More breathless speculation on Fitzgerald's day at the office
AP:
Also, on the public record available there does not appear to be a case for obstruction of justice or perjury. In fact the two people most mentioned Rove and Libby, have cooperated with the prosecuter and grand jury and they haved voluntarily waived confidentiality agreements with reporters. To the extent that documents may have contradicted prior testimony, they have taken the opportunity to clarify their remarkds and amend previous statements.
It should be noted that the reporters who testified would not have been known to the prosecuter without the cooperation of the administration and the testimony of Rove and Libby. That is hardly a record on which to build an obstruction of justice case. A prosecuter cannot make a case for perjury based on faulty recollections that are subsequently corrected.
Much of the excitement surrounding this case comes from the angry left's failure to comprehend the meaning of the word "lie." To the angry left a lie is anything said by someone that they disagree with. When put to the test they can never articulate, for example, how George Bush or Bill Clinton knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. The fact that we are still not able to account for Saddam's WMD is not proof that he never had it much less that the two presidents knew he did not have it. In fact, it was Saddam's failure to account for the WMD as required by his cease fire agreement and several UN resolutions that suggested strongly that he did have it. If he destroyed it without accounting for it he left beople who already did not trust him in the position of having to take his word for their destruction, something that most rational leaders would not be willing to do.
Even the angry left was not willing to take Saddam's word on the destruction of his WMD. They wanted have have weapons inspecters account for the WMD, something that Saddam made impossible by either destroying it without accounting for it or hiding it. This "solution" even if it had resulted in some accounting they deemed acceptable, would have left Saddam in place to continue his genocide against the Kurds and Shia, as well as reconstitute his weapons programs, which the US has proved he intended to do.
The dishonesty of the argument by the angry left, may have something to do with their failure to persuade voters.
AP:
The prosecutor in the CIA leak probe had a confidential lunchtime meeting with a federal judge Wednesday after a grand jury listened to three hours of testimony in the case that has ensnared top White House aides.Unless there is some evidence that has not been made public, it is unlikely that the grand jury will indict anyone for blowing Valerie Plame Wilson's "cover" with the CIA. For a myriad of reasons, there was just no violation of the law in revealing her role in sending her husband to drink sweet tea in Niger. The World War I statute occassionally mentioned is even more of a stretch.The grand jury's term expires on Friday, and the panel adjourned for the day without announcing any charges or other action. The administrative assistant to Thomas Hogan, the chief judge of U.S. District Court in the nation's capital, confirmed Hogan's meeting with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. The assistant, Sheldon Snook, declined to comment on what was discussed.
No witnesses were seen going into the grand jury area, only Fitzgerald and his deputies.
Also, on the public record available there does not appear to be a case for obstruction of justice or perjury. In fact the two people most mentioned Rove and Libby, have cooperated with the prosecuter and grand jury and they haved voluntarily waived confidentiality agreements with reporters. To the extent that documents may have contradicted prior testimony, they have taken the opportunity to clarify their remarkds and amend previous statements.
It should be noted that the reporters who testified would not have been known to the prosecuter without the cooperation of the administration and the testimony of Rove and Libby. That is hardly a record on which to build an obstruction of justice case. A prosecuter cannot make a case for perjury based on faulty recollections that are subsequently corrected.
Much of the excitement surrounding this case comes from the angry left's failure to comprehend the meaning of the word "lie." To the angry left a lie is anything said by someone that they disagree with. When put to the test they can never articulate, for example, how George Bush or Bill Clinton knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. The fact that we are still not able to account for Saddam's WMD is not proof that he never had it much less that the two presidents knew he did not have it. In fact, it was Saddam's failure to account for the WMD as required by his cease fire agreement and several UN resolutions that suggested strongly that he did have it. If he destroyed it without accounting for it he left beople who already did not trust him in the position of having to take his word for their destruction, something that most rational leaders would not be willing to do.
Even the angry left was not willing to take Saddam's word on the destruction of his WMD. They wanted have have weapons inspecters account for the WMD, something that Saddam made impossible by either destroying it without accounting for it or hiding it. This "solution" even if it had resulted in some accounting they deemed acceptable, would have left Saddam in place to continue his genocide against the Kurds and Shia, as well as reconstitute his weapons programs, which the US has proved he intended to do.
The dishonesty of the argument by the angry left, may have something to do with their failure to persuade voters.
Comments
Post a Comment