First of all he wasn't charged with that. That would have been conspiracy.
Secondly, if he did lie to the FBI and the GJ, as the indictment charges, it would have done nothing to minimize Wilson's damage as that was past history.
Thirdly, is it wrong for an administration to actively defend itself from those who aim to undermine its agenda? Particularly when that opposition is based on lies? Wilson, through the CIA, concocted a completely false story that contradicted a major point in the administration's case against Saddam/Iraq. He lied about who requested his "fact finding trip" claiming it was the administration. He lied about filing a written report to the CIA. He further spread this lie by writing an op-ed in the Wash. Post.
That is a clear and determined attempt to undermine the foreign policy of the Executive Office during a time of war. Frankly I think it would be incompetence if the administration didn't do something to curtail a blatantly false story aimed at destroying an active foreign policy mission regarding national security in the context of nuclear weapons development in a rogue nation under multiple UN sanctions against WMD programs.
...and the means (heard it from Cheney weeks earlier) to out Plame.
Out her as what? She was not a covert agent. She changed from that status nine years prior and the statute makes it illegal for only five years after covert status has been resigned. There are a number of other legal hurdles to jump before the statute applies as well which weren't.
Apart from all of that his statements to the FBI and GJ indicate that he had attempted to conceal his prior knowledge of Plame's identity from reporters not necessarily from the FBI or GJ. It is not entirely clear, from the indictment's quotes, that he was trying to sell that line to the FBI or GJ. Fitzgerald conveniently left out much of the questioning that lead up to those answers.
I find it interesting that Fitzgerald claimed that "this has nothing to do with what led up to the war" yet he mentioned national security as an issue when he announced the indictment. He also talked about "threatening the cover of a covert agent." Yet there was no covert agent in any of this to uncover and Fitzgerald should have been aware of that after about thirty minutes of investigation. We were at FR. But the bottom line of that is that Fitzgerald didn't indict on those points yet he cites them in his public statement and yet he claims the investigation had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. His fly is wide open.
Not necessarily. If I witnessed someone damaging someone else whom I respected, it would not require a conspiracy for me to come to that person's aid.
Secondly, if he did lie to the FBI and the GJ, as the indictment charges, it would have done nothing to minimize Wilson's damage as that was past history.
No argument there. But so what? I don't know why he might have lied, if it proves true. I'm sure that question will spawn all sorts of Rovian theories.
Thirdly, is it wrong for an administration to actively defend itself from those who aim to undermine its agenda? Particularly when that opposition is based on lies? Wilson, through the CIA, concocted a completely false story that contradicted a major point in the administration's case against Saddam/Iraq. He lied about who requested his "fact finding trip" claiming it was the administration. He lied about filing a written report to the CIA. He further spread this lie by writing an op-ed in the Wash. Post.
I'm with you there. This is why I find the Democrats so dastardly in all this, they employed their influence in a US govt body (CIA) to smear the President in such a way as to make it illegal to reveal their plot. That is downright scary to me.
Frankly I think it would be incompetence if the administration didn't do something to curtail a blatantly false story aimed at destroying an active foreign policy mission regarding national security in the context of nuclear weapons development in a rogue nation under multiple UN sanctions against WMD programs.
I agree. And that is why I will respect Libby for what he did for the country, even as I simultaneously insist that the law must be upheld with regard to his GJ testimony. Sometimes, doing the right thing comes at a price.
Out her as what? She was not a covert agent. She changed from that status nine years prior and the statute makes it illegal for only five years after covert status has been resigned. There are a number of other legal hurdles to jump before the statute applies as well which weren't.
And that is why I was baffled when Fitz insisted in his press conference that Plames status was classified and that her neighbors knew nothing about it. Why would he say such a thing if it is so easily disproved? Is it possible that you and I are the victims of conservative talking points that repeat the not-covert/already-outed mantras that we hear here? I have no illusions that only Democrats have talking points. I'd like to see evidence, rather than just hear repeated mantras. Give a pointer to a site that has Plame's Who's Who entry. Give me a pointer to a site that quotes someone who has said "I knew about Plame's status."
Apart from all of that his statements to the FBI and GJ indicate that he had attempted to conceal his prior knowledge of Plame's identity from reporters not necessarily from the FBI or GJ. It is not entirely clear, from the indictment's quotes, that he was trying to sell that line to the FBI or GJ. Fitzgerald conveniently left out much of the questioning that lead up to those answers.
I don't know if you were listening to the same press conference as I. What I heard, Fitz left no doubt that Libby did not fess up to the FBI and GJ. He wasn't indicted for the stories he told reporters... he was indicted for what he told the GJ.
I find it interesting that Fitzgerald claimed that "this has nothing to do with what led up to the war" yet he mentioned national security as an issue when he announced the indictment. He also talked about "threatening the cover of a covert agent." Yet there was no covert agent in any of this to uncover and Fitzgerald should have been aware of that after about thirty minutes of investigation. We were at FR. But the bottom line of that is that Fitzgerald didn't indict on those points yet he cites them in his public statement and yet he claims the investigation had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. His fly is wide open.
I tend to agree with you that the original "crime" seems to be, in fact, a non-issue politically concocted by the 'Rats. That said, telling the truth to the GJ is not an option. I said it for Clinton with the Paula Jones testimony and I say it here that under oath means under oath.