proceedings are possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Bill D Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:51 AM IF Clinton could be shown to have actually engaged in sexual harassment against other women, then he SHOULD be brought up on charges for that...Monika, as I understand it, dared him and invited the results. Those situations should be kept separate. Scooter may yet be exonerated...or it may be shown that what he did cannot be 'precisely' shown to be a crime...but he SEEMS to have participated in illegal dissemination of classified knowlege about a secret agent...and THEN lying about it. That, at least, requires the investigation proceed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Don Firth Date: 17 Nov 05 - 12:26 PM "He was let off with a slap on the wrist." That's right. Because it was recognized that Clinton's offense didn't affect the country or its security in any way. There was no physical danger to anyone and no national security was compromised. The worst punishments that Clinton could look forward to were the personal embarrassment and having to face his family. Nobody died, nobody was indanger of dying, and other than the "National Enquirer" level scandal, there was no effect on anybody except those persons directly involved. It never fails to amaze me (the amazement mixed with mildly amused disgust) how Right Wingers insist on bringing Clinton's misdemeanor into a discussion of Right Wing duplicity. I guess you have to, because that's all you've got. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Deda, as guest Date: 17 Nov 05 - 12:28 PM Clinton was NOT being investigated for sexual harrassment, but for alleged-and-never-proven investment irregularities, the Whitewater business. What other sexual "attacks" are you talking about? I don't see how he can be accused of preying on a girl who flashed her thong at him and generally came on to him with the force of a tank. Of course he's always been rumored to have slept with anything in a skirt, but except for the also-never-proven Paula Jones accusations -- which ended up making Ms Jones a short-lived minor celebrity with an expensive nose job and her picture on many tabloid covers -- it all seems to me to be no harm no foul. IMO Clinton was the best president we've ever had, W. the worst, regardless of their marital morals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Don Firth Date: 17 Nov 05 - 01:47 PM And as far as the Whitewater thing is concerned, it apparently was a scam, but the Clinton's got scammed along with a number of other people, to the tune of about $60,000. They weren't perpetrators as their detractors try to allege, they were victims of the scam. But if it can be twisted, what does the truth matter, eh? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Donuel Date: 17 Nov 05 - 01:51 PM If I were Rove, Woodward's testimony would be terrifying. But until we know the senior official Bob spoke of, it could have been Rice, Rumsfeld or others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:00 PM "At issue is whether or not Clinton committed perjury when he gave a sworn deposition to the Paula Jones grand jury that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern. Clinton is also accused of encouraging Lewinsky to lie under oath about the nature of their relationship. " "That, at least, requires the investigation proceed. " I have NO PROBLEM with the investigation. If guilty, he should be punished. Don, " Clinton's misdemeanor " For the rest of us, lying to a grand jury is a FELONY. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Don Firth Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:19 PM Perhaps you are unaware, BB, that under our justice system, judges are given a fairly wide range when it comes to sentencing, so they can tailor it to the consequences of the offense, which, in this case, were negligible. The matter should never have been brought up in the first place, and Clinton's main error (following his inability to keep his fly zipped) was in not refusing to answer at all. How come it's a mortal sin for Clinton to lie about his sexual transgression (which involved two consenting adults and resulted in the death of no one) but it's perfectly all right for the Bush League to lie to the country and the rest of the world in order justify the invasion of another country (which, so far, has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands)? Answer me that! But there you are, insisting on discussing Clinton, when the subject of this thread is the Plame outing. Red herring to draw attention away from the real issue. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:25 PM Don, Clinton was UNDER INVESTIGATION, under oath, about his sexual attacks on someone other than Monica. The question was germaine in that it established a pattern. IF the Bush administration is under investigation over alledged lies, ANY falsehoods under oath SHOULD be prosecuted. I pointed out that PRECEDENT had been established by the Democrats that lying to a grand jury was ok by their standards. NOTE Scooter HAS NOT been charged with "outing" anyone- just lying to a grand jury. For which, if guilty, he should go to jail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Peace Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:26 PM "competent and humane leader" Check his remarks and actions to do with Rwanda. He was neither of those words, IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:29 PM Hey, Peace, no fair bringing up his actual conduct in office. Just throw a cruise missile at the problem, and let it fester for the next administration to deal with... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Peace Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:40 PM I have as much regard for Clinton as I do for Busn. Basically, zero. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:48 PM Don, "sexual transgression (which involved two consenting adults and resulted in the death of no one)" Given the work relationship between the two individuals, it was harassment, according to the Federal rules. Clinton should have known better. If you want to let all the others off who performed in a like manner, THEN you can call it a "negligible" offense. Or do you still insist on different laws based on who the criminal is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Peace Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:54 PM "I have as much regard for Clinton as I do for Busn. Basically, zero." And I don't like BusH either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Don Firth Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:58 PM The red herring is all you've got, eh, BB? Arguing about Clinton? You're the one who insists on diverting the subject of this thread to Clinton and avoiding the main topic. We can argue about Clinton 'til hell freezes over, but what, exactly, does that have to do with the Plame outing? Stick to the goddam subject. If you can! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 03:04 PM I say again: "By the way, Scooter lied -- just like he was charged with. Doesn't much matter whether he had sex with Judy or not, because what he is charged with is falsifying evidence before the committee." Amos, The following is also true: By the way, Clinton lied -- just like he was charged with. Doesn't much matter whether he had sex with Monica or not, because what he is charged with is falsifying evidence before the committee. ___________________________________________________________________ The law works on precedence: The DEMOCRATS have established that lying to a grand jury is no big deal. ___________________________________________________________________ I think BOTH of them should be jailed: BUT if you let Slick Willy off, you have to let Scooter off, to be fair. Isn't that what justice is about? Or are you saying there are two sets of laws, one for those you agree with and one for those you dislike? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Don Firth Date: 17 Nov 05 - 03:08 PM Neither you nor I nor anyone here is going to solve that one today, BB, so why don't you just get off that bus and get back to the subject? Got nuttin' else, eh? Somebody else take over. I'm getting bored with this. I'm going to go have lunch. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 03:14 PM NOTE Scooter HAS NOT been charged with "outing" anyone- just lying to a grand jury. For which, if guilty, he should go to jail. I think BOTH of them should be jailed: BUT if you let Slick Willy off, you have to let Scooter off, to be fair. Isn't that what justice is about? I HAVE been on the subject of the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Guest, Deda Date: 17 Nov 05 - 03:15 PM Why should Woodward's prior knowledge of Plame's identity blow Scooter's indictment away? The fact remains that her ID was still generally a SECRET, unknown to her own family members and friends, and certainly unknown to the general public or the broader press at large. The fact that Woodward knew it didn't make it general knowledge -- after all, he knew the identity of Deep Throat for decades before anyone else did. So Scooter could easily still have been a meaningful leak, and still clearly lied to Fitzgerald. I don't see that Woodward is germane to this issue, really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 05 - 03:17 PM A valid point, IF "her ID was still generally a SECRET, unknown to her own family members and friends," THAT is what needs to be determined. In ANY case, IF he lied to a grand jury, he SHOULD go to jail. For lying to the grand jury. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Rapparee Date: 17 Nov 05 - 03:38 PM Members of the Nixon Administration lied to Congress. Oliver North stated to Congress that he believed that it was okay to ignore the Constitution. But to be fair to history, here's a VERY partial list of scandals and the parties in power at the time: Alexander Hamilton Affairs: Washington was President. Credit Mobilier: Grant, Republican Whiskey Ring: Grant, Republican Indian Affairs: Grant, Republican Teapot Dome: Harding, Republican Presidential Pardons: Truman, Democrat Internal Revenue Service: Truman, Democrat Slush Funds and Improper Donations: Eisenhower, Republican Influence Peddling and Kickbacks: Johnson, Democrat Solicting Sex In A Public Bathroom: Johnson, Democrat Watergate, And All That Implies: Nixon, Republican Billy Carter and Libya: Carter, Democrat HUD Profiteering: Reagan, Republican Iran-Contra: Reagan, Republican Whitewater: Clinton, Democrat Not to mention the Bank of the United States, various Indian Affairs scandals (including the current one, which crosses a LOT of administrations of both parties), selling rotten meat to the military, profiteering on military contracts, and so on and so on. BOTH parties have been involved. BOTH parties have had crooks in them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Don Firth Date: 17 Nov 05 - 03:45 PM Solution. Throw the whole bunch of them into the hoosegow and elect someone from the Green Party. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Rapparee Date: 17 Nov 05 - 04:01 PM I dunno, Don, I kinda think that power corrupts and it wouldn't much matter WHO was in office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Kaleea Date: 17 Nov 05 - 04:09 PM They lie about what they have lied about, and they forget to tell us what they have forgotten to tell us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Don Firth Date: 17 Nov 05 - 04:47 PM Probably true Rapaire. But I put my faith in democracy. Not the system we have, but what Paul Woodruff talks about in First Democracy : The Challenge of an Ancient Idea. I think the idea that the Athenians had was that the potential for corruption is in everyone, so what is needed is to diffuse the power sufficiently so that no individual or special interest group can ram something through on their own—and that at the end of their term of office, their performance is judged by a jury of citizens too large to bribe and that they will be held accountable, complete with honors or loss of citizenship and possible banishment, depending on that performance. The Founding Fathers were on the right track with their "checks and balances," but they were too nervous about genuine democracy and they didn't go far enough. We really ought to try it sometime. Especially before trying to cram our spavined version of it down the throats of other countries Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Stilly River Sage Date: 17 Nov 05 - 05:14 PM Dammit, Beardedbruce, you've spoiled the beginning of another perfectly good thread with your insistence on countering any lucid, critical discussion of republican criminal activity with the misadventures of Bill Clinton. That dog just won't hunt, but you love the sound of your own voice. Anyone wanting to join in who reads the whole thread has to slog past your red herrings (pardon the mixed metaphors, but there are many fine descriptions for people with such poor rhetorical skills as you possess). The thread has to do with Woodward and what he knew and when he knew it and who told him. (The San Francisco Chronicle says it wasn't Rove. I hope they bag Cheney with this one.) Do you have anything useful to say about the topic at hand? No? Then put a sock in it. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST Date: 17 Nov 05 - 05:39 PM BB: By the way, Clinton lied -- just like he was charged with. Doesn't much matter whether he had sex with Monica or not, because what he is charged with is falsifying evidence before the committee. Do try to get your facts straight. Clinton was never charged with "falsifying evidence before a committee" (and the day that Congress starts holding committee hearings as to whether someone got a knobby or not is the day they prove their irrelevance and banality). But FWIW, as long as you're getting into matters of law (as you will shortly down below), the law (18 U.S.C. 1621-23) does care not whether something is embarrassing, but rather whether something is material to the case at hand. And a very good argument can be made that Clinton's activities with Lewinsky were not in any way material to Jones's case (see, e.g., FRE Rules 412-415, for when such type evidence is admissible). The law works on precedence: The DEMOCRATS have established that lying to a grand jury is no big deal. The only one around that lied to a grand jury was Scooter. I think BOTH of them should be jailed: BUT if you let Slick Willy off, you have to let Scooter off, to be fair. Isn't that what justice is about? Nonsense. Lying about a maladministration effort to slime its critics and outing a CIA officer in the process (arguably done in the course of "official duties") is a far more serious offence than lying in the course of a private civil suit about things that happened long before that person ever took office. Hope you can discern the difference. But, additionally, there is the matter of materiality I mentioned above; if it's NOYB, then it doesn't matter if the person lies his head off to you when you ask, particularly if you're just trying to do it to embarrass him (and for the latter proposition, see also FRE Rule 403). Your effort to equate the two just won't wash .... instead you're shown to be a Dubya suckup willing to go to any lengths of hypocrisy and illogic when it's your ox that's being gored. Tell me again what a choirboy Scooter is.... And then try and convince an increasingly sceptical American public that he was doing a good thing with his sliming. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Peace Date: 17 Nov 05 - 06:02 PM I hope the lot end up in jail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:10 PM BB: But, as I understand it, there was no "outing" as the time limit had passed. Ahhh, so it's OK then, eh? We won't let any sense of morality intrude on the "letter of the law", eh? When we're past the SOL, we're just SOL? Funny sense of morality you have. But the additional problem you have is that the CIA made the referral about the outing, so they didn't think it was so passe.... Impeached he was - that means brought to trial. He was let off with a slap on the wrist. Actually, acquitted (in the words of Rehnquist, who must have choked a little: "Not guilty!") on the impeachment articles. And the special prosecutor let him go with the "slap on the wrist" mainly because he wouldn't have gotten anything had he decided to actually bring it to a criminal court (for reasons stated above). EXCEPT that the investigation was about Slick Willy's SEXUAL attacks on others, NOT about " the repute of the country or the effectiveness of its management" Seem relevent given the investigation. See FRE Rules 412-415. And do use the word "alleged" there. Jones's case was dismissed by Wright on summary judgement ... after she'd ruled all of the Lewinsky stuff would be excluded (partly for the reasons I mentioned above). A summary judgement means that even if all the facts were indeed as Jones alleged she had no legal claim. Which means no "sexual attack[]". "IIRC, there is actually nothing illegal about spouting falsehoods in a court of law if they are not germane to the purposes and principles of the case." I will remember this- IF any Republican is brought to trial for any reason, he gets to decide what requires him to speak truthfully. YANAL (and AAMOF, IANALE). But a pretty much undisputed fact is that it is a matter for the court to decide whether the facts are material (more specifically, materiality being one of three essential elements of the charge, it is a matter for a jury to decide; see, e.g., Gaudin v. U.S.). That being said, no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case where the established law and the facts are such that a jury wouldn't find materiality; you do have to assume that juries will in fact follow law. At issue is whether or not Clinton committed perjury when he gave a sworn deposition to the Paula Jones grand jury that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern. No freakin' grand jury! Do try to talk in something resembling facts. And FWIW, the question about "sexual relations" came after the judge had narrowed the definition (at the request of Clinton's lawyer) in a somewhat strange fashion that made the definition somewat asymmetrical WRT who di what to who. Regardless, whether Clinton's sexual activities of any> kind with Monica were in any way relevant or admissible in the Jones case is far from clear (and Judge Wright ended up tossing it). NOTE Scooter HAS NOT been charged with "outing" anyone- just lying to a grand jury. For which, if guilty, he should go to jail. Note: Both Scooter and Rove did out PLame, both by their own testimony and other evidence (notes, testimony of others, etc.). That's established fact, so don't try to pretend it didn't happen. If others did the same thing (can we say "Cheney"?), it doesn't make their actions any the less wrong. In fact, the more people outing Plame, the more it looks to be a conspiracy, and the more deliberate and the more illegal it is. Given the work relationship between the two individuals, it was harassment, according to the Federal rules. Making shite up again? Sure makes the job or "arguing" easier when you can manufacture "facts" to "pprove" your points... BTW, Bruce, repetition doesn't make anything any the more true (much as the maladministration would like to think so). Deda Sez: Why should Woodward's prior knowledge of Plame's identity blow Scooter's indictment away? The fact remains that her ID was still generally a SECRET, unknown to her own family members and friends, and certainly unknown to the general public or the broader press at large. The fact that Woodward knew it didn't make it general knowledge - Not to mention the fact that committing three murders doesn't exculpate you from the first (or second or third). It's the same crime committed multiple times! Not that this obvious logic would seep into the minds of the RW apologists, desperate to come up with anything sounding marginally plausible to defend the maladministration.... Back to BB's babble: Clinton's peni$! Clinton's peni$! Hey, lookie over there, it's *GAWD* Clinton's peni$!!! Yeah, yeah, yeah, Bruce..... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:34 PM To paraphrase Richard Nixon, "I accept all the responsibility, but none of the Plame!" ;-) **WINK** Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Don Firth Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:11 PM Bravo, Arne!! That ought to put a cork in it! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 Nov 05 - 12:42 AM Don, There is no "putting a cork in it" as far as Beardedbruce is concerned. He got his wish--he has derailed the discussion and everyone is now focused on HIM and HIS argument and have forgotten what the original topic was. It's a mean-spirited self-centered little man who consistently interrupts and distracts just to call attention to himself. Arne, you always write good stuff here, but it is a waste of your time to present FACTS to this guy--he doesn't care and will counter any logical argument with his insulting, dismissive and not-so-subtle slight of hand, throwing in a few "Slick Willies" for extra insult, and he'll be off again along his own tunnel-vision path. He disregards the work you have done to make your argument because all he wants is the attention. I don't often fool with the guy any more, but I find it damned annoying when a good discussion comes along, lots of fact-finding to be done, spin to be un-spun, with conjecture, editorial, and reaction as facts unfold, only to have to get past yards of the nonsense and vitriol this guy pumps into the thread. He's a boil waiting to be lanced. And I don't usually use anesthesia. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 18 Nov 05 - 11:51 AM Good one, Art. You've kept your touch (haven's seen you in too many decades, I have to admit). SRS: "slight of hand". Even if that's not an intentional neologism for what BeardedBruce is doing, it's an excellent one. Admitting that Bruce is capable of "sleight" may be pushing it, but I think your words sum up the situation very well. :-) Your advice, though, SRS, will be considered. But one thing I don't like to see is the intentional misrepresentation of facts. I don't think that Bruce does this; he simply passes on the "spin points" the Mighty Wurlitzer of the RW have been pumping out at 120 dB for way too long. So I do try to make sure that what is being said has at least a passing familiarity with the truth.... And if Bruce continues to make his false statements in the face of correction, then he has ventured into the realm of dishonesty, and then he has only himself to blame when it all comes crashing down around him and his beloved maladministration in next year or two.... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 Nov 05 - 12:44 PM Arne, Yeah, I saw that after the spell check had made the change but it was too late because I'd already hit "Submit message." You go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt for as long as you can stand to argue with the guy. I don't enjoy making what amounts to a personal attack, but after a while you just get fed up with the continual nonsense and misinformation. He doesn't seem to have a clue as to evaluating his sources, he goes for the ones that say what he wants to hear and posts them as gospel, no matter how specious or smarmy. "If it's written on the Internet it must be true" seems to be his method. The thing that confuses many folks when they first encounter his messages is that he can write well. The disconnects become clear after repeated encounters. You can waste a lot of time arguing with people like that, or you can move forward and make your own clear points while ignoring him. I'd rather read what you have to say about things that are happening now, than see you repeat the same arguments others have made with him over the years. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 18 Nov 05 - 10:22 PM SRS: You can waste a lot of time arguing with people like that, or you can move forward and make your own clear points while ignoring him. I'd rather read what you have to say about things that are happening now, than see you repeat the same arguments others have made with him over the years. Point well made, well taken. I do have a blog, where I tend to put down my original comments on topics of current interest me (amd some sool pix too when I get around to it). Still love your neologism, intended or not. :-) Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 Nov 05 - 11:50 PM Thanks for the blog link! Here's an L.A. Times editorial for tomorrow's edition of the paper (link) Regarding Media Woodward joins a decadent dance Tim Rutten November 19, 2005 Whatever impact the scandal surrounding the leak of former CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity ultimately has on the Bush administration, it continues to spread through the Washington press corps like a toxic plume. As it does, it discredits not only individual reporters and damages their news organizations but also an entire style of reporting that has come to dominate the way Americans are informed — or misinformed — concerning their government's conduct. This week's casualty was the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, who, as it turns out, has concealed for 17 months the fact that a Bush administration official he still refuses to name to his readers leaked Plame's identity to him before the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby — now under indictment for perjury — named the then-covert agent to New York Times reporter Judy Miller and others. Woodward's disclosure was motivated not by a sudden pang of conscience, as it turns out, but by the sudden necessity of testifying under oath before a federal grand jury. Along the way, he incidentally revealed not only that he had concealed this information from his editors and readers for fear of subpoena, but also that he had in the interim gone on several television shows to trash the special prosecutor investigating the affair. Moreover, it now emerges, the reporting that went into his last best-selling book, "Plan of Attack," involved the submission of written questions in advance to Vice President Dick Cheney, a fact he never bothered to share with the book's readers. There is something singularly appropriate about the fact that the Plame affair should involve Woodward, whose skillful and courageous use of the ur-voice among confidential sources virtually created a whole genre of Washington reporting. It's a journalistic strategy style dependent on the cultivation of access to well-placed officials greased by promises of "confidentiality." It's a way of doing journalism that still serves its practitioners' career interests, but less and less often their readers or viewers because it's a game the powerful and well-connected have learned to play to their own advantage. Whatever its self-righteous pretensions, it's a style of journalism whose signature sound is less the blowing of whistles than it is the spinning of tops. That's why the Washington press corps, whose ranks include so many alleged commentators that you can't spit without hitting one, steadfastly refuses to put the Plame affair and its participants in the context that explains the event. That context is the Bush administration's unprecedented — and largely successful — effort to bend Washington-based news coverage to its ends. The Washington press corps doesn't want to talk about this because it basically puts some of its most admired members in a line of venal patsies. But consider: Who can forget the administration's payment of nearly a quarter of a million dollars in federal money to the hapless pseudo-columnist and television and radio commentator Armstrong Williams, to promote the president's "no child left behind" initiative? Then there was the distribution to local television stations across the country of federally financed, pre-packaged video reports designed to support the administration's educational and energy policy initiatives. The videos were tricked up to look like regular news feeds and apparently ran on numerous small stations whose viewers never were informed that they were watching government propaganda. This week, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's inspector general reported that PBS' former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, appears to have violated federal law by trying to force a political slant onto the network's programming. The inspector's report alluded to e-mails between Tomlinson and a White House official. On Thursday, Bloomberg.com reported that "Presidential advisor Karl Rove" and Tomlinson "discussed creating a 'conservative talk show and adding it to the public television lineup.' " According to Kenneth Konz, PBS' inspector general, Tomlinson and Rove, President Bush's chief political advisor, also corresponded about "shaking up the agency" and "adding Republican staff." Placed in this context, Woodward, Miller, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and NBC's Tim Russert are less tragic figures in a grand journalistic drama than they are sad — but willing — bit players in somebody else's rather sorry little charade. This is hardly the first administration intent on managing the press for its own convenience and advantage. Abraham Lincoln had no more compunction about shutting down Copperhead newspapers than he did about suspending habeas corpus. During World War I, Woodrow Wilson's Justice Department was ruthless in its treatment of our then-vast and vigorous foreign-language press and publishing houses. The preternaturally charming Franklin Roosevelt found it easy to play the White House press corps like a violin, since most of its members — unlike their papers' proprietors — were favorably disposed toward the New Deal. Roosevelt, moreover, consciously used the new mass medium of radio to speak around the country's generally hostile editorial pages and directly to the people. John Kennedy, who genuinely liked reporters and was fascinated by journalism, made famous and effective use of his warm friendships with White House correspondents, including Benjamin C. Bradlee, who would go on to be Woodward's editor. Richard Nixon — for whom charm was not an option — plotted to use the IRS against reporters, editors and cartoonists who irritated him. (An ill-advised digression into burglary short-circuited the plan.) Bill Clinton, who always thought he could sweet talk the chrome off a trailer hitch, was fond of making personal calls to reporters' homes. (This writer was the recipient of a couple of those, and found them — like cheap champagne — a mildly heady, if ultimately unconvincing, experience.) Two things have distinguished this Bush administration's efforts at press manipulation from those that have gone before. One is their sweep and consistency. There has been bribery — as in the egregious case of the wretched Williams. There has been deception — as in the planting of phony news videos. There have been alleged violations of federal laws and regulations — as in Tomlinson's and Rove's efforts to subvert public television. There has been stealth — as in the whispering campaign to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. And, of course, there has been good old-fashioned bullying, as in the president's and vice-president's assertions that raising questions about their push to war or the torture of U.S. captives is somehow "reprehensible" and unpatriotic. It's a melancholy comment on the state of the American press that it takes a former director of Central Intelligence, Adm. Stansfield Turner, to identify Dick Cheney for what he has become — "vice president for torture" — and that he had to do it in a foreign forum, on Britain's ITV news, as he did Thursday. The other reason all this has more or less succeeded and gone all but unremarked upon is that the administration has adroitly availed itself of the cultural complicity that prevails in a fin de siècle Washington press corps living out the decadence of an increasingly discredited reporting style. As the Valerie Plame scandal and its spreading taint have made all too clear, the trade in confidentiality and access that has made stars of reporters like Bob Woodward and Judy Miller now is utterly bankrupt. It still may call itself investigative journalism — and so it once was — but now it's really just a glittering and carefully choreographed waltz in which all the dancers share the unspoken agreement that the one unpardonable faux pas is to ask who's calling the tune. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Peace Date: 19 Nov 05 - 12:33 AM "I called Carl Bernstein to ask what he thought of his old partner's behavior. He was loyal as ever but he did say something very revealing -- and unintentionally damning. "This investigation," he told me, "has cast a constant searchlight that the White House can't turn off the way it has succeeded in turning off the press. So their methodology and their dishonesty and their disingenuousness -- particularly about how we went to war -- as well as their willingness to attack and rough up people who don't agree with them are now there for all to see. They can't turn off this searchlight, which is shining on a White House that runs a media apparatus so sophisticated in discrediting its critics it makes the Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Ziegler press shop look like a small-time operation." And these are the very thugs that Woodward was protecting while attacking the guy operating the searchlight." from here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:12 AM SRS, Dammit, SRS, you've spoiled the beginning of another perfectly good thread with your insistence on countering any lucid, critical discussion of anything with attacking anyone you think disagrees with you. That dog just won't hunt, but you love the sound of your own voice. Anyone wanting to join in who reads the whole thread has to slog past your nasty personal comments. Do you have anything useful to say about the topic at hand? No? Then put a sock in it. If you bother reading, Amos brought up Clinton in this thread. So take the sock .... "He doesn't seem to have a clue as to evaluating his sources, he goes for the ones that say what he wants to hear and posts them as gospel, no matter how specious or smarmy. "If it's written on the Internet it must be true" seems to be his method." Strange, this is exactly what YOU have been doing here on Mudcat, every time you attempt to tell us what to think. Your idea of a discussion is to presume you are right, and then ignore anything that might differ with your predetermined conclusion. Guest, "Do try to get your facts straight. Clinton was never charged with "falsifying evidence before a committee" " I said grand jury "The only one around that lied to a grand jury was Scooter." An obvious false statement. Bruce:"I think BOTH of them should be jailed: BUT if you let Slick Willy off, you have to let Scooter off, to be fair. Isn't that what justice is about?" GUEST: " Tell me again what a choirboy Scooter is.... And then try and convince an increasingly sceptical American public that he was doing a good thing with his sliming." I HAVE MAINTAINED FROM THE BEGINNING THAT HE SHOULD GO TO JAIL IF FOUND GUILTY! YOU are being a total asshole. But one thing I don't like to see is the intentional misrepresentation of facts. So I do try to make sure that what is being said has at least a passing familiarity with the truth.... And if SRS or ARNE continues to make their false statements in the face of correction, then they hvae ventured into the realm of dishonesty, and then they have only himself to blame when it all comes crashing down around them. Arne, "Clinton's peni$! Clinton's peni$! Hey, lookie over there, it's *GAWD* Clinton's peni$!!!" is YOUR preoccupation- I have ONLY talked about his DOCUMENTED LIES to a grand jury. It does not matter what they were about- as it does not matter what the lies Scooter may have told- IF ONE LIES UNDER OATH, one should be punished. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Stilly River Sage Date: 19 Nov 05 - 10:59 AM I rest my case, Arne. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 19 Nov 05 - 11:31 AM BB: *sigh* Guest, "Do try to get your facts straight. Clinton was never charged with "falsifying evidence before a committee" " I said grand jury Yep. I heard you the first time and the second time you said this (and corrected you in the meanwhile). There was no grand jury in the Paula Jones case. Here's what you said, BB: "Clinton committed perjury when he gave a sworn deposition to the Paula Jones grand jury..." It was a civil case, BB. No grand juries for civil cases. So before youget all high'n'mighty, you ought to get your own "facts" straight (particularly when your own error has already been pointed out and you've been put on notice). "The only one around that lied to a grand jury was Scooter." An obvious false statement. Guess that's for a jury to decide, eh? Arne, "Clinton's peni$! Clinton's peni$! Hey, lookie over there, it's *GAWD* Clinton's peni$!!!" is YOUR preoccupation- I have ONLY talked about his DOCUMENTED LIES to a grand jury. It does not matter what they were about- as it does not matter what the lies Scooter may have told- IF ONE LIES UNDER OATH, one should be punished. Can you say "acquitted", Bruce? How about "Not Guilty!". Rehnquist could, so maybe you can manage it as well.... It does matter what the alleged lies were about, and to Republicans, that would be Clinton's peni$. Just to get an idea of the excesses and the smarminess of the panty-sniffing Starr, here's this tidbit:
This long before Lewinsky fell into Starr's lap, and he found something to try and engineer a perjury trap on. Now that's pathetic. Actually, it's a bit pathological. You know, BB, it's the Republicans that seem to be fine exemplars of some really twisted shite (perhaps due to their repression and self-loathing). Just go Google "Republican family values", and you'll get some really perverted tidbits right near the top..... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Stilly River Sage Date: 19 Nov 05 - 04:41 PM From the New York Times (link) November 19, 2005 Prosecutor in Leak Case Calls for New Grand Jury By ERIC LICHTBLAU WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 - The special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case said on Friday that he would use a new grand jury in his continuing investigation, a development that seemed certain to extend the political cloud hanging over the Bush administration and could draw new players into the investigation. The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, told a federal judge in a court filing that he would begin additional proceedings before a grand jury different from the one that brought an indictment last month against I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. The 18-month term of the previous grand jury expired last month. In his previous statements, Mr. Fitzgerald had left the door open to using a new grand jury in the case. The prosecutor also made clear in the new court filing that "the investigation is ongoing," after saying last month that "the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded." Mr. Fitzgerald would not comment on his decision to go before a new grand jury, but legal analysts and law enforcement officials said the development suggested that he might be considering calling new witnesses to look at fresh evidence. The case generated even greater scrutiny and speculation this week after the disclosure by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post that a confidential source told him in June 2003 that the wife of the former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, who became a vocal critic of the Bush administration's Iraqi intelligence, worked at the C.I.A. Mr. Woodward said he gave sworn testimony to Mr. Fitzgerald on Monday after his source went to the prosecutor, for reasons still unexplained, to disclose their 2-year-old conversation. Legal experts said it was possible that Mr. Fitzgerald might want to take Mr. Woodward and his source before a grand jury to explore the episode, which alters the timeline of events that the prosecutor laid out last month against Mr. Libby. The identity of Mr. Woodward's source remains a mystery. More than a dozen top Bush administration officials, including the president and vice president, have directly or indirectly denied telling Mr. Woodward of Mr. Wilson's wife's role at the C.I.A. On Friday, Anna Perez, who served in 2003 as the top communications strategist on the staff of the National Security Council, joined those who had issued denials. But a handful of officials have declined to comment, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is traveling in Asia with President Bush. Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, has not replied to messages. On Friday, Time magazine reported new details about dealings between Mr. Woodward and the current or former administration official who first told him about the role of Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, at the C.I.A. The magazine reported on its Web site that Mr. Woodward sought on three occasions to persuade his source to release him from his pledge of confidentiality, once in 2004 and twice this year. The final effort, Mr. Woodward told the magazine, occurred after Mr. Fitzgerald's Oct. 28 news conference announcing the indictment of Mr. Libby, when the prosecutor said Mr. Libby was the first administration official known to have discussed Ms. Wilson's identity with a reporter when he spoke to Judith Miller, then a reporter for The New York Times, on June 23, 2003. According to the magazine, Mr. Woodward recognized then that his source had told him about Ms. Wilson earlier, sometime in mid-June. Mr. Woodward said he had made that point in a call to his source, and the source told him that "he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor." The prosecutor contacted Mr. Woodward on Nov. 3, and Mr. Woodward testified on Nov. 14. The use of a new grand jury, perhaps to explore the Woodward issue, does not necessarily indicate that Mr. Fitzgerald plans to bring additional charges against anyone. But current and former prosecutors noted that the process was time-consuming - the new grand jury will probably have to be read at length from the transcript from the last grand jury on any relevant issues-and that the prosecutor would be unlikely to take such a step lightly. "If he's taking the affirmative step of going before a new grand jury, he clearly has more evidence he wants to present," said Nicholas Gess, a senior Justice Department official in the Clinton administration. "That's not just a fishing expedition." E. Lawrence Barcella Jr., a former federal prosecutor who is now a prominent defense lawyer in Washington, said the development "means a little bit of jeopardy to everyone" who had been connected to the investigation because Mr. Fitzgerald might be exploring new avenues and revisiting old ones. "Just when the White House thought it was over the indictment hump with Libby, now all of a sudden you have an active investigation back on the front burner," Mr. Barcella said. The prospect of a prolonged investigation seems likely to focus increased attention on Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser who has acknowledged having conversations with reporters about Ms. Wilson. Some of Mr. Rove's supporters had expressed hope that Mr. Fitzgerald's decision last month to allow the previous grand jury to expire without charging Mr. Rove signaled he was no longer in jeopardy. But lawyers involved in the case said Mr. Rove remained under scrutiny, and the prosecutor could use the new grand jury to review his case. The White House declined to comment on the issue Friday, as did Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, who has said he believes his client will ultimately be exonerated. Friday's hearing centered on how journalists and the public would be allowed to hear about developments that were likely to touch on both classified material and secret grand jury testimony. Mr. Fitzgerald initially sought a broad order that would have severely restricted the flow of public information during the pre-trial discovery process. But after objections from several news organizations, he agreed Friday to a more limited order that would allow material to be discussed publicly so long as it does not relate to classified documents, grand jury material or private, personal White House information. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 Nov 05 - 10:49 AM The Sunday morning talking heads had a lot to choose from this week. Rumsfeld is up against himself on two Sunday morning talking-head shows. NBC is talking to infectious disease experts, starting with Fauci. He's much more credible than the politicians. Woodward is second string for now. Here's an interesting perspective on his story: Confidentiality must be kept an editorial by H. Rosenfeld (a href="http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=421571">link First published: Sunday, November 20, 2005 When after 30 years shrouded in secrecy W. Mark Felt was revealed as Deep Throat earlier this year, it was news to me. As Bob Woodward's editor at The Washington Post during the Watergate investigation, I decided not to press Bob on the identity of what since has become the iconic confidential source. From my work before and after Watergate, I strongly believe that investigative journalism and the public are both best served by preserving the confidentiality of confidential informants -- forever. That means even after the source has died, and withstanding the demands of the historical record. To my mind, it is more important to preserve confidentiality to help right future wrongs. So I was sorry that Deep Throat's family had blown his cover. While the work on Watergate was under way and having for some time heard about "Woodward's friend" (later dubbed Deep Throat), I thought I should know who this person was and where he fit in the unfolding story that every day was taking on more import. I asked Bob to tell me his source's name. We were in my small office at the side of the newsroom. He looked at me, and solemnly said that if I insisted, he would tell me. He added that he had made a commitment to Deep Throat to keep his identity totally secret for the sake of Throat's job and even possibly his personal safety. I instantly calculated that the under-the-gun Nixon administration likely would unleash the Justice Department on us to discover the anonymous source. Reporters and editors might be put under oath and either have to tell or perjure themselves or go to jail. I knew in my heart Woodward would never talk and therefore likely would wind up in jail. I thought it important that as many people as possible be left at liberty to continue to pursue the investigation. I decided to leave Deep Throat's identity in Woodward's bosom. Only years later, I came to understand that was one of my biggest mistakes in a long newspaper career. In a conversation we had Friday, Woodward did not recollect my asking about Deep Throat's identity, understandably so three decades and more later, but he found it plausible. All this comes to mind now, because last week Woodward apologized to the executive editor at the Post, Len Downie. Woodward had not told Downie until October that another confidential source, this one high in the administration of George W. Bush, had mentioned the name of Valerie Plame Wilson to him, thereby making him the first journalist to have had her name and job with the CIA revealed to him. Woodward kept his silence throughout the investigation by a special counsel into the potential illegality of the outing of an undercover CIA operative, which Ms. Wilson ostensibly was. He kept still as other reporters, including two from his paper, testified under certain conditions, and Judith Miller of The New York Times was jailed for 85 days before working out a deal with the counsel. Woodward says that he told no one in order to preserve his informant's confidentiality -- which he considered of primary importance -- and to keep himself from being caught up by the investigation. Apparently he was not asked by The Post, although he is without question the Washington reporter with the best contacts in the Bush administration. The reaction of Carl Bernstein, his Watergate reporting colleague, was to express his confidence in Woodward's integrity. I share that sentiment. But just like the Miller case, this latest brouhaha raises implications for investigative journalism that impact the credibility of the news media and the public they purport to serve. When reporters confer confidentiality they do so not on their own behalf alone, but they bind their publications as well, at least to a point. The absolute minimum requirement is that the reporter keep his/her editor informed, especially when the issue is of larger moment. Woodward says he learned of Ms. Wilson's name in an offhand manner at the end of a long interview and doesn't think it was part of a deliberate campaign. He would have been better off to run his impression past his editor at least, because no one can read minds, though everyone can make judgments. Those invariably would benefit from a second opinion. Harry Rosenfeld is editor-at-large of the Times Union. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 20 Nov 05 - 02:14 PM Fitzgerald never said Libby was the first to leak Plame to the press. He said Libby was the first KNOWN to have leaked to the press. An entirely different and one for which Mr. Woodward's revelations have no effect. Moreover, that's not what Libby was charged with. What he's charged with, he's going to go down for. He can't get out of it. Fitzgerald means to to find out who orchestrated the leak, i.e. who was the first to leak the name. He's not going to waste that on a mere pawn like Libby. Libby is charged with what he deserves to be charged with. The charge of who was the first leaker is still open and we already know it wasn't Libby. But we need to find out who Libby is protecting. The idea that no real damage was done by outing Plame is a worthless one. If it is against the law to leak an undercover CIA operative's name then it is against the law--period. Was there intent? Libby's actions for which he has been charged indicates there was. Otherwise, why is he protecting someone? As of now, I do not believe Bush will be allowed to finish his term. Iraq is such a disaster that we cannot continue fighting it the way we are but Bush is too much a stubborn ass to admit it and so he will have to go once impeachment can be hung on him. And it will be--not by the dems, by the pubs themselves. For their own preservation, Bush has to go and this whole leak thing is a prelude to that. Mark my words, Bush won't last to 2008. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Don Firth Date: 20 Nov 05 - 03:25 PM Interesting, AR282. A conusmation devoutly to be wished. But--if Bush is impeached, won't we get stuck with Cheney? Or, since Cheney goes in for heart surgery as often as most people take their cars in to Jiffy-Lube, we could wind up with Dennis Hastert. No better. I'm thinking "frying pans and fires" here. What are your thoughts? (I wonder why I sometimes feel trapped!?) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Peace Date: 20 Nov 05 - 03:34 PM "Grand jury testimony is not legal evidence, since it is given without cross-examination and without a judge." Q and A about the Grand Jury system. FYI. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST Date: 20 Nov 05 - 03:44 PM I was under the impression that Libby was not found guilty of leaking anyone. He was found guilty of giving false information. At least that what the prosecutors findings stipulated. Does someone know something else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 20 Nov 05 - 09:28 PM Who takes over once Bush is removed will be and probably already is being decided. Cheney is out because of his health and because he is one of the staunchest proponents for the war. I think this leak investigation will effectively remove him from office one way or another. This pecking order allows Congress direct access to the White House at least for a brief period during which many changes will be implemented to get us out of this war. What the pubs know is this: by 2008, the Iraq War had better be a thing of the past and it had better not be a horrible memory either. By ending the war quickly, they hope it won't have the time to grow into any more a horrible memory than it already will be. But Bush's course has to be stopped because it is a disaster waiting to get bigger. A draft is inevitable and the pubs know that they cannot allow it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Bobert Date: 20 Nov 05 - 09:33 PM Libby hasn't been found gulty of anything, GUEST... He has been indicted... Guilty? Yeah, probably... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 Nov 05 - 10:18 PM I went looking to see what Molly Ivins is up to, but so far she hasn't taken on this subject. I expect when she's ready she'll have some sharp remarks. You can find what she is saying here. I think you'd have to sign up to read it in my paper (the Fort Worth Star-Telegram). The U.S. lately seems to define on a national level the term "to hell in a handbasket." The idea of Cheney or Hastert in the White House is even more appalling than Bush there, if that is possible. He's Cheney's puppet, but if Cheney has to come forward you can figure he knows he's in for one term so he'll do as much damage as possible as fast as he can. Hastert has DeLay's hand up his backside, and I think he'd be even worse than Cheney. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 21 Nov 05 - 05:35 PM Cheney will not serve one day as president. He got us into this mess. The pubs are desparate to get us out of Iraq because it will kill them if they don't. The problem is, they cannot move too quicky or it will look like they are taking orders from the dems. Nevertheless, you don't see this all-out opposition to the dem call for investigations and withdrawals. The pubs have been somewhat receptive to it and that is a huge danger signal for the Bush administration. The fact that the Pentagon is already drawing up a plan of a significant withdrawal despite Bush's insistence that we will stay no matter how long it takes is another huge danger signal. Something is getting ready to go down. As for who will rule in the interim, he will be on a short leash. His job is get us out of Iraq by 08. They're not going to let him do much else and he won't be in power for long. But this war has to end within 2 years or it's all over for the pubs. With Bush in the saddle, this war will drag on long past 08 and the pubs find that as unacceptable as everyone else if not more so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Woody Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:25 PM Amos & Bobert, the two man lynch mob. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Don Firth Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:27 PM Okay, if we don't wind up with Cheney or Hastert, according to the Constitution, we get the president pro tem of the Senate. That's currently Ted Stevens. Hmm. . . . And next in line is the Secretary of State. Condoleezza Rice. . . . uh . . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Bobert Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:43 PM Ahhhh, Woody. You checked out Bush's approval ratings lately??? Hmmmmm/ Didn't hink so 'er you wouldn't think that there's only Amos and myself payin' attention here... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Peace Date: 21 Nov 05 - 08:46 PM Does Bush HAVE any approval ratings? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 Nov 05 - 09:04 PM Yeah, there are still a few brain-dead holdouts. Too many of them. Clearing up this mess is going to take a lot longer than it took to make it. A LOT longer. If those holdouts decide that they want to stay the course, it means dirty politics as usual, more "Swift Boat" fabrications, and dullards voting the way they are told by the high dollar spenders. Who is getting richer as the war continues, as some companies continue to crumble and close down? Banks, drug companies, oil companies. Medical costs go up for the workers and the companies forcing lots of layoffs and strikes. The layoffs happen instead of forcing the benefits companies to charge less. Why is that? Anyone see The President's Analyst? Whoever has managed to rake in huge revenues and stay out of the line of sight--seems like its time to see who some of the other puppet masters are in this drama of ours. I'm beginning to think that Exxon is the fall guy. And this war is awfully convenient to keep everyone looking the other way while someone shovels cash. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 Nov 05 - 09:06 PM Woodward is on Larry King right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Woody Date: 21 Nov 05 - 09:13 PM Bobert: If you would care to read something other than dirt on Bush you would see that the approval rating on congress are even lower. Republicans 27% and Democrats 25% So should we impeach congress first? Hmmmmmmmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo Date: 21 Nov 05 - 09:39 PM Woody: Don't know where you're getting your figures; latest I heard was the Party Of Greed was faring worse ... but they can take heart in the fact that they're doing far better than Dick Cheney, who's clocking in at 19%..... Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Peace Date: 21 Nov 05 - 09:41 PM They're rioting in Africa . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Bobert Date: 21 Nov 05 - 09:51 PM Arne, Looks like Woody gets his "facts" from some right winged blog where folkls just make up stuff at will... Yeah care, Woody, to let us in on yer sources??? They seem to be in conflict with every poll that has been published by any credible news source in the country... Hey, it;s okay to make stuff up in certain circumsatnces but not with polls... Oh, I see.... This was a poll conducted of Southern White Males... Okay, you win... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Peace Date: 21 Nov 05 - 10:04 PM When ya open this, click the blue link on the page. Poll is there. It was blue. Now. it's red. Anyway, if anyone needs the facts, there they are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Woody Date: 21 Nov 05 - 11:13 PM OK Bobert: Go to google and click news. Then type in congress approval rating and see what pops up. 6th thing down says "RATINGS DOWN ACROSS THE BOARD Free Market News Network, FL - 10 hours ago Democrats and Republicans in Congress both fare even poorly in the latest polls, with a 25 and 27 percent approval rating respectively" Not knowing if this is s right wing blog or not I see the numbers so I use the numbers. After your accusation I go back and click on the link and this pops up:"BUSH DOWN ACROSS THE BOARD Monday, November 21, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com President Bush is not the only person to suffer a favorability problem with the American public. While a new Harris Poll released on WSJ.com shows the president�s approval rating at 34 percent, down from 50 percent one year ago, members of his Cabinet fare no better. Vice President Cheney is down to 30 percent, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld down to 34 percent and Secretary of State Rice down to 52 percent, all significant drops in just a few months. Democrats and Republicans in Congress both fare even poorly in the latest polls, with a 25 and 27 percent approval rating respectively. With a Congressional election just one year away, hand wringing has already begun for many members of Congress who suddenly feel threatened. These poll numbers support those fears. Also in the poll are the issues Americans feel need the most attention from the government. The war (34 percent), the economy (13 percent) and Iraq (13 percent) led the way. The Wall Street Journal is quick to note that President Bush is not experiencing the same approval his predecessors did in their fifth years. Presidents Johnson, Reagan, and Clinton all enjoyed comfortable majorities of approval at the same points in their presidencies. However, President Bush is more popular now than President Nixon was at the same time. staff reports - Free-Market News Network Now does this sound like a right wing blog? I don't think so. It does not support Bush. I think you automatically assume the worst, you are highly prejudiced and therefore lack credibility. I think you owe me an apology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Peace Date: 22 Nov 05 - 02:01 PM "However, President Bush is more popular now than President Nixon was at the same time." That is heartening to hear. Nixon was impeached. Let's hope Bush is, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:12 PM >>>Okay, if we don't wind up with Cheney or Hastert, according to the Constitution, we get the president pro tem of the Senate. That's currently Ted Stevens. Hmm. . . . And next in line is the Secretary of State. Condoleezza Rice. . . . uh . . . .<<< Buddy, I'm not arguing with you. I know it sucks but it's the only way the pubs can hang onto the White House and Congress. There needs to be some direct intervention. Bush has to go. I never said those waiting in the wings were any better, only that they will be acting out a script that will result in the complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq by 2008. That will be their raison detre. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Don Firth Date: 23 Nov 05 - 06:38 PM Just to be clear on this, AR282. I'm not arguing to retain Bush in office. I'd like to see him permanently retired to Crawford, Texas where the only thing he can ever preside over again is a barbeque (Molly Ivins says he's actually pretty good at that). It's just that when I see what he could possibly be replaced with, I get cold sweats and a nervous tic. I'm all for replacing the whole lot of them as quickly as possible. If we can't do any better, I'd be okay with Larry, Curly, and Moe. At least when they're poking each other in the eyes and giving each other dope-slaps, they won't be harming anyone else. Has anyone thought of introducing the dope-slap into the world of politics? I think it's about time! Don Firth P. S. I just hope the Dems can develop three things: First of all, a backbone. Second, a progessive platform to offer the voters a genuine alternative. Third, the ability to ennunciate that platform clearly and concisely. And an intelligent, eloquent, charismatic candidate wouldn't hurt either. In the meantime, there is a mid-term election coming up next year. There is a chance to change things quite a bit, provided we get cracking now! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Peace Date: 23 Nov 05 - 07:22 PM "I just hope the Dems can develop three things: First of all, a backbone. Second, a progessive platform to offer the voters a genuine alternative. Third, the ability to ennunciate that platform clearly and concisely. And an intelligent, eloquent, charismatic candidate wouldn't hurt either. In the meantime, there is a mid-term election coming up next year. There is a chance to change things quite a bit, provided we get cracking now!" Wiser words was never spoke. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:32 PM I'm very glad that Bush's approval ratings go down and that the approval for the present US politics goes down as well (though they can hardly go down as much as his approval ratings already have been for a long time outside of the USA). But I can't help noticing that some posters cite approval ratings when they agree with the result and play down their role when they don't. I remember times when Doug was quoting approval ratings ... Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Woody Date: 24 Nov 05 - 08:44 PM Bobert's tunnelvision news sources: The Washington Post is a "corporate website" the kind that Bobert claims is biased. It is 100% profit motivated like any other corporation. The Washington Post Company is a diversified media and education company whose principal operations include newspaper and magazine publishing, television broadcasting, cable television systems, electronic information services, and educational and career services. The company owns The Washington Post, The Gazette Newspapers (Maryland), The Herald (Everett, Washington), Newsweek, television stations in Detroit, Houston, Miami, Orlando, San Antonio and Jacksonville, and cable systems serving subscribers in midwestern, western and southern states. The company also owns Kaplan, Inc., a leading provider of educational and career services; Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, a subsidiary that creates and manages electronic information services, principally on the Internet; and PostNewsweek Tech Media Group, which produces technology publications and trade shows primarily for government IT managers and contractors. The company also has ownership interests in the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service and BrassRing, Inc. You are damned right it is biased, biased to the left like the LA Times who alters photos. 'LA Times' Fires Photographer for Altering Photo Published: April 02, 2003 LOS ANGELES (AP) The Los Angeles Times said Wednesday it fired a photographer for altering a front-page photo of a British soldier and a group of Iraqi civilians. In an editor's note in Wednesday editions, the Times said photographer Brian Walski acknowledged in a phone call from Iraq that he had used a computer to combine elements of two photos to improve the composition. Journalism ethics forbid changing the content of news photographs, and it is specifically barred in the newspaper's policy. The two photos, taken moments apart, showed a British soldier directing Iraqi civilians to protect themselves from possible Iraqi fire on the outskirts of Basra. Only after the altered photo appeared Monday did editors notice that some civilians in the background appeared twice, the Times said. Messages left early Wednesday for two Times representatives were not immediately returned. All three photos -- the two originals and the altered photo -- were published by the Times on Wednesday. Walski had been with the Times since 1998. The editor's note and photographs may be viewed at http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-ednote_blurb.blurb. Now for Bobert's other main source of "truth", the New York Times: Our Company The New York Times Company is a leading media company with 2004 revenues of $3.3 billion, publishes The New York Times, The International Herald Tribune, The Boston Globe and 15 other daily newspapers; owns eight network-affiliated television stations and two New York radio stations; and has approximately 35 Web sites, including NYTimes.com, Boston.com and About.com. 35 websites, all of them corporate I'll bet. And how about that Jayson Blair lying reformed drug addict scumbag. There's a sterling example of a reliable news organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair In fact there is a website dedicated to exposing the left wing bias of the NY Times. http://www.timeswatch.org/ In the words of Famous Amos: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Open your eyes Mr. Bobert. There is a lot to see besides your own predetermined sources for the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Woody Date: 06 Dec 05 - 11:04 PM Bobert: Are you going to defend your favorite and sole sources of the "truth" or are they indfensible? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Dec 05 - 01:54 AM Blow it out yer arse, Woody. If Bobert hasn't answered you back, maybe it's because he knows you're wasting his time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: George Papavgeris Date: 07 Dec 05 - 04:30 AM Woody, even accepting your 25% and 27% approval ratings for Reps and Dems, this paints a really grim picture of a country up shit creek without a paddle - when 48% of the population does not approve of the party in power OR the nearest alternative. That's a country looking for a new political system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: Grab Date: 07 Dec 05 - 07:39 AM Woody, good luck finding a newspaper that isn't owned by someone! Oh, and biased like a paper which, er, fires employees who falsify pictures... real biased... As far as FreeMarketNews.com goes, it doesn't look like a right-wing blog, but it also doesn't look like it has much content. It looks like a political version of SlashDot, essentially. As such, its polls are unlikely to be wildly accurate. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: GUEST,Woody Date: 08 Dec 05 - 12:07 AM A paper that fires people after they get caught and exposed is not a reliable source of news. How long has that person been falsifying things? Ever heard of Jayson Blair? How long did the NYT let him get away with it? Until he got exposed and they had to fire his to save face. CBS is OK now that they fired Dan Rather, They are not biased any more right? CNN Apologizes for X on Cheney's Face. Who got fired for the Technical malfunction? USA Today removes doctored photo of Condolezza Rice. Any firings there? Bobert wails "corporate website", "Cut and paste" or "Blog" when one tries to present facts in this forum. Meanwhile we have a blog going here and his NY Times and Washington Post are as corrupt and biased and any other news source. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: CarolC Date: 08 Dec 05 - 08:21 AM You're right, Woody. The Washington Post is a tool. So's the NY Times. So's CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, FOX, the Washington Times, the LA Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and all of the other corporate media in the US today. All of the mainstream and quite a bit of the not-mainstream media in the US today are tools, as well as much of the media in the UK, Canada, and Australia as well. Don't trust any of them. Bob Woodward is a tool, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Woodward blows Scooter indictment away From: CarolC Date: 08 Dec 05 - 08:25 AM Oh, yeah... most of the members of Congress (Republican as well as Democrat) are tools as well. |
