The idea that Armitage was somehow an outsider, or even a "liberal", is pure tripe. Armitage was a PNAC signatory. In the months before the Iraq invasion he was frequently at Crawford, "planning" (or whatever the hell they used as a substitute for planning) the Iraq war with Bush and his inner circle. Armitage is a renowned hawk. The only fissure line between him and the White House is that he is unhappy (now) about the treatment of his old boss Colin Powell. The real reason why Armitage is now painted as an outsider is simple - he was identified as the first Plame leaker so the Administration's PR machine started to distance itself from him.

Alex,

Debate what? All you want to do is spin the subject away from Iraq or what Arkin Posts. When are you going to stay on subject? But, then that's understandable, who would want to defend Bush and the Iraq War, that explains why you are running away from the topics. Deep down you agree with most of us, but are too much of an ideologue to admit it. Be a man and admit Bush messed up or be judged just as big a fool as he is.

DC

"DC:"you dumbass"

I hope you have other debates where you keep it at a higher level. I dont think I'll stoop to yr level, but a bit of advice, if your looking to change minds and going forward, you'll need to change yr vocabulary.

Posted by: Alex"

DC:"you dumbass"

I hope you have other debates where you keep it at a higher level. I dont think I'll stoop to yr level, but a bit of advice, if your looking to change minds and going forward, you'll need to change yr vocabulary.

Alex,

Here's a stat for your simple mind. We've had tens of thousands of attacks on US troops and citizens in Iraq that should not have happened, because we went into Iraq with your method of thought. Alex you are a flawed person obsessed with an ideology that does not have a reasonable ability to assess cause and effect with military intervention were it is not justified. You are so concentrated on the past that you can not see the future. It is people like you that kept the incompetent executive branch in power for four more years and for that you are un-American. Your ability to assess where the United States is in the World is that of a child, go buy a G.I. Joe to play with and stop boring the rest of us with your idiotic rhetoric. Harry Turtledove is right wing conservative, you dumbass, your attacking one of your own.

DC

"DC writes:"We are saying to only use preemptive when there is 100% chance of imminent attack from another country"
---so how does this work ?, what if its 89%, what exactly is 100%, Does 69% mean we get ready ? So do all the generals gather around and give guesses ? is a cklist used i.e 200 threats = + 5% in threat level. Sounds idiotic at best. What if one thinks its 50% and another 100%, is that averaged ? of course the answer is its.. "whatever you think". Now before you get confused, the point is your "100%" is subjective, no doubt objective to you. Its like saying lets do "good" things, but without definng whats "good"
As for turtledove, you clearly use alternative history but like to call yr's "reality" and evryone else's turtledove. What makes yr's correct ? The point isnt even Iraq, its yr pattern of thinking thats a bit off.
Posted by: alex"

DC writes:"We are saying to only use preemptive when there is 100% chance of imminent attack from another country"

---so how does this work ?, what if its 89%, what exactly is 100%, Does 69% mean we get ready ? So do all the generals gather around and give guesses ? is a cklist used i.e 200 threats = + 5% in threat level. Sounds idiotic at best. What if one thinks its 50% and another 100%, is that averaged ? of course the answer is its.. "whatever you think". Now before you get confused, the point is your "100%" is subjective, no doubt objective to you. Its like saying lets do "good" things, but without definng whats "good"

As for turtledove, you clearly use alternative history but like to call yr's "reality" and evryone else's turtledove. What makes yr's correct ? The point isnt even Iraq, its yr pattern of thinking thats a bit off.

Alex,

"DC writes:"That the alternative history of leaving Iraq alone with over 3100 American still alive, 100,000 to 700,000 Iraqi civilians still alive, $500,000,000,000 more in the budget and not loans from China, a regional military power to buffer Iran from extending its influence, no 48,000 Americans casualties from combat, accidents and disease, concentrated effort to catch OBL and secure.."

As for preemptive strike, neither I nor Dimitry are saying to never use it. We are saying to only use preemptive when there is 100% chance of imminent attack from another country and unlike Bush and the neocons, you attack the country that is going to attack you. Not another country for oil. Alex, you can not deny that preemptive strike was intentionally misused by Bush, Inc.. to get into Iraq was ulterior motives.

"--I'm totally lost on yr logic, on the one hand alternative history is turtledove, yet you quote alternative history in yr diatribe above yet you dont call yourself a turtledove. What you say above never happened so it is the same type of "what if" that everyone else uses. At best yr a bit confusing."

Unfortunately the opposite happened, that was the point. You are denser than D.U., do Dimitry and I need to start drawing pictures for you?

DC

DC writes:"That the alternative history of leaving Iraq alone with over 3100 American still alive, 100,000 to 700,000 Iraqi civilians still alive, $500,000,000,000 more in the budget and not loans from China, a regional military power to buffer Iran from extending its influence, no 48,000 Americans casualties from combat, accidents and disease, concentrated effort to catch OBL and secure.."

--I'm totally lost on yr logic, on the one hand alternative history is turtledove, yet you quote alternative history in yr diatribe above yet you dont call yourself a turtledove. What you say above never happened so it is the same type of "what if" that everyone else uses. At best yr a bit confusing.

Dimitry writes:Do you have an answer to my original question? What separates pre-emption from pre-vention from plain old war of aggression? Why is it usually considered NOT good to attack and destroy a county who may or may not become an adversary in the future? Why is it usually considered OK to attack a country who is actively preparing to attack you?
The key here, unlike your hypothetical hindsight argument is to place your decision making in the timeline of the problem. There are very good reason not to attack pre-ventively, with an actual threat not imminent.

-Its never good to attack without a good reason. But the point of debate is the "reason". Yr statement that "an actual threat is not imminent" is a "subjective" statement, not an objective one. If the reasons are correct, there is no problem with preemptive attacks. When you say "Why is it usually considered NOT good to attack and destroy a county who may or may not become an adversary in the future?" I dont know what you mean, I dont care what the country will be in the future if they threaten my existence now, and yes it is good to attack and destroy a country who will do the same to you. Why does it matter if a country is an adversery to you in the future if he is an adversery to you now ? You also have to clarify what an adversary is, we dont attack all adversaries all the time, but if the threat is imminent and real , then we have every right to. And if yr alluding to Iraq, I think the majority over there is quite satisfied to be out from under Sadam, or are you making the Sadam was better argument ?

Alex,

No aversion at all, I've read two Harry Turtledove novels, if I want to read more alternative history, I'll buy another one of his works and not read the amateurish versions you write. When you're good enough at writing alternative history to get on the New York Times Best Sellers List, I'll buy your book; I promise and I hope you'll sign it for me. But then, wow, now that's a far fetched alternative history, LOL.

DC writes:Sounds like you're saying that invading Iraq was the best thing to do?

yes, but thats a separate argument. I was really pointing out how yr aversion to what you call "alternative history" didnt make sense as we all do the "what if ?"

Posted by: Alex

DC writes:Sounds like you're saying that invading Iraq was the best thing to do?

yes, but thats a separate argument. I was really pointing out how yr aversion to what you call "alternative history" didnt make sense as we all do the "what if ?"

Alex,

Sounds like you're saying that invading Iraq was the best thing to do? That the alternative history of leaving Iraq alone with over 3100 American still alive, 100,000 to 700,000 Iraqi civilians still alive, $500,000,000,000 more in the budget and not loans from China, a regional military power to buffer Iran from extending its influence, no 48,000 Americans casualties from combat, accidents and disease, concentrated effort to catch OBL and secure Afghanistan, the United States looked up to by other nations, no terrorist breeding ground in Iraq,......., and your daddy GWB with a secured place in history for his legacy. Alex, as I stated before, just keep on posting comments for neocons, repugs, and conservatives since you're so good at shooting yourself in the foot. After reading your comments most of them will choose the alternative of becoming liberals.

DC

""DC writes:"I can only say you're a joke."

well at the very least a joke that knows his history , but seriously, when you debate Iraq with others , dont you ever come across the phrase "well, if Bush hadnt gone into Iraq then...."... that my friend is what you call "alternative history"
Posted by: Alex"

DC writes:"I can only say you're a joke."

well at the very least a joke that knows his history , but seriously, when you debate Iraq with others , dont you ever come across the phrase "well, if Bush hadnt gone into Iraq then...."... that my friend is what you call "alternative history"

Alex,

Your continued diversion into alternative history is not going to work. I will compliment you as being the King of fiction based on your statements pertaining to WMD and 911 connections to the Iraq invasion. You should get an Oscar for that acting job. But I will not ignore the debate over the Iraq fiasco to pursue alternative history and I ask you if you want to continue alternative history go buy a Harry Turtledove novel. I for one, unlike your self, am going to stay in the realm of reality with the subject of Iraq. As for your resolve to continue supporting the Bush administrations use of preemptive strike in Iraq, I can only say you're a joke. And please keep commenting for the neo-cons, your ridiculous statements speak for themselves, but not as you intend.

DC

"German states in 1871 and till after it's defeat in WWII and it definitely was superior to France in 1936....lease don't embarrass yourself by trying to discuss the history of military warfare with me; no pun intended, but you're far outgunned.
no DC, in 1936 (and this is common knowledge among military historians) France could field over 100 divisions. It was at this point that the French if they could have mustered the will ,would have rolled right through Germany. But Psychologically, the french couldn't pull the trigger(a big what if that many military historians still ponder today). Looking back at 1936 when Germany occupied the Rhineland, many historians questioned why Hitler would make such a provocative gamble when his forces were so weak. But Hitlers gamble was that France would do nothing until latter 1939, three full years latter.But this was too late, in 3 years Hitler was now an unstoppable juggernaut. Regarding the Maginot line and the blitzkrieg, I dont know what you mean quoting these two, one was a defensive line by France that fell in 1940, this had no bearing on there ability to attack in 1936. The Blitzkrieg was a tactic that debuted in Poland in 1939, as with all tactics, once you figure it out , it becomes useless. So Germany "Bltzkrieg'ed", your point ? Gotta check your history. One thing that I do find disturbing is that most leftists have only a cursory knowledge of history.
On mexico, no premption, they never threatened us. On cuba, maybe if we did something half a century ago, many cubans would still be alive, but then again you sound like yr a friend to killers like castro(yes he ran firing squads 24/7). Castro now presides over a basket case of a country (compare that to US occupied countries, Germany, Japan, South Korea, all economic dynamos). China ?what do you know about china ? how many did mao kill ?10-15 million ? But what if we supported Chiang kai shek (who developed Taiwan into its economic miracle today)more forcefully back then and defeated mao ? How many would we have saved? too easy picking your points apart
Posted by: Alex |"

==well, how do you decide what is defensive or not ? Is yr solution to see who attacks first ? is the rule that simple ? What is yr point ? that because people can say anything , preemption doesn't work ? I'm sure if you go through the last 200 years of warfare, you'll see many examples of where preemption could have prevented bigger wars. The point is not to say "dont do preempt ever" but to pick and choose.
Yes you can pick and choose wrong but forgoing the doctrine doesn't make the world a more peaceful place.==

Do you have an answer to my original question? What separates pre-emption from pre-vention from plain old war of aggression? Why is it usually considered NOT good to attack and destroy a county who may or may not become an adversary in the future? Why is it usually considered OK to attack a country who is actively preparing to attack you?

The key here, unlike your hypothetical hindsight argument is to place your decision making in the timeline of the problem. There are very good reason not to attack pre-ventively, with an actual threat not imminent.

What a selective memory Mr. Arkin has. Mr. Armitage is/was a member of PNAC thus he is an active member of Cheney's cabal. Also, let's not forget Wilson worked as Bush41's ambassador to Iraq during the 1st Gulf War.

It looks like the only service at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that Former Senator Vigra Bob Dole and La!Ls!Land! Donna Shalala should investigate,for President Commander in Chief George W Bush is the Hospital Morgue as the two of them look like they are ready for it and its the proper place to send thier phony Study Commission On Problems At Walter Army Medical Center Report will end up just like did Bushs Iraq Study Group and its where the Bush Cheney Presidency belongs as well! Impeach Bush Cheney Here Now! And Washington Post Dont You Dare Let Ths Story Die On Us Just Get You Arses Out To All The Other Army Navy Hospitals and VA Ones And Report Back To Us On what You Find!

Who believes that Bush ever intended to accomplish anything while in office? His boredom with the whole affair has been clear from day one. His job is to empty the coffers of the treasury into wealthy corporate pockets. He can do that no matter how low his ratings are. 3 billion missing from defense in 2001, 911, Osama Bin Forgotten, Iraq, Katrina, Massive deficit, Stock market drop, Dollar Drop, lack of manufacturing industry, health care crises, Veterans Administration Scandal Mission accomplished.

By jmc27106

much like the 1000 year reich,the pnac crew are getting their comeuppance much sooner than they foresaw.i'd like to see bush,cheney,wolfowitz,etc prosecuted for war crimes,because they are war criminals.

Apologist's

It was listening to Kate O'Beirn on the Chris Matthews show attempting to exonnerate him last night.

Hmm!

An even-handed analysis. Since the only time I've read your stuff before was the mercenery" rubbish, I admit myself pleasantly surprised. Good column.

German states in 1871 and till after it's defeat in WWII and it definitely was superior to France in 1936....lease don't embarrass yourself by trying to discuss the history of military warfare with me; no pun intended, but you're far outgunned.

no DC, in 1936 (and this is common knowledge among military historians) France could field over 100 divisions. It was at this point that the French if they could have mustered the will ,would have rolled right through Germany. But Psychologically, the french couldn't pull the trigger(a big what if that many military historians still ponder today). Looking back at 1936 when Germany occupied the Rhineland, many historians questioned why Hitler would make such a provocative gamble when his forces were so weak. But Hitlers gamble was that France would do nothing until latter 1939, three full years latter.But this was too late, in 3 years Hitler was now an unstoppable juggernaut. Regarding the Maginot line and the blitzkrieg, I dont know what you mean quoting these two, one was a defensive line by France that fell in 1940, this had no bearing on there ability to attack in 1936. The Blitzkrieg was a tactic that debuted in Poland in 1939, as with all tactics, once you figure it out , it becomes useless. So Germany "Bltzkrieg'ed", your point ? Gotta check your history. One thing that I do find disturbing is that most leftists have only a cursory knowledge of history.

On mexico, no premption, they never threatened us. On cuba, maybe if we did something half a century ago, many cubans would still be alive, but then again you sound like yr a friend to killers like castro(yes he ran firing squads 24/7). Castro now presides over a basket case of a country (compare that to US occupied countries, Germany, Japan, South Korea, all economic dynamos). China ?what do you know about china ? how many did mao kill ?10-15 million ? But what if we supported Chiang kai shek (who developed Taiwan into its economic miracle today)more forcefully back then and defeated mao ? How many would we have saved? too easy picking your points apart

I for one can't wait until 2008, when democrates controll not only the House and Senate, but also the White House. Won't television news be wonderful, all of s sudden there will be no more problems in the world. There will be no hunger, no homelessness, NO GLOBAL WARMING, NO WARS,
NO CORRUPTION at the highest government levels and finally for once in 8 years there will be a presidential election that wont be stolen.
I dream of those days to come. Democrates are so honest, caring, loving, respectful, such people of integrity. Democrates NEVER lie. They only have the best interest of the country in mind. You know I bet they could even walk on water.

Alex,

"you'd be dead by then, nice fantasy. Yr a bit confused on the idea of preemption."

I reiterate and stand by my statement. If a country is not 100% certain of eminent attack and still uses preemptive strike on rumor and innuendo instead of hard intelligence, then that country has created an enemy of the country it falsely attacked. It has in fact not used preemptive attack to destroy an enemy as intended; it has used preemptive strike to create an enemy. But far worse the country falsely using preemptive strike has by the definition of a terrorist country become a terrorist country. As for the "you'd be dead by then, nice fantasy" statement, unfortunately for over 3,100 of our troops that is not a fantasy, because if the Bush Administration had not falsely and wrongly used preemptive strike on Iraq, those troops would still be alive and their children would still have a parent and we would not be breeding hordes of new enemy terrorists in Iraq to attack us in the future.

"If France had attacked Germany in 1936 when it was militarily superior, then ww2 would have been a non starter."

France has not been superior to Germany since Otto Von Bismarck united the German states in 1871 and till after it's defeat in WWII and it definitely was superior to France in 1936. LOL, the French was hunkered down in the Maginot line, they didn't know what was going on. Or do I have to explain to you what the Maginot Line was? The Germans were already committed to modern blitzkrieg warfare as stated in the military Journal "Deutsche Wehr" in 1935; this type of warfare is still in use today. The French went with the Maginot Line in 1930 and by doing so went back twelve years in military strategy to WWI. Alex, Please don't embarrass yourself by trying to discuss the history of military warfare with me; no pun intended, but you're far outgunned.

"Of course you preempt when you have superior forces , what kind of strategy would you support ?,"

So you're planning to strike Mexico just because we have superior forces? On the other hand you would seriously love that, wouldn't you?

"what till the other guy is armed to the teeth and at yr doorstep ?Read a bit more history. There are plenty of"real" examples of preemption, not the made up ones you refer to."

You might have a point there! Let's attack China in the morning! Or what about Cuba, they're already armed to the teeth?

Or better yet, why don't I preemptive attack you by stating "Alex you think and act like a child."

DC

Dimitry writes:"So what is the difference between this scenario and a plain, old war of aggression, which by the way is an international war crime?
One can always claim that the "other guy was planning something", or use a false flag provocation. Germany/Poland ringin-a-bell?

-well, how do you decide what is defensive or not ? Is yr solution to see who attacks first ? is the rule that simple ? What is yr point ? that because people can say anything , preemption doesn't work ? I'm sure if you go through the last 200 years of warfare, you'll see many examples of where preemption could have prevented bigger wars. The point is not to say "dont do preempt ever" but to pick and choose.
Yes you can pick and choose wrong but forgoing the doctrine doesn't make the world a more peaceful place.

==The reason Armitage, Libby or anyone else was not found guilty of revealing Plame's identity is because she was not a covert or "undercover" CIA agent and revealing her identity was not a crime.==

100% false statement. She was covert, which is why CIA asked DOJ for an investigation in the first place. If she wasn't covert, there would be no reason for any investigation in the first place. The reason Fitz did not charge is that the law is specific for intent to harm the US, and is very, very hard to apply. We don't have an official secrets act, like the UK.

Fake "controversy" over Plame's status is yet another smear campaign by the governement you brought to power. Her covert status and what she was working on merits a separate look. She headed up a fake "environemental" consulting company, in "business" for many years. Their job was WMD proliferation and black market, with emphasis on Iran. So by outing her, Cheney's crew has nearly blinded the US intelligence on the Iranian WMD threat. Why would they want to do that, just as Iran was becoming a focus of US diplomatic and military attention?

==Of course you preempt when you have superior forces , what kind of strategy would you support ?,==

So what is the difference between this scenario and a plain, old war of aggression, which by the way is an international war crime?

One can always claim that the "other guy was planning something", or use a false flag provocation. Germany/Poland ringin-a-bell?

DC writes:Preemptive strike should only be used when there is a 100% chance

you'd be dead by then, nice fantasy. Yr a bit confused on the idea of preemption. If France had attacked Germany in 1936 when it was militarily superior, then ww2 would have been a non starter. Of course you preempt when you have superior forces , what kind of strategy would you support ?, what till the other guy is armed to the teeth and at yr doorstep ?Read a bit more history. There are plenty of"real" examples of preemption, not the made up ones you refer to.

Mwarren,

At the time of leak Plame was a covert or "undercover" CIA agent and only after her cover was intentionally blown by the Bush Administration did the Bush Administration change her status. Thus at the time of the leaks a felony's occurred with justification to indict Rove, Libby, and Armitage among others.

"Lying to a Federal grand jury or a Federal Agent is a violation of Title 18 USC 1001, regardless if it is about consensual sex or the leaking of a covert CIA agent's real name. The reason Armitage, Libby or anyone else was not found guilty of revealing Plame's identity is because she was not a covert or "undercover" CIA agent and revealing her identity was not a crime."

There was ample evidence to dispel the "theories of WMD" in Iraq, especially nuclear. Rumor and innuendo does not justify war and all the deaths of Americans and Iraqis that have occurred. Pre-emptive strike is not a new policy; the two greatest practitioners of preemptive strike were Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. When the leaders of a country feel they have the military power to under take a ruthless policy of preemptive strike, then such leaders are generally power hungry by nature and not leaders. Preemptive strike should only be used when there is a 100% chance we are going to be attacked, because if this country is wrong when utilizing preemptive strike and we strike a country that posed no threat; then in the end preemptive strike has not deterred an enemy, it has created an enemy.

"As far as President Bush's supposed "lies", what the author fails to realize is that Saddam Hussein wanted America and the rest of the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. The UN believed Saddam's ruse and passed seventeen resolutions. America and its allies also believed the ruse and acted accordingly.
Posted by: mwarren "

Pat,

I would love to see this go to trial again and I hope scooter gets his retrial. And you know why I say this, because this time around Karl "Porky Pig" Rove and Dick "Elmer Fudd" Cheney will be pulled right back in where they don't want to be. You are right about a pardon, a pardon based on a deal, a deal to not try and overturn Libby's felony conviction and to keep Libby's mouth shut, because going to trial again might even pull the George "The Sock Puppet" Bush into a felony conviction. Karl "Porky Pig" Rove already has the deal worked out; look for a pardon in the last month of Bush's term. Yes, justice will prevail with another trail, just not the way your fascist fantasy plays out. Justice with a conviction on the three stooges; Rove, Cheney, and Bush

DC

"....let's put the facts on trial and I'm sure justice will prevail...."

Posted by Pat Riot

Lying to a Federal grand jury or a Federal Agent is a violation of Title 18 USC 1001, regardless if it is about consensual sex or the leaking of a covert CIA agent's real name. The reason Armitage, Libby or anyone else was not found guilty of revealing Plame's identity is because she was not a covert or "undercover" CIA agent and revealing her identity was not a crime.

As far as President Bush's supposed "lies", what the author fails to realize is that Saddam Hussein wanted America and the rest of the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. The UN believed Saddam's ruse and passed seventeen resolutions. America and its allies also believed the ruse and acted accordingly.

.....and that's why repugs were thrown out of office in '06.

DC

The truth is many believe what they believe and its based on well founded reasons that make sense to themselves. In a democracy, its one vote no matter who you are.

Posted by: Alex

maddog writes:"But the conservatives will not see power again for at least 50 years."

doubtful, this country is drifting to the right. Dems will get there time here and there, no doubt they will mess up also. Its the nature of politicians.The constant mantra by those left of center is that everyone else is clueless/uneducated/stupid etc. The truth is many believe what they believe and its based on well founded reasons that make sense to themselves. In a democracy, its one vote no matter who you are.

Now that he has been convicted
Time for congressional hearings
With a subpoena for Libby with a promise of use immunity so as I recall he cant invoke his 5th amendment rights or risk contempt of congress
Thank you Fitzgerald
Thank god the congress stayed out the way and let him do his job
Now their job begins

We all know that to the conservative crowd, sex between consenting adults is MUCH worse than spreading rumours and smearing a career CIA agent; an agent who's husband, by the way, was entirely correct in his analysis. And lying about it? Well, who can compare the two? Please. Just more crap from the "troop support" crowd who throw our kids into a meat grinder and when they come home, but them in the equivalent of a dog kennel. But don't EVER lie about consensual sex...it will bring down our country.

Idiots.

Libby may do some prison time at a "country-club" type facility. Most of us would call that a vacation. Or he may appeal and appeal and appeal...until he's acquitted charge-by-charge. Or Libby may be pardoned.

One thing is certain: when all is said and done, Libby will be handed millions and millions of dollars, just as Oliver North was, for taking a hit for the team. Libby may even get his own talk-radio show. May end up working for a K Street lobbying firm. But whatever and however, he will be amply rewarded financially. That's how things really work in Washington.

And let's not forget the media who was complicit in the entire Iraq/Afghanistan debacle. No hard questions were ever asked.

The only real losers are the American people who remain completely clueless and refuse to demand some real accountability with the impeachment of Bush/Cheney. But this is it for the neo-cons. It will take many, many years to undo the damage done by this administration. But the conservatives will not see power again for at least 50 years.

==The enemies within are the most insidious because you think they're on your side, but they are undermining us.==

I will undermine you any day, and so will 2/3 of the American population, who no longer trust this lying government and its shills. What has undermined America for a long time is fake patriots like yourself, propagandized into hatred and ignorance.

Wilson has not been a career Democrat. While an African specialist, he made his bones as the temporary Ambassador to Iraq during the run-up to the Gulf War. As a result of his work there, he became very close to the first President Bush's foreign policy team.
His wife handled WMD on Iraq for the CIA. I believe Wilson was sent because of his connections with the Bush family during the Gulf War, and it may have been thought that his report would be taken more seriously by the Administration. The Ambassador to Niger, and a Marine Corp General had already filed negative reports. Naturaly Cheney and Bush did not want facts, but an excuse for war and they were far from happy.
So Ms Plame was outed, and any of her agents or casual contacts lives were put at risk, just to supply Bush/Cheney with an excuse for war. I don't know about the legal definitions, but I call it treason and they all belong in jail. For the Bush Administration the lives of soldiers, CIA Agents, and ordinary people have no consequence to their Corporate Facist
world.

And don't forget that the judge was a Bush appointee!

Long live America!!!

Mr. Arkin- again you try and pull the wool over the eyes of God-fearing patriotic Americans. Libby was a patriot and deserves a parade for defending our country at a time of crisis. He served and did his duty and you are happy to convict him. Libby deserves a Medal of Freedom and he will get it, and a pardon, which he deserves. Also, the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is a liberal democrat just like Joe Wilson and the rest of them. This was the Fitzgerald's way of trying to bring down Bush and the democracy agenda he is promoting. Just because Libby was convicted by a jury of liberal democrats in washington, dc, he is guilty? let's put the facts on trial and I'm sure justice will prevail. Scooter Libby is no criminal- he defended MY country against the enemies within. The enemies within are the most insidious because you think they're on your side, but they are undermining us. Thank you Scooter for fighting the good fight on behalf of American patriots everywhere.

This is an unreasonable column.

I've read it many times and never found it so off-kilter as today.

This case speaks to the very fundamental elements of the Constitution and our national security.

Our judicial branch reached into the executive and tried and convicted one of the very most powerful people in the executive branch. This is momentous. Our Constitution works. Playing it down as some overstep of gossip mongers is fine but failing to point out the larger over-arching effects is irresponsible and negligient (I refuse to make any "number 2" jokes, referring to a theme in the column and potty humor, but I'm tempted).

This CIA agent was working on WMD. Her work was tainted and her career ruined. The gossip led to a potentially very serious compromise of our national security. Armitage may have been first but HE DIDN'T LIE ABOUT IT LATER. Big difference. If Libby wasn't concerned about the seriousness of the leak and thought of it as gossip, THEN WHY DID HE LIE ABOUT IT?

After these several years where the Congress has provided ZERO oversight to the executive branch isn't anyone going to point out that we finally have some? and it comes from the judiciary.

Our democracy still works! America lives!!! Long live America!!!

What are you saying here? "He [Armitage] did so [exposed Plame] because he is a professional number two ... a breed ... common on both sides of the aisle." And: [Armitage] "doesn't change the fact that Libby subsequently dined and whined with reporters to push the BOSSES' [my caps] agenda." You said it.

But then you say: " Wilson [said, after the verdict] "the president and the vice president owe the country a much broader explanation of their own actions at this time." Absolutely.

But then you shift blame: "Wilson, with his own stockpile of number twos on his resume - ...advisor to John Kerry... member, Kerry ... Group; ...Assistant to President Bill Clinton and Senior Director for African Affairs on the National Security Council staff - is as much a part of the problem as is Libby." Huh? Because every #2 in Washington is a perjurer and obstructer? Because he worked with prominent people within his own party in a career path like everyone else who has a job? Because he was a career Democrat and had the job background that would equip him for his trip to Africa? Or was the association with John Kerry and Bill Clinton meant to inflame and infer guilt? Cheap; not factual.

"Hey, Libby broke the law; I'm not making light of that. But Wilson got more than his 15 minutes, a book contract and lots of air time." I think you've missed the whole point of the trial, and for that you are as guilty as Mr. Libby, et al.

Quoting from the column, with my corrections in brackets:

Because Libby was found "guilty," [Why the quotation marks? He was found guilty, of multiple crimes.] many will interpret that the Bush administration is equally guilty. Most will not likely understand that Libby is not being found guilty for actually revealing the name of the CIA undercover officer (a violation of the law). He is found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice [violations of the law] of the investigation of the leak.

Not sure why Mr. Arkin wrote this column. He makes a minor point, but almost completely ignores the main, salient one about the Iraq War and how the White House operates. And this is the day after the news broke. His minor point could easily have been made in a paragraph or two.

Couldn't have said it better myself:

-------------------------------------------
...

A Policy Built on the Backs of the Dead

With our soldiers transformed into warrior-victims and the objects of all sympathy, the stage was set for the President's latest explanation for his ongoing policy in Iraq. For some time now, he has implied, or simply stated, that his war must go on, if for no other reason than to make sure those Americans who already died in Iraq have not died in vain. This bizarre, self-sustaining formula has by now come to replace just about every other explanation of the administration's stake in Iraq. We are there and must remain there because we must support our soldiers, not just the living ones but the dead ones as well -- and this is the single emotional valence upon which everyone now seems to agree (or at least fears to disagree).

In January of last year, for instance, Bush said typically, "And, I, as the Commander-in-Chief, I am resolved to make sure that those who have died in combats' sacrifice are not in vain...."; in October 2006, he commented that "[r]etreating from Iraq would dishonor the men and women who have given their lives in that country, and mean their sacrifice has been in vain."

In a strange way, this is but another version of the "waste" explanation set on its head. Now that "supporting the troops" has become not only the gold standard, but essentially the only standard, by which this administration can rally support for Bush's war, such presidential statements have become commonplace. No longer is Congress to fund the war in Iraq; it is to fund the troops, whatever any particular representative might think of administration policy.

Here, for instance, is how a White House response to the House of Representatives resolution criticizing the President's Iraq surge plan put it on February 16th: "Soon, Congress will have the opportunity to show its support for the troops in Iraq by funding the supplemental appropriations request the President has submitted, and which our men and women in combat are counting on." Or as the President stated the previous day: "Our troops are risking their lives. As they carry out the new strategy, they need our patience, and they need our support... Our men and women in uniform are counting on their elected leaders to provide them with the support they need to accomplish their mission. We have a responsibility, Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need to do their job and the flexibility they need to prevail." Or in a press conference the day before that: "Soon Congress is going to be able to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding, a bill providing emergency funding for our troops. Our troops are counting on their elected leaders in Washington, D.C. to provide them with the support they need to do their mission."

Put another way, American troops in Iraq, or heading for Iraq, and the American dead from the Iraq War are now hostage to, and the only effective excuse for, Bush administration policy; and American politicians and the public are being held hostage by the idea that the troops must be supported (and funded) above all else, no matter how wasteful or repugnant or counterproductive or destructive or dangerous you may consider the war in Iraq.

The President expressed this particularly vividly in response to the following question at his recent news conference:

"[i]f you're one of those Americans that thinks you've made a terrible mistake [in Iraq], that it's destined to end badly, what do you do? If they speak out, are they by definition undermining the troops?"

Bush replied, in part:

"I said early in my comment... somebody who doesn't agree with my policy is just as patriotic a person as I am. Your question is valid. Can somebody say, we disagree with your tactics or strategy, but we support the military -- absolutely, sure. But what's going to be interesting is if they don't provide the flexibility and support for our troops that are there to enforce the strategy that David Petraeus, the general on the ground, thinks is necessary to accomplish the mission."

This is hot-button blackmail. Little could be more painful than a parent, any parent, outliving a child, or believing that a child had his or her life cut off at a young age and in vain. To use such natural parental emotions, as well as those that come from having your children (or siblings or wife or husband) away at war and in constant danger of injury or death, is the last refuge of a political scoundrel. It amounts to mobilizing the prestige of anxious or grieving parents in a program of national emotional blackmail. It effectively musters support for the President's ongoing Iraq policy by separating the military from the war it is fighting and by declaring non-support for the war taboo, if you act on it.

It indeed does turn the troops in a wasteful and wasted invasion and war, ordered by a wasteful, thoughtless administration of gamblers and schemers who had no hesitation about spilling other people's blood, into hostages. Realistically, for an administration that was, until now, unfazed by the crisis at Walter Reed, this is nothing but building your politics on the backs of the dead, the maimed, and the psychologically distraught or destroyed.

As the Iranians in 1979 took American diplomats hostage, so in 2007 the top officials of the Bush administration, including the President and Vice President, have taken our troops hostage and made them stand-ins and convenient excuses for failed policies for which they must continue to die. Someone should break out those yellow ribbons. Our troops need to be released, without a further cent of ransom being paid, and brought home as soon as possible.
-------------------------------------------
www.tomdispatch.com
-------------------------------------------

What a skunk you are, Arkin.

"Armitage was considered...a "liberal" along the Bush political spectrum".

Compared to the group of thieves that run this country, Nixon and Reagan look like liberals.

"Wilson...is as much a part of the problem as is Libby"

In reporting no link between Saddam and Niger existed, it's welcome news that someone is willing to state the truth which would appear somewhat foreign to a so-called journalist as yourself. I would suggest that people like you are part of the problem for acting like cheerleaders and shills for the propagandists of this administration instead of actually doing what you are paid to do.

Whetsell,

Jewish has no more than Islamic or Christian in being a traitor. The head honcho traitor who very well knew an uncover CIA agents name was being leaked was Bush, an evangelical born again Christian. Are you from West Virginia or Tenn?

Libby aint gonna get a pardon. Another jewish traitor rotting in prison is in line for the next Jewish Pardon - Frank Pollard. Do any of you remember his crimes? In the early 80s, while the cold war raged, Mr. Pollard used his Federal government position to illegally obtain the names of all american agents inside russia. Being the good little jewish spy that he was, Frankie the Traitor passed these names on to his pals in the Mossad, the israeli spy scum. Guess what the Mossad scum did with those names of american spies inside Russia? The Mossad sold those names to the Russians in exchange for the release of a few more Russian jews to immigrate to israel. The russians rounded up all the american spies, the entire network, and all their family, no matter how distant the relationship. All were tortured, and ulitmately executed. For that Frank Pollard has rotted in prison the last 20 odd years. But the israelis and especially the mossad were never punished, they were protected by traitors high up in the us government, including Senators and Congressmen. So Frankie the traitor comes first in line for a presidental pardon, then that other traitor is up, Libby the Felon, imho.

Posted by: whetsell

While respecting the Jury for most likely having correctly determined legal guilt, the human and social question still sticks out: Is this justice?

It doesn't smell like it. Immediate public pronouncements from the Jury member who was a journalist sure sounded like an agenda to me, maybe even the seed of a future book.

Politicizing the federal justice and court systems cheapens our society. A simple resignation from Libby would have served sufficiently for any signficant doubts about his performance, even better, except for that eternal vindictiveness and resentment of partisan officials, career, appointed, and elected.

If they're trying to prove that they can connive to screw anyone with any background in the manner they choose, using public resources to do it, then that's a pretty dark and redundant message. The public at large already knows this, and has for a long while. Meanwhile each such occurrence lessens the liklihood that others with better ethics will freshly enter public office, setting up a cynical downward spiral in overall media and public affairs.

The Prosecutor tried to put another spin on it, cleansing his hands of any more actions; undoutedly there was some sincerity to that, but when one looks at the total context, especially the implied and acknowledged actions of others who broke trust, the Prosecutor's final analysis does not come out smelling like justice.

Mr. Arkin, I think you need to look at the timeline again, before you dismiss everybody but Armitage. You can find it at the Associated Press:

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/cia_leak/index.html

You will find that the leaking of Valerie Plame's name and CIA status to the press began in June, a month before Wilson's Op-Ed. It began with inquiries to State three weeks after Nick Kristof published that a "former Ambassador" said the uranium intelligence was cooked (Kristof actually wrote on the subject multiple times before Wilson).

More interestingly, you will find that Dick Cheney talked to Scooter Libby about going after Wilson twice, in June, and in July, and that each time, within 48 hours, Richard Armitage talked to a reporter about it.

Fitzgerald found Armitage's gossipy nature to be a credible explanation for why he talked to the press. Before you use that + links to Colin Powell to say "nuttin' happened", please tell us why Armitage was "in the loop" as soon as word went down to disseminate information. Or did they, maybe, just maybe, also know about Armitage's leaky reputation?

Your post devolves to Kremlin watching. If this case is about anything, it should be that we the people should not have to resort to Kremlin watching to know how a casus belli is created.

A Kremlin watcher dismissing conspiracy theorists for reading too much into the tea leaves: it's really rich, isn't it?

TRUE: This sort of thing goes on all the time in Washington.

FALSE: It is, therefore, not a big deal.

I feel the need to remind Mr. Arkin of what moms everywhere tell their children: It's not okay just because all the other kids are doing it.

What a stunning article. So your telling us that Washington insiders lie and abuse thier power. What revealing journalism. And the icing on the cake is that you've determined that this is not "characteristic of the Bush administration" Please, I didn't just crall out from under a rock.

Regarding your assertion:

"Few Americans probably had ever heard of Scooter Libby before this trial; fewer still likely have a clue who Richard Armitage is, even though he was the "number two" at the Department of State."

The truth is that too few of you clubby beltway scribblers have ever heard the angry voices of the populace living outside the beltway. We not only know who Scooter Libby is, we know what he is. We have watched with grim satisfaction as he has been brought down by the only type of prosecutor capable of convicting him, the only type of American even capable of giving a damn whether Libby was held accountable for his part in a foul perfidy, an outside-the-beltway American.

Think of us, not at all the credulous simpletons of your inbred stereotypes, next time you take your well-earned, reserved seat at a presidential press briefing.

Armitage a dove? He is a signatary of the PNAC foundation letter, along with almost the rest of the white house. Whether you perceive him as a dove (clearly whould be a failed one in this administration) seems irrelevant given that he subscribes in writting to the oposite view.

Libby aint gonna get a pardon. Another jewish traitor rotting in prison is in line for the next Jewish Pardon - Frank Pollard. Do any of you remember his crimes? In the early 80s, while the cold war raged, Mr. Pollard used his Federal government position to illegally obtain the names of all american agents inside russia. Being the good little jewish spy that he was, Frankie the Traitor passed these names on to his pals in the Mossad, the israeli spy scum. Guess what the Mossad scum did with those names of american spies inside Russia? The Mossad sold those names to the Russians in exchange for the release of a few more Russian jews to immigrate to israel. The russians rounded up all the american spies, the entire network, and all their family, no matter how distant the relationship. All were tortured, and ulitmately executed. For that Frank Pollard has rotted in prison the last 20 odd years. But the israelis and especially the mossad were never punished, they were protected by traitors high up in the us government, including Senators and Congressmen. So Frankie the traitor comes first in line for a presidental pardon, then that other traitor is up, Libby the Felon, imho.

Libby aint gonna get a pardon. Another jewish traitor rotting in prison is in line for the next Jewish Pardon - Frank Pollard. Do any of you remember his crimes? In the early 80s, while the cold war raged, Mr. Pollard used his Federal government position to illegally obtain the names of all american agents inside russia. Being the good little jewish spy that he was, Frankie the Traitor passed these names on to his pals in the Mossad, the israeli spy scum. Guess what the Mossad scum did with those names of american spies inside Russia? The Mossad sold those names to the Russians in exchange for the release of a few more Russian jews to immigrate to israel. The russians rounded up all the american spies, the entire network, and all their family, no matter how distant the relationship. All were tortured, and ulitmately executed. For that Frank Pollard has rotted in prison the last 20 odd years. But the israelis and especially the mossad were never punished, they were protected by traitors high up in the us government, including Senators and Congressmen. So Frankie the traitor comes first in line for a presidental pardon, then that other traitor is up, Libby the Felon, imho.

WELL,WELL,WELL, IT SEEMS THAT SOMEONE WROTE A PIECE THAT FAILED TO BASH A REPUBLICAN AND THE VENOM IS SPRAYING , UP TO AND INCLUDING SCREWBALL DRUG-CONSPIRACY NONSENSE. LISTEN, CHILDREN, WASHINGTON IS, WAS AND PROBABLY ALWAYS WILL BE AMERCIA'S BYZANTINE COURT, WITH GOSSIP MONGERS, EQUIVOCATORS, BACK-STABBERS AND POWER-BROKERS. EVERY NOW AND THEN ONE OF THE "PLAYERS" IS COUGHED UP LIKE A HAIRBALL, AND THEN THE CAPITOL GETS BACK TO NORMAL. I HAVE A QUESTION: HOW MANY OF YOU KINOW WHAT SCOOTER LIBBY WAS ACTUALLY CHARGED WITH? HE WAS NOT CHARGED WITH OUTING PLAME (WHO MAINTAINED HER COVER BY APPEARING ON THE COVER OF VANITY FAIR WITH HER HUSBAND). LIBBY WAS CHARGED WITH LYING TO THE GRAND JURY, A CRIME IDENTICAL TO CLINTON COMMITTING ERJURY (OOPS, SORRY DEMS) AND MUCH LESS SERIOUS THAN SANDY BERGER STUFFING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS DOWN HIS PANTS AND INTO HIS SOCKS (OH YEAH, THEY FELL THERE) AND THEN DESTROYING THE RECORDS TO COVER UP CLINTON'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS LEADING TO THE IRAQ WAR. PLEASE FOLKS, GROW UP AND STOP PUTTING EVERYTHING INTO A PARTISAN SPIN. THERE ARE NO GOOD GUYS OUT THERE IN EITHER PARTY.

"Some will fool themselves into believing that this is characteristic of the Bush administration." You've got to be kidding me Bill -- whose lining your pocket? Somebody throw a bucket of water on this guy and wake him up.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

Washington jury convicts top Cheney aide of four felonies

By Patrick Martin
7 March 2007

The conviction of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis Libby is the first case in which a top Bush administration has been found criminally culpable for lies related to the war in Iraq, but it should not be the last. A Washington jury handed down the guilty verdicts on four counts Tuesday, after ten days of deliberation.

Libby, once one of the most powerful figures in the Bush White House and a leading instigator of the war in Iraq, was found guilty of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements to a grand jury. He was acquitted of a single count of making false statements to the FBI.

The four convictions could bring combined sentences of as long as 20 years, but federal sentencing guidelines suggest that Libby could receive as little as one or two years in prison on each charge, to be served concurrently, since he will be treated as a first-time offender. Sentencing has been set for June 5, but Libby's attorneys said they would seek a retrial or appeal the verdict, a process that could delay any jail time until the end of 2008, when Bush presumably would issue a presidential pardon.

Far more important than Libby's individual fate is what the case reveals about the methods of the Bush administration. Libby was convicted of obstructing justice--i.e., he lied in order to block the investigation by a federal grand jury into the leaking of the name of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame. Her name was leaked to columnist Robert Novak, who made it public July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly attacked the Bush administration in an op-ed column in the New York Times. Wilson revealed that Bush had lied in his 2003 State of the Union speech, which included the claim, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

After CIA officials pressed for an investigation into the leak, citing the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes deliberate exposure of a covert agent a felony crime, the Justice Department appointed Patrick Fitzgerald, the US Attorney in Chicago, as a special prosecutor. Fitzgerald was quickly informed by then deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage that he had told Novak that Plame worked at the CIA, and White House political adviser Karl Rove subsequently admitted being the second source for Novak's column.

It had long been thought that Fitzgerald's investigation was focused on making a case against Rove, and Wilson himself expressed the hope that he would one day see Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. What became clear in the course of the trial, however, is that the prosecutor's focus was not only Rove--who ultimately was not indicted--but Vice President Cheney.

The trial testimony portrayed Cheney as the moving force in the White House campaign to vilify Wilson and expose his wife's employment--both to cheapen Wilson's credibility with the suggestion that his trip to Niger was a case of nepotism, as well as to punish him by putting an end to his wife's career as a covert agent.

Libby's defense attorneys argued that he had not been lying when he denied leaking Plame's name to several reporters and claimed to have learned about her CIA status from NBC journalist Tim Russert. They insisted that he had merely forgotten the details of a relatively minor affair because he was preoccupied with much weightier matters of counterterrorism and the course of the war in Iraq.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/libb-m07.shtml

Some will FOOL themselves into believing that this is characteristic of the Bush administration?
The most powerful top aide to the most powerful Vice President in history was found guilty of four felonies, including obstruction of justice. The statements made by the president in the State of the Union address about nuclear weapons were false. The campaign of lies drew us into a war which continues today. Libby lied to a Grand Jury, perjured himself and obstructed justice. That's the news. Shall we "fool ourselves" into believing that this is how the Bush Administration works? This Administration lied to the American people, lied to Congress, lied about Katrina, lied about the troop surge and continue to weave a web of lies about everything. When have we been told the truth about anything, from the weather to the war on terror. Your newspaper, the Washington Post deceitfully published articles before, during and after this case, and even after the case went to the jury. Your own Bob Woodward was involved. The media including the post has been a tool of the White House. Now that the verdict is in you refuse to report it. Shame on you.

William Arkin,
It's quite clear you have no idea what anti-Bush means and you don't understand what is going on in the world because of your lack of cognition. And your ego has such a stranglehold on you - you will likely never understand. This is not an insult to you, it is a statement of fact from someone who doesn't live with blinders on, and is much, much smarter than you.

The overwhelming number of anti-Bush comments here prove that this issue will not die quickly. Partisan politics on both sides of the isle have and will continue to rule our country. To defend your party and its agenda seems only to be a "crime" when viewed from the opposing party, I might mention the "its only about sex" defence of the past. I wish American voters would grow-up and vote for the country instead of their favorite SOAP star!

Jan, your right on. I guess lying about your sex life is very important to Americans but lying about confidential CIA operations is not.

It's bad enough we need to worry about terrorists damaging our national security now we need to worry about our VicePresident doing it as well.

Perjury is perjury. We can*t allow that, or the justice system would fall apart. The only question is whether or not he lied under oath. If he lied about doing something that wasn*t a crime, it shows either a lack of judgement or a high degree of loyalty to those he worked for, which in this case is beginning to also look like bad judgement.

As a former Washington "insider" I think this is one of the more thoughtful responses to the Libby trial. I don't think Arkin is defending Bush or Rove or anyone else but pointing out that Libby is a sign of a much deeper cultural problem about the way "business" is done in Washington. This problem cuts across party, faction, money, and in reality, time also. As anyone who reads history knows, Libby is not the first nor will he be the last to "fall" in this way.

My one disappointment with Arkin's article is that I wish he would have spent some time talking about a cure for this problem. Despite all the hand-wringing about the way "business" is done in Washington, it is still being done that way 20 years after I lasted worked there.

Quoting a previous comment:

Who is Richard Armitage? Here's one answer

A Reinvigorated Bush Narco-regime?
B. Ehkstruh - The dirtiest of all Bush secrets? Why do analysts say Bush's appointment of Porter Goss to head the CIA heralds a worsening Bush narco regime--under which narcotics moneys are quietly and murderously funneled into black budget programs to avoid elected oversight? Read the following:

In the words of Al Martin, ret. Navy Lt. Commander (who worked directly with Bush Sr.'s men on Iran Contra and who testified for Kerry's Iran Contra hearings):

"Since (Bush-appointed Richard) Armitage is currently the Under Secretary of State, he is in charge of the Foreign Narcotics Control Office of the State Department, which is supposed to control cocaine and heroin [nothing about this quote suggests anyting conspiratorial, what the FNCO is supposed to do is public knowledge].... The famous quote by Kerry Committee senior panel member Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii (D-Hawaii) should be noted. When Armitage was put under oath, he kept calling him (Armitate) "Mr. Cocaine" [intentional CSPAN soundbyte which does not manage to directly accuse anyone of anything] instead of "Mr. Secretary...."

Armitage was also a member of the restricted access group known as RAG-1 (Restricted Access Group One) along with Elliott Abrams, Clair George, Attorney General Ed Meese, David Margolis, Chief of Domestic Criminal Operations of the Department of Justice, and Mark Richards, Chief of the International Criminal Division of the Department of Justice... The purpose of RAG-1 was first to develop and then to coordinate the CIA's policy of trafficking in narcotics on a large-scale basis, in order to produce ongoing covert revenue streams pursuant to the aid and sustenance of illegal operations of state[alot of naked assertions here with absolutely no citation to credible evidence].

Richard Armitage coordinated CIA heroin trafficking principally out of Cambodia and Laos, and he was a close confederate of General Huang Soong, the CIA's principal (narcotics) trafficker in Cambodia [again exagerrated statements with no supporting evidence mentioned].... (Note: Bush certainly knew about Armitage's sordid history when he appointed him. In fact, Bush may have done so to further his own, personally frustrated reach within the black budget community.)

The State Department's Foreign Narcotic Control Office essentially fronts for the Central Intelligence Agency [naked assertion with no attempt to support with evidence].... What happens is the State Department effectively becomes a front for the CIA, which is actually trafficking the narcotics [naked assertion with no attempt to provide evidence].... This department is specifically staffed by CIA personnel [this should be easy to verify????].... The State Department tolerates this because it's part of its function, through the FNCO -- to aid the CIA in narcotics trafficking to produce covert revenue [come on now, what gives you an inside scoop into things that real insiders with alot to gain in outing such activities do not seem to know?}.

(Armitage) tried to claim publicly before the Kerry Committee hearings that he had been a U.S. Marine Corps officer. He wasn't.... Armitage acted as head of the FNCO, both then and now, to control narcotics-producing areas[citation???]. Now it's in Afghanistan, and there's a direct relationship, which you can point to. Every time the State Department's FNCO controls an area or moves in to control a region of the world that produces narcotics or produces the materials that wind up being narcotics after they're refined, you will quickly see thereafter a noticeable increase in drug trafficking in the United States in that particular drug [do you have any good statistics whatsoever to back this up... if so what are they].

"Armitage said it is the responsibility of the FNCO of the State Department to put all other large drug dealers out of business.... What a lot of people didn't understand is that they're putting them out of business to take over that business [and furthermore, what the original author has completely failed to demonstrate with this editorial of naked and unsupported assertions].

[For all I know, every insider in Washington may get together once a month to snort copious amounts of cocaine together, eat newborn babies, rape nuns, and suck off demonic manifestations, but the previous comment certainly does absolutely nothing to enlighten me about any of its naked assertions.]

"Some will fool themselves into believing that this is characteristic of the Bush administration" should be "Some will fool themselves into believing that this is characteristic only of the Bush administration."

Nice try Bill. Unfortunately it took a few years but Americans have caught up. We now have plently of evidence which assures us that this is exactly a characteristic of the Bush administration.

I can't believe you still truely believe otherwise.

I would like to add to this comment:
"Perjury and obstruction of justice was important when Bill Clinton and a sex act were involved but that's old news. Lying to presecutors ina federal investigation the CIA asked for is apparently not a big deal. Go figure."

We should also all keep in mind that Ken Starr went to a Grand Jury with his charges. His Grand Jury refused to bring indictments, so Ken Starr went to the GOP Congress, who impeached Clinton against the will of the people (and where, btw, Ken Starr STILL failed to get a conviction).

Pat Fitzgerald went to a Grand Jury with his charges and the Grand Jury issued five indictments.
Of those five indictments, the defendant was convicted on four.

So, even though ordinary citizens didn't buy Ken Starr's arguments, the GOP did. And even though ordinary citizens DID buy Pat Fitzgerald's arguments, the GOP DOESN'T.

Doesn't that tell us all that the GOP is completely out of step with ordinary citizens?

If this is not "characteristic of the Bush administration", then what, in your measured opinion, IS characteristic of the Bush administration? Openness, honesty, and fair dealing with the public?

The public may not get all the details right on this particular scandal, but they've picked up on the every-growing stink emanating from the White House. Lincoln's quote about not being able to fool all the people all the time is appropriate here.

I think this Article was comprehensive and fair in its conclusions.
And, of course, none of us knows whether or not these kind of prosecutions will make our government better.
But, Thank God for Freedom of the Press and Free Speech and the Prosecution of Citizens who commit Purjury at high levels of government which, perhaps, means that these freedoms will continue to be protected for generations to come.
I don't think Libby is a bad man but he was a high-level attorney, an officer of the court, who knows how important "purjury" prosecutions are to the preservation of our liberties.
Too bad it wasn't about "sex", maybe he would have been forgiven, huh!

Perhaps Armitage should also be brought to trial. However his guilt or lack of it has nothing to do with Scooter Libby. The man was found guilty of doing something which, in time of war could legitimatly be viewed as treason.

Keep up the good work. How about how the media is setting Baraak Obama, take a look at yahoo home page then the news item on his financial dealings being questioned. And a picture at the bottom of an African woman from the congo and a heading "out of the bush".
You draw your own conclusion, but to me their out to get him already.

Thank you, Caywood. I get tired of hearing the meme that Richard Armitage couldn't possibly be politically motivated.

That said, I find this article completely unproductive.

"Some will take from the Libby affair the ugliness of how the White House works. Others will decry the cushiness and dealings of the news media itself. Some will fool themselves into believing that this is characteristic of the Bush administration."

Some will FOOL themselves into believing that this is characteristic of the Bush administration?
Dick Cheney tried to smear a public servant who called him out on what the POTUS stated as fact in a speech to the world that took us to a war of choice, where we currently have no friend and no end.

We ALL know now that Bush and his entire administration is incompetent, deceptive, and arrogant. The silver lining, I hope, is that the American people are no longer fooled by this crew.

And if Republicans continue to discount what the Libby trial revealed, I truly believe the 2006 corruption label is going to stick to them for a generation.

I am appalled that after an administration, in the furtherance of a cover-up of its own lies for getting us involved in Iraq, you would the gall to dismiss the so-called "guilty" verdict as partisan grandstanding. I am appalled that your slanted piece - itself a disgrace to American journalism - found its way onto the pages of the Washington Post, a publication that once actually had a reputation for decency and fairness. It has been said before but I shall say it again: why not simply announce yourselves as spokesmen for the White House and identify your "opinions" as White House talking points, which they rightfully are.

it's a shame that the hacks at the "liberal" Washington Post keep minimizing the outing of a CIA operative. We learned through sworn testimony that Dick Cheney told Rove, Armitage and Libby to shop this information to several journalists.All this "golly gee willikers Richard Armitage isn't a partisan gunslinger" is garbage. George HW Bush called the outing of a CIA agent akin to treason. Perjury and obstruction of justice was important when Bill Clinton and a sex act were involved but that's old news. Lying to presecutors ina federal investigation the CIA asked for is apparently not a big deal. Go figure. The Republican Party has become the party of weasels and William Arkin is nothing more than a political hack. Hope he enjoys his stay in the Lincoln bedroom.

Mr. Arkin: Are you not aware that not one, but two Bush administration officials provided Plame's identity to the media. Armitage ... and ROVE.

Who is Richard Armitage? Here's one answer

A Reinvigorated Bush Narco-regime?
B. Ehkstruh - The dirtiest of all Bush secrets? Why do analysts say Bush's appointment of Porter Goss to head the CIA heralds a worsening Bush narco regime--under which narcotics moneys are quietly and murderously funneled into black budget programs to avoid elected oversight? Read the following:

In the words of Al Martin, ret. Navy Lt. Commander (who worked directly with Bush Sr.'s men on Iran Contra and who testified for Kerry's Iran Contra hearings):

"Since (Bush-appointed Richard) Armitage is currently the Under Secretary of State, he is in charge of the Foreign Narcotics Control Office of the State Department, which is supposed to control cocaine and heroin.... The famous quote by Kerry Committee senior panel member Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii (D-Hawaii) should be noted. When Armitage was put under oath, he kept calling him (Armitate) "Mr. Cocaine" instead of "Mr. Secretary...."

Armitage was also a member of the restricted access group known as RAG-1 (Restricted Access Group One) along with Elliott Abrams, Clair George, Attorney General Ed Meese, David Margolis, Chief of Domestic Criminal Operations of the Department of Justice, and Mark Richards, Chief of the International Criminal Division of the Department of Justice... The purpose of RAG-1 was first to develop and then to coordinate the CIA's policy of trafficking in narcotics on a large-scale basis, in order to produce ongoing covert revenue streams pursuant to the aid and sustenance of illegal operations of state.

Richard Armitage coordinated CIA heroin trafficking principally out of Cambodia and Laos, and he was a close confederate of General Huang Soong, the CIA's principal (narcotics) trafficker in Cambodia.... (Note: Bush certainly knew about Armitage's sordid history when he appointed him. In fact, Bush may have done so to further his own, personally frustrated reach within the black budget community.)

The State Department's Foreign Narcotic Control Office essentially fronts for the Central Intelligence Agency.... What happens is the State Department effectively becomes a front for the CIA, which is actually trafficking the narcotics.... This department is specifically staffed by CIA personnel.... The State Department tolerates this because it's part of its function, through the FNCO -- to aid the CIA in narcotics trafficking to produce covert revenue.

(Armitage) tried to claim publicly before the Kerry Committee hearings that he had been a U.S. Marine Corps officer. He wasn't.... Armitage acted as head of the FNCO, both then and now, to control narcotics-producing areas. Now it's in Afghanistan, and there's a direct relationship, which you can point to. Every time the State Department's FNCO controls an area or moves in to control a region of the world that produces narcotics or produces the materials that wind up being narcotics after they're refined, you will quickly see thereafter a noticeable increase in drug trafficking in the United States in that particular drug.

"Armitage said it is the responsibility of the FNCO of the State Department to put all other large drug dealers out of business.... What a lot of people didn't understand is that they're putting them out of business to take over that business.