General wants Wilson apology

World Net Daily ^ | November 8, 2005 | Art Moore

[wouldntbprudent]

What possibly could Wilson and his dumb attorney (who left the email trail on the message he sent the genreal) base a lawsuit on?

Hello. Joe Wilson has made himself a public figure, so good-bye (for practical purposes) any slander suit, etc.

Is Wilson claiming some privacy interest in his conversation with a stranger in the green room?

Is a person not allowed to speak the truth without getting sued?

I'm really curious on what grounds Wilson thinks he can sue the general.

[wouldntbprudent]

Also, don't forget that Valerie told future hubby (were either married to others at the time?) that she was CIA ON THE THIRD DATE.

That's what Wilson said.

She's not supposed to anywhat but her SPOUSE.

[t2buckeye]

Notice I said MAY have done...in other words, as the indictment reads, "lie to the grand jury." I am CERTAINLY not convinced that that is the case.

If the case is based ONLY on the memories of Russert and LIbby, then Libby should NEVER have been indicted in the first place. However, the REAL issue remains the CIA-Joe Wilson and Plame operation! Victoria Toensing writes a great article about this! THe CIA did not take proper measures to protect Plame, EVEN if she HAD been covert, and the case should NEVER have been brought to court.

[t2buckeye]

The fact that he, after realizing that NO crime was committed, continued on with the case shows he is NOT impartial. There was a classified leak he could have investigated as well....the leak about the CIA referring the case to Justice that led to the SP being named...yet it ALSO has been ignored by Fitz. Could Plame/CIA have "leaked" the referral to Justice in order to discredit the WH????
Is he impartial? Please.

[Bernard Marx]

Then he gave Miller a promise she wouldn't have to tell about ALL her sources, just Libby. IOW he was no longer looking for the "outer", just a WH target.

You've pinpointed the most suspicious fact in what the public's been allowed to know about the "Pflame" dustup (I like your new nick for her). If Fitzmas is supposed to be investigating who leaked Pflame's name, why in the name of God's toenails did he allow Miller to skate about other sources? This reeks, yet no "investigative reporter" worth the name has jumped on it.

In a case that stinks to high heaven with partisan bias, Fitz's lack of interest in the Wilsons' role and lack of interest in Miss Run Amok's other connections to Pflame push it over the edge into pure Howard Dean territory. It shows the White House was his target all along, to hell with any real facts about the leak. It's time for the Pubbies to fight or give up the field.

[Cboldt]

If the case is based ONLY on the memories of Russert and LIbby, then Libby should NEVER have been indicted in the first place.

It's not.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

However, the REAL issue remains the CIA-Joe Wilson and Plame operation!

That's like saying the real issue leading to impeachment of President Clinton was the Jones case. The Jones case was his venue for perjury, and it was lying that got him in the most trouble.

[mongrel]

I don't know a lot about the case, but it would be interesting to analyze all the data available with the assumption that Fitz's real target is the Wilsons and the CIA. Suppose the press conference was a rope-a-dope (revealing classified information is a horrible thing) and what Libby really is obstructing is the scope of the CIA attempt. Libby does seem to have a lot of Democrat ties so there may be something to it. Perhaps the Wilsons haven't been called because they are targets and Fitz doesn't want them to know it yet.

[parthian shot]

I'm not so sure that the Republicans completely understand that it was the conservative constituencies and not the Dems that elected them to office.

What in the world will it take for them to get the message??
I know that I have written my senators and congressman to let him know how I feel. It appears that our elected officials want to appease everyone but the ones who elected them.

I don't know..........

[Bernard Marx]

I don't see the slightest evidence for this. In fact it stretches credulity -- mine, anyhow -- to even think of it in that light.

[t2buckeye]

"That's like saying the real issue leading to impeachment of President Clinton was the Jones case. The Jones case was his venue for perjury, and it was lying that got him in the most trouble"

Not at all..you misunderstand my post. I am NOT defending Libby's perjury, if he in fact did so. What I AM saying is that there are some other facts here that are EXTREMELy bothersome in terms of national security...something that Fitz says is so important.. yet he, and certainly the press, have ignored them.

First, Libby...if he perjured himself in front of a grand jury, he should be convicted. Now that he is indicted, he has the right, as Clinton did,to defend himself. Look, CLinton said he was not even ALONE with Monica Lewinsky which was obviously false.. The stain on the blue dress proved that. Libby's defense will say that he and Russert and other journalists remembered conversations differently. He may be guilty...I don't know..but unless Fitz has tapes between the parties with times and dates, he does NOT have a stained blue-dress kind of case. But that is for a jury to decide.

But what I mean by the REAL issue is this: The basis of this case was who "outed" a CIA agent. That, early on, was determined NOT to be the case because the CIA didn't "protect her identity" and she was not covert. Yet,the CIA leaked the referral, classified information, about this "crime." Why? If Fitz is so interested in the release of classified info, why didn't he expand it to include THAT leak? Why did the CIA send the husband, a NON agent, of one of the agents if she was in fact covert? Why didn't he sign a confidentiality agreement? Why was he allowed to write an op-ed about classified information? (The info that was sent to Cheney AFTER the article about Wilson's trip was CLASSIFED, yet Wilson wrote about it in an op-ed? Who gave him approval??)

These are some serious questions that many are beginning to ask.
Will the press be as concerned about THIS as they have been about the original FALSE basis of the investigation? I'm not holding my breath.

[Sal]

Mongrel, I thought just what you're saying during the no real leaks investigation--right up until he told Miller he didn't need her other sources.

I suppose there's a chance you could be right that Fitzgerald's laying in the grass to catch the real perps, but I doubt it.

You can't imagine how many excuses and "maybe he's really doing xxx"s I made for Kenneth Starr. But in the end Starr ignored Chinagate which undermined our national security and other significant issues and pursued the smaller (but real) crimes related to Clinton's sexual endeavors.

Yes, he should have been able to convict on what he pursued, but it was soooo much easier to deflect those issues and, in the end, Clinton ended up innoculated against prosecution for the treacheries he committed against our country.

Larry Nichols told us early on that Starr had one job and one job only, and that was to protect the Clintons. Nichols was easy to discredit because he used to work WITH Clinton on some of his financial schemes*, but he knew what he was talking about IMO. (*IOW he had done dishonest things himself.)

I've just gotten worn down with expecting and hoping for honesty in such matters and getting crap dumped all over all of us. I'll be delighted if I'm wrong and I'll apologize if so, but I just can't deny any more.

I DO believe we can come out way ahead on this, but only by having our guys expose the CIA cabal OURSELVES.

[Cboldt]

But what I mean by the REAL issue is this: The basis of this case was who "outed" a CIA agent. That, early on, was determined NOT to be the case because the CIA didn't "protect her identity" and she was not covert.

Those conclusions have not been officially established beyond "no comment." I happen to agree, she was not "covert," but the legal system hasn't officially admitted that yet.

Yet,the CIA leaked the referral, classified information, about this "crime." Why? If Fitz is so interested in the release of classified info, why didn't he expand it to include THAT leak?

December 30, 2003 Letter of Deputy Attorney General <- Scope
February 6, 2004 Letter of Deputy Attorney General <- More scope

Why did the CIA send the husband, a NON agent, of one of the agents if she was in fact covert? Why didn't he sign a confidentiality agreement? Why was he allowed to write an op-ed about classified information? (The info that was sent to Cheney AFTER the article about Wilson's trip was CLASSIFED, yet Wilson wrote about it in an op-ed? Who gave him approval??)
These are some serious questions that many are beginning to ask.

Good questions too. But they weren't in Fitz's scope, and they aren't being asked by the WH. -And- they are irrelevant as to the inquiry into whether or not Libby lied to investigators.

Will the press be as concerned about THIS as they have been about the original FALSE basis of the investigation?

Of course not. The press is just the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.

[t2buckeye]

"they weren't in Fitz's scope"

Another thing NOT in Fitz's scope was whether or not Bush "manipulated" intelligence in order to go to Iraq. However, that didn't stop the Dems or the press from spending weeks before and after the indictment saying that the indictment related to Iraq. I give Fitz credit...he came right out and said that the Iraq war had nothing to do with this indictment...not that it stopped Sens. Reid, Kennedy or even Chrissy Matthews of the media from saying it did.