Posted on 11/03/2005 12:18:18 AM PST by ajolympian2004
Someone is channeling LarryLied. LOL...
YOur point about the LSM in full-court press to protect the Clintons from any "recovered memories" on the part of the public is well-taken.
That's exactly why, if Libby indeed has such nefarious Clinton connections, they need to be shouted from the rooftops every time the Rats bring him up.
Nice of you people to do the Democrats dirty work for them. Maybe you get a gig in the Fiztmas office...
ping
ping a ling....
Reid the Wimp (gag). Although I agree with your premise that Libby was not the one they intended to throw off the lifeboat. That idiotic waiver note he wrote to Miller may have tipped him to the leaky end of the boat.
Excerpt from Libby's book (barf and hurl).
KANJORSKI: OK. But you did say something that I want to go back, and let me get this in context now. You represented Mr. Rich from what period of time until which period of time?
LIBBY: From spring of 1985 until fall probably or end of summer of 1989. Not continuously, of course, but periodically. And from 1993, after leaving the government, some period after leaving the government, you know, with the matter that was under consideration, until about 1995. It was then inactive. And I represented him again in connection with Mr. Quinn's approach to the Southern District and the Department of Justice sometime in 1999, and that effort ended sometime around spring of 2000.
KANJORSKI: '99 until the end of 2000 approximately.
Now, at what period of time and what information that came to your attention that you made the conclusion, both legally and otherwise, that he was a traitor?
LIBBY: Sir, what I said is that I can understand someone viewing the evidence that he traded with Iran as a traitor.
KANJORSKI: The question wasn't put that way, Mr. Libby.
LIBBY: I'm sorry.
KANJORSKI: The question was, do you consider Mr. Rich a traitor?
LIBBY: On that trade, I can understand that, yes, sir.
KANJORSKI: No, I didn't ask you if you can understand.
LIBBY: Yes, sir, I do not condone...
KANJORSKI: Mr. Libby, do you consider him a traitor or don't you? I mean, it's just very straightforward. If you don't consider him a traitor, say you don't. If you do, say you do.
LIBBY: I would not have made that trade. You could apply the traitor to it.
KANJORSKI: Fine. Do you consider him, for having made that trade, a traitor?
LIBBY: Sir, it's not a word I would use, but I accept it.
KANJORSKI: You can't be half-pregnant, Mr. Libby, he is or he isn't. It seems to be very simple. Is he or isn't he? You said before you consider him a traitor. Is that correct, what I heard?
LIBBY: I would say yes.
KANJORSKI: Right. And what I'm interested in is when did you consider him a traitor? When did you get that information, become aware of that information to draw that conclusion personally?
LIBBY: The information is in the indictment which was issued in 1983, something like that.
KANJORSKI: So for this period, the last 17 years, you've considered this client of yours a traitor.
LIBBY: Sir, my understanding is that the conduct in which he engaged was not illegal, but I agree with the description that you could consider him a traitor for trading with Iran during that period.
KANJORSKI: Not that I could consider him. Do you consider him a traitor?
LIBBY: Yes.
KANJORSKI: How many traitors to this country do you call up in your official capacity?
LIBBY: I called none, sir.
KANJORSKI: You did on January 22 when the new administration took office and you were chief of staff to the vice president of the United States.
LIBBY: Not in my official capacity, sir.
KANJORSKI: Oh, but you do call traitors in your unofficial capacity.
LIBBY: No, sir. I called Mr. Rich to respond to his request.
KANJORSKI: Why would you call a traitor, somebody you consider a traitor, after he got a pardon that was a hullabaloo in this country? You can't tell me you didn't know about the reaction to the pardon. So you knew that there was a hullabaloo in the country about the pardon. You, in your own mind, consider him a traitor. Why did you call him?
LIBBY: Mr. Rich is a former client. I believed he was not guilty of those things of which he was charged, based on the evidence available to me. He had called Mr. Green to say that he wished to call me and thank me for my services. I had always taken his calls when he was a client of mine. He had been pardoned by the president for those very trades. And so I called him.
KANJORSKI: Would you call another traitor in the country again? Would you ever do that?
LIBBY: Don't believe I know any other traitors.
KANJORSKI: Stick around this committee long enough you may learn something.
From Publishers Weekly
"Although set in Japan in 1903, Libby's first novel avoids the exoticism and antiquarianism of James Clavell and sets its own tightly dreamlike tone. Setsuo, apprentice innkeeper at an isolated mountain hostel in Northern Japan, finds himself marooned with a dubious cast of travelers during a blizzard. His youthful naivete unfortunately draws him not only to a mysterious young woman with a band of itinerant performers but also to a half-frozen and half-crazed visitor. When this stranger flees back into the storm, Setsuo and another guest separately pursue him, leading to robbery and murder. With rumors of political intrigue enveloping the action and the apprentice in possession of a Macguffin as enigmatic as a haiku image, Libby maintains a sense of mystery and claustrophobia through pared-down prose and minimalist characterization. Setsuo's love interest, for instance, is simply the "girl in the cloak of yellow fur" for much of the novel. Even after he learns her name is Yukiko, her actions, history and motives remain ambiguous to the end. Spare and muted, Libby's debut has distilled his diplomatic experiences in Japan with the U.S. State and Defense Departments into a subtle, if sometimes attenuated, story of innocence and temptation halfway across the world and a century ago."
I have maintained all along on other threads about this subject, that the indictment of Libby was payback by the Justice Department (including the FBI), for Libby's congratulatory phone call to Rich on January 22, 2001 and his defense of Rich during the House hearings. The fact that Fitzgerald was deputy to Mary Jo White during the prosecution of Libby (even though Fitz may not have worked on the case) is relevant. Payback is a bitch.
Thankfully only a few here, a very few, (you can count them on one hand) have chosen to turn on Mr. Libby and act as sockpuppets for the Daily Kos crowd. Always a few rotten apples...:)
I am not supporting Libby's indictment by Fitzgerald, but I am not a big Scooter Libby fan. His testimony before the House and his congratulatory phone call to Rich on January 22, while Libby was the VP's Chief of Staff demonstrated poor judgment at the very least. He served the WH poorly.
I didn't turn on Libby recently. I detested him after watching his March 2001 testimony on C-SPAN. To me, he is part of the pack of jackel lawyers that inhabit the Beltway and feed on the political carrion. They are loyal to no one except the almighty buck.
Get your barf bag, and your blue pencil, ready----excerpt from Libby's book at post #9.
Do we potentially hurt the Clintons by bringing up Marc Rich again? Or embarrass Dick Cheney?
That's the kind of dilemma that keeps Qaiti Khouriq up at night, weeping in frustration. But the media types usually find a way around such situations. For example, in this case Qaiti could describe the links between Libby & Rich, Rich's crimes, etc., then show a picture of GWB on the screen and darkly state that "Rich was pardoned by the President on January 20, 2001, the very first day Mr. Bush was in office."
Factually correct, completely misleading, and no mention of Clinton at all. Man, I should have a job writing for the MSM...
Not particularly surprised.
A VERY, VERY poor political decision blurring dangerously close to an ethical breach, IMO. < / disgusted >
BTW, if he ever gets in trouble, don't forget Ted Olson is made of the same cloth.
Libby in fact acted admirably, in defending the Bush administration against the lies told by Joe Wilson. He has shown far more loyalty than the little cabal on this thread, which is attacking him a la DU or Daily Kos. Attacking him for a book they haven't read, of all petty things..
Good point. We'll all need to duck and cover, and nobody will be spared, not even the lovely Barbara Olson...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.