IMHO it doesn’t make sense if one ignores that the background included the case of the Dismissal of US attorneys.
2 things stuck in my mind: it was mentioned that Fitzgerald was on the list of possible dismissals, the information has shown that lots of pressure was turned against the prosecutors to minimize the prosecution of republican politicians and enhance the prosecution of Democrats.
Karl Rove’s 11th hour testimonies (I remember there were several) to deal with the early contradictions and get himself out, were the item that told me that this administration had a prosecutor that was being more than fair to the ones giving him the job.
So to me the surprise will always remain that someone was even indicted. I suspect even Fitzgerald could not stomach the level of contempt he found in the Plame case, so to make the investigation not be seen as a joke, he had to act on the evidence, but in the end I think he was pressured to not shake the apple cart too much.
The common refrain that we hear from the various analysts is that it’s very difficult to convict someone of the IIPA. Since the law was enacted in 1982, only 1 person has been convicted of violating it. I’m not clear if there was any evidence that Cheny, Libby, Rove, et al knew that Plame was covert. The law is written so that one must knowingly reveal a covert agent’s name. But I also believe there are other hurdles that make it difficult to prosecute although I can’t say that I know what those hurdles are.
In summary, my position is that I don’t give a shit if my participation is not up to your exacting standards. I have explained in great detail what my point was, although several people in this thread preferred to knock down straw men, then act annoyed and bewildered when I pointed out they were responding to a position I didn’t take. You have a problem with that? Tough shit.
And if you can’t see exactly what I was arguing in this thread (here’s a hint–whether or not I think the sentence or the commutation were appropriate is irrelevant to my point), then reading comprehension is not your strong suit either.
Well, let me word this more precisely then: he didn’t do anything criminal for which Fitzgerald had sufficient evidence to make a charge stick, a statement we can currently make for about six billion people.
Again, I heard him say a lot of things. The facts don’t seem to support that contention. I think it was virtually impossible for him right from the start to get this to stick, despite his best efforts, and in retrospect he was trying to spin the millions of dollars and months of distraction his fruitless investigation required–“I was so close, folks–if only Libby hadn’t lied!” Just my opinion, of course.
I agree with this last part. I think Libby was trying to cover up something potentially embarrassing, not criminal, and he never thought it would come back to bite him.
A question I have with this logic is that under IIPA, there is the requirement that the people have to know that the person is covert in order to violate the law. If Cheney were to know that Plame is covert, but the others were to not, it may be possible that his ordering or orchestrating the leak would be a crime while the others would not have committed one.
You know, now that you explicitly say so, it’s clear that your line
was intended to be read as
I’m happy to cop to an error with my reading of it as
But I suspect you were under no misapprehensions as to what my reading of it was. Yet rather than clarify your meaning, you chose to appear to invite me to answer the [wrong] question again. I find that to be somewhat dickish, FWIW.
Rather than turn this into a Stratocaster flame, I’ll just get back on topic, and say I think Bush and Cheney should both resign. Is Pooty-poot-Putin still up there in oh-my-god-they-killed-Kennybunkport (those bastards) with Georgie? He should resign too.
And if Carole Stream disagrees, she should resign too. So there.
Go ahead and consider me dickish to whatever degree you’d like, but FWIW, until you clarified your interpretation of my question with this last post, I did not at all infer that meaning. Hence my befuddlement at your line of questioning. I did not at all think that post was ambiguous, though I see it now that you’ve pointed it out.
If you’d prefer to assign a different motive or line of thought to me, feel free; it won’t be the first time someone has in this thread.
Well, okay, if you say you misinterpreted me, I’ll take that at face value, drop the characterization of dickishness towards my responses, and be happy that you seem to share my disdain for the administration.
FWIW, however, in re: post 184: indicating that someone else’s reading comprehension is a more likely cause for miscommunication than one’s own unclear writing doesn’t strike me as very polite.
Maybe after all the “strawmen” and such, I don’t feel like digging back through 3 fucking pages to see what your original point was. So.
Presumably you give a shit about people properly comprehending what you write (unless, for you, writing is a mastubatory excercise - in which case, have at it and I’ll cheerfully ignore your stuff from now on). If the comprehension of others is a desired outcome, why not take exactly the same amount of time and re-explain yourself clearly rather than be a fucking pissy little bitch?
Then why don’t you shut the fuck up since now it’s clear the real issue isn’t that you misinterpreted my position, it’s that you felt compelled to post a snotty comment about my being unclear when you hadn’t bothered to read the thread.
You seem to be an idiot, so I’ll try to make this especially clear. I wasn’t being coy. I wasn’t trying to make people guess about my position. I wasn’t trying to craft a gotcha or seem mysterious or dickish or whatever. Is it possible to get through your head that I was responding to people (one who did so innocently) who assigned a position to me that (1) I did not assert at any point, and (2) had nothing to do with what I was arguing? The posts I was responding to were non sequiturs. My reaction was one of confusion (where it seemed innocent) or annoyance (where the other person seemed to be crafting a straw man).
So, if someone asks me a question point blank, if it’s even remotely related to the topic, I’ll try to answer; I believe I have in this thread. But if at some point in this thread someone asks me, “So, then what you’re saying is that you think Libby is not guilty by reason of insanity. Typical Republican excuse making! I should have known,” I will react the same way I did previously. I will ask some form of “What the hell are you talking about? I said no such thing.” I will not create even more confusion by pretending that the question was on point just so drive-by morons who are curious won’t be left wondering. At that point, if you parachute into the thread, huffing and puffing, “God almighty! Why don’t you just tell them whether or not you think he’s not guilty by reason of insanity?,” then you will have yet again confirmed your imbecility.
Beg pardon? I read every word of the thread, but I did it as it was posted, so I’ve been reading the thread for six days now. I’m happy for you that this is the single most important you do with your life and thus six days later, the things on page one are still fresh in your mind, but maybe you could have pity on those of us who don’t have perfect fucking recall.
No, you were trying to force everyone to research your position - which is dickish whether you were being coy about it or not.
And your response for both cases was “you know what I said, look it up!” That makes absolutely no sense. If your reaction truly was confusion, wouldn’t a better response have been (To steal your quote below) "“What the hell are you talking about? I said Libby was a pathological liar, that’s not the same thing as insane.” You get to express annoyance and still clarify your position in case the mistake was an honest one. Two birds with one stone and it takes no longer than just acting like a dick.
I find it intensely amusing that you have now typed several hundred words in response to me without taking a couple dozen to set the matter to rest once and for all. I must conclude that you have no actual position on this matter. I further conclude that this is necessary that you might continue your mindless defense of this indefensible action on behalf a corrupt administration. Duck and weave, my brother, duck and weave.
You really are this obtuse, it’s not an act? If someone constructs a straw man, I have no position to clarify–I will NOT play that game. If someone makes a vague, “What are you talking about?” statement because a case of snottiness gets the better of him, I’m supposed to read minds and recap everything I’ve said in a multi-page thread? Sure, that makes sense.
Now I have to assume you have so much much invested in a f@#$ing message board thread that you can’t concede the simplest point. If you consider my answers dickish, I can live with that horrible shame. Better dickish than a moron.
This is a riot! I am defending an indefensible act on behalf of a corrupt adminstration. You’re either stupid or a liar, if you say you’ve actually been reading this thread. What part of this seems ambiguous to you?
Sorry for all the ducking and weaving I did in that post, my brother. How perceptive of you to have detected it. Too funny. See, if you’re taking notes, this is what I meant by reading comprehension being a hurdle you’re having trouble getting over, since you still seem to think there’s some matter I need to put to rest. Anyway, sorry for the mindless defense of Libby that post implied. You saw right through it.
You really aren’t very good at this, are you? Anyway, thanks for maintaining the proud tradition in this thread of frothing at the mouth and creating straw men rather than debating honestly. Or maybe you really are as dense as you appear. Either way, nicely done!
You just happen to think that the perjury was committed in a lost cause since there was no original crime to convict anyone of anyway. Is that about right?
