PDA

View Full Version : The Emperor has no clothes


ndebord
October 22nd, 2005, 11:53 PM
Ah yes...2nd term blues. Bushies are squirming in their cosy little nests everywhere as departing members of the administration start to tell all:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2128535/

Lindsey
October 23rd, 2005, 12:15 AM
Ah yes...2nd term blues. Bushies are squirming in their cosy little nests everywhere as departing members of the administration start to tell all:
Well, this is certainly not the first incidence of that. The difference may be that where before, those who "told" could expect to be seriously slimed (and were often forced to retract what they had said), the slimers now are, shall we say, a bit distracted. So it's possible that those who were intimidated before will be feeling a little bolder now.

--Lindsey

ndebord
October 23rd, 2005, 10:29 AM
Well, this is certainly not the first incidence of that. The difference may be that where before, those who "told" could expect to be seriously slimed (and were often forced to retract what they had said), the slimers now are, shall we say, a bit distracted. So it's possible that those who were intimidated before will be feeling a little bolder now.

--Lindsey
Lindsey,

Wilkerson is an important voice of dissent because of his history in the military and the State Dept. as Powell's Chief of Staff. Not being a jarhead myself, but having a favorite Uncle who was a career guy who did China, WWII and Korea, I've heard all the stories about how smart the Marines are and how stooopid the rest of us are! This guy was head of the Marine War College...a job you do not get if you are stoopid. He also makes comparisions between Bush I and Bush II that are scathing about Junior.

Lindsey
October 23rd, 2005, 10:48 PM
This guy was head of the Marine War College...a job you do not get if you are stoopid.
Oh, I don't mean to disparage Wilkerson. I don't doubt that he is a sharp guy. But so are Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil. And John DiIulio. DiIulio was--almost tearfully--recanting his story 24 hours after it came out. O'Neil lasted a bit longer, and backed down less completely. I don't believe Clarke backed down at all. And the timing is working well for Wilkerson to be able to weather whatever slime is thrown his way.

--Lindsey

ndebord
October 24th, 2005, 10:41 PM
The squirming goes higher all the time. Cheney told Libby about Plame?

<ggg>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/politics/24cnd-leak.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly10242005.html

Lindsey
October 24th, 2005, 11:39 PM
The squirming goes higher all the time. Cheney told Libby about Plame?
Yeah, I saw the Times article. Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson (who has been an ardent defender of the Wilsons) has a blog post on it here (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/24/223343/27).

--Lindsey

ndebord
October 25th, 2005, 05:34 PM
Yeah, I saw the Times article. Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson (who has been an ardent defender of the Wilsons) has a blog post on it here (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/24/223343/27).

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Thanks...that blog post was very informative. (BTW, where are Ralph and Wayne on this issue? One would think, being true conservatives, that they wouldn't mind hearing that the Neo-Con thing is coming apart at the seams!)

rlohmann
October 25th, 2005, 07:01 PM
I was right there all the time. :)

My blood pressure had started to rise when I started reading that article, because I thought the NYT was blowing it again, but then I got down the page to where it says,

It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government's deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration.

That's correct, of course.

(For the record, I have no more tolerance for misconduct on the part of Bush than I did for misconduct on the part of the Clintons. There are some, however, who minimize that of the latter and maximize that of the former.) :->

ndebord
October 25th, 2005, 08:36 PM
I was right there all the time. :)

My blood pressure had started to rise when I started reading that article, because I thought the NYT was blowing it again, but then I got down the page to where it says,

It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government's deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration.

That's correct, of course.

(For the record, I have no more tolerance for misconduct on the part of Bush than I did for misconduct on the part of the Clintons. There are some, however, who minimize that of the latter and maximize that of the former.) :->

Ralph,

If it only were so easy. IF I read the Times article correctly, the implication is that Libby and perhaps Cheney told the Prosecutor, how to say this gently, untruths about what they knew and when they knew it, which once again makes the coverup as dangerous to an administration as the original event that brought in the legal profession.

I was also intriqued by the revelation that Fitzgerald has been investigating the theft of the seal and letterhead (from the Nigerian Rome embassy) which was used to forge the documents alleging Saddam was buying Nigerian yellowcake to make a bomb.

What to make of that investigation? Don't know, except to say that any time I see Michael Leeden's name bandied about, I get uneasy.

Lindsey
October 25th, 2005, 10:09 PM
What to make of that investigation?
For some background and some speculation, check out Laura Rozen's article (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10506) on the website of The American Prospect and Kevin Drum's blog post (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_10/007408.php) from October 24th.

--Lindsey