"Scooter" Libby Indicted!!!!!

[Dreadsox]

I do not think that the issue of Iraq's movements towards procuring Uranium are relevent in this case (including the seperate intelligence that the British government used to make that link, that it has stood by to this day).

The German's predicted 2005-2006 if I am not mistaken.

However, if you are going to bring up the vote of the congress, it should be open that there may have been false information intentionally shared with them.

The fact that they went out of their way to sacrafice Plume and virtually everyone she had connections with, leads me to believe that they knew it was false, or did not want it proven to be false. Either way, there would be no reason to try and out her.

 

[japes4]

The difference is the Clinton Administration would have worked through the UN until there was a clear resolution authorizing force.

That resolution would have never come, not in a million years. Too may personal bank accounts were at stake.

 

[japes4]

In regard to the Plume leak:

I think Bush's handlers simply overplayed their hand. Joe Wilson was a critic of White House policies. Rove and his minions tried to discredit him. In this attempt, the fact that his wife was once covert agent for the CIA was leaked. But as it turned out, it wasn't a crime since she hadn't been one recently (lucky for Republicans, not so lucky for the Democrats who were looking for anything that will stick to Bush).

So now they're pursuing Libby, who may have possibly committed a crime during the investigation (Democrats up, Republicans down).

Its just like Clinton and Monicagate all over again, if you can't get someone on the initial charge, get them with the cover-up. Politics as usual.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I believe the best description for all of those and quite possibly this is exponential stupidity.

 

[STING2]

And what you state as fact is an opinion.

Many Legal experts as you are well aware, do not feel 1441 gave the US the right to invade.

As past precident of the Korean Cease Fire, the Security Council, not the member states, have the right to declare an end to the cease fire.

And I for one agree with this and believe in my heart, mind and soul, that the ONLY reason they did not go forward for a CLEAR resolution after 1441 is because they were afraid of the VETO.

The final resolution would have made the actions more firm, given broader support, and EVEN with the veto, it would have demonstrated that the US attempted to get UN backing for the war.

The same "legal experts" could argue that resolution 678 did not authorize the use of military force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991.

The Security Council DID authorize the use of military force with resolution 1441! There was NEVER any intention for there to be another resolution at all, until for politcal reasons it was looked into because Tony Blair was having a difficult time domestically and they thought perhaps they could get more support than they already had. Instead, it turned into an attempt by France to essentially reverse the position it had taken in November 2002.

From a legal standpoint, resolution 1441 was not even necessary.

In any event, the fact that the United Nations has passed three different resolutions approving the occupation drives home the point that the invasion was legal and 1441 indeed authorized it. There was never any attempt at a resolution to condemn the invasion and call for an immediate withdrawal. Some will say thats because of the United States veto power, but United States veto power has never stopped UN countries from attempting to pass resolution after resolution condemning Israel. The United Nations would never approve of an occupation brought about through illegal means. The occupation in Iraq has been approved not once but three different times. Resolution 1441 authorized the use of military force against Iraq and the invasion was launched in March 2003. Later in 2003 the United Nations approved the occupation. Its an open and shut case.

 

[STING2]

So you do not think that it is remotely possible that the information was not shared three months prior? You believe that the state of the Union was the first time the Senators and Congressman on the intelligence oversite committees heard this info?

Or is there the remote possibility that the people who voted for war were given the same intelligence, months before the state of the union?

And lets be real, there was a mid-term election, and the piece of shite senators and congressman were worried about the election, and how it would look if they did not stand firm with the elections.

And let's be even more real, the democrats running for President were to chicken shit to vote the way they knew they should have.

It was timing.....pure and simple.

But I for one, believe that the executive branch did not just up and share the info in January with the whole world, before sharing it with the congress.

The administration did not use the Niger case as its primary reason for the need to invade Iraq. It was piece of intelligence, but far from being anything approaching the central case for military action. I don't recall an Congressman stating that the only reason that they voted for the resolution was the Niger inteligence or that if that intelligence had not been part of the case, they would voted against the resolution.

Yep, I have heard the excuse that if the vote on the resolution had taken place after the election then more Democrats would have voted against it. No one can ever say that for sure though because it did not happen and I don't recall any congressman stating they would have changed their vote if it had simply taken place after the election was over. One can speculate forever on whether the vote would have been any different or the same if it had taken place after the election. It obviously would still have passed by good margin. So yep, lets keep it real, the vote occured and the resolution was overwhelmingly passed.

 

[STING2]

The difference is the Clinton Administration would have worked through the UN until there was a clear resolution authorizing force.

Resolution 1441 that authorized the use of force against Iraq in 2003 was just as clear as resolution 678 that authorized the use of force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991. Oh and the Clinton administration continued to use resolution 678 as the authorization for its subsequent military action against Saddam for the full 8 years Clinton was in office. Bush could have used 678 as well, but he actually went further than the Clinton administration and got a new resolution which this time was passed by a 15-0 vote in the Security council.

 

[Dreadsox]

That resolution would have never come, not in a million years. Too may personal bank accounts were at stake.

However, and I agree it would never have passed, but in the world's view the US would have actually DONE everthing it could, rather than relying on a ambiguously worded resolution.

 

[Dreadsox]

Resolution 1441 that authorized the use of force against Iraq in 2003 was just as clear as resolution 678 that authorized the use of force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991. Oh and the Clinton administration continued to use resolution 678 as the authorization for its subsequent military action against Saddam for the full 8 years Clinton was in office. Bush could have used 678 as well, but he actually went further than the Clinton administration and got a new resolution which this time was passed by a 15-0 vote in the Security council.

You and I have been down this road. We disagreee and I have cited int he past, numerous legal scholars to back my opinion up. You did not change my mind, and I did not change yours.

It gets old. Notice, I am giving my opinions on Clinton, which you quote, and then say the same old thing to me. It gets old. I know your position. I respect your position. I disagree with it.

If it was so clear that they could use force, they would not have been entertaining the idea of another vote....So why were they if it was so clear. It does not make sense.

Enough....

You are diverting it from the real story.....

That you and I both know that the information the President presented in January had to have been in their hands long before the President mentioned it in the State of the Union. That the President very likely had that information given to at a minimum, the intelligence committee, and that very clearly, the administration was not looking to hard to prove the intelligence false.

 

[Dreadsox]

The administration did not use the Niger case as its primary reason for the need to invade Iraq. It was piece of intelligence, but far from being anything approaching the central case for military action. I don't recall an Congressman stating that the only reason that they voted for the resolution was the Niger inteligence or that if that intelligence had not been part of the case, they would voted against the resolution.

Yep, I have heard the excuse that if the vote on the resolution had taken place after the election then more Democrats would have voted against it. No one can ever say that for sure though because it did not happen and I don't recall any congressman stating they would have changed their vote if it had simply taken place after the election was over. One can speculate forever on whether the vote would have been any different or the same if it had taken place after the election. It obviously would still have passed by good margin. So yep, lets keep it real, the vote occured and the resolution was overwhelmingly passed.

Thinking that pieces of intelligence not mentioned (GEE COULD IT HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME) influence the votes is silly. I worked in my congressman's office for a year and a half. They do not have to publicly go on record to talk about the intelligence data.

For months this administration claimed to have concrete evidence.

I am keeping it real. Clearly the vote out of context of what was going on at the time is a beatiful thing for your position.

However, I think it BRILLIANT how the administration timed EVERYTHING perfectly. I cannot wait to read the book years from now on how it was timed. I have spent my life reading about the politics in Washington, it is what I love. You want to place a bet that I am right, that they used the context of what was going on to get the vote?

 

[Bluer White]

This thread is getting off topic. The indictment is not about faulty intelligence. It is not about outing a covert agent - after 22 months the special prosecutor has not found evidence to support this claim. The indictment is about the cover-up of a non-crime - Libby's own personal notes are inconsistent with his testimony and that of several reporters - about information that Libby had security clearance for. Unfortunately for Libby, perjury and obstruction are very serious charges, and in my opinion, are indefensible.

 

[deep]

"They will offer more lectures, and
legalisms, and carefully worded denials. We offer another way, a
better way, and a stiff dose of truth."

 

[STING2]

You and I have been down this road. We disagreee and I have cited int he past, numerous legal scholars to back my opinion up. You did not change my mind, and I did not change yours.

It gets old. Notice, I am giving my opinions on Clinton, which you quote, and then say the same old thing to me. It gets old. I know your position. I respect your position. I disagree with it.

If it was so clear that they could use force, they would not have been entertaining the idea of another vote....So why were they if it was so clear. It does not make sense.

Enough....

You are diverting it from the real story.....

That you and I both know that the information the President presented in January had to have been in their hands long before the President mentioned it in the State of the Union. That the President very likely had that information given to at a minimum, the intelligence committee, and that very clearly, the administration was not looking to hard to prove the intelligence false.

The only reason the administration sought another resolution was because Tony Blair was having domestic difficulties and wanted one. The resolution is as clear as the resolution that authorized force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait. That resolution origionally had the words military force in its body, but the Soviet Union demanded the words be removed and you arrive at a resolution that is as clear as resolution 1441 in regards to the use of military force.

Any arguements used to claim that resolution 1441 did not authorize the coalition to take military action can be used to say that resolution 678 did not authorize the coalition then to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait with military action. The legal scholars you cited are simply wrong.

The United Nations would never approve an occupation 3 different times that brought about through illegal means. No one presented a resolution to condemn the invasion or call for a withdrawal. Its an open an such case. The United States and other member states of the coalition did the right thing, and operated with the approval of the United Nations Security council in invading Iraq and continue to operate in Iraq with the approval of the United Nations Security Council.

 

[STING2]

Thinking that pieces of intelligence not mentioned (GEE COULD IT HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME) influence the votes is silly. I worked in my congressman's office for a year and a half. They do not have to publicly go on record to talk about the intelligence data.

For months this administration claimed to have concrete evidence.

I am keeping it real. Clearly the vote out of context of what was going on at the time is a beatiful thing for your position.

However, I think it BRILLIANT how the administration timed EVERYTHING perfectly. I cannot wait to read the book years from now on how it was timed. I have spent my life reading about the politics in Washington, it is what I love. You want to place a bet that I am right, that they used the context of what was going on to get the vote?

Can you name a single Congressman or Senator who would have voted differently if the vote had simply taken place after the election? Can you name a single Congressman or Senator who voted for the resolution based on the information from Niger or would not have voted for the resolution if they did not have the information from Niger?

There are already plenty of books out there now that in some ways are more fictional than fact about events years ago. I don't doubt you'll be able to find a book to read 10 years from now to support what ever position you like.

The fact is, the Congress should be ready to vote on a national security issue any time the President decides that it is necessary, even if its the night before the election. The resolution would have passed if it was held on October 25, November 8, December 8 period! The only question would have been the margin by which the resolution passed.

 

[Dreadsox]

OK...my sources are bad, you are 100% correct. Let's move on, because this is going nowhere.

Happy now?

Clearly any source, book, or position other than yours is a work of fiction.

There!

Can we get back to the thread...?

 

[Dreadsox]

Any arguements used to claim that resolution 1441 did not authorize the coalition to take military action can be used to say that resolution 678 did not authorize the coalition then to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait with military action. The legal scholars you cited are simply wrong.

Resolution 678 did call for the removal of the power in Kuwait....and that was why Saddam was not removed from power in Iraq. That was why the President's father did not continue and finish the job...there was no UN Resolution authorizing it then, and if you are relying on it now, you are wrong.

Peace STING.....We disagree....

In the interestes of the thread...You are right, I am wrong, there is not other way to look at it.

The first and ONLY time the Security Council approved of the occupation was in Resolution 1483. PERIOD.

 

[deep]

Can you name a single Congressman or Senator who would have voted differently if the vote had simply taken place after the election? Can you name a single Congressman or Senator who voted for the resolution based on the information from Niger or would not have voted for the resolution if they did not have the information from Niger?

There are already plenty of books out there now that in some ways are more fictional than fact about events years ago. I don't doubt you'll be able to find a book to read 10 years from now to support what ever position you like.

The fact is, the Congress should be ready to vote on a national security issue any time the President decides that it is necessary, even if its the night before the election. The resolution would have passed if it was held on October 25, November 8, December 8 period! The only question would have been the margin by which the resolution passed.

Are these questions for real?

Yes, I am sure you would vote to give W war powers act at any time any place.


but, the nuclear claim, which the world knows was FALSE when the president and his admin. kept putting it out there , mush room cloud, etc. Would and did effect how some members of the senate voted and did put fear in the American people to rally support for this phony war.

The 2004 election was based on fraud

and, as close as it was, the GOP wins are illegitimate.

We are led by known liars

What will it take you to admit the truth?

 

[Dreadsox]

Are these questions for real?

Here are the answers to the real questions....The article is by Kenneth Pollack. In it, he points to new offices created in the intelligence community staffed not with the CIA/Intelligence analysists. Their job was to "Cherry Pick" the most sensational of the intelligence that came in to support the administrations position.

Most interesting to me are pages 13-15. The whole article is a tremendously good read. And the last page will please some in here.

Pollack may be restoring my faith in him.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/pollack/20040108.pdf

Leads me to believe that Valerie was exposed on purpose. And I recognize that is not what Scooter is being charged with, but that is more because of the burden of proof for that charge.

 

[STING2]

Resolution 678 did call for the removal of the power in Kuwait....and that was why Saddam was not removed from power in Iraq. That was why the President's father did not continue and finish the job...there was no UN Resolution authorizing it then, and if you are relying on it now, you are wrong.

Peace STING.....We disagree....

In the interestes of the thread...You are right, I am wrong, there is not other way to look at it.

The first and ONLY time the Security Council approved of the occupation was in Resolution 1483. PERIOD.

Resolution 678 did call for the use of force in regards to any subsequent violations. Resolution 678 was restated in both resolution 687 and resolution 1441 12 years later. It authorized the continued use of military force in regards to any further violations by Saddam. Resolution 678 authorized any use of force necessary to bring about compliance with the UN resolutions. That includes Saddam's removal. Saddam finally signaled his willingings to comply with UN demands February/March 1991, but if he had not, offensive military operations would have continued.

By the way, Resolution 1483 went into effect on May 22, 2003 only 8 weeks after the start of the war and that is not the only resolution to approve of the occupation.

 

[STING2]

Are these questions for real?

Yes, I am sure you would vote to give W war powers act at any time any place.


but, the nuclear claim, which the world knows was FALSE when the president and his admin. kept putting it out there , mush room cloud, etc. Would and did effect how some members of the senate voted and did put fear in the American people to rally support for this phony war.

The 2004 election was based on fraud

and, as close as it was, the GOP wins are illegitimate.

We are led by known liars

What will it take you to admit the truth?

Most of what the President said publically from the time he started to make his case at the United Nations on September 12, 2002 up to the October 10, 2002 vote involved primarily what he had stated at the United Nations speech on September 12, 2002. Saddam was in violation of 16 different UN resolutions and had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD. He had kept United Nations weapons inspectors out of the country for 4 years. These things were the central case for war that the President brought out in most of his public speeches and comments from September 12, 2002 speech at the UN up to the October 10, 2002 vote on the resolution.

Its a fact that Saddam had nearly built an entire nuclear weapon back in 1990 which the UN inspectors found after the first Gulf War in 1991. Despite what was found in the years after the initial 2003 invasion, it does not change the fact that no matter where Saddam's level of development was in regards to Nuclear Weapons, he was never more than a few years away from being where he was in regards to developing a bomb back in 1990. But, the whole nuclear issue is only one part of the case.

The 2004 election was a fair election where for the first time since 1988, the winning presidential candidate won a majority of the vote. Its not surprising to see those who opposed Bush refer to the election as fraud, the win illegitimate and the winners liers. If they are the ones running the Democratic campaign in 2008, no Democrat should bother to even run.

 

[Dreadsox]

By the way, Resolution 1483 went into effect on May 22, 2003 only 8 weeks after the start of the war and that is not the only resolution to approve of the occupation.

Ummm...My emphasis was on PRE WAR.....VERSES post. Thank you for understanding my point....the Authority came after the war started....the Council had to save face.

Shall I begin quoting George HW Advisors who concur that the resolutions did not give the authority to remove Saddam?

[Q]Powell: They were in the campaign plan we wrote and they were the objectives that the President used publicly to get public support.

One--the ejection of the Iraqi army from Kuwait. notice the word I use, the 'ejection of the Iraqi army from Kuwait.'ond--there is restoration of the legitimate government in Kuwait. Third--providing for the release of all third country nationals who are in danger or who are hostage and fourth--achieving a level of strategic stability in the region. An objective that we had within our campaign plans was destroy the Republican Guard.

And so on the morning of the 27th the strategic political objectives were all on the verge of accomplishment. We had no objective that said go to Baghdad. We had no objective that said, split apart Iraq.

It has to be remembered our Arab friends were not going to go into Iraq, their soldiers would not step foot in Iraq. They were going into Kuwait to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. It was the resolution passed by the United Nations and that's what the Congressional resolution provided for.

[Q]Q: What warnings were sent to the Iraqis about using chemical weapons?

Baker: The President's letter to Saddam Hussein which Tariq Aziz read in Geneva, made it very clear that if Iraq used weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, against United States forces that the American people would demand vengeance and that we had the means to achieve it. I also reinforced that message in my presentation with Tariq Aziz at Geneva and we made it clear that in addition to ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, if they used those types of weapons against our forces we would in addition to throwing them out of Kuwait, we would adopt as a goal the elimination of the regime in Baghdad.

we never did that, we never expanded our war aims or our political aims to include that -- we never went beyond the scope of the United Nations Security Council resolutions we made it very clear to them that if they used weapons of mass destruction on our forces that would be one thing we would consider doing and further that we had the means to obtain vengeance.



Q: What were the key factors that led you all to think 'Hey, it's time to finish this.'

Baker:The key factors were that we had ejected Iraq from Kuwait which is what was required by the uh UN Security Council resolution. That if we kept going a whole lot longer we would be acting beyond the resolution. The war aims had been achieved. The political aims had been achieved. A lot of people trying to flee were being killed literally thousands and the military advised the President that it was time to wrap it up in terms of our war aims and I think the President's decision was absolutely the right one. All the second guessing about going to Baghdad and all of that, people that make those kinds of suggestions are not taking into consideration a whole host of factors. How many more American lives would have been lost? How far beyond our authority from the UN would we have been acting if we had prolonged the war further, if we had occupied Southern Iraq, if we had gone to Baghdad? How long would we have to fight a guerrilla war in Iraq if we'd occupied any of the territory? A whole host of factors. People also forget that it was never a war aim or a political aim of the United States to eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime.

Was it something we would like to see happen? Was it something that most of us felt probably would happen in the aftermath of such a significant defeat? Yes.It it was never something that was authorized that we'd do by the United Nations Security Council. We would have lost our coalition. The Arab elements I think would have left for sure. There would be no peace process in the Middle East today. So people don't focus on those things.[/Q]


These IDIOTS, clearly they do not understand the scope of the resolution.

 

[DaveC]

Jesus Christ, can we PLEASE get back on topic?

Why the hell are you beating a dead horse here on something that has tenuous at best links to the topic. For God's sakes.

 

[Dreadsox]

Jesus Christ, can we PLEASE get back on topic?

Why the hell are you beating a dead horse here on something that has tenuous at best links to the topic. For God's sakes.

Interesting .... your first post in the thread...care to elaborate on something to do with the topic.

The Pollack article I linked to details clearly why there was a problem with the intelligence. Pretty clear to me the link....

Her take on things did not match the Political Goals of the administration....

Libby had to stop her somehow....

 

[STING2]

Ummm...My emphasis was on PRE WAR.....VERSES post. Thank you for understanding my point....the Authority came after the war started....the Council had to save face.

Shall I begin quoting George HW Advisors who concur that the resolutions did not give the authority to remove Saddam?

[Q]Powell: They were in the campaign plan we wrote and they were the objectives that the President used publicly to get public support.

One--the ejection of the Iraqi army from Kuwait. notice the word I use, the 'ejection of the Iraqi army from Kuwait.'ond--there is restoration of the legitimate government in Kuwait. Third--providing for the release of all third country nationals who are in danger or who are hostage and fourth--achieving a level of strategic stability in the region. An objective that we had within our campaign plans was destroy the Republican Guard.

And so on the morning of the 27th the strategic political objectives were all on the verge of accomplishment. We had no objective that said go to Baghdad. We had no objective that said, split apart Iraq.

It has to be remembered our Arab friends were not going to go into Iraq, their soldiers would not step foot in Iraq. They were going into Kuwait to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. It was the resolution passed by the United Nations and that's what the Congressional resolution provided for.

[Q]Q: What warnings were sent to the Iraqis about using chemical weapons?

Baker: The President's letter to Saddam Hussein which Tariq Aziz read in Geneva, made it very clear that if Iraq used weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, against United States forces that the American people would demand vengeance and that we had the means to achieve it. I also reinforced that message in my presentation with Tariq Aziz at Geneva and we made it clear that in addition to ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, if they used those types of weapons against our forces we would in addition to throwing them out of Kuwait, we would adopt as a goal the elimination of the regime in Baghdad.

we never did that, we never expanded our war aims or our political aims to include that -- we never went beyond the scope of the United Nations Security Council resolutions we made it very clear to them that if they used weapons of mass destruction on our forces that would be one thing we would consider doing and further that we had the means to obtain vengeance.



Q: What were the key factors that led you all to think 'Hey, it's time to finish this.'

Baker:The key factors were that we had ejected Iraq from Kuwait which is what was required by the uh UN Security Council resolution. That if we kept going a whole lot longer we would be acting beyond the resolution. The war aims had been achieved. The political aims had been achieved. A lot of people trying to flee were being killed literally thousands and the military advised the President that it was time to wrap it up in terms of our war aims and I think the President's decision was absolutely the right one. All the second guessing about going to Baghdad and all of that, people that make those kinds of suggestions are not taking into consideration a whole host of factors. How many more American lives would have been lost? How far beyond our authority from the UN would we have been acting if we had prolonged the war further, if we had occupied Southern Iraq, if we had gone to Baghdad? How long would we have to fight a guerrilla war in Iraq if we'd occupied any of the territory? A whole host of factors. People also forget that it was never a war aim or a political aim of the United States to eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime.

Was it something we would like to see happen? Was it something that most of us felt probably would happen in the aftermath of such a significant defeat? Yes.It it was never something that was authorized that we'd do by the United Nations Security Council. We would have lost our coalition. The Arab elements I think would have left for sure. There would be no peace process in the Middle East today. So people don't focus on those things.[/Q]


These IDIOTS, clearly they do not understand the scope of the resolution.

Not that you really understand the points I have been making. Had Saddam continued to fight after his ejection from Kuwait, not agreed to the UN terms for ceacefire, or in fact used WMD on coalition troops, coalition offensive operations would have continued. Thats a fact and all of the people you site above would agree with that. Saddam at that point though, stop fighting, signed the ceacefire, and did not use WMD on coalition forces.

Its true that the administration did not actually call for the removal of Saddam's regime then in of itself, nor did the resolution 678 specifically call for that. I never claimed that it did. But the resolution did authorize the continued use of military force if Saddam did not obviously stop fighting or if he continued to be in violation of any other UN requirements including agreeing to the ceacefire.

The Security Council approved resolution 1441 which authorized the use of military force to resolve Saddam's non-compliance with UN resolutions. A few months later, resolution 1483 approved the occupation that was now in effect. The UN Security Council is not in the business of "saving face". It found Saddam's invasion of Kuwait to be illegal and passed a resolution saying it was as well as calling for the withdrawal of Saddam's troops. If the Coalition invasion of Iraq was illegal where is the resolution condemning the invasion and calling on the withdrawal of the troops? The fact is, the UN would never approve of an occupation it felt was illegal. Resolution 1441 authorized the invasion and 1483 a few weeks after the start of the invasion approved the occupation. Its as simple as that.

 

[STING2]

Interesting .... your first post in the thread...care to elaborate on something to do with the topic.

The Pollack article I linked to details clearly why there was a problem with the intelligence. Pretty clear to me the link....

Her take on things did not match the Political Goals of the administration....

Libby had to stop her somehow....

The article alleges why there was a problem with the examination of intelligence. The first 12 pages give a very damning picture of the types of things Saddam was willing to do in order to conceal WMD activity. Its incredible that some people actually think leaving him in power was a good idea.

I don't see any evidence that the administrations case for war relied exlusively on some information from Niger. The case for war was essentially presented at the United Nations by Bush on September 12, 2002 and thats what he continued to primarily allude to a least in public from September 12, 2002 up to October 10, 2002.

 

[Dreadsox]

Not that you really understand the points I have been making.

Ahhh yes....STING walking up to the line...not calling anyone stupid....but getting as close as STING can to it.

Have you read the FAQ rules? Just curious.

Enough already....

Clearly I am too simple minded to understand the finer points you are making.

 

[DaveC]

Interesting .... your first post in the thread...care to elaborate on something to do with the topic.

Not really. I don't know enough about the topic to enter a full-scale debate about it.

But what the hell do Bill Clinton and UN Resolutions have to do with GOP staff blowing a CIA agent's cover?

 

[STING2]

Ahhh yes....STING walking up to the line...not calling anyone stupid....but getting as close as STING can to it.

Have you read the FAQ rules? Just curious.

Enough already....

Clearly I am too simple minded to understand the finer points you are making.

I'm sorry I said that. That sentence was not appropriate. It did not appear to me that you understood what I was talking about and I attempted to explain myself further. I miss things myself sometimes.




What is this comment about?

"Ahhh yes....STING walking up to the line...not calling anyone stupid....but getting as close as STING can to it."

Yep, I have read the Faq/Rules.

 

[STING2]

Not really. I don't know enough about the topic to enter a full-scale debate about it.

But what the hell do Bill Clinton and UN Resolutions have to do with GOP staff blowing a CIA agent's cover?

The allegation is that the CIA agents cover was blown by administration officials in their attempt to discredit them and information that was alleged to be the justification for the war. But the central justification for the war is found in the UN resolutions, not in information from Niger.

 

[anitram]

The allegation, STING, and the point of this thread is that Libby committed obstruction of justice, perjury and was therefore indicted on those charges.

What UN resolutions have to do with him lying under the oath and furthermore what they have to do with Bill Clinton should be beyond any sentient being's understanding.