digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

VIDEO: Libby Destroyed Evidence Before Testifying, Cheney ‘Deeply Involved’

thinkprogress.org — MSNBC has breaking news from the trial of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -9/+92Basically: "Cheney first government official to leak Plame to Libby."



    This is very serious. Cheney is more than "deeply involved", he is the cause of the leak.

    -1 Bush Administration

    • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -10/+87Treasonous
    • xoxuxox, on 10/12/2007, -10/+50I guess this is what happens when you shoot a secret in the face with a shotgun.
    • ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -47/+7I think they're blowing it out of proportion. I'd love to see Cheney forcibly thrown out of office but if the discussion on Valerie Plame was between Cheney and Libby and both men officially have access the privileged information, then there's no crime there. :(
    • TheKMan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+48@ScornForSega

      Did you read the article? This wasn't just something between just the two of them...Cheney instructed Libby to leak Plame to the press.
    • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I thought Armitage admitted he was Novak's source.
    • Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -39/+11This is untrue and baseless lies. Everyone knows that Cheney (along with Bush and everyone else in the administration) is a good christian man that we all know would never do anything illegal. The fact that our country is at war and the fact he is a good man should absolve him of all charges. If anything the people making such claims should be tried in court for treachery during a time of war. Godbless
    • timla, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Armitage was the initial source, Libby is on trial just for trying to coverup/forget his and Cheney's roll in the whole affair.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Novak.27s_.22primary_source.22:_Richard_Armitage

      I dislike the current administration, but other then being publicly humiliating, I do not think this will amount to much.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28Meh, not exactly treason. But serious enough that Cheney should resign and be put on trial.

      I hope it is so. Getting rid of Cheney would keep us out of war with Iran.
    • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Wow, this is not Cheney's day, stocks Biden this . . . sucks to suck at life.
    • ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9@TheKMan

      They didn't say that.

      AND I QUOTE:

      "Prosecutors also revealed today that Vice President Cheney himself wrote out for Scooter Libby what Scooter Libby should say in a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. It was during that conversation when Scooter Libby provided confirmation to Cooper that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA."

      They lay the dots out but they don't connect them. They don't say that Cheney told Libby to leak the info; they simply state that Cheney wrote for Libby what he SHOULD say, not explicity defining that Cheney said "leak the name in the interview."

      Also, did anyone else notice that Cheney isn't the one on trial here? Indict Cheney and I'll get excited. 'Till then... meh.

    • bozack, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9WTF kind of name is "Scooter Libby"?
    • ubuwalker31, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@ScornForSega:
      "Indict Cheney and I'll get excited. 'Till then... meh."
      Screw that. Impeach Cheney and then put him on trial in the Senate. Until then, Meh!
    • kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12They should give him the same sentance that they gave Former Clinton Samuel Berger.

      $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. Harsh...
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3And what Berger did was far, far worse.

      I just don't understand the media hype with this trial - Cheney's name is all over it, yet barely a mention of Armitage. It would be like hyping Clinton in a trial about George Stephanopolos.
    • deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You see you never could really trust a Dick (especially one that likes to shoot their friends in the face).
      http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/571511948/angryintheusa/369032
      So let's see if Dick Cheney get indicted on this or not? It just might happen now since the Democrats are in control.
    • ferndave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Crass22

      You forgot the sarcasm tag. It might have saved your funny comment.
    • Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@bozack

      His name is I. Lewis Libby, and he goes by the name "Scooter".

      Who knows what the ***** the "I." stands for. Probably "sacrifice".
    • eekjedi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1L2 IMPEACH MOAR!!!!!111!!!
    • rajid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If we managed to work our way free of Cheney then Bush would become even more of a lame duck than he is now. How could he make any decisions when his keeper Cheney isn't around to tell him what to do?
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7So . . . as these bastards drag us into a war with Iran (who has NOT violated the nuclear proliferation treaty, who has signed it unlike Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea, and who has NOT attacked us unlike the Saudi's) . . .

      Can we FINALLY start to demand trials for high crimes and misdemeanors?

      Outing Plame (responsible for tracking nuclear proliferation in the middle east) endangered and probably killed many of her sources, per her life at risk, and cost the US a tremendous intelligence resource.

      That is the LEAST of Cheney's crimes. We cannot rest until he is tried, convicted and jailed for his crimes against our nation. Have you called your congressman today? If we all call them five days a week, I think they'll get the notion that maybe, just maybe, we'll hold them accountable for what they allow these criminals to do.
    • bigturns, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Unfortunately Cheney and the rest of those working to fleece the middle east of its oil will walk. Note to the world: Dicky-boy shot his friend in the face with a shot gun and never spent a night in jail.
    • matrixbandit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1***** that, shoot him in the face on live tv. Until then, meh.
  • JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -4/+78I think they've proven time and again that they don't believe the law applies to them.
    • Gendolookin, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4from what i understand, there weren't any LAWS broken here.....
    • bigtrouble77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If it's determined no laws were broken, at what point do we get out in the streets and burn *****? Yes, that's sarcasm.
    • Gendolookin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5what laws were broken, maybe i'm wrong...If i am please tell me. (no sarcasm at all, i'm serious) I was under the assumption she wasn't covert, and hadn't been for 5 years, and at the time all this started, she was working at a desk job.....Am i wrong??
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5No laws broken dude, Digg just gets wet when thinking about Cheney getting impeached.
      Richard Armitage leaks info to the press and the media hype is about Dick Cheney?
      Meanwhile, Sandy Berger commits treason, literally, and gets a $10,000 fine.

      Selective outrage on Digg yet again.
      Everyday Digg rages against the brainwashing of the evil Bush Admin and FOX News, yet happily tows the Dem line to perfection.
      Pot calling kettle black if you ask me. Your only sheep if you side with the other guy? huh?
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8You guys screaming "no laws broken" are the perfect material for oppressive governments. Concentration camps and torture in communist states also did not break any laws.
    • kineticabstract, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Gendolookin -

      The law in question is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

      Note that the law stipulates, "in or recently in" covert roles. That's what led to the investigation by Fitzgerald. The purpose of that investigation was to determine whether the law had, in fact, been broken. That question hasn't been resolved, and it looks as though it's not going to be.

      The reason behind the law (and why it applies even for agents who are no longer covert) is that when an undercover agent's name becomes known, any foreign agencies who have ever dealt with that agent will do some serious digging to see if that person ever had dealings with them, and to see who else that name might lead to. The concern is collateral damage - other agents being exposed. In this case, we got lucky, and the careless use of a CIA operative's name as part of a petty revenge had little negative affect in the intelligence community.

      During the course of the investigation, however, Fitzgerald interviewed Libby, and felt that he was deliberately obstructing the investigation. This is what Libby is on trial for. It has little to do with the original investigation, except that Libby allegedly lied to investigators in order to minimize his role in the affair.

      So, if the allegations are true, then a law has been broken. But not the one that was being investigated in the first place.

      The only real reason this is interesting is that it looks as though Libby's defense is going to try and drag Cheney/Rove down with him.

    • dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9“An impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment in its history.”

      -President Gerald Ford, 1970
  • ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I think the next set of questions that we need to start asking is pretty clear:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAX20051105&articleId=1185
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Iran: The Unthinkable War,
      http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/23/cheney-libby-trial/

      The reason the Bush Administration does not fear indictment is because they believe they are _above_ the law. The executive branch enforces laws, it wages war, it can now arrest and torture people. It can declare martial law . . . Cheney considers himself above the law . . . and so far he appears to be right.
    • habfan29, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This line kind of made me worry:

      "14. Q: Could Mr. Cheney seek a presidential pardon right now?

      A: Yes. Indeed, for all we know, the current president may be holding a batch of signed (and witnessed) pardons in his desk at this very moment. "

  • Neumahn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Throw the bastards out and put the bums in.
    • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15For a second there I read 'burns' as in Mr. Burns, which admittedly would be an improvement over Cheney.
    • billspaced, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Burns...Bums...Cheney...I've often thought of Dick Cheney as Mr Burns of the Simpsons. Same body, same crooked face, same amount of evil.
    • drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There ought to be a very entertaining episode of "Dick Cheney, Confidential" on Harry Shearer's "LeShow" podcast next week...I can hardly wait...
    • knuckles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let the fools have their tar-tar sauce!
  • EricCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26What happens when you lie under oath? :P
    • ElGranMonkador, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26you get tried for perjury. thats why lil' kim is in jail
    • combustion8, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15same thing that happened to clinton I pressume.. nothing.
    • Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -25/+6good point combustion8

      Plus what Clinton did was immoral and unchristian. Whatever claims they may have against Cheney, even if they were true, did not in fact hurt anyone or anything at all. Its all a big hoot over nothing..... right?
    • Langford, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Doesn't it depend on the lie? Does the 5th amendment apply in cases where somebody lies to protect themselves, or are they just allowed to abstain from answering?
    • TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10crass22 please /sarcasm many diggers just arn't up to actually figuring it out for themselves.
    • combustion8, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2did lil kim hurt anyone by lying?

      question is what happens if you lie under oath, not what you lied about under oath.
    • Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7@theslowrider

      Reality after all, has a well known liberal bias.

      @TopherT
      But thats what makes it so funny.
    • Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17God I hope you're kidding Crass.

      If you believe that receiving oral sex is somehow worse than purposefully ousting a secret government operative thereby destroying her career and endangering the lives of her family over political differences, and doing so in a way that would spread blame around to anyone but the man in control, all the while lying and courting hidden agendas, well...there's no hope for you. You really think that God supports lying, cheating, stealing, and purposeful malign over adultry?

      Again, I'm going to assume that you're kidding (because you'd otherwise be displaying a level of ignorance that I thought was limited to crustaceans and that lint that collects in my navel), but if you're not, I think that you and people like you need to take the initiative: go buy Sealand, rename it Mastubatory Religious Self-Aggrandizement-ville, put up a giant cross so that real people know to avoid you, and make a national anthem that - somewhere - includes the words, "we know *****-all about morality unless it's written down for us."
    • Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@Phatt138, Yes I was only kidding. I was reply to the comment by combustion8 "same thing that happened to clinton I pressume.. nothing.". Which I understood as a jab towards Clinton for the Monica Lewinski controversy, and that since Clinton got off scott free that Cheney should be off scott free. So I tried to flip that on him and make it sound absurd, by trying to make a lie about having sex with a woman (that was no ones buisness in the first place anyways) look worse than what cheney has done when in fact what Clinton did was 100% harmless.
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"ousting a secret government operative"

      The usage of "secret" is debatable, if you report to Langley - and do so overtly, then I have doubts about your "secret" status.
  • Gooogler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0if this is hot it will make the cheney graph rise http://www.trendio.com/word.php?wordid=72&language=en , but it doesn't, so...?
  • DeflatorMouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And here's the evidence that MSNBC and Shuster made it up and are covering up the fact that they got caught doing it:

    "It was not clear if Fitzgerald meant that an attempt was made to destroy the note or that Libby had forgotten about it. In any case, the note was recovered and is part of the evidence."

    http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTBiMzA0ODMzNGE5ZTA2ZWU0NzkxZmRiZDM3MDBjZmQ=
    • CyGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think from the phrasing "wiped out" it might have been an email message, that just before testifying Libby deleted from his computer, but the reason it was recovered is because you can never really destroy an email without wiping the hard drives of every computer the email has passed through, which at a minimum is three, plus any backups of those hard drives created while the email resided on them.

      I think overall there is sufficient evidence to go after Cheney for conspiring to leak Plame's ID, but that's above Fitzgerald's paygrade, Cheney would have to be impeached. Since he didn't indict Libby on the leak itself, he couldn't even really list Cheney as an "unindicted co-conspirator" since Cheney apparently didn't conspire to cover up the leak.

      Anyway, for Fitzgerald to be citing the note, Cheney must have mentioned it, or confirmed its existence when he testified before the Grand Jury,




  • bjkrautk, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7If there were enough information to prove that Cheney leaked the information....he would be the target of the Prosecutor, not Libby. (Who isn't even being charged with leaking the information, as Libby is charged only with not remembering precisely what was said to whom and when.)


    Between that, and attempting to perpetuate the myth that the President made a false statement during the State of the Union ('recieving' uranium from Niger =/= 'seeking' uranium from Niger), marked as inaccurate.
    • fangorious, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Between that, and attempting to perpetuate the myth that the President made a false statement during the State of the Union ('recieving' uranium from Niger =/= 'seeking' uranium from Niger), marked as inaccurate."

      uh, the transcript of the 2003 State of the Union Address specifically says "sought", so I don't think it's a myth.

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

      President Bush said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
    • OriginalLucid1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2President Bush said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

      Which was true then, and is still true today. British intelligence has never retracted that statement.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Which was true.
      Joe Wilson documented they did - in his report.
      Then he said the opposite to the media in the U.S.

      So, officially he backed up the Presidents claims, yet publicly contradicted them.

      But remember, it's all about Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney right?
      ugh.
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Which was true.
      Joe Wilson documented they did - in his report.
      Then he said the opposite to the media in the U.S.

      So, officially he backed up the Presidents claims, yet publicly contradicted them.

      But remember, it's all about Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney right?
      ugh."

      The whole trial is political, whats done is done and nobody really got hurt. Just as the republicans pushed for trials etc in the Monica L. Trial with Clinton, the democrats are perpetuating this cycle with Plame, who - it can be argued - benefited from this as she is going on to write a book and will inevitably do interviews etc.
    • dibbler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2>>>>
      President Bush said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

      Which was true then, and is still true today. British intelligence has never retracted that statement.
    • MeanYogurt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Cheney isn't even an un-indited co-conspirator. The prosecutor knew one week into the investigation that Armitage was the leak. Armitage is charged with nothing. Look at the group think surrounding this issue, people in this thread are calling for the impeachment of the Vice President over something an assistant to Colin Powell leaked to Robert Novac. Some of the comments being dugg up here are wildy un-factual. I'm just amazed. I'm also sure Libby's defense will crucify the prosecutor over those remarks. Seriously, we know who leaked. We know when. We know Libby and Cheney are not charged with outing an undercover agent and neither is the fellow how leaked her name. This is a blatant smear attempt and it appears to be working(for now).
  • SirZRX, on 10/12/2007, -21/+5THX god im not an american
    • combustion8, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8I thank god you're not an American also.
  • venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Yay!
  • jeffdjohnson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The video associated with this story loaded much faster at the MSNBC site (link below).
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16770023/
  • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Wells said, recalling the conversation between Libby and Cheney. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

    Here they go, starting to eat their own.
  • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22"Dead babies found buried in Cheney's garden... no charges expected to be filed"
    • aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Thats because they weren't raped.
  • IslandDog, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5This is the biggest non-story of the past couple of years. Cheney was NEVER the focus of this investigation.

    You guys want to headline real crooks, how about Jefferson and Sandy Berger.
    • aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What did Jefferson do? You want to prosecute him because he's a black man. Who moved on up. To the east side. He finally got a.....oh wait, wrong Jefferson.
  • thewump, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Wow.. looks like Cheney has shot himself in the foot.. Makes a change from shooting his friends.
  • jordanserre, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Innacurate, but shouldn't David Shuster learn to talk before going on the air? I don't think he put together one cohesive sentence without an error in that entire broadcast.
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They're starting with Libby and they'll offer a plea bargain if he incriminates Cheney.
  • n3il89, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1for bloggers out there that like to embed is there a youtube link anyone?
  • SlowOnTheUptake, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1This would be a good time for Vice President Cheney to resign. Secretary of State Rice could replace him and John Negroponte would replace her.
  • ngandy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4if Cheney goes to jail...

    can his theme music be "Dick Cheney in a Box" please?

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=1dmVU08zVpA

  • goodcompany, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3BREAKING NEWS: I really hate when I read the words "breaking news" in a digg teaser, and then I go to CNN and in this case also MSNBC and there is no "breaking news" at all. Nice story and all, but it's just news you might say.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301572.html
    What about Armitage, the original leak?

    Libby lied to protect Rove, who confirmed the leaked info. Libby is being charged with lying to investigators, not leaking info.
    • KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Please don't confuse the liberals here with the facts. They have already been handed their talking points so there is no sense in trying.
  • kevinvsgodzilla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If this doesn't force the Dems in Congress to have his corrupt ass removed (sorry, Pelosi, it's gotta be done girl), then someone needs to give Cheney a blow job to get the ball rolling. It nearly cost Slick Willie his presidency. In this sorry republic called America, only a hummer will get you fired, not war profiteering through Halliburton or leaking the name of an infield CIA agent.
    • venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Cheney a blow job"

      Yeah, thanks for that image of a fat growling Cheney with his penis sticking out of his pants.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/23/cialeaktrial.ap/index.html
    Read this instead

    Please don't post crap from thinkprogress.org. It makes even Fox look unbiased, in comparison. I don't watch/read Fox and I won't watch/read thinkprogress.org
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Please don't post crap from thinkprogress.org. It makes even Fox look unbiased, in comparison. I don't watch/read Fox and I won't watch/read thinkprogress.org "

      QFT
  • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I'm still amazed how people just don't get it.
    Clinton committed serious crimes far worse than getting a hummer from a fat chick. They chose to impeach him on something small, something which would not also implicate others and possibly bring the whole house down in order to push him to do what his puppet masters wanted him to do. Among those things was the "securing the realm" (predecessor to the PNAC papers) whitepaper which called for Clinton to invade Iraq. His refusal to do so led to the impeachment and Bush 2 doing so instead. Yeah funny how 9-11 hadn't happened yet but anyone who thinks 911 is the reason for Iraq is living in fantasy land.

    This will go nowhere, the grand jury has already looked at the facts of the case and would have indicted Cheney, (and actually should have). Why they didn't is a question in need of a solution. All the democrats over on thinkP who think Cheney will be impeached over this are blowing smoke up their own collective asses.

    Just like Clinton this administration has commited crimes far worse than the Plame affair. This is a distraction in which hints of further action against Cheney and possibly Bush will be used to keep the people idling wastefully rather than taking real action.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Johnny Chung anyone?
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4""Clinton committed serious crimes far worse than getting a hummer from a fat chick.""
      -------------------------------

      FOXIFIED ZOMBIE NUTJOB IDIOT ALERT! the same brainwashed wackjob inbred redneck fools who still think Saddam had WMDs, attacked us on 911 and have picture of Bush on their nightstand are comin' out of the woodwork!! Defending gay pedophilia, mass murder, treason and unjust war, while praising the impeachment of Clinton?

      BLAMING CLINTON DOES NOT CLEAN UP THE IRAQ mess you have created, Bush Sheep.

      When are you morons going to wake up and realize how much of a fvcking mess YOU have created.

      You supported and defended Bush all along. We told you this was the path you were headed down. We told you this is where you'd end up. And what do you do?

      BLAME CLINTON!!!????!!!!????

      FVCKING INCREDIBLE!!!!

      And in case you've forgotten your talking points assmunch, here they are:

      CLINTON DID IT!
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I was all for convicting Clinton in the Senate. After all, the Senate "trial" does not have the same standards as an actual judicial branch proceeding. Clinton surely exceeded the standard of "misdemeanors" and the only thing that matters is if 67 senators agree.

      But Bush and Cheney have sold out the nation, dragged us into undeclared war that does not even meet the conditions (force in order to get inspectors back into Iraq) that Congress set for military action, and now has us on the brink of a fivefold larger war with Iran. Those are HIGH CRIMES for damn sure. After the Senate is done removing those turkeys from office, let's talk about a REAL trial for treason, or let's not even wait for that.
    • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Foxified nutjob:
      Maybe you should read the entire comment and work on your reading comprehension before you pop off. In no way am I defending Cheney or Bush for that matter. For the record I am a conservative who has always opposed Bush and his administration, never voted for the man etc. He is no conservative. At the same time, Clinton and his wife are no saints and though Clinton did not pursue a unitary executive, (dictatorship) agenda like Bush, he still committed acts of treason and worked with the same bankers and elite who tell Bush and Cheney what to do. When this Libby trial is over and nothing of real consequence happens to Cheney I would hope you and your kind would wake up. I won't hold my breath though.

      Given your horrible reading comp here's the main part of my post you need to read again:

      Just like Clinton this administration has committed crimes far worse than the Plame affair. This is a distraction in which hints of further action against Cheney and possibly Bush will be used to keep the people idling wastefully rather than taking real action.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@ ne0shell

      Did you just thaw out? Where the fvck have you been? The article isn't about Clinton.

      I think YOU are the one that needs a elementary reading comp class.

      Try to keep up, shortbus!

      Diggers, never forget who supported this failure, don't let them distance themselves from him. Whinning about Libs and Dems and Clinton and Kerry and gay sex, while offering nothing of substance - and most notably - no defense for the lying little sack of ***** from Texas they shackled us with!
      It is because of bush voter that the country is in the atrocious position it is in today.
  • warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1...and so the dominos continue to fall....
    • DerProfi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was waiting for the digg drama queen squad to start with the "And so..." posts. AWESOME!
    • warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lets see: Jon Bolton, Rummy, multiple members of the cabinet, and even Harriet Myers. Tell me how the dominoes are not falling???
  • sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Sometimes, right when I wake up in the morning, I feel really, really bad for whomever is currently running our government.

    These feelings quickly subside.
  • HydroWizard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This is the scum that is running our country!
  • Tantrum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm SHOCKED... no... wait .. i'm not.
  • krazz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I own a Scooter.....it's a 1987 Honda Elite 50cc

    Damn that Cheney to HELL!!!
    • aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Dugg for the semi-random comic ramblings of an insane man.
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Didn't Bush appoint his own special investigator in this case? Looks like somebody may be updating his resume shortly, you know, like the prosecutors that Bush has been running out recently for investigating Republicans.
  • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+55 DEFERMENTS, 3 DUIs, A SHOT LAWYER & HIGH TREASON?!

    Are these the "values" you nutbar, foxified, warmongering, status-seeker psychos speak of?
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sounds like a Kennedy to me.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Sounds like a Kennedy to me."

      You mean like Laura Bush killing her boyfriend or Bush having an abortion?
  • clyde2801, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It doesn't matter what Cheney did...it's protected by the Patriot Act.
    • nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It doesn't matter what Cheney did . . . we are soon to have two aircraft carriers and all their attendent bombers and auxillary craft in the Persian Gulf (which we haven't done since the start of the war with Iraq), they are preparing their civilians to be attacked, and the Iraq's are not killing 4-10 us soldiers almost every day, while wounding a dozen or two more and killing about 100 iraqi's a day.

      Do you REALLY think you can pull Cheney out of office? Do you really think these folks believe they are subject to your laws?

      They don't care how many innocent folks die.
      They don't care how many US soldiers are injured or die.
      They don't care how much it costs (the more the better actually)
      They don't care about the opinion of our allies

      Do you know why? Cause like Rumsfeld they will walk away millionaires and retire to some fine secluded spot to live in infinite wealth having destroyed the lives of millions.

      FORCE Congress to hold them accountable. This is our country and the president/vice president don't own us. We Own Them.
  • GrizzWolf, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Why are you fools screaming your heads off about this and yet you have been virtually silent about Sandy Berger stealing documents from the National Archives, getting caught red-handed, and getting a tiny slap on the wrist? Do some research, Valeria Plame was OUTED long before any of this crap came up... by HERSELF and her HUSBAND. Every-*****-body in TOWN knew what she was... That info is out there for you all to read and quote, but no, it's more fun for you to weasel around and only give one side of the story to try to impeach the "evil" Bush administration. And for the numbnut who thinks we have no business starting a war with Iran... shut the hell up. The world stood by and LET HITLER kill 6 MILLION JEWS before it got off it's dead ass and DID something... We have another Hitler right there in Iran, RIGHT NOW who is publicly PROMISING to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE FACE OF THE MAP. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF AND IT IS DOING JUST THAT RIGHT NOW... What do you stupid pukes WANT? A couple MILLION MORE DEAD PEOPLE IN ISRAEL and THEN we do something to stop IRAN???

    Look, it would be different if Iran was just minding their own business and we were threatening to bomb the ***** out of them for no reason... but that nutbag in charge of Iran has made it his publicly stated life's purpose to WIPE OUT ISRAEL and he KEEPS SAYING IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER... Folks, he's not just "goofin' around here," he isn't just "TEASING US." How many *****' times do you let someone tell you they are going to kill you WHILE THEY ARE LOADING THEIR GUN RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU before you REALIZE THEY MEAN TO ACTUALLY KILL YOU?????????? If I was standing in your living room looking like a total maniac and loading my .12 gauge shotgun while telling you over and over that I was going to KILL you as soon as my gun was loaded would YOU just sit there?? Or would you WANT SOMEONE TO STOP ME or at least TAKE AWAY MY WEAPON? Just to be sure???? Would you call 911 for help? Well, *****, AMERICA *IS* 911 for Israel in this case. They need our help and we will give it if necessary... and the PROOF that we ARE NOT the "warmongers" you all looove to accuse of of being STARES YOU IN THE FACE RIGHT NOW... we HAVEN'T BOMBED IRAN... believe me, if we WERE the homicidal maniacs you all try to make us out to be, WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY BOMBED IRAN'S NUKE PLANTS... cuzz, get this, HE'S BEEN THREATENING KILL EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD IN ISRAEL FOR A LOOOONG TIME NOW. But we have adopted a position of waiting... trying to be patient and see if he falters, or comes to his senses or see if his own countrymen will wake up and KICK his sorry ass out of power... so, NO, we're NOT the douche-bags you all LOOOVE think we are. The FACTS are there if you have the SENSE TO SEE THEM.

    You may not like Bush. You may not like America. You may not like Americans. However, WE AMERICANS simply cannot sit idly by and let this man carry out his PUBLIC PROMISES. Think what you want, Sorry. We're not in this to GAIN anything for ourselves, contrary to your radical, nutball beliefs... we're in it to SAVE lives. And here's the REAL RUB HERE... IF some OTHER country was threatening to wipe out IRAN and was building the nuclear weapons to DO IT WITH... we'd do the SAME THING FOR IRAN... We'd STOP whomever was going to nuke Iran. What? You can't DIGEST that TRUTH????? America, whether you hate it or not, in the end, REALLY DOES STAND FOR SOMETHING. We really WOULD even come to the aid of those we consider enemies if they needed it.

    And to you "city folk" crybabies who keep crapping your diapers about Cheney accidentally peppering a hunting partner while bird hunting: The attorney and gentleman who GOT SHOT said HIMSELF it was no big deal. Because HE knows something you ARROGANT, OUT-OF-TOUCH A-holes DON'T know... and that is this: HUNTING is an inherently DANGEROUS SPORT. Each and every time you GO hunting you willingly ACCEPT the possibility that you could fall victim to one of hunting's MANY possible hazards or mishaps. Jesus Christ, when you go hunting you are WILLINGLY going out to an area where OTHER PEOPLE WITH GUNS WILL BE SHOOTING THOSE GUNS!!!
    Now here is another reality you JERKS have no clue of: when you go BIRD HUNTING with a group of other hunters you all walk in a PARALLEL LINE TO EACH OTHER... you walk SIDE BY SIDE and NEVER STEP OUT IN FRONT OF THAT LINE. This is because when a bird flushes and flies up in front of that group any hunter in the line can bring his gun up and shoot straight ahead or a bit to left or right without SHOOTING ANYONE ELSE because NO ONE ELSE should have stepped out ahead of the group. THAT'S bird hunting protocol, been that way for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. If you are group hunting for birds and step out front where you KNOW YOU SHOULDN'T BE, you can get SHOT. The gentleman who got peppered by Cheney KNOWS why he got peppered and HE is OK with it... it was undoubtedly an accident caused by the fact that either he wasn't paying attention and stepped out front or Cheney whipped his gun a little too far to one side or the other. But here's the FACT all you JERKS need to DIGEST: It was an ACCIDENT... get that???? A... C... C.... I... D.... E... N... T...so GET OVER IT YA PUKES. Accidents happen. Especially when a group of elderly guys take to the fields with GUNS. Cheney didn't do it on purpose... like it or not. And NO, I don't LIKE the fact that it happened, but I UNDERSTAND it... Personally, I don't LIKE CHENEY... but I won't CRUCIFY a fellow over and over, ad nauseum, over an accident, JUST FOR POLITICAL GAIN. If you can't get what you want and get where you want to be using THE FACTS, DEALING IN REALITY... then you are a sorry, pathetic *****. Move to France.
    • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Uhh yeah, iF I read only the stUff it Caps is there a secret message. Kthnx
  • ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Apparently opposing Bush / Cheney requires one to worship the Clintons based on posts such as those by "foxifiednutjob". If you were to say Bush / Cheney are the worst pair to occupy the office in our history I would be hard pressed to disagree. -but-
    The democratic party is not going to save you. They are avoiding taking any real action to stop the executive branch, all I see are word fights and empty threats.
    Please show me where they've done one concrete thing to say:
    -repeal the patriot act
    -cut off funding for the Iraq war
    -cut off funding for any military action against Iran.
    They CAN do it you know, that's how Vietnam ended.


    I'm a conservative who believes the Constitution and Bill of Rights reign supreme. No political party has the right to ***** with them, none. I am NOT a republican and in no way does any political party represent me or my views. In 2006 people of all political persuasions voted democrats into control of the legislature in the hopes the executive branch would be brought back into balance, impeached, etc. Beyond a general strike and taking to the streets in peaceful protest there's nothing else we can do. Do not make the mistake of thinking the democrats are going to serve the public's wishes any more than the Republicans have. They are bought and paid for by the same exact people who own Bush / Cheney. The agenda of destroying America and looting it's wealth will continue.

    Let's look at what the democrats "have" accomplished so far.

    -Added a strongly worded request that Bush not spend the money approved for Iraq on further spending in Iraq. (Which Bush can ignore and has)
    -Attempted to add legislation which would require any website with more than 500 page views per month that expresses any political content at all to register as a lobbying firm and report to Congress. (barely got taken out of the bill once word got out) Why would the democrats be trying to stifle free speech and political dissent much as the republicans have? Hmmm.
    -Made quite a few empty threats to "show Bush the way" while making it very clear before even taking office that "impeachment is off the table".

    The best thing for this country would be to start oversight hearings with subpoena power and begin indicting / impeaching this entire administration including the cabinet and every "special group" they've set up in the CIA, NSA etc. It's just not going to happen. Non important people may resign, hell Cheney may even resign - it won't change a damn thing. Until we are willing to admit that the political parties; both of them, are completely controlled and no longer represent the people, clean house in Washington and keep cleaning it every two years we will continue to slide into a police state, a North American union and eventually, global govt with the bankers running the show.

    This is your new age, I hope you enjoy it.
    • stevebee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sure, "that's how the Viet Nam was ended." And then millions of people in Southeast Asia were slaughtered but the Communists. Yes. In Viet Nam, Laos, and especially Cambodia.
      When the US got out of the way, there was nobody to protect them.

      Even now, decades later Viet Nam is a dirt poor country. Why? Because communist countries are ALWAYS dirt poor! So when you people exult about ending the Viet Nam war, let's recall that by ending it we condemned millions to death. And millions to short lives of grinding poverty.
  • dp1mat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Treasonous, I vote give him a rifle and drop him off in anarbar Iraq (not sure if thats spelled right) and put a note on his back that says hes a Halliburton share holder. And see how long he makes it there.

    Sorry if I offended anyone.
    • stevebee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What the hell is the gripe you people have with Halliburton. Do you realize that Clinton employed Halliburton for years?

      Do you realize that there are no other American companies that are prepared to do the things that they do?
  • ebola, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is there anything treasonous these bastards haven't done? Since 1920? Right from the days of Prescott Bush and his Nazi connections, GHWB's antics during the Nixon era, and now with these jokers running the country.
  • pilgrim3970, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"The reason the Bush Administration does not fear indictment is because they believe they are _above_ the law"

    Well why shouldn't they believe it? After all, the previous president *LIED UNDER OATH* - something that would get average citizens jail time - and walked away without even so much as a slap on the wrist.

    The fact as both parties pull a smoke and mirrors game that keeps the American people polarized into bickering factions while they quietly push their own agendas

    The Republicans royally screwed up and the Dems took advantage of it and are now back in power (and will likely be back in the white house - just hoping it isn't Clinton) but in the end it is the American people who will get left out in the cold.
  • stevebee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1
    The whole thing is silly. Remember, if the CIA agent is not covert, there can be no crime in outing her. That's one of the elements of that law. And whenever Fitzgerald is asked if Plame was covert, he changes the subject. So she was NOT a covert agent.

    That means the entire investigation should have been as follows:
    "Hello CIA? This is Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. Was Valerie Plame a covert agent? No? Thank you very much."
    And that's it. No crime, no investigation. But instead, he kept going until he could find someone who could be led into a perjury trap. But it's bull.
    • lightinggod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If she wasn't covert, why did the CIA ask for an investigation of how her identity was leaked? She was a covert agent who worked under a non diplomatic passport for a brass plate company called Brewster-Jennings
  • rocksf18jazz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its about keeping your ***** together in front of FBI and Grand Jury, lie or forget, and your brought up on charges. Then it is playing hide the wiener.

    The question why would a covert agent assign/suggest her husband to expose' on topics he knows little or has done no research on? Oh yeah government. Knowing full well, his report has to be made public. Wow where is her thought process on that...oh yeah why marry anyone in politics if your a covert, isn't sort of like what was going on in Watergate?

    Can CIA even investigate why it has more than one opinion or more than more one theory with supporting fact on either side of the fence?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.