home

Indictments: Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 02:26:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This is the last night we'll be left guessing. I'm heading out to the jail to visit a client for a few hours, here's a space for your Plame related thoughts.

All of TalkLeft's coverage of the leak and investigation from 2003 to the present is available here.

Who is going to be indicted? Who flipped? Who walks? And what does it mean for Bush's legacy?

< Clemons: Other Shoe Drops Tomorrow | Paul Wellstone Remembered >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Indictments: Open Thread | 19 comments (19 topical)
    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:48:32 PM EST
    Both laura Rozen and josh marshall discuss a new series of articles from Italian newspaper La Repubblica, regarding the Niger Forgeries. Well worth reading for confirmed Plame addicts. Stephen Hadley, then deputy National Security Advisor, and now National Security Advisor, and Nicolo Pollari, the head of Italian military intelligence, SISMI, met on Sept. 9, 2002 in a secret meeting to discuss the Niger Docs. As the CIA had already written them off as having little credibility Pollari who knew that they were fake went around the CIA to the WH who was desperate for proof of WMD's. josh marshall Laura Rozen

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    Get the latest PlameGate news, briefings, timelines, statutes and other essential documents: "The Rove/PlameGate Scandal Resource Center."

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    AA-I guess you are too busy promoting your site to add anything here, hard to tell whose loss it is. A bit sad.

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    There is so much liberal focus on how these indictments are going to effect the "Bush Legacy". Shouldn't you liberals focus on how to win the next pres election? You are not going up against Bush. sure, this whole indictment business puts a smear on the republican party (hats off), but what about when the Democratic Party is facing a John McCain/Rudy Giuliani, who, in my opinion, have distanced themselves from the Bush Whitehouse on a number of issues?? [Ed. This poster has previously been limited to four comments a day. All in excess will be deleted]

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    hic-We'll see about that but for now the mood is quite festive. It has been some time, and quite a bit of bloodshed, since we have seen the WH creeps be held accountable for their mis-deeds. Your question can wait a few weeks, no?

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by profmarcus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    let's not forget we need to be ready to "debunk" bunk - and there's gonna be plenty of bunk flying around as soon as those indictments are handed down... media matters has a good compendium of debunking material... And, yes, I DO take it personally

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    billmon chimes in on the Rozen Niger Forgery article. More questions than answers, but we should be used to that by now. His main point/question is this: Since whoever planned the scam was very professional as evidenced by their super sophisticated knowledge of how to exploit the US bureaucracy, why were the actual Forgeries executed so poorly? Good question, we may never find out. billmon

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    So in Sept of 2003 Cheney says he doesn't know who Joe Wilson is and that he was sent to vet the Niger issue? This was one of the most important elements of the case for war and he didn't know who was dispatched to investigate it? Or what his report was? Am I the only one who finds this the epitome of incompetence? But of course we all know he knew exactly what was going on. Reason enough right there for him to step down and answer for this war.

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    I would believe the ruse if it were Dumbya playing dumb, but NOT Uncle Dick.

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by mjvpi on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    All of the Clinton/Perjury parallels are making me wild! If perjury and obstruction of justice have been committed in this case, they were at least in the scope of the original investigation. If the scope of this investigation expands, it sounds like it is expanding into areas directly related to the original investigation. The "liberal" (mainstream) media is, for the most part, not challenging the spin.

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    mjvpi-jane at fdl has a comforting news from LA Times::
    Fitzgerald may still be considering..... a prosecution under a federal law that makes it a felony to reveal the name of a covert agent.
    jane That would be quite something to see,

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    When this story broke a lifetime ago I made an off hand prediction that this could kill the execs. Well, justice moves slowly but it looks like the timing could be unexpectedly fortunate (or unfortunate if you are a fan of the pres.). Katrina, Miers, … is this the proverbial third strike? The Democrats have been having trouble getting traction. The overwhelming unpopularity of the war is a no go as most of them voted for it. I’ll refer you to the notably lame planks of the Kerry/Edward campaign, i.e. more men, more guns, more armor, better moves; essentially super-size an unpopular war. Brilliant. Anyway, midterms are a year out and folks need to distinguish themselves. Looks like the presidents endorsement might not be worth much. But good Christ, if you Dems blow it this time around … Speaking of Katrina, it seems a fit of fiscal reasonability has gripped the party formerly known as ‘small government’, and they are dragging some dems with them. We all know how unpopular tax cuts are so I’m looking for a lot of talk about fiscal restraint in the lead up to November. Fingers crossed. And back to my whisky.

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    Here is an enlightening source I found to be recently updated
    citizenspook This is massive. Tuesday, October 25, 2005 TREASONGATE: THE FELONY MURDER RULE - The Iraq War Fraud Could Lead To State Court Prosecutions For Murder American Soldiers


    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    who knew that they were fake went around the CIA to the WH who was desperate for proof of WMD's.
    Actually, they had all the proof in the world provided by all the various spy agencies of the world, and had been so since '98 when Clinton was accused of using it as a Wag the Dog over his impeachment, and actually did some useful bombing. If you think this is a partisan thing, check the statements of various Demos at that time, and the articles in the NYT, WaPost, etc. The real issue is simply this. In today's world, how much can you ignore? If the CIA is wrong, and the threat is real, who will history blame? The CIA or the Presient? And before you answer, I refer you to the hundreds of thousands of posts/comments about his "failure" to protect us from 9/1l. At the end, a reasonable person should simply ask, how much risk do I want the President to put me in? Do I want a 10%? 50%? 75%? Remember. An error could result in your, and millions more, death.

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    ppj-still reading those old news reports of WMD's in Iraq:
    Actually, they had all the proof in the world provided by all the various spy agencies of the world, and had been so since '98
    Gosh if only they let ElBaradi in on their secret, he could have bagged a MacArthur award too. Well they must be waiting for Fitzgerald's prosecution, as they figure everything is going so well with Iraq spending why not drain the federal budget of a few more dollars with a prosecution so we can further gut social services. At the last minute, like a rabbit out of a hat (for god knows everybody loves magic tricks), they will produce the WMD's and all will go scott free. Miller is waiting for that moment in the trial to reiterate her famous statement, "I was fu*king right"!. Go ppj, go!! here is some 'news' to keep your spirits up" WMD's Found!

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    And what does it mean for Bush's legacy?
    "History? We don't know. We'll all be dead." - Georgie Boy

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
    Washington Post: "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003 If you think this is a partisan thing, check the statements of various Demos at that time, and the articles in the NYT, WaPost, etc. Yes, Democrats who were assured by the Administration that there was evidence that Saddam had WMD supported going to war, and the national media was largely uncritical of the claims as well. Also, PPJ's 1998 dateline cannot account for the fact that in April of 2001, Colin Powell announced that Saddam had been effectively neutralized as a threat to the region, so apparently the WMD "We can't wait for a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun" line wasn't in force then. TTFN, Whizzy.

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    Dark, please don't use bold to quote Jim's comments. It gives an undue prominence to IDIOCIES. He barely rates quotation marks. Thanks.

    Re: Indictments: Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:26 PM EST
    PILA, as a certain sidekick used to say, "You are correct, sir!" I'll just use single quotation marks, double would imply a reasonableness that is sorely lacking in the writings here of PPJ aka dim, the card remora.

    Indictments: Open Thread | 19 comments (19 topical)