Plame Affair Over

Why would you claim that Chris Matthews is a liberal?

 

Wasn't he chief of staff for Tip O'Neill? O'Neill wouldn't have had a conservative working for him, I don't imagine. I think Matthews is a little more conservative than he used to be. But it seems to me, from the little I have watched him, that he is certainly to the left of center, but by no means where Kennedy or Kerry are, and not even as far left as the Clinton's.

He says he voted for Bush in 2000, so that makes him a liberal doesn't it? After all, no true conservatives voted for Bush. (I am trying to remember just how the argument goes here. Perhaps Poncho or Aslanspal or someone can help me out. )

I do find it interesting that there is so little being said about Armitage now. Libby's deal is befuddling. You wonder if he just didn't know. Furthermore, I am not sure that confirming something to a source is the same as leaking it, under the law, nor am I sure that there is much mileage to be gained there. Even Bob Beckel, noted Democratic strategist, says Fitzgerald needs to be answering some questions about why he continued an investigation in which he already knew the answer.

 

I find it hard to think of a Joe McCarthy apologist as liberal.

What is there to say? He made a mistake and came forward to the commission about it. He's no longer in the State Dept. He seemed to feel pretty bad about it.

That doesn't seem likely partly because Fitzgerald seems very professional and careful and partly because Libby is Cheney's aide.

Evidently, Fitzgerald agrees with you on this. It soesn't seem to matter being the original source to other reporters who chose not to report it. I wonder if Cheney, Rove & Libby urged Novak to publish.

Well, at least this Special Counsel didn't go off on wild, unproductive tangents - he seemed to do a thorough investigation. Has his final report come out yet?

 

I was unaware that Chris Matthews is an "McCarthy Apologist".

 

I don't know anything about this.

There's nothing for him to say. I wasn't referring to him. I was referring to the many who have accused Rove, Cheney, and the WH for doing what Armitage actually did. Their failure to apologize and set the story straight is abominable, whether it is done here on the Baptist Board or on national television.

Knowing the truth and continuing the investigation for three years hardly seems professional to me. If he knew who leaked the story (and he did), then the investigation should have been over.

Maybe it's because it never was that big of a story. the longer it has gone on, the more it seems to be a total non-issue. Wilson's claims were self-defeating, as several independent investigations found. His charges against the Republicans for outing his wife were total red herrings to cover up what is apparently his own incompetence. He became a political hack and that was unfortunate. But he got his 15 minute of fame, and people who would have never known Joe Wilson now do. So it worked out for him. That's the problem with a system that rewards cheap and tawdry behavior.

Anything after knowing the truth was a wild, unproductive tangent. It seems that a case might be made for entrapment with respect to Libby.

 

Yeah, that sounds right:

Fitzgerald:
"Darn, no crime was committed. But let's bring in Libby. Since he has nothing to hide, he's sure to commit perjury, and then we can get him."

Uhh.... wait....

 

So why would Fitzgerald pursue an investigation that he already knew the answer to, and in which there was no crime?

 

Ok, I guess when you said, "I do find it interesting that there is so little being said about Armitage now", you weren't actually referring to Armitage...somehow...if you say so

Before the Novak story came out, Rove told Matthew Cooper that Wilson's wife - not mentioning her name - worked for the CIA - according to Cooper's memos given to Fitzgerald.

Maybe Rove, Cheney & the WH should come clean and state clearly once and for all what they told whom and when.

Apparently, Armitage was not the only leaker and he was certainly not the one selling the Plame story to reporters.

Like seeking revenge against Wilson?

What do you base this "knowing the truth" on? Since Fitzgerald hasn't made his final report and since Libby hasn't been tried yet, how do you know what else Fitzgerald uncovered?

 

Even more interesting, why would Libby perjure himself covering up a crime that didn't exist?

Unless of course, Libby wasn't aware that someone else had done it, and was trying to protect his boss whom he thought had done it first.

 

Didn't I already say this, Galatian? Yesterday I said "You wonder if he just didn't know." Now you say the same thing. How do you feel agreeing with me?

I honestly think perhaps he did think Cheney leaked it and was trying to cover for him and take the fall if it came. But turns out, he didn't need to because Cheney didn't leak it, and there was no crime committed to take the fall for, apparently.

So again I say, "You wonder if he just didn't know."

 

Here we go back to English 101. My original comment was “about Armitage.” My second comment was about what Armitage himself would say. That’s why it said “There’s nothing for him to say. Following that comment with “I wasn’t referring to him,” clearly meant that I wasn’t referring to Armitage being the one to speak. There are a great number of people who should be speaking about this. Armitage is simply not one of them.

Daisy, how can you misunderstand simple communication this badly? Are you taking it so personal against me that you are willfully distorting what I say? Or do you seriously not understand the English language and forms of communication? Or is there another option? I hope you just misread. But this happens so often with you, and with so very few others, than I have to wonder what is actually going on.

Perhaps, but there was no crime committed. It is not against the law to say that someone works for a particular company, no pun intended. Furthermore, didn’t Rove say not to get too far out on that story, meaning that there was nothing there? I don’t remember exactly, but I think that was the case.

Perhaps. I wouldn’t argue with that at all. I think it might work to your disadvantage though. If they confirmed that they did nothing wrong, and that there were no political vendettas being satisfied, you and others would simply say they are lying. So there is nothing really to gain there. But I think they should. I would be interested to find out.

I am not sure that is actually true. Armitage was the original source. Secondary confirmations are not leaks, I don’t think. Furthermore, there was nothing illegal done apparently, until Libby perjured himself and got fired. (Makes me wonder why the media and folks like you weren’t clamoring for the last WH perjurer to get fired … But that’s another issue.)

I don’t think they needed it. Wilson’s report was discredited. Wilson was a non-factor, it seems tome.

Basing it on what is public information. There may be more. But the fact that the only indictment was Libby for perjury indicates that there is not much more there.

Again, Daisy, please read more carefully and try to follow the context of the conversation. You accuse me of snide remarks, and then make them yourself. I don’t really care. I can certainly take it. I enjoy the exchange. But don’t be a hypocrite. If you are going to complain about snide remarks, then don’t make them, or anything close to them. If you want to make them (and that is fine with me), then don’t complain about them.

 

Yeah, so was mine. As I had just quoted you and was speaking on the same subject, there was no need to repeat the "about Armitage" as it was obviously implied.

L: I do find it interesting that there is so little being said about Armitage now.

D: What is there to say [about Armitage <-- implied as it would be redundant to repeat]

That doesn't make any sense as no one suggested that there was anything for him to say.

That still makes no sense even though you've explained that your second comment was referring to him speaking and my comment was that there was nothing for anyone else to say about him as he had already explained and apologised for his mistake.

Once again, I disagree with your assessment. What is there to say?

Apply that diatribe to yourself.

There is something wrong when that information is classified as Fitzgerald states in the Libby indictment.

The meaning was open to interpretation - why was Rove leaking anything to Cooper?

I don't consider the truth to be a disadvantage. Fitzgerald said that there was a vendetta (or words to that effect). If he is wrong, so much the better - I would like to think well of my government.

To Novak, not to Cooper, Matthews and Miller.

Folks "like" me? You really had to reach to get that nonsensical jibe in. That is so ridiculous, it's beyond true or false.

No, they didn't need it, but they chose to do it anyway. That's scary and suspicious in its own right.

I don't think you read the indictment.

Does it make you feel good about yourself to belittle other people with snide remarks and insults?

 

More silliness and obfuscation by Daisy. Hilarious.

 

I figure that no one in the WH knew that someone else had (accidentally) outed a CIA agent. So (it appears) Libby believed that he had to perjure himself to protect his boss.

It makes no sense otherwise. Why would he committ a felony to cover up something that's not even a crime?

 

Well as of now Daisy wins my vote as most willing to disregard truth and embrace liberal viewpoints. She has good competition though.

 

It is way to easy to sit at home and play armchair quarter back and "think" we can have it all figured out. The truth is we dont know many of the details in this case and you can be sure there are many that have yet to be revealed. Such a judgenment doesnt show intelligence or political savy. It only reveals and agenda.

 

Well now, how about some substance to back that nasty, gratuitous insult? What "truth" do you believe I have disregarded?

I am a Liberal and a liberal - and proud of it. I try to be honest - so please, do tell. I'd appreciate it if you would try to be civil. Thanks.