|
Post by juliastar on Mar 7, 2007 10:02:59 GMT -5
BTW, I do think perjury is a very serious offense. To me, a fine of at least $10,000 is appropriate. As for the "obstruction" of "justice," he should serve no more time than Bob Novak and the guy in State who was actually the source for the report that was published. IOW, since the bigger fish will not even be charged, I'd give Scooter three months unsupervised probation for the obstruction. Before you enlighten us about conservative respect for gayness and how faggot, like maccaca, is just a made up word and how in the interest of free speech, they must invite, cheer and applaud Ann Coulter at their policy meetings because some bloggers don't like Dick Cheney much, let me leap again. You wouldn't have even brought the charges because they are anti-your guy. Wilson was wrong for setting the records straight. He should have shut up and goose-stepped. Usually, the way the law works, the crook that got caught gets punished. His crime isn't excused because of an inability, for what ever reason, to bring the other guys to justice. If lying in the course of an investigation to protect your boss is tolerated, you're probably going to see more of it. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? I would recommend the NY Times Op Ed to you. Clamor for more justice, not less, if this disturbs you. Urge charges with teeth in them against Cheney, Bush, Armitage and Novak, too. Don't urge that the little justice that has been obtained be thrown away because it is imperfect.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 7, 2007 10:11:07 GMT -5
Will they even attempt to bring Novak and what's-his-name from State to justice? Is it, as you seem to suggest, "an inability, for what ever reason, to bring the other guys to justice," that keeps them from getting what they deserve or is it an unwillingness?
BTW, Wilson misrepresented the situation. Saddam really did try, unsuccessfully, to get the uranium.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 7, 2007 10:11:33 GMT -5
Joe, did you listen to Fitzgerald's comments on the link in the WP? He makes a very good point about truth being the foundation of our system of justice. Our government cannot manipulate truth as if it were silly putty and get a wrist slap.
And that Armitage got off doesn't make Libby less culpable. I can't believe that is what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 7, 2007 10:41:47 GMT -5
I didn't hear Fitzgerald's comments. Why is he unwilling to prosecute Armitage and Novak? If this was important enough to have a prosecution, it is important enough to prosecute Armitage and Novak.
//And that Armitage got off doesn't make Libby less culpable. I can't believe that is what you mean.// No, what I mean is that if it was damaging to the country for have Valerie Plame's employment disclosed, Armitage and Novak did more harm than Libby. Their crimes were worse; and it is unjust for Libby's punishment to be greater than theirs.
I know that our "system" of "justice" in the courts is highly imperfect: a game the lawyers play for fun and profit. I have told on other occasions of my horror that a public defender, a judge, and an assistant district attorney were all perfectly cool with a drug dealer being set free when the defense, knowing him guilty, appealed on the grounds that the county's jury pool did not include enough Hispanics. Truth didn't matter, justice didn't matter. Making a point, which could have been made later to overturn a genuinely unfair result, was all that mattered.
The jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that Scooter Libby lied to the FBI and perjured himself before the grand jury. It really is important that we not tolerate that sort of behavior. But in the Plame case, that is a tangent. If the prosecutor can't get the original criminals whose actions got him appointed, he is a failure. If he doesn't want to try to get them, he is a shirker of his duty and an enabler of their crimes.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 7, 2007 10:45:51 GMT -5
Will they even attempt to bring Novak and what's-his-name from State to justice? Is it, as you seem to suggest, "an inability, for what ever reason, to bring the other guys to justice," that keeps them from getting what they deserve or is it an unwillingness? BTW, Wilson misrepresented the situation. Saddam really did try, unsuccessfully, to get the uranium. Who is they? Fitzgerald is a Republican appointee, courtesy of Ashcroft. Look around the Justice Department. What happens to Bush appointees who don't get partisan enough or step on partisan toes? I don't hold up much hope for an expanded investigation, but you are in a better position as a card carrying member of the Republican party to make that plea than I am. Read the NY Times Op Ed for a thumbnail sketch. Bush was the misrepresenter. Big time. And the words from his mouth, from Cheney's lips, rushed through Condi's teeth were of the imminent mushroom cloud sort and were contradicted by the facts as Wilson knew them. That he would be swift-boated for crossing Bush and Cheney should come as no surprise. That an otherwise smart person like yourself hasn't had an epiphany yet is truly the baffling piece. It is never to late. All still can be forgiven.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 7, 2007 10:48:26 GMT -5
The mushroom cloud wasn't imminent, but it was on Saddam's To Do list.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 7, 2007 10:53:21 GMT -5
The mushroom cloud wasn't imminent, but it was on Saddam's To Do list. That's a back pedal from the exact words used in the run up to war and you must know it. "Retire in Fiji" is on my To Do list but that doesn't mean it is going to happen and no one who wants me to retire someplace else need feel threatened by it.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 7, 2007 10:55:19 GMT -5
Our government cannot manipulate truth as if it were silly putty and get a wrist slap. Then I want the full unvarnished truth about each and every politician in Washington. From Harry Reid's financial investments to William Jefferson's bribe fund. Don't give me any crap about how the Republican's are the focus of evil, pond scum at best ... then turn around and have the LMSM ignore criminal and unethical behavior by Democrats without a word of complaint from any of you puddin'heads. This morning in an NPR report we got an earful about how the administration "pressured lawyers" and that involvement in or even commenting about on-going legal proceedings was interference by the evil administration. This was followed by a story about how the administration was continuing it's cover-up of the Plame affair by not commenting on the Libbey trial for the last few months .... which was, and is, an on-going legal proceeding. No matter which way the administration goes ... they are the focus evil in the eyes of the LMSM. _E_
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Mar 7, 2007 14:19:55 GMT -5
If I could bring up one point in this well thought out melee: If no one else is charged in this case it will be a decision made through Demoratic Party politics. The single most powerful tool that the Democrats inherited with the House Majority is subpoena power. Does that make them also culpable if they refuse to bring up charges for political reasons?
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 7, 2007 15:54:47 GMT -5
The reason I keep hammering about what Fitzgerald said is that he refers to what can and cannot be prosecuted. I don't mean to defend him; he's not my hero (although as a principled Republican, I should think the Republicans here would want to hear what he said).
Sometimes the best case can't be made, and very often that's because people lie. So he could at least prove Libby's lies. Comparisons are being made to the fact that Capone was finally convicted of tax evasion. Everyone knew he was guilty of far worse crimes but that one they could make stick. I think Fitz was saying "bring me evidence I can take to court," an open invitation. I hope the Dems do subpoena for more evidence, as roges suggests, but people may still lie.
Dragging in Hsia is an example of the subject-changing the far right does whenever they're pinned to the ropes. Hsia was prosecuted by Janet Reno. She was convicted and did jail time. What's the complaint?
And Reid may indeed have some skeletons in his closet. Fine, I'm sure there are folks trying to get him indicted. But what does that have to do with leaking classified information to discredit a man who criticizes the highest officials in the world for using phony intelligence to wage war?
And finally, Joe, what you've said about Saddam fits Iran to a T. Are we ready to invade?
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Mar 7, 2007 18:08:28 GMT -5
BTW, I do think perjury is a very serious offense. To me, a fine of at least $10,000 is appropriate. As for the "obstruction" of "justice," he should serve no more time than Bob Novak and the guy in State who was actually the source for the report that was published. IOW, since the bigger fish will not even be charged, I'd give Scooter three months unsupervised probation for the obstruction. The purpose of the obstruction of justice--the "cover-up," as it were--was to obstruct any inquiry during the critical period leading up to the 2004 presidential election. Whether Vice-President Cheney had the "legal" right to burn a covert operative isn't the issue; Cheney wanted his role in the smear campaign covered up regardless. Thus, in that time frame, the White House assured the press that Rove and Libby were, in no way, "involved." Cheney was not involved, etc. Of course, each was very much involved--as the trial of Mr. Libby has revealed. Still, the cover-up worked. The lies worked. Much as in Watergate, the truth came too late for a voting public to take it into account in 2004. In light of this, Libby will go to jail, as he should.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Mar 7, 2007 18:16:59 GMT -5
Our government cannot manipulate truth as if it were silly putty and get a wrist slap. then turn around and have the LMSM ignore criminal and unethical behavior by Democrats without a word of complaint from any of you puddin'heads. _E_ E, have a plantain! When it says, Libby, Libby, Libby... on your label, label, label... you will like it, like it, like it... on your table, table, table.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 7, 2007 20:11:47 GMT -5
Welcome back, mon ami. Je vous exalt.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 7, 2007 21:06:37 GMT -5
No, I watched that Maher show, and he wasn't advocating that Cheney should have died in the supposed Taliban attack last week. He was defending the right for others to express this viewpoint on the internets blogs. The columns in today's Boston Globe and yesterday's Boston Herald, on which I relied, say the after defending the right of bloggers to express regret that the attack didn't kill Cheney ("If this isn't China, shouldn't you be able to say that?"), he went on to express his personal opinion in these words, "I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow," and then, "I'm just saying, if he did die other people, more people, would live.". Are you telling me that he did not say that? Because those words say he thinks Cheney's death would be a good thing. He uses the word "needlessly" to describe the deaths which he deplores and contrasts with Cheney's death, which, implicitly, would not be needless. Presumably, in his mind, it would be a good thing if those other people did not die and therefore it would be a good thing if Cheney did die. This is precisely the mindset of the abortion clinic killers. The only difference is that they actually did the killing, while Maher merely approves the attempt, if he actually said the words attributed to him.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 7, 2007 21:19:08 GMT -5
Your logic is flawed, Joe. You are reading things into Maher's statement that weren't there. Cheney could die of natural causes tomorrow and it is likely that fewer people would die. In the grand scheme of things, it is more likely that the war in Iraq would end sooner and not later. It is more likely than not that we would avoid a war in Iran. To say that is not to wish death upon anyone. It does make a political statement though. And, people did die in the supposed attempt on Cheney's life. He and the media seem absolutely oblivious to this. As long as he wasn't killed, no matter.
I saw the movie Amazing Grace a couple of weeks ago. I haven't given up hope that a brush with death might bring him to his knees and turn him about while there is still time to make some amends for the damage he has done.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 7, 2007 21:33:09 GMT -5
The reason I keep hammering about what Fitzgerald said is that he refers to what can and cannot be prosecuted. I don't mean to defend him; he's not my hero (although as a principled Republican, I should think the Republicans here would want to hear what he said). Sometimes the best case can't be made, and very often that's because people lie. So he could at least prove Libby's lies. … Well, I finally realized what that link was, and watched the video of Fitzgerald. I also got the NY Times, at j*'s behest. Clearly, if a prosecutor is convinced that there was perjury in the course of an investigation, that should be prosecuted. But that is no excuse for abandoning the underlying investigation, which in this case was the leak to Bob Novak. The Times tells us that when Fitzgerald came into the investigation it was already known that Armitage was his source, along with Rove. With all they could do to get the evidence on Libby, with Novak's testimony and Armitage's admission, Fitzgerald's failure to prosecute anybody for the underlying crime still looks to me like a failure in his mission. Only if diplomacy doesn't work, as it didn't work with Saddam. modified to add — One lesson from the Iraq business is that belief that they are trying to get nukes isn't reason enough. When they actually get the bomb, it will be time enough. Perhaps before that happens, new leadership will have come to power.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 7, 2007 21:42:20 GMT -5
Your logic is flawed, Joe. You are reading things into Maher's statement that weren't there. Cheney could die of natural causes tomorrow and it is likely that fewer people would die. In the grand scheme of things, it is more likely that the war in Iraq would end sooner and not later. It is more likely than not that we would avoid a war in Iran. To say that is not to wish death upon anyone. It does make a political statement though. And, people did die in the supposed attempt on Cheney's life. He and the media seem absolutely oblivious to this. As long as he wasn't killed, no matter. I saw the movie Amazing Grace a couple of weeks ago. I haven't given up hope that a brush with death might bring him to his knees and turn him about while there is still time to make some amends for the damage he has done. So you agree with Maher that the world would be a better place if Cheney were dead. Not that you wish him dead, of course. Just it would be good if he were. So it would not have been a bad thing if the attack had killed him, rather than the actual victims. If somebody was going to die, better Cheney than somebody else. Is that it? modified to add — BTW, I read the Times op-ed. Nice piece by Lewis acknowledging the difficulties surrounding the concept of reporters' privilege. And an interesting piece by Warner on Coulter with a pertinent reference to Luntz. I think both columns make good points.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Mar 7, 2007 23:18:54 GMT -5
I don't read anything in the quotations indicating that it would be good if Cheney died. I see a statement that the number of deaths would be lower if Cheney were not in his current office, and that the dead would be different people.
I am not convinced Cheney was truly the target of the attack at Bagram Air Base; the entry gate where the bombing occurred was several miles from Cheney's actual location.
IIRC, Cheney has had numerous brushes with death - four heart attacks at relatively young ages, an implanted defibrillator, and very recently, deep venous thrombosis - but these events do not seem to have altered his political behavior, except to prompt his declaration that he will not run for President when Bush 43's term is over.
I see no change on the horizon unless other Republican officeholders begin to fear for their own future enough to defy the President. Perhaps the Libby verdict, along with the scandal at Walter Reed, will accelerate change.
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Mar 7, 2007 23:20:18 GMT -5
I wouldn't wish for the premature demise of anyone. But, IMHO, The Vice-President bears much responsibility for Innocent, and I mean Innocent, blood being spilled. The world would be a much better place if he were not in the position of power that he currently occupies.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 8, 2007 0:01:00 GMT -5
This is reminding me of childhood agonizing over who in my family I would save if I could only choose one. Also, Sophie's Choice. What would you say, Joe, if God allowed you to choose between Cheney and the innocent bystanders who were killed? I don't mean to pick a fight; it's your scenario. Presumably, in his mind, it would be a good thing if those other people did not die and therefore it would be a good thing if Cheney did die. I think, as J* has pointed out, it doesn't have to come down to that stark choice. Not only could Cheney die of natural causes, he could experience an epiphany and finally see all the dead Iraqis as human beings. He could dedicate himself to ending the war.
But suppose the choice is plain: Cheney or innocent Iraqis. Make it just one innocent Iraqi: Dick or Daoud. Whom would you decide to kill?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 8, 2007 0:14:59 GMT -5
I don't read anything in the quotations indicating that it would be good if Cheney died. I see a statement that the number of deaths would be lower if Cheney were not in his current office, and that the dead would be different people. … Please reread, drk. I think you have conflated the two parts of Maher's quoted remarks. In the first part, where he is talking about Cheney being out of office he says no more people would die "needlessly," but where he talks about the number of deaths being lower and the dead being different people, the precise words he uses for the condition to bring that about are "if he did die." I will grant you that he doesn't say explicitly that he thinks that this anticipated result of Cheney's death would be a good thing, but can anyone seriously suppose that he does not think that a reduction in deaths of people other than Cheney would be good? One could hope that on sober second thought, if liberals could bring themselves to chastise him as conservatives have chastised Anne Coulter, he would agree with dand that we should not wish a premature death on anyone. But unfortunately, that does not seem to have been where his head was when he made his intemperate remarks. The columnist in the Tuesday Boston Herald, Virginia Buckingham, who deplored both Coulter and Maher's words said, "So put me down as glad Maher said what he really thinks. Because a lot of people think the same thing and their virulent hate of both Cheney and President Bush needs to be talked about, aired out and (let's hope) informed by rational discussion. ¶Put me down as glad Coulter used the F word, too. There's plenty of homophobia to go around and … the fact that her comment about Edwards got a laugh … does show an insensitivity to gay bashing among the conservative elite and frankly, there's just as much on high school buses and around the office water cooler. ¶Remember this bit of wisdom from Thomas Jefferson? 'Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is lef tfree to combat it.' Thanks to Maher and Coulter for the refresher course."
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 8, 2007 0:31:37 GMT -5
This is reminding me of childhood agonizing over who in my family I would save if I could only choose one. Also, Sophie's Choice. What would you say, Joe, if God allowed you to choose between Cheney and the innocent bystanders who were killed? I don't mean to pick a fight; it's your scenario. Presumably, in his mind, it would be a good thing if those other people did not die and therefore it would be a good thing if Cheney did die. I think, as J* has pointed out, it doesn't have to come down to that stark choice. Not only could Cheney die of natural causes, he could experience an epiphany and finally see all the dead Iraqis as human beings. He could dedicate himself to ending the war. But suppose the choice is plain: Cheney or innocent Iraqis. Make it just one innocent Iraqi: Dick or Daoud. Whom would you decide to kill? I cannot choose to kill either one. It is one thing to be alllowed, as you imagined in your childhood agonizing, to save only one of many whom you want to save. It is a very different thing to choose to kill someone, as you imagine in your concluding question. If I were to save one from death, I suppose, knowing nothing further about either, I'd choose to save the Vice President of the United States rather than some unknown to whom I have no obligation of patriotic duty. The suggestion that Cheney does not regard the dead Iraqis as human beings is insulting and unfounded. The suggestion that he does not want an end to the war malicioulsy disregards the possibility that one who supports a war policy does not see the war as good in itself but rather considers it a regrettable least bad of the available alternatives which can be ended with the greatest good for humanity by victory. If the mere fact that one approves of going to war and carrying it on shows that one is in need of conversion of heart, Franklin Roosevelt died an unrepentant sinner, and we must all tremble for the fate of his immortal soul. modified to add — And Harry Truman is in even deeper troublle. If you're a pacifist, fine. That is a respectable position. But if you're not a pacifist, I think you should grant the possibility that our current Administration sincerely believes that the invasion of Iraq was justified and that the current efforst to pacify it are also justified.
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Mar 8, 2007 0:55:40 GMT -5
joew: "If you're a pacifist, fine. That is a respectable position. But if you're not a pacifist, I think you should grant the possibility that our current Administration sincerely believes that the invasion of Iraq was justified and that the current efforst to pacify it are also justified."
I couldn't then, and I cannot now. It was completely cynical from the start with the motive of hubris, and bully-dom. There is nothing sincere there. There is nothing justifiable there. There is no there, there, in the words of Ms. Stein. And less and less of it as we speak.
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Mar 8, 2007 1:24:22 GMT -5
And joew, I do believe that you think that the administration is sincere. That you can still believe this sometimes astounds me. But I don't doubt your belief in them. What can I say? That Bushco. depends on your belief? At this point, I understand that George is counting on History to show that he was a visionary. Good luck to him on that. I think History will not be so nearly as kind.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Mar 8, 2007 4:03:13 GMT -5
JoeW: //The only difference is that they actually did the killing, while Maher merely approves the attempt, if he actually said the words attributed to him.//
Maher was merely stating what he believes to be an objective fact. He didn't "approve" anything. In the unedited transcript of his show, Maher expressly rejects any personal "death wish."
SCARBOROUGH: Okay, did you say [that you wished Cheney had been blown up]? MAHER: No. No, I quoted that. FRANK: You don’t? Oh, you don’t believe that? MAHER: No, I’m just saying that if he did die—other people – more people would live. That’s a fact.
Distorting Maher's remarks is a way for a columnist to dilute the criticism of Coulter (for using the term "faggot") while pretending to criticize both; but we all see through that, yes?
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 8, 2007 10:42:43 GMT -5
I may sometimes be insulting but what I say is never malicious or unfounded. malicioulsy disregards the possibility that one who supports a war policy does not see the war as good in itself but rather considers it a regrettable least bad of the available alternatives which can be ended with the greatest good for humanity by victory.Your point is precisely mine. We are all quick to say, "oh, no, I wish death on no one." I'm saying we must confront the fact that a death may be "a regrettable least bad of the available alternatives for the good of humanity." In the words of a fine scholar and ethicist. I try to be a pacifist. But we are forced to choose degrees of morality. That you would choose Cheney over an unknown and innocent Iraqi because you know him tells me we are in different places on the morality continuum. Because I know him as the powerful VP of the most powerful country in the world who has deliberately and stubbornly pursued a policy resulting in thousands and thousands of innocents' deaths - when no greater good has been or will be served - I would kill Cheney. And I used that ugly word purposely. I wrote it first as "whom would you choose to die," but that's not quite grammatical and it's also weaseling on the action. Would it be better to say "whom would you choose to be killed"?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 8, 2007 11:30:47 GMT -5
… That you would choose Cheney over an unknown and innocent Iraqi because you know him tells me we are in different places on the morality continuum. … I don't know him. I've never met him. I know his public office, and I know that he is my fellow countryman.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 8, 2007 12:05:14 GMT -5
gailkate wrote:I try to be a pacifist. But we are forced to choose degrees of morality. That you would choose Cheney over an unknown and innocent Iraqi because you know him tells me we are in different places on the morality continuum. Because I know him as the powerful VP of the most powerful country in the world who has deliberately and stubbornly pursued a policy resulting in thousands and thousands of innocents' deaths - when no greater good has been or will be served - I would kill Cheney. And I used that ugly word purposely. I wrote it first as "whom would you choose to die," but that's not quite grammatical and it's also weaseling on the action. Would it be better to say "whom would you choose to be killed"?"
Gailkate is assuming that the dead Iraqis 1.) are innocent and 2.) would still be alive if Saddam or his sons were still alive and in control of Iraq. Would Gailkate pick (Live Cheney + Live 10,000 Iraqis) over Dead 50,000 Iraqis?
Given a choice between a live Cheney and a dead Saddam ( or his sons ) and the unfortunate collateral damage, which is it? The list of Live Cheney vs. Dead _____ (you fill in the blank) is limitless.
_E_
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Mar 8, 2007 13:35:50 GMT -5
Didn't Mark Twain say something like, "I've never wished anyone dead, but there are some obituaries I've read with more satisfaction than others."
|
|
|
Post by scotbrit on Mar 8, 2007 14:22:03 GMT -5
Joe stated: At first I couldn't believe what had been written, but I note that Dan has admirably responded.
But, I really can't understand that Joe would still say that knowing that the whole sorry episode has been proved conclusively that there was no legitimate reason for going to war.
Occasionally Joe and I have not seen eye to eye, but I have a respect for a lot of what he writes, but if he really means what he said (quoted above) it brings his whole perception on life into question.
I will watch his future contributions with this in mind.
|
|