Let me open by saying I'm no fan of the President, and I wouldn't shed a tear over his impeachment. But you guys really seem to be attacking this story from the wrong angle.

Let me get this straight: Kenneth Starr was an overzealous prosecutor, but Fitzgerald wasn't? He knew that Armitage leaked Plame's name (and knew, moreover, that, it wasn't even a crime) before he even convened a grand jury. He nonetheless proceeds with his grand jury investigation, and nails Libby on an incidental prejury charge. When he gets the conviction, he then asks the judge to sentence Libby as if he'd been found guilty of breaking Toensing's covert agent law (which even Armitage wasn't guilty of). Where is the outrage?

And *please* spare me that Clinton's perjury was okay because it was a personal matter and somehow, therefore, off-limits. When you're under oath, you don't get to make that call. If someone asks an embarassing question, you either answer it truthfully or plead the 5th. The press should be collectively embarassed that perjury from a VP's aide draws howls of bloody murder, but the perjury of president, as long as he comes from the right political party, is no big deal.

Was even half as much ink spilt over Sandy Berger's destruction of classified documents? You guys really need to get your heads out of your asses.

Aside from buying the Rovespin, hook, line and sinker?

1. There was a crime. If there had been no crime, how do you know Plame's name and what her job was in the CIA? Proving the crime is another problem given the wording of the IIPA.

2. Libby lied to the FBI and was contradicted by other testimony to the FBI before Fitzgerald was appointed. When he took a look at the information he knew that there had been an attempt to obstruct the investigation. He then called Libby to testify before the grand jury and libby lied again.....

3. There were 4 individuals in the administration who leaked Valerie Plame's identity, Rove, Libby, Armitege and Fleischer. They leaked it to at least 6 different reporters. Novak was the only one who wrote an article about it.

4. The reason that noone has been charged with the IIPA is that it requires you know their intent. If Libby testified honestly, we would probably know who intended to release her information to the press and why.

5. Berger was found guilty of removing classified documents from the archives. He never took them to give the information to the enemy. He did expose those documents to the risk of being obtained by someone without a clearance, but that didn't happen. Was he an idiot for doing that? Yup. Should he have been sent to jail? Don't know. The republican DOJ was fine with the suspension of his security clearance and probation. Maybe you should take it up with Gonzalez or Bush.

6. Clinton lied on the stand. He did not commit perjury. The reason is that the perjury law says that the question asked must be material to the case. The question was about having an affair and the case was about harrassing someone in the workplace for refusing to have sex with him. I'm not sure, but I don't think you can plead the 5th in a civil suit.....

...And *please* spare me that Clinton's perjury was okay because it was a personal matter and somehow, therefore, off-limits... Bill Clinton wasn't convicted of perjury, or anything else. Scooter Libby was. What don't you get?

the implication is that somehow the dems kept Clinton from being charged with perjury. I did some research and found that the question asked must be material to the case. The judge shouldn't have allowed the question and when confronted with the lie, would like to have charged Clinton with perjury, but had to settle for contempt of court.

He knew that Armitage leaked Plame's name (and knew, moreover, that, it wasn't even a crime) before he even convened a grand jury.

Actually, Fitzgerald, as he himself has stated, only knew that Armitage was one of several potential leakers. Second, he did not *know* that it "wasn't even a crime". Rove and the other possible leakers were never charged, not because there wasn't a crime, but because Fitzgerald did not believe he could prove it in court. That's not the same as saying there was no crime.

Even so, that remains irrelevent to the case of Libby. Libby lied under oath in order to impede an investigation. It does not matter if the prosecution can't prove an "underlying crime", no matter how many times you bushapologists (and don't think for a second that anyone reading your spin believes your line about not being a fan of Bush) repeat that mantra. To prove obstruction, all the prosecution has to prove is that Libby's lie impeded the investigation, not that the investigation itself resulted in any other charges. To have it otherwise would mean that anyone could lie to a grand jury or a prosecutor in order to impede the investigation long enough for all other evidence to be destroyed.

Say your friend murdered his neighbor. You decide to help him out by telling the investigators that he was with you on a fishing trip that day. The investigators later find out that you were, in fact, visiting your mother. You've just impeded an investigation. But, while the police were checking your fake alibi story, your friend had time to burn his bloody clothes and toss the murder weapon into the river. Now the prosecutor doesn't have enough evidence to convict your friend of murder. By bushapologist logic, the prosecutor can't charge you with obstruction because he can't prove the "underlying crime".

I have yet to get an answer from the Bush crowd for one important question....

If there was no crime, how do you know Valerie Plame's name and where she used to work?

"If there was no crime, how do you know Valerie Plame's name and where she used to work?"

Her husband decided to write op-ed pieces (wich were factually incorrect) about a mission that he was hand picked by his wife for on behalf of the CIA.

Richard Armitage leaked her name to Robert Novak which started this whole mess.

I think you mean to say, "there is not an answer given by anyone who thinks this is BS that does not fit into my "Dick Cheney is the devil in carnate" narrative." ;)

So, even though he didn't mention where his wife worked in those OP-ED pieces or even that he was "hand-picked" by her for the job, that's your story?

Really?

Oh, and none of that changes the fact that the Niger documents were forgeries. Or that Armitage was only one of the leakers. By why confuse a bushapologist with facts.

IOKIARDI, right?

The Niger documents were forgeries however the intelligence about a Niger Iraq yellow cake deal was never based on them. These documents that Wilson spoke having seen did not show up in US hands (Embassy in Italy) until 8 months after his trip.

Hitch puts it much better then me:

<link>

Better people than I have ripped Hitch's drunken ravings about Wilson already.

So, no response on the fact that Wilson never mentioned his wife in those oh-so-important op-eds that supposedly outed her?

Figures.

"Better people than I have ripped Hitch's drunken ravings about Wilson already."

Whats the problem to many facts for you? To many dates, collabortive witnesses?

Common sense:

Lets just say my wife was a super secret spy of the CIA and she hand picked me to go overseas and investigate something, and then a 1 1/2 years later I write an op-ed piece (funny he never had to vet his book or any of his articles with the CIA?) about my trip taking on the President of the USA no less.......

I have to ask myself, If I were him,,, would I be suprised that someone found out what my wife did for a living after they began asking questions about me and my trip? You know questions like, who sent you? Why you? If you were a tree,,,,, oh wait scratch that one.....

The answer would be no ( I mean its not like I listed her in Who Who's of America, or had her listed in the programs of any lectures I gave as Blah blah blah,,wife,,blah blah blah)

But Wilson,,,, ohhh he can go on TV whinning about his poor wife for years to come god bless him. ohhhhhhh poor Val,,,,,,,

Brings a real tear to my eye let me tell ya. This was a partisan hit and run job from the anti-war left from the start. Sadly it worked, which is one of the reasons I am,,,,sickofleft.

I've already given you ample reason for you to give up on trying to say that there was an attempt to get yellowcake. The statement that Plame "hand picked" her husband to go is yet another bit of spin that pretends to mean something when it doesn't. She was asked if her husband would go and to write an email on his qualifications so that her supervisor could pass it on.....doesn't sound like hand picked to me.

Why you stick to it is just another example of your desperation.

Armitage was not the only leaker. As I've said before, there were at least 4 different leakers, Rove, Libby, Armitage and Fleischer. The evidence of the crime is that you know her name. The wording of the law is why proving the law is not very easy. The law was obviously broken. Someone intended for her identity to be leaked to the press. It can't be proven because Libby lied.

Hitch shuffles dates to make his opinion work a bit better. His statement about sending someone who was anti-administration is silly, there was no evidence of his being against the administration until over a year later. His memory suffers a bit from age since he seems to think that Wilson immediately came back from Niger and wrote an article blasting Bush.

As far as your view of common sense, I'll try again to get thru to you....

Wilson had worked in the embassies in both Iraq and Niger. He knew people in both governments. That is why. The CIA asked him to go...so what. There were two other reports written by the ambassador to Niger and the deputy commander of EUCOM. Were either of those people married to anyone in the CIA? Do you know what their spouses do for a living? Both of those reports agreed with Wilson. Do you have anything negative you'd like to say about those two individuals?

The CIA stated that since the Italian documents were forgeries they had no reliable intel to support the claim that Iraq had attempted to get yellowcake from Niger.

The facts seem to escape you and if this was a partisan hit job, it was from the White House and that is one of the reasons why you are,,,,fullofshit.

Well I am glad the no name calling lasted all of about five seconds.

Hey I am sorry MI6 or anyone else from the British Goverment have never dropped buy your trailer to explain to you why the beleive this to be true and why the intelligence community in Britian accepts it as fact.

Until they come out and say "hey we were wrong" which they had more then ample time to do (especially now that Blair has stepped down) I will stick with them.

I don't know there spouses did for a living because Richard Armitage did not disclose that in his rant to Novak. You have entirely missed my point,,,which has to do with you frothing at the mouth to get Cheney or Rove or something that is A FREAKEN JOKE.

If you want to take the high road on name calling, perhaps you should consider dropping your snide attitude towards anyone who challenges your Hannity-approved talking points.

As I said, better people that I have ripped Hitch's rantings apart and have done so again.