From: "-=jd=-"
Organization: Little... If any...
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:08:41 GMT
Subject: (OT) The Plame-Blame-Game

On Sun 30 Oct 2005 12:23:24p, Greg wrote in
message :



From: "-=jd=-"
Organization: Little... If any...
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 03:37:34 GMT
Subject: (OT) The Plame-Blame-Game

On Sat 29 Oct 2005 09:34:31p, Greg wrote in
message :



From: "-=jd=-"
Organization: Little... If any...
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:52:21 GMT
Subject: AIR Thiruvananthapuram

On Sat 29 Oct 2005 11:05:27a, Greg wrote in
message :

Shock may be too strong of a word. Frustrated and/or dissappointed
might be more accurate, considering that the basis for the entire
"Fitzmas" investigation remins unfounded

...I think that remains to be seen.

From what I can gather she had not been covert in over 5 years; she was
one of the agents "outed" by Aldrich Ames; and her cover had also been
blown in some transaction between the Swiss and Cubans. If Fitz is
considering leaking classified info (the Wilson Report) then Joe
Wilson, while contracted as an advisor to the Gore campaign, wrote an
Op-Ed piece about it. He would need to be considered as revealing the
same classified info. Presuming there's no surprise info, "Fitzmas" has
turned into "Fitzween".

And I think the whole purpose of the investigation was to determine if
anyone committed a crime.

And here I thought the basis for the investigation was whether anyone
illegally revealed the identity of an agency NOC. Once it was determined
Plame was no longer under NOC status for the "outing" alleged, I have no
idea what the focus of the investigation may have morphed into.


"Fitzmas" and "Fitzween" are cynical terms
reflecting partisan points of view. I don't think the investigation was
party-driven, although, clearly, the two opposing parties stand to "win"
or "lose".


and Bush, Cheney and Rove remain unscathed.

Cheney lost his chief of staff, possibly because he committed perjury,
thinking he was protecting Cheney;

I believe Fitz has indicated he has no interest in Cheney and Libby had
no need to protect Cheney. Cheney and Libby can talk about all the
classified info they want, as they both have clearances. Libby purjured
himself in an effort to try and minimize his culpability. It's almost
funny that he didn't even need to panick. He could have told the truth
without penalty.

Funny is when a stupid bank robber writes the robbery note on the back
of his own deposit slip with his name & address printed on the front.
Libby's (alleged) actions, are pathetic for a high-paid government
official.


Laughable as well, considering that it appears he could have told the
unvarnished truth without penalty.


Whether he "needed" to protect Cheney is moot; it looks as
though that may have been his purpose. And not necessarily to cover an
illegal act, but maybe just to cover the fact that Cheney sought to do
harm to Wilson.

There was no need to protect Cheney from any criminal investigation at all
since he hadn't done anything illegal. Even before Libby started the "he
said, she said" spinning and fabricating that was described in the
indictments, there was no need to protect Cheney. That being said, for
Cheney to refute the fabrications in Wilson's report is hard-ball politics,
but not illegal. If it was illegal to "out" Plame, then Libby was the
primary suspect, above all others. Apparently, it *wasn't* illegal to
"out" Plame.

True, but he may have wanted to hide Cheney's role in outing Plame, even tho
it wasn't illegal. But I think he didn't know it wasn't illegal.

Rove is still under investigation and
came very close to being indicted - he still could be;


For the limited remaining lifespan of the investigation, it's not very
likely. If Fitz could base perjury, obstruction and false-claims
against Libby based on two-party conversations with no other witnesses,

...and other evidence...

The only things mentioned in the indictments are the various conversations
and personal-notes between Libby and a given reporter -- two-person
conversations with no other witnesses. The notes even stem from the same
two-person conversations. Fitz will need "other evidence" if he doesn't
want to be painted with the "Ronnie Earle" brush by his detractors...

Okay, there were the notes and also, I think, conflicting testimony from
other witnesses, the journalists.

*certainly* he could have found similar circumstances to indict Rove.

...IF evidence existed.

With Rove correcting his testimony, that precluded Fitz's ability to bring
any ancillary charges.



I'd say the reason he didn't is because he's driven more by the
facts, rather than the politics and the content of Rove's testimony
didn't indicate an indictment was reasonable.

Agreed. All I said is that "Rove is still under investigation". That's
not good for the administration, that's bad.


It's certainly manageable and there's no "show-stopper" in view. With the
normal microscope that the left and MSM keeps trained on the Bush
administrations every move, I doubt this is much of a nuisance to the WH.



Bush's approval rating continues to fall.

Considering it's better or close to his second-term predecessors, he's
pretty much shooting par for a second-term president.

I don't know the numbers for other presidents, but I find that hard to
believe.


Last I looked, Bush's low was still higher than Clinton's low, and Reagan's
low in their 2nd terms. Not that we should place significant faith in any
poll past, present or future...



{snippage}


-=jd=-
Okay jd, it looks a though we continue to view the same facts from opposite
angles. Gotta run - I have a hot thread going with DXace over
dingleberries. I LOVE shortwave radio!

Greg