Valerie Plame - Anti-Semite

Liberal darling Valerie Plame just another anti-Semite. https://t.co/h6UVDRE7jC

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) September 22, 2017

WikiLeaks: Fire Hillary Clinton

Obama's rhetoric is meaningless. He's weak. He's an ineffective leader. He is the 21st century's Jimmy Carter.

Supposedly, Obama is outraged about WikiLeaks and the spilling of U.S. State's Secrets. Robert Gibbs used milder terms, describing Obama as "not pleased."

Is Obama outraged or "not pleased" by the New York Times and other outlets publishing the documents?

These are the same news organizations that refused to publish cartoons of Mohammed.

What's Obama going to do about this egregious breach in security?

Nothing, but insist that he's angry or at least kind of ticked off?

That's not enough.

The buck stops with Obama. Since he's not going to resign because he has shown himself to be incapable of safeguarding our national security, he must take some significant action within his administration.

Hillary Clinton, U.S Secretary of State, head of the U.S Department of State, should be fired.



This happened on Hillary's watch. She has to go. She has to be held accountable.

It's not enough to simply pin responsibility on Bradley Manning, WikiLeaker.

And to the Leftists--

You went ballistic over the Valerie Plame idiocy.

You wanted heads to roll.

What's your response to this massive breach in the nation's security?



Here's a good idea to distract from Obama's screw-up: Focus on Obama's announcement of a federal pay freeze.

Anything to deflect from Obama's incompetence.

Hypocrites.

Julian Assange is to Obama as Ayatollah Khomeini is to Jimmy Carter.

Obama is impotent. He's held hostage by Assange. He's just as impotent as Carter was.

Obama must be a one-term president.
_______________

WikiLeaks Fallout: Should Hillary Clinton Resign?

ABC: "The CIA's $1,000 a Day Specialists on Waterboarding, Interrogations"

I was alerted to this story when listening to Mark Levin.

This is outrageous.

ABC's Brian Ross, Matthew Cole, and Joseph Rhee have exposed the identities of two psychologists responsible for designing the interrogation techniques used on terrorists to get information that would protect Americans and prevent another 9/11.

The ABC report includes the names and photos of the two men. There are video links as well.

Why would ABC do this to these individuals?

The lib media and Leftists went completely berserk over the supposed outing of Valerie Plame. They created a scandal that didn't exist and ran with it.

But the propagandists at ABC have no qualms whatsoever about hanging these men out to dry and serving as mouthpieces for the Obama administration.

It's unconscionable.

It's as if they're begging Leftists to attack them and destroy their lives. By exposing their identities, ABC has put them in physical danger.

ABC gives enough details to make them and their families easy targets. Does Brian Ross think that al Qaeda operatives aren't monitoring American news outlets?

This hit piece is beyond irresponsible. It's vindictive and hateful.

As Levin pointed out, the headline of the story is loaded, "The CIA's $1,000 a Day Specialists on Waterboarding, Interrogations."

It's clear where ABC stands.

Question for Brian Ross and the hacks at ABC: Who is the enemy?

ABC's allegiance is with al Qaeda. The network has no problem outing the psychologists.

It's disgraceful.

These men being crucified by ABC may have played a part in saving Ross' life and the lives of his family and friends. The same goes for Matthew Cole and Joseph Rhee and Shepard Smith and other hacks. The same goes for Obama and his flunkies.

This is truly disgusting.

_______________

jimspice points out that Mark Benjamin, Salon, wrote a piece on the psychologists in June 2007, "The CIA's torture teachers."

The hypocrisy of the Leftists knows no bounds. Being freaked out over Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson's lies while eagerly giving the identities of these psychologists and providing NEW details to demonize them is sickening.

The Outed Plame

Alan Cooperman reviews Valerie Plame's book, My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've heard it all before.

All the emphasis on Robert Novak, Scooter Libby, and the White House, but no mention of Richard Armitage in the review.

Plame was outed. Her career was ruined.

Wow. I had no idea.

This is interesting:

There is no reason to doubt that [Valerie Plame] Wilson wrote "Fair Game" herself. To put it kindly, the memoir lacks the sheen of a ghostwriter's work and has the voice of an ordinary person caught up in extraordinary events. It doesn't help that the CIA redacted the manuscript heavily before approving it for publication. Each time she is about to launch into a juicy anecdote, it seems, lines are blacked out, sometimes for pages on end.

The book is, however, greatly assisted by an afterword by Laura Rozen, a reporter for the American Prospect. Rozen faithfully echoes Wilson's point of view but fills in many of the censored dates, places and other details from published sources. Readers would be smart to turn to the afterword first, before tackling [Plame] Wilson's disjointed narrative.

So not only is this Plame stuff old and boring and irrelevant, it's not well-written.

I bet even rabid haters of President Bush won't bother with the book.

It's yesterday's non-news news.

The Founding Fathers Wouldn't Have Liked Bill Maher

On The Huffington Post today, Bill Maher has a blog post entitled, "The Founding Fathers Wouldn't Have Liked George Bush."

He writes:

I'm in Boston today, getting ready for my standup special tomorrow night live on HBO (last shameless plug, I promise), and walking around the city has made me remember: oh yeah, America started here. That's right, America was invented by liberal men in Boston and Philadelphia. Not that I don't love all of America, but rednecks who think they're the real America should read a history book once in a while. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin, Madison -- the whole lot of them were well read, erudite, European thinking children of the enlightenment, and they would have had absolutely nothing in common and less to say to a cowboy simpleton like George Bush.

"Rednecks who think they're the real America"?

That's a rather derogatory thing to say.

Just who makes up real America, Bill? You and your ilk? The privileged and pampered elite?

"A cowboy simpleton like George Bush"?

Speaking of rednecks, that Bill Clinton acted like a real erudite, European thinking child of the enlightenment when he was president, didn't he?

Give me a break.

Speaking of simpletons, Jimmy Carter, for all his supposed smarts, proved that he was utterly incapable of running the country and adept at screwing up the world.

And speaking of who's a real American, was anyone as outraged as I was reading Robert Novak's little interview in the NY Times magazine on Sunday? Asked if in hindsight he would leave out the part of his 2003 column that identified Valerie Plame as a CIA operative, he said "I don't know. I thought journalistically it was justifiable. Nobody had told me -- and I still don't believe -- that it put anybody's life in danger. I don't think she was an important person in the CIA."

That really is quite an astounding quote, isn't it? How the hell would he know if it put anybody's life in danger? YOU'RE NOT IN THE CIA, BOB! They don't tell you any of their business! Considering the consequences of being wrong about such a hunch, is it really the patriotic thing to do? To sit in your office and just conjecture that this agent wasn't very important to the CIA? First, I think everyone who works at the CIA is important; and second, WHO THE HELL IS THIS MAN TO OUT PEOPLE IN THE DEADLY WORLD OF ESPIONAGE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE "THINKS"?!

Maher should ask, "WHO THE HELL IS RICHARD ARMITAGE TO OUT PEOPLE IN THE DEADLY WORLD OF ESPIONAGE?"

Yes, it really is quite astounding that the simpletons on the Left can't seem to get the facts of the Plame case straight or the truth about socialized medicine.

Maher concludes his little rant with this:

With patriots like that, I'm sure glad there are traitors like me and Michael Moore still living here in America.

Maher and Moore -- Super Patriots! REAL Americans! Make room for them on Mount Rushmore!

That's the funniest thing I've heard Maher say since he stopped being a comedian in the late 1990s.

Judge Outs Valerie Plame's Lawsuit

It's another disappointment for the Left.

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Thursday dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal.

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove and former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

How will this defeat for the Plame Gang be depicted in Vanity Fair?

With a glossy pictorial of Plame and Wilson in their jammies?

We know how much Plame and Wilson value their privacy.

E.J. Dionne Enraged

After six years of the George W. Bush presidency, the libs must be exhausted.

They've been in a state of rage for so long now.

It's amazing that they've managed to keep the angry fires burning for all this time.

Along with others, E.J. Dionne Jr. is having a hissy fit over Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence.

I harbored no personal desire to see I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby spend a long time in prison for his perjury and obstruction-of-justice convictions. People who know him tell me he is a thoughtful and interesting man, and I have no reason to doubt them.

Yet when I learned that President Bush had commuted Libby's 30-month sentence, I was enraged although not surprised. Rage should not be a standard response to political events (though avoiding it has gotten harder in recent years), so I had to ask if my anger was justified. Here's the case for getting mad and staying mad.

The core point is that "equal justice under law" either means something or it doesn't. In this case, all the facts we know tell us that Libby received far more than equal justice, as evidenced by the irregular way his commutation was handled.

...As Michael Abramowitz reported in Tuesday's Post: "For the first time in his presidency, Bush commuted a sentence without running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department, White House officials said. He also did not ask the chief prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, for his input, as routinely happens in cases routed through the Justice Department's pardon attorney." Again: This was a one-time-only ticket for one guy.

Bush purported to be seeking a "third way" (forgive me, Tony Blair) between an outright pardon and allowing the law to follow its course. "I respect the jury's verdict," the president said. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. . . . The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting."

But if Bush meant that, he'd declare that a full pardon for Libby is out of the question. The day after he commuted Libby's sentence, Bush explicitly refused to do so. Moving back to stonewalling, the president said, "As to the future, I rule nothing in or nothing out."

Notice the pattern: When the heat was on in the CIA leak case, Bush issued a strong pledge to fire anybody involved in leaking. He didn't. When Libby was indicted, Bush ducked comment until Libby was at prison's door. Now, by keeping Libby free, Bush can conveniently postpone a full pardon until after the 2008 election. In the meantime, Libby has no incentive to tell prosecutors anything new about what happened in this case. As liberal blogs have noted, since he was not pardoned outright, he can use the pending appeal of his conviction to avoid testifying before Congress.

It's an airtight coverup made possible by the administration's willingness to bend the law. We spent months talking about Clinton's pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich. This commutation is an even greater outrage because it involves the administration taking steps to slip accountability for its own actions. Are we just going to let this one go by?

The Bush critics never let up.

It's like a sickness with them. It's as if they're addicted. They have to maintain the level of hatred. They have to feed their years old habit.

The lib media simply will not let go of that tired old line that Bush promised to fire anyone involved in leaking.

Dionne, like so many other libs, claims he didn't.

To begin, there was nothing to leak. One can't blow a covert CIA agent's cover unless that agent is covert. That should have been enough to end the matter but it wasn't.

Furthermore, LIBBY DIDN'T LEAK VALERIE PLAME'S NAME. Richard Armitage was the original source.

That's not speculation. That's fact.

Mark Levin writes:

[P]rosecutors knew Armitage was the "source" almost immediately after beginning their investigation because Armitage confessed. Indeed, when he thought he may have done something wrong, he appears to have cried on many shoulders. Armitage told his boss, Colin Powell, that he was the source, as well as other State Department and Justice Department officials. He told the Special Counsel's people. And not one of them — Armitage, Powell, Patrick Fitzgerald, et al. — had the guts or integrity to tell the public that the original source was Armitage. Why were they protecting him from public scrutiny? By their silence, Armitage and Powell allowed two innocent men, Lewis Libby and Karl Rove, to be smeared as speculation about them being Novak's original source ran rampant. Liberal commentators and politicians had a blast. The truth be damned.

I also believe two things are very apparent. First, the media like Armitage and Powell. They've been great anti-Bush sources over the years. They run in the same social circles in Washington. So, many in the media protected Armitage and Powell. Not until later, when Bob Woodward had to come forward and admit that Armitage had also fingered Plame to him, did it become more difficult for the media to continue to cover-up for their favorite Bush administration officials.

Second, Fitzgerald's investigation is a sham. That's right, a sham. He knew several things early on: 1. Armitage was the original source; 2. disclosing Plame's identity was not a crime; and 3. the investigation was launched due to political pressure from Capitol Hill, especially Chuck Schumer (who was working with Joe Wilson, and who is also the head of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee). Rather than put an end to this, Fitzgerald appears to have enjoyed the spotlight and adulation from the president's opponents, pursuing "the case" as if he were chasing mobsters or terrorists.

Fitzgerald knew Armitage was the source, but he went forward. He embarked on a political witch hunt. He continued to investigate even though he knew that Armitage had confessed to authorities in October of 2003 that he was the original source for Robert Novak's column identifying Plame.

That's the reality that should pacify Dionne's anger at the Bush administration and Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby.

It doesn't.

Why?

Even when faced with the facts of the case, even when faced with the authority and powers of the president as spelled out in the Constitution, Dionne and his comrades insist that what Bush did was wrong.

Dionne even dares to say that Clinton's 11th hour pardons were legitimate, but Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence was an abuse of power.

His charge that the Bush administration is engaged in a pattern of bending the law is ridiculous.

In his column, Dionne claims to make the case for "getting mad and staying mad."

He doesn't.

There's nothing rational about it.

The only reason that Dionne has for "getting mad and staying mad" is the same rationale that the libs have drawn from since Bush assumed office.

It's the regurgitaion of the Dem's utterly lame Culture of Corruption strategy. It's so old.

It's positively crazy for libs to whine about Bush dismissing the law when they defend Clinton's behavior in office. When Bill was President of the United States he committed perjury; yet that doesn't get a rise out of Dionne.

Hours before he left office, Clinton pardoned 140 people.

These weren't principled decisions. They were favors for cronies and politically motivated moves.

The libs have spent so much time and effort being angry at Bush and finding new reasons to stay angry.

How can they keep the outrage alive?

Liberals, Lies, and Libby

I originally posted this on March 6, 2007.

I'm posting it again to provide context for the idiocy currently taking place in the lib media and the absolute ridiculousness coming from the mouths of Dems.
__________________________

The Democrats are liars.

Their mouthpieces in the liberal media are liars.

They are intentionally trying to deceive the American public.

They are selective in their outrage.

Sandy Berger gets a slap on the wrist for what he did. Remember?

On the evening of Oct. 2, 2003, former White House national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stashed highly classified documents he had taken from the National Archives beneath a construction trailer at the corner of Ninth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW so he could surreptitiously retrieve them later and take them to his office, according to a newly disclosed government investigation.

The documents he took detailed how the Clinton administration had responded to the threat of terrorist attacks at the end of 1999. Berger removed a total of five copies of the same document without authorization and later used scissors to destroy three before placing them in his office trash, the National Archives inspector general concluded in a Nov. 4, 2005, report.

After archives officials accused him of taking the documents, Berger told investigators, he "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck." But instead of admitting he had removed them deliberately -- by stuffing them in his suit pockets on multiple occasions -- Berger initially said he had removed them by mistake.

The way the libs are drooling over the Scooter Libby verdict you'd think he did something more than FORGET.

In effect, the jury passed judgment on Libby's memory regarding an investigation that was shown to be nothing more than a political witch hunt from the beginning.

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing a leak investigation that reached into the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Libby is the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s. The case brought new attention to the Bush administration's much-criticized handling of weapons of mass destruction intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.

The verdict culminated a nearly four-year investigation into how CIA official Valerie Plame's name was leaked to reporters in 2003. The trial revealed how top members of the administration were eager to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq.

...Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has led the leak investigation, said no additional charges would be filed. That means nobody will be charged with the leak and Libby, who was not the source for the original column outing Plame, will be the only one to face trial.

"The results are actually sad," Fitzgerald said. "It's sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did."

Awwww. Fitzgerald is sad. If he's truly sad, it's because he wasn't able to bring down Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or George W. Bush.

Fitzgerald is a prosecutor run amok. His ego took control and he lost sight of the purpose of the investigation.

He had to get someone's head and Libby was his victim.

Fitzgerald is a joke.

This case has to be put into proper context. Naturally, the lib media are failing to do that.

First and foremost, Joe Wilson is a liar.

He, too, is an absolute joke; yet he's embraced by the Left.

Read some of the statements by officials in reaction to the verdict.

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI

"This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed -- at the highest levels of the Bush Administration -- a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq."

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID

"I welcome the jury's verdict. It's about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics. Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."

Here's reaction from the articulate and sometimes southern drawler Barack Obama:

"The conviction today underscores what happens when our foreign and national security policies are subverted by politics and ideology. Leaks and innuendo in pursuit of a flawed policy lead to shameful episodes such as this. It should never happen again."

And from Howard Dean:

"Today the American legal system did something the Bush Administration hasn't, by holding Scooter Libby accountable for his illegal actions. Many unanswered questions remain about the other key Bush advisors who participated in the administration's efforts to mislead the American people and smear its critics who have yet to be held accountable. Ultimately, the buck stops with President Bush."

What a crock!
Read about liar Joe Wilson.
Read about the leak about nothing.

YOU CAN'T LEAK WHAT'S NOT CAPABLE OF BEING LEAKED.

Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson are liars.

We know that to be a fact. They concocted a story that the Democrats, their mouthpieces in the lib media and assorted Leftist wing-nuts nurtured for years.

The purpose: To do damage to the Bush administration and to weaken and disparage the American government.

As they kept alive the fabricated drama, they undermined the American military and the war effort, thereby putting our troops at greater risk.
The outing of Valerie Plame was a hoax and the investigation was a sham.
Yes, there was definitely a conspiracy here, but it wasn't a conspiracy by the Bush administration to smear Joe Wilson and destroy Valerie Plame's career.

No. It was a conspiracy by the Left to destroy Karl Rove's career and Scooter Libby's good name. And in the libs' wildest dreams, it was a conspiracy that would bring down Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

The Left insisted that Karl Rove be fired. Lefty blogs wrote that his indictment was imminent and the mainstream media suggested it as well, REPEATEDLY.

Think of how the White House press corps badgered Scott McClellan, claiming that he lied to them. The insanity went on and on and on.

The chorus that Karl Rove should be fired, the demands that Bush was reneging on his promises, the claims that the administration took revenge on Wilson and Plame -- It was all just crap.

Wilson, spokesmen for his wife, played the dual role of whistleblower and victim to the hilt. He was coddled by the Left.

He was their hero. And poor Plame. Her life had been endangered by a vindictive White House.

Guess what?

It was all lies. Everything.

Plame's status with the CIA, how Wilson got the assignment to Niger, the "leaker" --

ALL A PACK OF LIES!

Now, the very publications that promoted the story are backtracking. The backing off is not to be confused with taking responsibility for intentionally deceiving the public with FAKE NEWS and PROPAGANDA.

They aren't offering retractions or apologies for their roles in the over two-year deception and personal destruction mission.

For example, The New York Times is still trying to lend credence to the investigation and run damage control for the disgraced Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.

Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles.

Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been the primary source for the July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak that identified Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. operative and set off the leak investigation.

Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision to prolong the inquiry once he took over as special prosecutor in December 2003 had significant political and legal consequences. The inquiry seriously embarrassed and distracted the Bush White House for nearly two years and resulted in five felony charges against Mr. Libby, even as Mr. Fitzgerald decided not to charge Mr. Armitage or anyone else with crimes related to the leak itself.

No. It wasn't just the inquiry that was the problem.

It was the Left's feeding frenzy, the "Merry Fitzmas" garbage, the media staked out at Karl Rove's home, taking photos of his garage.

(OUTING Karl Rove's garage: Any witches in there?)
THE NEW YORK TIMES was engaged in an orchestrated campaign to seriously embarrass and distract the Bush White House for nearly two years, with an empty story.

They were at the front of the pack leading the charge to bring down a high-ranking White House official, the higher the better.

Now, that it's clear that Armitage was the leaker, The Times is backing off that angle, because Armitage has served them well as a Bush critic.

It's so blatantly hypocritical that it's laughable.

The Times is shifting its emphasis to focus on the alleged crimes of Scooter Libby, with a load of speculation about what Fitzgerald MAY do.

Does he have a case against Libby?

For God's sake, I wish they'd all drop it!

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are liars and Fitzgerald has been exposed as prosecutor completely run amok.
Mark Levin has an excellent piece on National Review Online.

The more I think about this Fitzgerald investigation, the more astonished I become. Richard Armitage was Bob Novak's "source" — i.e., he identified Valerie Plame — which, incidentally, is clearly not a crime and Armitage has not been charged with any offense. And prosecutors knew Armitage was the "source" almost immediately after beginning their investigation because Armitage confessed. Indeed, when he thought he may have done something wrong, he appears to have cried on many shoulders. Armitage told his boss, Colin Powell, that he was the source, as well as other State Department and Justice Department officials. He told the Special Counsel's people. And not one of them — Armitage, Powell, Patrick Fitzgerald, et al. — had the guts or integrity to tell the public that the original source was Armitage. Why were they protecting him from public scrutiny? By their silence, Armitage and Powell allowed two innocent men, Lewis Libby and Karl Rove, to be smeared as speculation about them being Novak's original source ran rampant.

Levin explains that the investigation was a joke because Fitzgerald knew a number of things from nearly the beginning.

1. Armitage was the original source; 2. disclosing Plame's identity was not a crime; and 3. the investigation was launched due to political pressure from Capitol Hill, especially Chuck Schumer (who was working with Joe Wilson, and who is also the head of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee). Rather than put an end to this, Fitzgerald appears to have enjoyed the spotlight and adulation from the president's opponents, pursuing "the case" as if he were chasing mobsters or terrorists. He sought and received from his long-time friend, James Comey, extraordinary authority which Fitzgerald used to put pressure on reporters and news organizations as he widened his investigation in pursuit of anyone who might have revealed Plame's name. But to what end? That's not a crime in itself. To catch officials in memory lapses or — to be charitable to prosecutors — false statements or perjury? You don't conduct investigations to catch people in lies. You conduct investigations to uncover or expose crimes and punish those who are responsible. Meanwhile, the president's top advisor sat in the dock, waiting for word whether he'd be indicted, during a good portion of the administration. Only a few months ago did Fitzgerald finally inform Rove that he was in the clear.

The fact is that there was never an underlying crime, period.

In other words, this was a politically-fueled witch hunt, period.

On Friday, The Washington Post ran an "Oops, nevermind" editorial.

It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.

Friday, September 1, 2006; A20

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

"Far too much attention"???

THE POST HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN GIVING THE pLAME STORY FAR TOO MUCH ATTENTION.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

Note that there are no calls to have the friendly Armitage "frog-marched" out of the White House. He just made a little boo-boo, nothing malicious, nothing illegal.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.

Hear that Dems and other Bush administration enemies, like Tim Russert?

UNTRUE.

Wilson is a liar.

TRUE.

The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

Yeah, well, for years it was known that Armitage was the source.

A lot could have been avoided.

Why didn't The Times or The Post leak that Armitage was the source? Why didn't they run an expose?

Oh, that's right. They only leak programs and things that will hinder the War on Terror, harm national security, and put Americans in jeopardy.

[I]t now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

That last sentence is an absolute killer.

Yes, it's unfortunate that THE WASHINGTON POST and THE NEW YORK TIMES and CNN and NBC and DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATORS, to name just a few, took Wilson so seriously.

Very unfortunate indeed.

These individuals and outlets that promoted Wilson's lies are just as guilty as Wilson.

They pushed his fraudulent agenda, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

It's disgusting. They wanted to inflict damage on the Bush administration and they did. IT WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED.
________________________________

Byron York has posted a letter from Joe Wilson responding to The Post's editorial slap on his wrist.

It appears on Democratic Underground. (Surprise, surprise.)

You may have seen this morning's editorial in the Post. It manages to recycle pretty much every lie and smear over the past three years in a last ditch effort to divert attention from the facts, and the role the Post itself played both in the march to war and in the leak (see Woodward).

I know many of you are better versed in Plamegate than either Valerie or I and I also know that some of you will be addressing the editorial.

I want to let you know how much Valerie and I continue to be buoyed by your support and your dedication to getting the truth out and holding the administration and its lackeys accountable for the terrible policies they have foisted on our country and on the world. We must keep fighting.

As you think about this, our website (Wilsonsupport.org) has a copy of the letter I sent to the SSCI when its report first came out, challenging some of its conclusions. The LeftCoaster has a terrific study by eriposte on the whole Niger forgery case from beginning to end. Firedoglake and the Next Hurrah both have highly informative analyses of the case by skilled researchers and former prosecutors. I recommend them all as resoruces to jog memories. by this afternoon, I expect that our own team will have an updated set of talking points to distribute for your use as well.

Each of you in one way or another has contributed to the public's (and in many cases our own) understanding of the issues from the beginning. Thank you for continuing to do so.

Joe Wilson

I suppose those congregating inside the "Lefty hate Bush bubble" will buy this crock.

They'll no doubt echo liar Wilson's talking points.

They'll continue to lie.

They'll continue to undermine the country.

It's what they do best.

Rosie O'Donnell, Scooter Libby, and George W. Bush

Poor Rosie O'Donnell.

She lost her soapbox The View.

No ranting and raving on ABC.

Oh well. She'll always have her blog.

Read O'Donnell's thoughts about President Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence.

*WARNING* Offensive language *WARNING*

Pardon Me

only commutation
of obstruction of justice sentence
by a president
ever

so basically
they can do whatever they want
blatant disregard
for everything our country is about

cheney is an evil man
baby bush a horror

armitage takes the fall
thinking it would end it all
scare the truth away
out the wife

but then fitzy showed up

holy shit
what to do about patrick
ask libby
he’ll do anything

dick says do it
i will get u out
scooter says ok
guilty

and like cheney promised
ka boom
libby is free
lil georgie said he can go

that smug smirk
privileged pampered fool
this is like a bad movie
really pathetic

THE GUYS IN CHARGE R CRIMINALS
IMPEACH CHENEY THEN BUSH
ASAP

____________________

Good grief.

armitage takes the fall

cheney is an evil man

baby bush a horror

THE GUYS IN CHARGE R CRIMINALS
IMPEACH CHENEY THEN BUSH
ASAP

What cluelessness!

What vitriol!

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Idiotic Editorial on Libby

Today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial on President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence is laughable.

"The real miscarriage"

In the six years that George W. Bush was governor of Texas, 150 men and two women were executed by the state. In each case, Bush got a so-called clemency memo. He allowed all but one of the executions to proceed.

In commuting the 30-month sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for lying to authorities, President Bush said Monday that the sentence was "excessive."

The irony here would be laughable if the message the president sends with this action was not so damaging. And that would be that there are indeed two standards of justice - one for the powerful and well-connected and another for the rest of the country. And Libby, as former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, couldn't have been sitting closer to the seats of power or have been better connected.

This is truly insane.

The Editorial Board has gone completely off the deep end.

The crimes of people on death row in Texas aren't even remotely in the same league as Libby.

It's a complete joke to try to make a connection between the executions that took place while President Bush was the governor of Texas and Scooter Libby's crime.

Is the Editorial Board really suggesting that Bush should have pardoned killers and rapists of innocents?

There's no comparison between Libby's less than perfect memory and such horrific acts.

Texas, fairly or unfairly, is infamous for its quality of justice. In recent years, eight people have been freed from death row in that state because they were innocent, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

What does that have to do with Scooter Libby?

And what does the Board mean by "recent years"?

Bush has been president for the last six "recent years."

True, the president might have pardoned Libby outright for his obstruction in the investigation of who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative. The $250,000 fine and probation remain in place. The president points to a recommendation by the probation office for a lesser sentence. OK, but harsh sentences are a common occurrence in American jurisprudence. And most ordinary people don't have powerful friends who can step in to help.

But mostly this commutation fails on the most basic premise. There was no miscarriage of justice in Libby's conviction or his sentence. The trial amply demonstrated that he stonewalled.

The investigation and the trial amply demonstrated that Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's name.

It wasn't Libby. It wasn't Libby. It wasn't Libby.

It was Richard Armitage. Armitage. ARMITAGE.

Read more about this "Sham of an Investigation."

Like President Clinton's 11th-hour pardons of an ill-deserving few, this commutation is a travesty.

The overzealous Patrick Fitzgerald wanted so much more. He had nothing, so he went after Libby. That was a travesty of justice.

Furthermore, Bush didn't pardon Libby.

Clinton's litany of pardons can't be compared with what Bush did on Monday. It's not even close.

Bush got it right.

The Journal Sentinel Editorial Board, once again, gets it wrong.

No Prison for Libby

President Bush didn't pardon Scooter Libby, but he said no prison time.

Statement by the President

There's no question that the President did the right thing.

The Leftists, of course, are having fits, sort of.

The President has an absolute right to do this. But by commuting the sentence of his former Presidential advisor and the former Number 2 to Dick Cheney — the President has put protecting Dick Cheney and his actions above respect for America’s system of justice.

This is a shameful, self-dealing action which will have long-term political ramifications for the Bush Administration. And it should.

The entire case — from betrayal of Valerie Plame Wilson by members of her own government to the inception of the investigation into that betrayal from a referral from the CIA…all the way through to the conviction of I. Lewis Libby of multiple felony counts by a federal jury and the stiff sentence for a convicted felon meted out by a conservative federal judge — all of it has served to highlight the lies on which the invasion of Iraq rested. And how far the members of the Bush Administration were willing to go to keep those lies buried and away from the public’s knowledge.

That George Bush commuted Libby’s sentence just as he returned from a trip to his father’s family compound in Maine, ran into the White House away from the press and refused to answer any questions about his own involvement in the case, his own interview with Patrick Fitzgerald and federal investigators, and any remaining questions that still hang out there about the cloud over Dick Cheney underscores the craven and disrespectful conduct of the Bush Administration from start to finish. There is nothing that these people will not do to protect their own, whatever the cost may be for the long term to the public confidence in the rule of law. This is a slap in the face to the members of the jury and all of the federal judges who have ruled on the substantial amount of evidence of Libby’s guilt and the weakness of his attempts to appeal.

Blah, blah, blah.

All the libs are rushing to give their statements and write their drivel.

I think they're feigning outrage. The passion isn't there.

We know. We know. They hate the President and his administration.

The commutation of Libby's sentence gives them some ammo, a purpose to shoot off their mouths; but I don't think they really care about Plame and Wilson and Libby anymore. It's a sideshow.

True, by not giving a full pardon, Bush stayed on the fence somewhat. No doubt, conservative critics will get on his case for that.

What matters most is that Bush spared Libby that disgracefully excessive prison sentence. It was ridiculous that the federal court of appeals wanted Libby behind bars even as he would be appealing the conviction.

Chuck Shumer responded to the President's action as a typical lib would:

"As Independence Day nears, we are reminded that one of the principles our forefathers fought for was equal justice under the law. This commutation completely tramples on that principle."

What a load!

Independence Day. Forefathers.

What an absolute load!

Bottom line: Bush did the right thing.

No Pardon for Libby?

Is it The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board or Michael Moore, or MoveOn.org, or the Democratic Underground?

It's hard to distinguish.

In "Begging no pardon," the JS Editorial Board makes an absurd assertion.

This statement itself isn't absurd; but it's absurd coming from the Board: "Truth matters."

That's hilarious.

Of course truth matters. It certainly doesn't matter to the JS Editorial Board.

Libby deserves every second of the 2 1/2 years in prison to which he was sentenced in the case involving his role in leaking the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. He lied to a grand jury and to FBI agents.

What's unclear, however, is whether the public ever will get the complete truth in the matter.

As the successful conviction of Libby essentially demonstrated, there was a concerted effort to discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson. To those involved, Plame and her career were apparently just collateral damage.

Wilson was the former ambassador who went public in refuting administration claims that Iraq had sought yellowcake uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

Libby could not have worked alone in this discrediting effort. But he is the only one charged in the three-year investigation on who leaked Plame's name to reporters. On Tuesday, Fitzgerald said Libby's obstruction may have helped shield another administration official.

Who? Yes, the truth matters. For that and other reasons, the president should resist any temptation to pardon Libby.

This is a regurgitation of the same lame Plame talking points we've heard for years now.

Joe Wilson isn't a hero. Valerie Plame isn't a victim. They're Democrat hacks.

The Board's conspiracy theory that "Libby could not have worked alone in this discrediting effort," is laughable.

What a bunch of wing-nuts!

I can understand President Bush letting the appeal process play out for Libby, but he should refuse to allow Libby to spend any time in prison. An immediate pardon would be in order if it gets to that point.

Because the truth matters.

30 Months for Scooter Libby

Renegade prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald must feel victorious.

He shouldn't.

Scooter Libby being sentenced to 30 months in prison for nothing more than a foggy memory is a dubious victory.

WASHINGTON -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison Tuesday for lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, stood calmly before a packed courtroom as a federal judge said the evidence overwhelmingly proved his guilt.

"People who occupy these types of positions, where they have the welfare and security of nation in their hands, have a special obligation to not do anything that might create a problem," U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said.

Libby was convicted in March of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

The highest-ranking White House official convicted in a government scandal since the Iran-Contra affair, Libby has steadfastly maintained his innocence.

"It is respectfully my hope that the court will consider, along with the jury verdict, my whole life," Libby said in brief remarks to the judge.

Walton fined Libby $250,000 and placed him on probation for two years following his release from prison. Walton did not immediately address whether Libby could remain free pending appeal.

...Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald called on Libby to serve up to three years in prison.

"We need to make the statement that the truth matters ever so much," Fitzgerald said.

"[T]he truth matters ever so much," according to Fitzgerald.

Yes, it does. That's why Fitzgerald, the Left, and their media mouthpieces bug me ever so much.

This really makes me sick.

There is so much about the Valerie Plame case that is just dripping with sleaze. It's been a witch hunt from the beginning.

Plame's husband Joe Wilson must feel vindicated.

He shouldn't.

He is the definition of a liar, albeit a hero to the Left.

Libby is the definition of a scapegoat. The Left really wanted Karl Rove. They dreamed about getting Dick Cheney. The ultimate fantasy was taking down George Bush. Fitzgerald couldn't touch any of them. The best he could do was charge Libby with a faulty memory.

So what did Fitzgerald's investigation reveal?

We learned definitively that Joe Wilson is a liar, though that's been evident for years.

We learned that Fitzgerald is slimy.

We learned that the media are hopelessly biased against conservatives.
___________________

Here's something worth remembering:

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

___________________________

The ugly libs at the Democratic Underground must be going nuts without their forum to spew their filth. They picked the wrong day to upgrade their cesspool.



Read some reaction from the "compassionate" liberals commenting at Daily Kos.
_________________________

On ABC News Radio at the 2:00 PM ET break, Cheri Preston said that Libby had been sentenced to 30 YEARS in prison.

A Freudian slip?

Valerie Plame: FICTION

Valerie Plame's appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today is an example of performance art.

Or, if you prefer, it can be considered a complete crock, worthy of condemnation rather than applause.

WASHINGTON -- Valerie Plame, the CIA operative at the heart of a political scandal, told Congress Friday that senior officials at the White House and State Department "carelessly and recklessly" blew her cover to discredit her diplomat-husband.

Plame, whose 2003 outing triggered a federal investigation, said she always knew her identity could be discovered by foreign governments.

"It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover," she told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"If our government cannot even protect my identity, future foreign agents who might consider working with the Central Intelligence Agency and providing needed intelligence would think twice," Plame said in response to a question.

The hearing was the first time Plame has publicly answered questions about the case, which led to the recent perjury and obstruction of justice conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Blah, blah, blah.

The lib media are in full drool mode.

They are so thrilled with the "gripping political theater" that they are putting aside the truth.
I do believe that Plame's so-called cover was "carelessly and recklessly" abused, but not by the government.

Patrick Fitzgeral's massive investigation came to that conclusion. The only indictment that he could come up with was one that dealt with memory issues and NOT the outing of a covert CIA agent.

Plame and her liar husband Joe Wilson abused her position with the CIA.

Read more here and here.

Plame and Wilson are scam artists. These political hacks have turned their lies into a flourishing cottage industry -- magazine spreads, a book, a movie.

She's staging this joke of a performance today to be a chapter in a book and another dramatic scene in a movie.

By definition, any books or movies about this non-scandal scandal that have Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson's stamp of approval will be fictional accounts.

In this case, fiction is a kinder way to say LIE.

My review: I give Plame's performance today a big two thumbs down.

Denis Collins: One of Libby's Peers?

There's a lot that's disturbing about Scooter Libby's trial and the verdict.

One buffoon that stands out among the buffoons is juror Denis Collins.

I get the feeling that he's a Joe Wilson wannabe. Collins exhibits that same slime factor.

Special Prosectuor and egomaniac Patrick Fitzgerald was handed a gift when political hack Collins landed in the jury pool.

Collins wasn't satisfied with convicting Scooter Libby. Sure, he was pleased that he had the opportunity to ruin his life; but he wanted more.

Just like Joe Wilson and his extrovert spy wife Valerie Plame, and just like out of control Patrick Fitzgerald, and like the others with a political axe to grind such as Tim Russert, Collins wanted a bigger fish than Libby. He wanted to bring down the Bush administration.

You could see how Collins relished his moment in the spotlight, his magical fifteen minutes of fame that he probably had been fantasizing about when he should have been listening to testimony and considering the facts of the case.

From The Washington Post:

The jurors who huddled around two pushed-together conference tables for 10 days, meticulously filling 34 pages of facts from the trial on a large flip chart, believed that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff had been "pilloried" for a CIA leak that other top White House aides had committed along with him, according to one member of the panel.

Still, the juror said yesterday, the jury concluded that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had lied to FBI agents and a federal grand jury that investigated the leak. Sifting through mounds of evidence convinced the panel that Libby's memory of conversations with colleagues and journalists was not as faulty as the defense contended.

"We're not saying that we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of," said the juror, Denis Collins. "But it seemed like he was . . . the fall guy."

Collins, an author and ex-Washington Post reporter, was the only one of the seven women and four men on the jury to provide an inside glimpse into the method and thought process that the panel used to find Cheney's former top aide guilty of four felony counts.

Collins is an ex-Washington Post reporter!

That's as bad as Rosie O'Donnell sitting on a jury for a case against Donald Trump.

Collins actually worked and socialized with witnesses in the trial.

During his decade at The Post, he worked with witness Bob Woodward for three or four years. He also worked with The Post's Walter Pincus, another witness.

Until recently, Collins was witness Tim Russert's neighbor. He would attend Russert's backyard barbeques.
There's no question that Collins is a card-carrying member of the lib elite. He went to grade school with Maureen Dowd, attended New York Times columnist John Tierney's wedding, and is a pal of Michael Isikoff.

It gets worse. Collins wrote a book about the CIA, SPYING: The Secret History of History.

How did Fitzgerald get so lucky?

Landing on that jury had to be a dream come true for Collins, too.

There's no way that justice could be done with someone like him on the jury.

Impossible.

Collins's detailed description of the jury's deliberations, in public comments and interviews yesterday, suggests that Libby's attorneys made headway with one of the themes they emphasized throughout the case: that the defendant, as lead defense attorney Theodore V. Wells Jr. described it, was made a scapegoat by the White House to protect other presidential aides who were complicit in disclosing Plame's identity to reporters.

During the jury's days of methodical deliberations, "it was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here?' " Collins told reporters on the steps outside the federal courthouse. "Where's Rove, where's -- you know, where are these other guys?" Collins said, referring to Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy chief of staff who testimony showed had been the first person to leak Plame's name.

Moreover, Collins said, jurors believed that Libby had been carrying out a directive by his immediate boss, Cheney, to "go out and talk to reporters" to tarnish Wilson's reputation. But Collins said jurors stopped short of discussing whether the vice president specifically urged Libby to tell journalists about Plame's CIA job.

Nevertheless, the jury, by Collins's telling, was more strongly persuaded by the prosecution's central contention: It was implausible that Libby could have forgotten his role in finding out and telling reporters about Plame when he met with federal investigators. In particular, Collins said, jurors were struck by the juxtaposition of testimony from former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and eight hours of audiotapes they heard of Libby's grand jury testimony.

This Collins guy doesn't sound like an unbiased juror. He sounds like a Democrat operative.

Collins told reporters on the steps outside the federal courthouse. "Where's Rove, where's -- you know, where are these other guys?" Collins said, referring to Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy chief of staff who testimony showed had been the first person to leak Plame's name.

Where's Rove?

Obviously, Collins was disappointed that he had but one Bush administration official to condemn for his lib cohorts.

This was a political witch hunt, pure and simple.

A prosecution witness, Fleischer testified that Libby had told him "hush hush" about Plame over lunch on July 8, 2003 -- a Tuesday. In his grand jury testimony from March 2004, Libby said that Tim Russert, Washington bureau chief of NBC News, told him about Plame during a conversation two or three days later, and that Libby had the impression he was learning about her for the first time. "It was just very hard not to believe how he could remember it on a Tuesday and then forget it on a Thursday," Collins said.

He said jurors thought it was especially implausible that Libby forgot when and how he learned about Plame, given that he repeated that information to other people. "If I tell it to someone else, it's even more unlikely that I would forget it," Collins said.

I'd like Collins to put his memory to the test.

Does he have perfect recollection?

I guess he doesn't.

Collins felt the need to take plenty of notes during the trial, some currently on The Huffington Post. Since he plans to write a book about the trial, I suppose he didn't want to take any chances. He wouldn't want to forget the details of his experience.

I wonder if Collins was willing to cut Bill Clinton any slack when it came to remembering?

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

Sometimes it's hard to remember. If a lib can't recall, it's no big deal. A conservative isn't granted the same leeway.

The 11 jurors who convicted Libby on all but one count were, in several respects, atypical of the District's population. In a city that is heavily Democratic and where attention to politics runs high, the jurors were a largely apolitical group. Under careful questioning during jury selection, Libby's attorneys weeded out members of the large initial jury panel who said they held strong negative views of the Bush administration -- and even ones who said they followed news and politics closely.

In a city that is majority African American, all but two members of the jury -- both women -- were white. In addition, the jury was highly educated, including three members with PhDs.

Yeah, right.

BS.

I'm sure Libby's attorneys did their best to weed out the Bush-haters, but that's virtually impossible in overwhelmingly lib D.C.

Moreover, one could conclude that being "highly educated" really means that the jurors were indoctrinated in lib think, and brainwashed by lib professors at lib universities.

According to Collins, the tenor of deliberations was cool. Sitting in armchairs around the conference tables, with an adjacent office for phone calls to home and work, he said: "We were in a cocoon." To begin, the jury members used the large Post-it pages they had procured from the court to detail each witness's testimony, motivation to tell the truth, believability and state of mind.

"We took about a week just to get all these little building blocks there . . . We reached no decision quickly."

"In the end," Collins said, "what we came up with was that Mr. Libby either was told by or told to people about Mrs. Wilson at least nine times."

After reaching the verdict on the last charge at 11:15 yesterday morning, Collins said the jurors displayed little emotion. But after they filed out of the courtroom slightly more than an hour later, their verdict rendered, several wept as they walked through a corridor toward Walton's chambers for a final meeting with the judge.

Collins said he interpreted the tears as the release of pent-up tension from the long, celebrated trial. "It was not," he said, because jurors were thinking, " 'Oh, we're sorry to see Libby convicted.' "

Good grief.

Oh, the drama!

What strain these courageous jurors had been under as they served their country!

What sacrifice!

Maybe some jurors shed tears because they weren't comfortable with the verdict. Perhaps some had been strong-armed by hacks like Collins.

Clearly, the members of the jury with an anti-war, anti-Bush political agenda won.

The problem is the trial wasn't about Bush. It wasn't about the war. It was about Scooter Libby's memory.

Collins and Fitzgerald, Joe Wilson, and libs from sea to shining sea are celebrating their victory.

They shouldn't. They shouldn't be proud of torturing Libby and his family because they wanted to do at least some damage to the administration or speak out against the war.

The fact that Collins made such politically charged statements reveals that justice wasn't blind in this case. It was political.

The Witch Hunt: Scooter Libby and Joe Wilson

The Democrats are liars.

Their mouthpieces in the liberal media are liars.

They are intentionally trying to deceive the American public.

They are selective in their outrage.

Sandy Berger gets a slap on the wrist for what he did. Remember?

On the evening of Oct. 2, 2003, former White House national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stashed highly classified documents he had taken from the National Archives beneath a construction trailer at the corner of Ninth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW so he could surreptitiously retrieve them later and take them to his office, according to a newly disclosed government investigation.

The documents he took detailed how the Clinton administration had responded to the threat of terrorist attacks at the end of 1999. Berger removed a total of five copies of the same document without authorization and later used scissors to destroy three before placing them in his office trash, the National Archives inspector general concluded in a Nov. 4, 2005, report.

After archives officials accused him of taking the documents, Berger told investigators, he "tried to find the trash collector but had no luck." But instead of admitting he had removed them deliberately -- by stuffing them in his suit pockets on multiple occasions -- Berger initially said he had removed them by mistake.

The way the libs are drooling over the Scooter Libby verdict you'd think he did something more than FORGET.

In effect, the jury passed judgment on Libby's memory regarding an investigation that was shown to be nothing more than a political witch hunt from the beginning.

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing a leak investigation that reached into the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Libby is the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s. The case brought new attention to the Bush administration's much-criticized handling of weapons of mass destruction intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.

The verdict culminated a nearly four-year investigation into how CIA official Valerie Plame's name was leaked to reporters in 2003. The trial revealed how top members of the administration were eager to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq.

...Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has led the leak investigation, said no additional charges would be filed. That means nobody will be charged with the leak and Libby, who was not the source for the original column outing Plame, will be the only one to face trial.

"The results are actually sad," Fitzgerald said. "It's sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did."

Awwww. Fitzgerald is sad. If he's truly sad, it's because he wasn't able to bring down Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or George W. Bush.

Fitzgerald is a prosecutor run amok. His ego took control and he lost sight of the purpose of the investigation.

He had to get someone's head and Libby was his victim.

Fitzgerald is a joke.

This case has to be put into proper context. Naturally, the lib media are failing to do that.

First and foremost, Joe Wilson is a liar.

He, too, is an absolute joke; yet he's embraced by the Left.

Read some of the statements by officials in reaction to the verdict.

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI

"This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush Administration. The testimony unmistakably revealed -- at the highest levels of the Bush Administration -- a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq."

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID

"I welcome the jury's verdict. It's about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics. Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."

Here's reaction from the articulate and sometimes southern drawler Barack Obama:

"The conviction today underscores what happens when our foreign and national security policies are subverted by politics and ideology. Leaks and innuendo in pursuit of a flawed policy lead to shameful episodes such as this. It should never happen again."

And from Howard Dean:

"Today the American legal system did something the Bush Administration hasn't, by holding Scooter Libby accountable for his illegal actions. Many unanswered questions remain about the other key Bush advisors who participated in the administration's efforts to mislead the American people and smear its critics who have yet to be held accountable. Ultimately, the buck stops with President Bush."

What a crock!

Read about liar Joe Wilson.

Read about the leak about nothing.

YOU CAN'T LEAK WHAT'S NOT CAPABLE OF BEING LEAKED.

Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson are liars.

We know that to be a fact. They concocted a story that the Democrats, their mouthpieces in the lib media and assorted Leftist wing-nuts nurtured for years.

The purpose: To do damage to the Bush administration and to weaken and disparage the American government.

As they kept alive the fabricated drama, they undermined the American military and the war effort, thereby putting our troops at greater risk.

The outing of Valerie Plame was a hoax and the investigation was a sham.

Yes, there was definitely a conspiracy here, but it wasn't a conspiracy by the Bush administration to smear Joe Wilson and destroy Valerie Plame's career.

No. It was a conspiracy by the Left to destroy Karl Rove's career and Scooter Libby's good name. And in the libs' wildest dreams, it was a conspiracy that would bring down Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

The Left insisted that Karl Rove be fired. Lefty blogs wrote that his indictment was imminent and the mainstream media suggested it as well, REPEATEDLY.

Think of how the White House press corps badgered Scott McClellan, claiming that he lied to them. The insanity went on and on and on.

The chorus that Karl Rove should be fired, the demands that Bush was reneging on his promises, the claims that the administration took revenge on Wilson and Plame -- It was all just crap.

Wilson, spokesmen for his wife, played the dual role of whistleblower and victim to the hilt. He was coddled by the Left.

He was their hero. And poor Plame. Her life had been endangered by a vindictive White House.

Guess what?

It was all lies. Everything.

Plame's status with the CIA, how Wilson got the assignment to Niger, the "leaker" --

ALL A PACK OF LIES!

Now, the very publications that promoted the story are backtracking. The backing off is not to be confused with taking responsibility for intentionally deceiving the public with FAKE NEWS and PROPAGANDA.

They aren't offering retractions or apologies for their roles in the over two-year deception and personal destruction mission.

For example, The New York Times is still trying to lend credence to the investigation and run damage control for the disgraced Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.

Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles.

Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been the primary source for the July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak that identified Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. operative and set off the leak investigation.

Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision to prolong the inquiry once he took over as special prosecutor in December 2003 had significant political and legal consequences. The inquiry seriously embarrassed and distracted the Bush White House for nearly two years and resulted in five felony charges against Mr. Libby, even as Mr. Fitzgerald decided not to charge Mr. Armitage or anyone else with crimes related to the leak itself.

No. It wasn't just the inquiry that was the problem.

It was the Left's feeding frenzy, the "Merry Fitzmas" garbage, the media staked out at Karl Rove's home, taking photos of his garage.


OUTING Karl Rove's garage: Any witches in there?

THE NEW YORK TIMES was engaged in an orchestrated campaign to seriously embarrass and distract the Bush White House for nearly two years, with an empty story.

They were at the front of the pack leading the charge to bring down a high-ranking White House official, the higher the better.

Now, that it's clear that Armitage was the leaker, The Times is backing off that angle, because Armitage has served them well as a Bush critic.

It's so blatantly hypocritical that it's laughable.

The Times is shifting its emphasis to focus on the alleged crimes of Scooter Libby, with a load of speculation about what Fitzgerald MAY do.

Does he have a case against Libby?

For God's sake, I wish they'd all drop it!

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are liars and Fitzgerald has been exposed as prosecutor completely run amok.

Mark Levin has an excellent piece on National Review Online.

The more I think about this Fitzgerald investigation, the more astonished I become. Richard Armitage was Bob Novak's "source" — i.e., he identified Valerie Plame — which, incidentally, is clearly not a crime and Armitage has not been charged with any offense. And prosecutors knew Armitage was the "source" almost immediately after beginning their investigation because Armitage confessed. Indeed, when he thought he may have done something wrong, he appears to have cried on many shoulders. Armitage told his boss, Colin Powell, that he was the source, as well as other State Department and Justice Department officials. He told the Special Counsel's people. And not one of them — Armitage, Powell, Patrick Fitzgerald, et al. — had the guts or integrity to tell the public that the original source was Armitage. Why were they protecting him from public scrutiny? By their silence, Armitage and Powell allowed two innocent men, Lewis Libby and Karl Rove, to be smeared as speculation about them being Novak's original source ran rampant.

Levin explains that the investigation was a joke because Fitzgerald knew a number of things from nearly the beginning.

1. Armitage was the original source; 2. disclosing Plame's identity was not a crime; and 3. the investigation was launched due to political pressure from Capitol Hill, especially Chuck Schumer (who was working with Joe Wilson, and who is also the head of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee). Rather than put an end to this, Fitzgerald appears to have enjoyed the spotlight and adulation from the president's opponents, pursuing "the case" as if he were chasing mobsters or terrorists. He sought and received from his long-time friend, James Comey, extraordinary authority which Fitzgerald used to put pressure on reporters and news organizations as he widened his investigation in pursuit of anyone who might have revealed Plame's name. But to what end? That's not a crime in itself. To catch officials in memory lapses or — to be charitable to prosecutors — false statements or perjury? You don't conduct investigations to catch people in lies. You conduct investigations to uncover or expose crimes and punish those who are responsible. Meanwhile, the president's top advisor sat in the dock, waiting for word whether he'd be indicted, during a good portion of the administration. Only a few months ago did Fitzgerald finally inform Rove that he was in the clear.

The fact is that there was never an underlying crime, period.

In other words, this was a politically-fueled witch hunt, period.

On Friday, The Washington Post ran an "Oops, nevermind" editorial.

It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.

Friday, September 1, 2006; A20

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

"Far too much attention"???

THE POST HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN GIVING THE pLAME STORY FAR TOO MUCH ATTENTION.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

Note that there are no calls to have the friendly Armitage "frog-marched" out of the White House. He just made a little boo-boo, nothing malicious, nothing illegal.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.

Hear that Dems and other Bush administration enemies, like Tim Russert?

UNTRUE.

Wilson is a liar.

TRUE.

The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

Yeah, well, for years it was known that Armitage was the source.

A lot could have been avoided.

Why didn't The Times or The Post leak that Armitage was the source? Why didn't they run an expose?

Oh, that's right. They only leak programs and things that will hinder the War on Terror, harm national security, and put Americans in jeopardy.

[I]t now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

That last sentence is an absolute killer.

Yes, it's unfortunate that THE WASHINGTON POST and THE NEW YORK TIMES and CNN and NBC and DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATORS, to name just a few, took Wilson so seriously.

Very unfortunate indeed.

These individuals and outlets that promoted Wilson's lies are just as guilty as Wilson.

They pushed his fraudulent agenda, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

It's disgusting. They wanted to inflict damage on the Bush administration and they did. IT WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED.
________________________________


Byron York has posted a letter from Joe Wilson responding to The Post's editorial slap on his wrist.

It appears on Democratic Underground. (Surprise, surprise.)

You may have seen this morning's editorial in the Post. It manages to recycle pretty much every lie and smear over the past three years in a last ditch effort to divert attention from the facts, and the role the Post itself played both in the march to war and in the leak (see Woodward).

I know many of you are better versed in Plamegate than either Valerie or I and I also know that some of you will be addressing the editorial.

I want to let you know how much Valerie and I continue to be buoyed by your support and your dedication to getting the truth out and holding the administration and its lackeys accountable for the terrible policies they have foisted on our country and on the world. We must keep fighting.

As you think about this, our website (Wilsonsupport.org) has a copy of the letter I sent to the SSCI when its report first came out, challenging some of its conclusions. The LeftCoaster has a terrific study by eriposte on the whole Niger forgery case from beginning to end. Firedoglake and the Next Hurrah both have highly informative analyses of the case by skilled researchers and former prosecutors. I recommend them all as resoruces to jog memories. by this afternoon, I expect that our own team will have an updated set of talking points to distribute for your use as well.

Each of you in one way or another has contributed to the public's (and in many cases our own) understanding of the issues from the beginning. Thank you for continuing to do so.

Joe Wilson

I suppose those congregating inside the "Lefty hate Bush bubble" will buy this crock.

They'll no doubt echo liar Wilson's talking points.

They'll continue to lie.

They'll continue to undermine the country.

It's what they do best.