Blogcritics Comments on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Comment by STM on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:23:54 EDT

Gonzo: "but i ain't one fer too much heat, i wilt like Romaine lettuce in a sauna...so Aussie land is pretty much out fer me". Every second bastard's got a swimming pool. If you don't have one, just make friends with the neighbours. Under the must-obey "mateship" laws of Australia, they thus cannot deny you on a hot day. You just take the beer ... Simple ...

Comment by gonzo marx on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:13:00 EDT

on the order of "fair criticisms"...Bush didn't say he would fire anyone who illegally leaked...just leaked this demonstrates something, since the court records show while Armitage might have been the first to leak, he was NOT the only one Excelsior?

Comment by Alec on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:30:40 EDT

Sean - RE: ["Uh, no. I don't think that this is necessarily true. Ignorance of law and regulations is not usually a legal defense."] Generally, you're right. But in this particular case, the law in question requires "knowingly" outing a covert agent. If you can plausibly claim you didn't know she was covert, it's not a crime even if you broadcast her identity on global television. You are right here, and this is a fair point. However, I think that the full story still has yet to be told here, in part because Washington reporters love their sources and their insider status, without regard to their political ideology. As I noted before, my gut feeling is that the Bush White House thought that they were just playing standard political games by outing Valerie Plame. HOWEVER, this is an administration that continually sells itself as competent and tough-minded. They are the ones in charge. They are responsible for the CIA and its operations. It goes beyond ordinary negligence for them to have made this mistake, to have tried to cover it up, and to now to try to minimize it. The narrow legal question is not, for me, the heart of this mess. I abhor any political figure who screws up royally, and then tries to play it off as trivial because they are doing more important things. It would be cosmically comical if the people involved in outing Plame, despite all their years of government service, and all their supposed expertise, did not know the significance of her Non-Official Cover (NOC) status. Even if I look at this with totally cold cynicism, it says much that the political gamesters here didn't have the brains to pull over the head of the CIA or some other official and say, "We're about to smear Valerie Plame because she is Wilson's wife. Is there anything about her or her job that we should know?" RE: I'm no fan of Bush or Cheney, God knows. But it's important to keep criticisms firmly within the bounds of the facts. I think they can be firmly excorciated for carelessness, negiligence and misplaced priorities without insisting that their actions were illegal. This is not quite right. Libby was convicted of : one count of obstruction of justice; two counts of perjury; and one count of making false statements to federal investigators. He was not charged with nor convicted of leaking Plame's name. Now, people who claim that there was no "underlying crime" so Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence is somehow justified are going beyond the bounds of facts. They are making up laws and exceptions to law that do not exist. Again, let me say that the issue is not simply the narrow one as to whether the Bush Administration's actions are illegal. They are willfully ignoring or re-interpreting prior Executive branch policies and procedures, and are re-ordering prior understandings of the separation of powers to accrue more power to a president who clearly has not read and does not understand what the Constitution means. It is worrisome that neither political party seems to clearly understand this, and not a good sign for the future of the country.

Comment by Sean Aqui on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:29:49 EDT

Alec says: "Uh, no. I don't think that this is necessarily true. Ignorance of law and regulations is not usually a legal defense." Generally, you're right. But in this particular case, the law in question requires "knowingly" outing a covert agent. If you can plausibly claim you didn't know she was covert, it's not a crime even if you broadcast her identity on global television. I'm no fan of Bush or Cheney, God knows. But it's important to keep criticisms firmly within the bounds of the facts. I think they can be firmly excorciated for carelessness, negiligence and misplaced priorities without insisting that their actions were illegal.

Comment by gonzo marx on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:18:50 EDT

but yas talk funny and are upside down!! however, Australia, NZ, UK, Ireland , Norway, Sweden, and Holland are all on yer gonzo's short list as worthwhile places to live but i ain't one fer too much heat, i wilt like Romaine lettuce in a sauna...so Aussie land is pretty much out fer me but i digress.... Excelsior?

Comment by STM on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:07:07 EDT

Alec: "Even if I agreed that the US represents all this, I think that it is still better than the alternatives. What existing nation or government do you offer as a superior example?" In a word, Australia ... :)

Comment by gonzo marx on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:46:19 EDT

ya know Doc..i bit my tongue on that one, but good to read i ain't the only one that spotted it... a prize fer Doc's eagle eyes Excelsior?

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:43:20 EDT

Moonraven, comment #14: I am off to find lunch and will not be back to this silly thread. 2 hours, 12 minutes later: Moonraven, comment #17...

Comment by Arch Conservative on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:12:17 EDT

"You're right--The Bush Gang is a disgrace--to the species, familiarly called the human race." Yes, as was that syphillis ridden monkey Che Guevara.

Comment by bliffle on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:56:53 EDT

Sara Taylor said she gave an oath to the president, and here I thought the Original constitution written by the Originalist founders originally meant for appointees to give their oath to the constitution. But maybe some Strict Constructionalist logic by modern Strict Constructionists indicates otherwise. Can any Strict Constructionists around here clear this up?

Comment by Alec on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:07:26 EDT

moonraven - RE: Just about any country is superior to the US in my book. Even the country where I live, Mexico. Yep, it's corrupt as hell, but the last time I looked, it wasn't invading other countries for their natural resources or because its president fell out of bed--or was that off the wagon--and thought he heard The Voice of God telling him to destroy planet Earth. You are joking, right? Mexico? A country which is not only corrupt, but one of the two model oligarchies that Bush admires and desperately wants the US to emulate (the other being Saudi Arabia)? A country of tremendous resources, but with a gigantic inferiority complex? A country in which many of its citizens are so twisted with a mix of pride and self-hate that its upper class declares that it is Spanish, and not Mexican, and which is so backwards in its racism that at times newspaper ads openly admit that people who are too old, too dark or too Indian looking will not be considered for jobs? A country that denies its own history of racist imperialism more thoroughly than Japan denies the atrocities that its military committed during WW II, a country which pretends to be proud of its indigenous roots, but which still savagely suppresses the rights of Yucatecos and other native peoples? A country which loves to parade the fantasy life of the wealthy upper classes in its novelas, and yet saw members of its upper class practically issue a fatwa against the photojournalist who exposed the excessive, shallow, meaningless existence of upper class dolts in the subversive book of photographs, Ricas Y Famosas? A country choking to death on pollution and in which businesses are allowed to flout some of the weakest environmental laws in the world? A country which squanders its oil wealth, and with a inefficient tax system which is so corrupt that needed social service programs can never be funded? That Mexico? A Mexico in which Scooter Libby would feel right at home? OK, just checking.

Comment by gonzo marx on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:34:17 EDT

heh now Clavos...did ya really think i expected it ta be that easy? but ya gotta admit, yas go at each other like an old married couple just a Thought... Excelsior?

Comment by Clavos on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:32:21 EDT

"methinks some should just get a room and work it all out in sweaty fashion and get over some shit", Not me, gonzo. Not even with yours (if you know what I mean).

Comment by gonzo marx on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:48:00 EDT

wouls have almost been Funny, if it hadn't been such crass commercial bullshit snake oil but thanks for trying Excelsior?

Comment by moonraven on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:27:49 EDT

Nobody ever gets over anything unless through Radical Forgiveness.

Comment by gonzo marx on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:24:03 EDT

methinks some should just get a room and work it all out in sweaty fashion and get over some shit just a Thought... (and NOT one ya really want bouncing around in yer head....all bones and sandpaper...) heh Excelsior?

Comment by moonraven on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:21:05 EDT

Methinks the boatboy protests too much--considering that he keeps trying to engage me. No Carl Hiassen villains for this happy lady.

Comment by Clavos on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:16:39 EDT

Too bad Clavos doesn't give a damn whether or not mr communicates with him...

Comment by moonraven on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 19:06:23 EDT

Too bad clavos has forgotten that he is not on my list of folks with whom I have communication. Alzheimers is right around the corner--soon he can join his heros Ronnie and "Ben Hur".... Meanwhile, moonraven is happy as hell in Mexico and couldn't care less about what happens to the US after she flushes it.

Comment by Clavos on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:51:50 EDT

You talk a lot, mr, but talk is cheap. I notice you wave your US passport all over the BC site, and constantly invoke your rights (most of which don't even exist in Mexico) as a "US citizen." Yep. Talk (and hypocrisy) is cheap...

Comment by moonraven on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:45:06 EDT

Just about any country is superior to the US in my book. Even the country where I live, Mexico. Yep, it's corrupt as hell, but the last time I looked, it wasn't invading other countries for their natural resources or because its president fell out of bed--or was that off the wagon--and thought he heard The Voice of God telling him to destroy planet Earth. (Well, if you don't count that Pancho Villa invaded Columbus, New Mexico....)

Comment by Alec on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:39:11 EDT

moonraven - RE: I don't know what you think the US represents--besides savage capitalism, genocide, imperialism, obese people and drug dependent bozos incapable of finding their way to the toilet to put the seat down, but: Even if I agreed that the US represents all this, I think that it is still better than the alternatives. What existing nation or government do you offer as a superior example? In case it is not clear, I have a tremendous admiration, affection and respect for the Constitution, how it seeks to establish a workable government, and how it seeks to define the powers and limits of that government. It is appalling to see how Bush and Cheney consistently look for exceptions and interpretations that increase their authority, and also how nakedly at times they seek just to ignore checks and balances and the idea of a separation of powers. For example, I recall how Bush tried to suggest that since he thought that Harriet Miers was the right woman for the job, then the Senate should just have done an up and down vote for her and confirmed her nomination. He either had no idea of, or any respect for, the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to give their advice and consent. The same is true of his attempt to use recess appointments to get his US attorney choices installed. Equally appalling are the Bush true believers who are willing to shred the Constitution so that they can get a government that reflects their political and religious values.

Comment by RJ on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:30:58 EDT

"I don't know what you think the US represents--besides savage capitalism, genocide, imperialism, obese people and drug dependent bozos incapable of finding their way to the toilet to put the seat down" The was beautiful, moonraven. Absolutely beautiful. I bet you could give one hell of an inspiring Fourth of July speech to the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Comment by moonraven on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:08:05 EDT

I don't know what you think the US represents--besides savage capitalism, genocide, imperialism, obese people and drug dependent bozos incapable of finding their way to the toilet to put the seat down, but: You're right--The Bush Gang is a disgrace--to the species, familiarly called the human race.

Comment by Alec on Lewis Libby versus Marc Rich

Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:40:32 EDT

Sean - RE: Simple: If the leakers didn't know Plame was covert, it wasn't illegal. Uh, no. I don't think that this is necessarily true. Ignorance of law and regulations is not usually a legal defense. However, my gut feeling is that Bush, Rove, Cheney and others did not care whether Valerie Plame was covert. They were focused on discrediting Wilson and also arrogantly presumed that they could cover up whatever mess resulted from their actions. And to me, it goes beyond that "they should have known or at least checked." Knowing the law, knowing the personnel (or at least having people in place who knew the score and relying on honest input) is the core of their frickin' jobs. Instead they politicized and trivialized the CIA just as they later sought to turn the US Attorney's office into another nest of compliant cronies. I detest this crowd, and not because I disagree with their political ideology. They remind me of small town, small minded burghers who think that everything they do is right simply because they are in charge and know the richest guys in the county. These bumblers are not ready for the big leagues, and certainly do not belong in any position or office where they are responsible for any person's reputation or life. It is significant here that Bush continues to bleat about how his job is to protect the American people, and that presidential aide Sara Taylor tellingly spoke about her oath to the president during her recent, and reticent, testimony before Congress. These are supposedly true conservatives, tough minded, rock-ribbed hard-headed Republicans. These are the people who on Monday, Wednesday and Friday brag about how smart and tough they are, but who on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday can't recall, simply forgot or just misspoke. And yet they simply have no clue that their oaths are to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. They are a disgrace to the United States and to everything that this country represents.