• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Libby is Guilty - Fall Guy

Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
Come on my friend, let's not use smoke here. The simple fact is that it's a felony to expose the identity of a covert agent of the United States. Valerie Plame had not been a covert agent within the past five years. (That's the grace period that has to pass before their identity is allowed to be revealed.) The disclosure that she worked for the CIA was NOT a crime.

Now, as far as Libby is concerned. He lied. Period. He was given a trial and was found guilty. Does he deserve to be punished? How harshly? Does he deserve a pardon? I can't answer any of these questions because, quite frankly, I don't give a damn. As has been pointed out by both side, it's just politics as usual. The only thing that pisses me off at this point is all the money that was wasted on investigating something that wasn't a crime in the first place. That's total bullshit.:mad:
 
Come on my friend, let's not use smoke here. The simple fact is that it's a felony to expose the identity of a covert agent of the United States. Valerie Plame had not been a covert agent within the past five years. (That's the grace period that has to pass before their identity is allowed to be revealed.) The disclosure that she worked for the CIA was NOT a crime.
It is a felony and that's why the president declassified her status so her name could be leaked with impunity. 5 years??? Once your in the CIA, you're in for life. Tell all the foreign contacts she's duped with her false identity that it's been five years since she screwed over their confidences b/c she was in fact a US agent. Tell that to all her contacts that are now at risk for having associated with her.
Now, as far as Libby is concerned. He lied. Period. He was given a trial and was found guilty. Does he deserve to be punished? How harshly? Does he deserve a pardon? I can't answer any of these questions because, quite frankly, I don't give a damn. As has been pointed out by both side, it's just politics as usual.
I think he helped undermine our national security. As a practical matter, I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are for lying to a grand jury, lying to the FBI and obstructing justice. He deserves a fine and a year or two to think about how playing ball with the Bush Administration has changed his life.
The only thing that pisses me off at this point is all the money that was wasted on investigating something that wasn't a crime in the first place. That's total bullshit.:mad:
You must still be furious about the Clinton witchhunt. He was accused of lying in a case that was dismissed on the merits.

First as tragedy...then comedy.
 
It is a felony and that's why the president declassified her status so her name could be leaked with impunity. 5 years??? Once your in the CIA, you're in for life. Tell all the foreign contacts she's duped with her false identity that it's been five years since she screwed over their confidences b/c she was in fact a US agent. Tell that to all her contacts that are now at risk for having associated with her.

Do some more research my friend. Once a covert agent has been off the covert list for five years their status is no longer protected.

I think he helped undermine our national security. As a practical matter, I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are for lying to a grand jury, lying to the FBI and obstructing justice. He deserves a fine and a year or two to think about how playing ball with the Bush Administration has changed his life.

Now you're being partisan. Yes, he lied. To say he undermined our national security is a bit of a stretch. If you want to go down that road, both the owner and editor of the NY Times should have been locked up a LONG time ago.

You must still be furious about the Clinton witchhunt. He was accused of lying in a case that was dismissed on the merits.

First as tragedy...then comedy.

As a matter of fact you're right. To waste that much time and money on a man getting a blow job is inexcusable.
 
Do some more research my friend. Once a covert agent has been off the covert list for five years their status is no longer protected.
I don't think so.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html


(4) The term ???covert agent??? means??? (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency???
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and​

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or​



She was covert until Bush declassified her identity.​
"There are two types of people who work at CIA. First are the "overt" employees. These are folks who can declare on their resume or any credit application that they are a CIA employee. Their status is not classified and their relationship with the CIA is openly acknowledged.

Valerie Plame was never an "overt" employee. At no time during her entire time at the CIA did she identify herself as a CIA employee. Although she appeared in Who's Who as the wife of Ambassador Wilson there is no reference whatsoever to her having a job at the CIA....


Non official cover or NOC also is covert but is more sensitive (and dangerous). A NOC does not work for the U.S. Government. A NOC does not have an official or diplomatic passport. A NOC works for a business or organization with no tie to the U.S. Government. If you are caught overseas while conducting espionage activities as a NOC you are screwed. You do not get a jail out of free card. You remain in jail or may be executed.

Now I will write this in big block letters: VALERIE PLAME WAS STILL UNDER NON OFFICIAL COVER WHEN NOVAK PUBLISHED HER NAME.


If Valerie had been an overt employee or a covert employee who had been sitting quietly at a desk, never venturing overseas, the CIA would not have sent the Department of Justice a letter on 30 July 2003 stating:
the CIA reported to the Criminal Division of DoJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
The CIA knew that Valerie was a covert agent. But they did not know if the Novak leak was an intentional disclosure. That was for the FBI to determine."
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/was_she_covert.html
 
Okay Albob you are married to this Plame desk jockey concept that's so popular right now. I'll let you off the hook with that at the moment because that concept is obfuscating the real issue here. What is more important is that Libby lied to protect the people above him and has been convicted for that. Period. He's G*U*I*L*T*Y.

The real issue underlying this entire story is why did he lie? The Wilsons were the original source for the evidence that Bush lied about our reasons for going into Iraq. No Republican wants to accept that the entire WMD premise was a complete fabrication, so any single item or person that can prove Bush lied has to be publicly decimated. Libby's lies are another attempt to insulate BushCo from that truth.

BushCo has taken many steps to remove the breads crumbs leading to their door in this case but it can't be done. Slam Plame, toss Libby to the wolves, and muck it all up with talks of pardons and NOC status. It all really comes down to that underlying question of did the American public get the truth as it was then known about Sodomy's WMD potential from BushCo. The bread crumbs have still been followed ... and the answer is no.

Here is a time line on the intel BushCo wants so desperately to remain hidden. I've tried to cut and paste, compile, and edit this in a way that's free of my own political opinions.

March, 2002

A CIA report describing the findings of Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger*findings discrediting the claim that Saddam attempted to obtain yellowcake uranium from that country*is circulated widely throughout the intelligence community. It is not flagged for high-level White House officials, and they do not see it.

March 1, 2002

The State Department's intelligence bureau, INR, publishes an assessment entitled, "Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely." According to the 2004 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, the INR analyst who drafted the document said it was produced at the behest of the Vice President's office.

October 5, 2002

George Tenet reads a draft of a speech George Bush is set to deliver in Cincinnati on October 7. It includes the claim that Saddam has "been caught attempting to purchase" uranium in Niger. The CIA tells Stephen Hadley and others at the White House that the statement is incorrect. Specifically, they say: "[R]emove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

December 19, 2002

The US discounts the Iraqi weapons declaration because it fails to account for various weapons that a UN inspection team said it "could have produced," and because it does not mention the tubes purchased for a uranium centrifuge or the attempts to procure uranium from Niger.

Secretary of State Colin Powell declares, "The Iraqi regime is required by Resolution 1441 to report those attempts. Iraq, however, has failed to provide adequate information about the procurement and use of these tubes. Most brazenly of all, the Iraqi declaration denies the existence of any prohibited weapons programs at all." The State Department issues a fact sheet saying that "The [Iraqi] Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger."

January, 2003

Two reports from the National Intelligence Council warn Bush that an Iraq invasion could spark sectarian violence and an anti-US insurgency. One says an occupation could "increase popular sympathy for terrorist objectives." They also express skepticism about the Niger uranium story.

March 7, 2003


Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, appears before the Security Council and says that searches have found "no evidence" of mobile biological production facilities in Iraq. He also says that the Iraqis are cooperating with the inspectors. The IAEA's ElBaradei also speaks and says, "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq." He says the Niger uranium documents are "not authentic."

Mid June, 2003

An unnamed administration official, later revealed to be Colin Powell's deputy Richard Armitage, tells Bob Woodward that Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, works for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction, making him, in all likelihood, the first leakee.

June 17, 2003


CIA analysts write to George Tenet and retract their Niger uranium reporting. "Since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."
 
You two aren't beating me with the truth, you're simply beating me with sheer volume.

To my pal Decker: Your own post disproves your claim. But, as Mr. BoneCrusher has so correctly pointed out, her CIA status isn't the issue here so let's chalk this up to another friendly agreement to disagree.

BoneCrusher: You're absolutely correct. He's been found guilty of lying. Any honest rational person who'd been watching this drama knew it all along. I won't embarrass myself by saying anything to the contrary. Now, you assertion as to WHY he was lying may or may not be true. I personally don't believe it, but that's due to my own bias. Much like I think your bias is leading you to believe it. Again, I think this is going to boil down to us needing to agree to disagree. At this point, what's the point of arguing it anymore. None of us are going to change our positions and Libby won't be any less guilty. Whatdya' say, a round of drinks? Decker's buying.;)
 
You two aren't beating me with the truth, you're simply beating me with sheer volume.

To my pal Decker: Your own post disproves your claim. But, as Mr. BoneCrusher has so correctly pointed out, her CIA status isn't the issue here so let's chalk this up to another friendly agreement to disagree.

BoneCrusher: You're absolutely correct. He's been found guilty of lying. Any honest rational person who'd been watching this drama knew it all along. I won't embarrass myself by saying anything to the contrary. Now, you assertion as to WHY he was lying may or may not be true. I personally don't believe it, but that's due to my own bias. Much like I think your bias is leading you to believe it. Again, I think this is going to boil down to us needing to agree to disagree. At this point, what's the point of arguing it anymore. None of us are going to change our positions and Libby won't be any less guilty. Whatdya' say, a round of drinks? Decker's buying.;)
I'm not much for ganging up on the elderly ... I'll take a double Jack neat :)
 
I'm not much for ganging up on the elderly ... I'll take a double Jack neat :)

Another whiskey drinker? Damn, if we're not careful we may end up getting along.:D

Except for the elderly crap. I'm younger than.....................than..............I'm younger than SOMEBODY. :flipoff:
 
Another whiskey drinker? Damn, if we're not careful we may end up getting along.:D

Except for the elderly crap. I'm younger than.....................than..............I'm younger than SOMEBODY. :flipoff:
I nominated you for prez in 2008 a few years back ... bout time for you to pony up. Start stumpin :thumb:
 
Every politician in high places have fall men. And they know that going in. So did Libby. And I bet he would do it again if given the chance.
 
Every politician in high places have fall men. And they know that going in. So did Libby. And I bet he would do it again if given the chance.

I doubt it.
 
You two aren't beating me with the truth, you're simply beating me with sheer volume.

To my pal Decker: Your own post disproves your claim. But, as Mr. BoneCrusher has so correctly pointed out, her CIA status isn't the issue here so let's chalk this up to another friendly agreement to disagree.

BoneCrusher: You're absolutely correct. He's been found guilty of lying. Any honest rational person who'd been watching this drama knew it all along. I won't embarrass myself by saying anything to the contrary. Now, you assertion as to WHY he was lying may or may not be true. I personally don't believe it, but that's due to my own bias. Much like I think your bias is leading you to believe it. Again, I think this is going to boil down to us needing to agree to disagree. At this point, what's the point of arguing it anymore. None of us are going to change our positions and Libby won't be any less guilty. Whatdya' say, a round of drinks? Decker's buying.;)
My esteemed friend, the statue does not state that after five years the covert status of an agent is rescinded. The statute's meaning is that a covert person must have 'served' (visited) in a foreign country in the last five years to retain that status. She did that. She was not an ee of the gov. thus her NOC status, so she was covert under the meaning of the statute.

That is why Pres. Bush declassified her status. If the point were moot, Libby would not have averred this:

Libby: My 'superiors' authorized leaks

CNN.com - Libby: My 'superiors' authorized leaks - Feb 9, 2006

They removed a WMD covert agent from the field, ruining her official cover and the cover of any covert agent tied to the Shell Business she worked from.

Bush and Libby and the others compromised our national security with this treasonous act.

If this is not treason, then the word has lost any relevant meaning.
 
My esteemed friend, the statue does not state that after five years the covert status of an agent is rescinded. The statute's meaning is that a covert person must have 'served' (visited) in a foreign country in the last five years to retain that status. She did that. She was not an ee of the gov. thus her NOC status, so she was covert under the meaning of the statute.

That is why Pres. Bush declassified her status. If the point were moot, Libby would not have averred this:

Libby: My 'superiors' authorized leaks

CNN.com - Libby: My 'superiors' authorized leaks - Feb 9, 2006

They removed a WMD covert agent from the field, ruining her official cover and the cover of any covert agent tied to the Shell Business she worked from.

Bush and Libby and the others compromised our national security with this treasonous act.

If this is not treason, then the word has lost any relevant meaning.

Dude, get with the program. We're past it already. We're drinking whiskey now.;)
 
Dude, get with the program. We're past it already. We're drinking whiskey now.;)
Jeez AL, I'm doing a disservice to this forum since I'm trying to work and post at the same time. Normally that's not a problem but I can't multi-task for shit and the deadline for tax season is almost here and....

You were saying something about whiskey??? Ohhh The sweetest of the brown booze...what's that? A hint of smokey goodness from the aging process... One sip? Why I couldn't. Well, just one...
 
Lord help us if any of us ever do get together and start drinking!
 
Back
Top