Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
Martyr of the War Party
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The conviction of Scooter Libby on four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice is first of all a human tragedy.

A man who served his country at the highest level, who sat in every morning at the senior staff meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, has been dishonored and disgraced, and will be disbarred. Unless his conviction is overturned, or he is pardoned, Libby will go to prison. His life will end with an obituary that declares in its headline and lead paragraph that he was a convicted Dick Cheney aide.

Yet, this was a narrow case. Libby's convictions call to mind Martha Stewart's, who went to prison for lying to investigators about a crime she did not commit. Libby has been convicted of lying about the outing of a CIA classified officer, a crime for which no one has been indicted.

Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was outed as a CIA "operative," was no longer covert and had not been so for half a decade when her name was pushed out of the White House to the press. Joe Wilson, her husband, target of the White House vendetta, yet contends that not only was her career destroyed, a crime was committed -- and that is why the CIA demanded an investigation.

Yet it was an arrogant and stupid thing Libby did. He lied to the FBI, to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, to the grand jury. He fabricated a story about where he learned about Wilson's wife, when, as sworn testimony proved, he learned it from Vice President Cheney and was himself moving it to the press.

However, this was about a larger issue than the narrow question of whether Libby lied about leaking the role of Valerie Plame in having her husband sent to Niger to investigate a report that Iraq had been seeking "yellowcake," a critical component in a uranium enrichment program.

That larger issue is this: Were we misled, were we deceived by our government, as the White House made the case for invading and occupying Iraq? Did neoconservatives at the Pentagon cherry-pick the intelligence, stovepipe it to the vice president's office and Libby, and then feed it to sympathizers and collaborators in the media, to stampede our country into a war against a nation that, no matter how odious its regime, did not threaten us, did not attack us and did not want war with us?

In short, were we lied into a war in Mesopotamia that is breaking our Army, has crippled an administration, and has bled and divided our country as it has not been since the days of Vietnam?

And why has the Democratic Congress, on taking power in January, not begun a broad investigation into how we got into this war?

This is the dog that didn't bark. And the reason the dog is silent suggests itself. The Congress, in voting President Bush the authority to take us to war against Iraq at a time and place of his own choosing, failed to do its duty by the Constitution. In October 2002, to get the issue off the table for the election and give themselves political cover against the Rovian charge they were tying the hands of the commander in chief in the War on Terror, a Democratic Senate -- Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Daschle, Biden, Reid all assenting -- voted Bush the blank check for war that he cashed in five months later.

The dilemma a Democratic Congress faces in any investigation into whether we were lied into war is that Congress would be investigating why a Democratic Senate failed its constitutional duty to determine the necessity for war.

And, lest we forget, the media, too, played a supporting role in pushing this nation into an unnecessary war. Columnists and commentators assured us there was a nexus between Saddam, al-Qaida and 9-11, a "Prague connection" between Muhammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence. We were told Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and was working on nuclear weapons, that enrichment of uranium was being done secretly around the country, that if we did not act now, we faced a nuclear-armed Iraq that would surely transfer atomic weapons to al-Qaida terrorists. Said Condi Rice, our proof of WMD might well come in the form of a mushroom cloud above an American city.

Scooter Libby will not lack for legal defense funds as he pursues his appeal, and there will be demands for his pardon before Bush goes home. For Scooter is a martyr of the War Party. Scooter did what he had to do to get us into this war. Then he did what he felt he had to do to discredit Joe Wilson, because Wilson was out to discredit the White House case for war. And in the end, we are unlikely to know the truth of why it was we went to war. For that record is sealed in minds and souls.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Buchanan demonstrates again...
...why political conservatives never supported him.

"However, this was about a larger issue than the narrow question of whether Libby lied about leaking the role of Valerie Plame in having her husband sent to Niger to investigate a report that Iraq had been seeking "yellowcake," a critical component in a uranium enrichment program."

By now several items have ben established in the whole Plame-Wilson fiasco.

1. Plame's status at the CIA was NOT such that "outing" her violated the law. (I suggest you libs who want to dispute this check out an article in the "Washington Post" dated 2/17/07 by Victoria Toensing. Toensing, who WROTE the law, states unequivically that there was "no underlying crime" for Fitzgerald to investigate.)

2. Plame was "outed" to columnist Robert Novak by Colin Powell's assistant at the State Department, Richard Armitage. Armitage, like his boss, opposed our invasion of Iraq. Somehow the significance of this FACT continues to elude the left, including Democrat leaders in the House and Senate. They continue to insist that the "outing" of Plame was done by the White House out of petty vengeance for Wilson exposing that "Bush lied" in the infamous 16 words. In FACT the info was given to Novak by an opponent of the war, but don't let the FACTS interfere with a good, no, make that a childish, conspiracy theory.

3. Joe Wilson is a liar. His lies include implying that Cheney authorized his "mission" (Cheney knew nothing about it until he read Wilson's "report" in the "New York Times") and that documents suporting the 16 words were forged (Wilson knew nothing about the documents being forged until well after he wrote his op-ed.

4. Valerie Plame recommended her hubby for the job. Not an act of a "covert" operative who wants to remain anonymous.

5. Finally, and most importantly, the Senate subcommittee that investigated Wilson's trip concluded that what he learned actually SUPPORTED the statement by Bush that Saddam ahd tried to buy yellow cake in Africa.

So why did Libby lie to Fitzgerald? Easy. Bush made a public statement that all his people were expected to cooperate with the investigation, so Libby felt he could not cite the 5th Amendment and keep his job. Prior to Novak's revelation of who Plame was, Bush had apologized for the "16 words", giving the impression that they were wrong (they weren't), that Wilson found something (he didn't), and that there was a genuine reason for the left to claim the White House was out for revenge.

The left should be very proud of themselves. Liberal opponents of the war in the CIA launch a bogus mission to discredit the President during time of war, ignoring that while they are doing this they are also discrediting the CIA's own prewar intelligence (remember George "slam dunk" Tenet, a Clinton appointee). Then they succeed in creating a totally false premise that the administration wants to retaliate for this (a little projection here, you think?). They demand that the same Special Prosecutor law they cursed when it was used on Clinton be implemented. When the Special Prosecutor learns, within two weeks after it starts, that culprit is a anti-war bureaucrat the subpoenas just keep coming until finally a guy who had nothing to do with any of this is made to feel he did something wrong, so he lies to cover it up and gets caught.

In the meantime a reporter spends 50+ days in jail while the real "culprit" (Armitage) goes uncharged. Congratulations. Two innocent people go to jail while the real perp gets a pass. Liberal justice at its finest.

And Pat Buchanan should be ashamed of himself for being a useful idiot to the left.


And, lest we forget, Saudi Arabia
Besieged, and with no exit in sight
by Wesley Pruden
The Washington Times, March 6, 2007

The British, like us, have suffered grievously at the hands of the wicked. The bombing of the subway trains of the London Underground in the summer of 2005, killing 56 and wounding 700, is vivid and fresh in public memory, but any impulse to exact revenge in the way the fathers of the governing generation exacted revenge for the Blitz, seems curiously missing. There's little discussion of what to do about the JIHADISTS who live here in the thousands, nestled among Christians, Jews and peaceful Muslims. The traditional British tolerance of the eccentric, necessary for life on a crowded island, gives cover to those of evil intent.

A recent survey finds that fewer than half of the hundreds of Muslim private schools have been inspected over the past decade, with no reckoning of how -- or even whether -- the schools actually teach Muslim children what they need to know to live in a free society. The MADRASSAS, OFTEN FINANCED BY SAUDI ARABIA routinely use textbooks describing JEWS AS "PIGS." Nearly everyone else is a "crusader," which the Islamists reckon is almost as bad.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070306-122217-3696r.htm

And, lest we forget, Saudi Arabia - 2
115 Shiites killed in linked attacks before holiday Sunni group claims pilgrims' deaths
The Washington Post, March 7, 2007

The bombings in Hillah killed at least 77 people and injured more than 125. Nine other attacks targeting pilgrims elsewhere in the country left at least another 41 dead, according to Lt. Col. Abdullah Salman, a spokesman for the Iraqi Ministry of Interior.

A spokesman for the ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ, A SUNNI INSURGENT GROUP, called the attacks "more successful than we had expected." The official, Abdul Rahman al-Ghrairy, said the attacks were part of a campaign to avenge a Sunni woman who said she was raped by Shiite policemen in February.

Al-Ghrairy said in a phone interview that TWO SAUDI VOLUNTEERS carried out the Hillah bombings and that the target was a son of Shiite politician Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Al-Ghrairy's claim could not be independently confirmed, and there were no reports that al-Hakim's son was at the scene of the bombings.

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=
WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=
1149193566643&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161

Ugh
So in Buchanan's bizarro world, Libby DESERVES to go to prison, because "Bush lied!".

If I wanted "analysis" like this I'd watch ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, CNN Headline News, etc.

This is weak, even for Buchanan.


wiseone
Typical Neocon apologist. I urge anyone with a smattering of intelligence to check the record for themselves and see how the Neocon right goes into pretzels trying to slide this one past the "base." Of course they've been very successful sliding Bush's historical incompetence and his aggressively Utopian (read leftist) foreign "policy" past them, but fortunately the "base" is shrinking smaller and smaller as time goes on and once the Republican Party regains its footing the Neocons and their enablers like "wiseone" will be simply a bad memory.

However, the damage has already been done.

mondamay
But fortunately you have Newsmax to tell you how to think, so all's well with the world.

And, lest we forget, Saudi Arabia - 3
US calls UN Human Rights Council 'anti-Israel'
AP, March 6, 2007

For the second year in a row, the United States has decided not to seek a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, the State Department said Tuesday, accusing the panel of an ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS...

The 47-member commission is made up largely of governments who have been elected. Among member countries which lack elements of a free and fair democratic system are Gabon, China, PASKISTAN, Azerbaijan, SAUDI ARABIA and Russia.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173173946935&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The one real crime will not be probed.
In this sorry mess there is one clear crime, a forgery, and its entry into the Intel flow. Someone sat down and forged the Yellowcake Papers. No one wants to know who. The press has not pursued it. The White House does not care. The Democrats do not ask and will not investigate. Yet we know such an individual exists. Why the reluctance?

Having no knowledge is not having no suspicions. The blank stationary was stolen six years previously, so it was not an ad hoc caper. Only state agencies stockpile this sort of thing. Cui bono? The obvious answer is Israel and the Mossad. This is speculation, but at reasonable odds.

The entire Washington establish thinks that it was an Israeli black operation, therefore, it must not be probed. The media, the GOP, and the Democrats all value an Israeli life higher than American lives. They all tremble before AIPAC and other Israel Firsters dispersed throughout the Beltway. This is the untold story.

the funny thing is
Pat is just about the last standing true conservative we have. And he gets the most grief of anyone on here.

The treatment he receives is all you need in order to see just how far the right has sold out its core beliefs in its idiotic support of the historical failure that is Bush administration. You'd think it was all about a name. Go Republicans! Team!

Go ahead, convince yourself that all us who think this way are leftists. I'm sure its comforting.

Sweet!
So this is where all "the great Neocon-conspiracy kooks" hang out? I guess I should have known they'd be hiding here.

Remember: if the fillings in your teeth are letting the communist aliens intercept your CB radio broadcasts to your survivalist buddies, you can always short them out by chewing on your tin-foil hat.

nors
The thing is, AIPAC's and the Israeli government's influence in Washington is well known. It's no secret. This fact might be the single most d*mning thing about our political culture today.

mondamay
Yeah, that's right, I forgot. Now we smear anyone who calls these ex-leftists turned supreme conservatives by their rightful political designaton. Of course the fact Bill Kristol's own pappy was one of the originators of the term is a little inconvenient, but hey that's simply too obvious a thing to point out, isn't it? Can't we just forget about it. No problem.

"Who, me? Neocon? What the h*ll is that? Why, that's an anti-semitic slur. Only a liberal would use such a term."

Back to Newsmax, fella. Before a neuron actually fires and your hair catches fire.

No apologies here
Furthest reaches,

You need reach a little further.

Libby lied. He got convicted. Some may dispute that, but I don't. And there is NOTHING that is the least bit apologetic in my post.

What part of "Richard Armitage was the leaker" do you not understand? How can the left continue to believe the fantasy that Plame's "outing" was a White House revenge conspiracy after the leaker has been revealed to be an anti-war cog at the State Dept?

The answer is simple. The left doesn't care about facts or truth. The left only cares about hating Bush for beating Gore in 2000. The left's hatred for Bush is so all-consuming that they are willing (trying, actually) to lose a war so Bush won't get credit for anything. And while they do this they (you) have the hypocrisy to claim they are genuinely concerned that a real covert CIA operatives cover may have been blown. This argument is beyond lame. It is surreal as only the hateful political left can be.

Fitzgerald spent two years making something out of nothing. He knew the answer two weeks after he started but, like the left, wasn't going to let the facts get in his way. He was out to get a trophy and he got one. Congratulations. Libby's going to jail for lying in his answers to questions that he never should have been asked. Liberal justice at work. Truth and fact don't matter, just put the rich Republican in jail. Any rich Republican will do. If we can't get Bush get Cheney. If we can't get Cheney, get Rove. If we can't get Rove, get Libby.

So go ahead. Bask in your success. Tinker Bell is alive.

BTW - I am not a "neocon". I have been a conservative for more than 35 years.

This is Sad
The writer of this column, and now several commentors seem to be endorsing the karma-based theory of justice, and I'm the one who is accused of neurons not firing?


wiseone
Bush does not need any help from the "left" or anyone else to lose the war. He is doing quite fine all by himself.

wiseone
Tell me, have you even read the "Downing Street Memo" or the infamous White House Memo? I have posted links to them on this board before. It does not appear that you have from your talk.

Oh Brother
Now we've brought in the DSM. Could this sink any lower?

Now we get to argue about what "fixed around" meant, never mind that the rest of the document would tend to confirm the speakers' opinions that Hussein had WMD programs and a will to use them.

Why are we acting like the UN's
enforcement arm?

“All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?... We want the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced.” — President George W. Bush, address to the UN General Assembly, September 12, 2002

“I want the United Nations to be effective.... It makes sense for there to be an international body that has got the backbone and the capacity to help keep the peace.... The message to the world is that we want the U.N. to succeed.” — President George W. Bush, speech in Aberdeen, South Dakota, October 31, 2002

“America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution [1441] or not?... If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein.” — President George W. Bush, November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council, passed Resolution 1441

“The decision is this for the United Nations: When you say something does it mean anything? You’ve got to decide, if you lay down a resolution, does it mean anything? The United Nations Security Council can now decide whether or not it has the resolve to enforce its resolutions.
“I’m optimistic that the U.N. Security Council will rise to its responsibilities, and this time ensure enforcement of what it told Saddam Hussein he must do. See, I believe when it’s all said and done, free nations will not allow the United Nations to fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society.” — President George W. Bush, speech at Naval Station Mayport, Jacksonville, Florida, February 13, 2003

“Since we last met in this chamber, combat forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Poland and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein, and the people of Iraq are free.” — President George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 20, 2004

Wisone, the Fool
This latest column by Pat Buchanan covers a lot of ground but I do like the fact that he continues to raise questions about how the United States was lied into war. If the media were really as liberal as the Bush Cult makes it out to be, then we would have non-stop investigations into how our intelligence community was subverted, corrupted, and abused to grease the wheels of the Neocon war machine.

All of the intelligence we had regarding Iraq's WMD were either disproved or called into question before the war was underway. Intelligence is always a fluid process -- conclusions can change everyday -- and what we know in October 2002 -- when the NIE was compiled -- was different from what we knew in March of 2003. Bush's failure to call for another NIE amply demonstrates that his motivation was to connive the United States into war, and not to objectively respond to the latest intelligence.

Wiseone is quite the fool.

"So why did Libby lie to Fitzgerald? Easy. Bush made a public statement that all his people were expected to cooperate with the investigation, so Libby felt he could not cite the 5th Amendment and keep his job."

So Libby took a public statement by president Bush as legal advice? Why did he bother to retain counsel? Who asked him to lie, and why?

"The left should be very proud of themselves. Liberal opponents of the war in the CIA launch a bogus mission to discredit the President during time of war..."

What mission are you speaking of? If you are referring to Joe Wilson's trip Niger then you're chronology is a little off, since that trip was in 2002, before the war in Iraq began.

"And Pat Buchanan should be ashamed of himself for being a useful idiot to the left."

Pat Buchanan opposed the war in Iraq on conservative grounds. Democrats supported the war initially, while Buchanan has been a consistent critic of the war.

"BTW - I am not a "neocon". I have been a conservative for more than 35 years."

Please tell me where you disagree with the Neocons then and why their ideology is anathema to conservatives.









Red Tooth
"If the media were really as liberal as the Bush Cult makes it out to be, then we would have non-stop investigations into how our intelligence community was subverted, corrupted, and abused to grease the wheels of the Neocon war machine."

#1 IF the media is liberal?!!

#2 We have had non-stop "investigations" from the media. You can't go a week without getting another "Bush Lied" story out of the New York Times or the Washington Post.

#3 Ooh! We have a war machine! Shame about the greasy wheels though...

"All of the intelligence we had regarding Iraq's WMD were either disproved or called into question before the war was underway."

Wrong, but thanks for playing. Furthermore it is completely irrelevant. The inspectors were being blocked, the weapons report required by UN resolution was not what was required, and most importantly, Saddam had repeatedly violated the terms of the cease-fire with the US.

If the Bush administration has covered up anything (which is possible), it is far more likely that it is that the WMDs were moved out of the country while we wasted 14 months playing silly buggers with the UN.

Please tell me where you Paleo-cons (if I may coin a term) differ from liberals, and why your ideology is anathema to conservatives.

Hey, this is fun!

Liberalism...
...the philosophy of the stupid...

To Red Tooth and Others
There seems to be some confusion among the terms conservative, Neoconservative, and Republican. My guess is that most Americans think that "Neoconservative" is just some kind of conservative. There is a brief summary online if you google "Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception". Leo Strauss was the university professor who formulated Neoconservatism, the political philosophy that informs our present government. Among his followers at the University of Chicago were Paul Wolfowitz and Ahmad Chalabi, two important figures in the genesis of the Iraq war.

Basic tenets of Neoconservativism: 1) Money and power are to be held in the hands of a few, called "the Elite". 2) Everybody else is called "the Masses". 3) The Elite is to control the Masses using patriotism, religion, and deception. 4) Deception is very important; a strong leader must be amoral. 5) A strong middle class is to be discouraged, so all that makes a strong middle class (strong labor, entitlements) must be stopped. 6) Foreign policy is to be aggressive both to achieve US global dominance and because a perpetual war footing at home will help keep the Masses in line.

Sound familiar?

Libby
Buchanan starts out in the right tone. This WAS a human tragedy. Where Buchanan goes from there is not at all associated with Scooter Libby's situation but rather with Buchanan's pet issues - damning 'neocons' for having the good sense to start cleaning up the nests of vipers in the Middle East. I really feel for Libby. He can't be a wealthy man, unless he inherited or married it. As a government employee - even as high-ranking as Libby - he isn't going to amass a large pile. It doesn't happen. Not when there are mortgages to pay, kids to raise, etc. So he's ruined. And for what? For WHAT? For being the person closest to Karl Rove in stature that the left and its media handmaidens could bag. I'm really sick of this stuff. I find myself doing a lot of head-shaking these days.

You can't lie to the American people and
get away with it.
The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small. Drunk with power, you may be tempted to think it is an elixir, to visualize yourself soaring above the reach of earthly justice. You may see truth not as an independent existence, but a painting waiting to come alive to your brush strokes. It may become self evident that you can play the public like a harp, using influence seeking reporters too beholden to your favors to ever cease from doing your bidding. No obstacle of process or accountability would appear high enough to stop you from fashioning the world in your desired image.

Alas, the seed of downfall was sown in men's hubris. The day when an awakened democracy sends the messenger of justice to go knock on your door, the verdict he thrusts into your trembling hands will already have been revealed in your nightmares:

"You must sacrifice an aide!"

Scratch one "Neo-Con".
I just had to chuckle when the jury spokesman, following the Libby conviction, said that he and his fellow jurors had been wondering why it was Libby who was indicted, "rather than Rove and others"...."others" presumably meaning Cheney himself.

It appears Libby is taking the fall for "others".

One has to wonder what the jurors heard in testimony that would prompt them to want to know the answer to that.

With this administration, the chickens are finally coming home to roost. The whole construct is coming apart.

On MSNBC's "Scarborough Country", Buchanan wanted to know just who created the forged intelligence documents from Italy that alleged Saddam had tried to acquire yellow cake from Niger.

This administration relied upon those documents to buttress its case for war. I think the administration realized the documents were forgeries at the time, but used them anyway.

I hope congress investigates who, what group of people, or what nation, created those forgeries, and what they sought to gain from their dissemination.

Wiseone
Great posts...it is a sad thing, isn't it. All the people who got away with worse and this guy is skewered...Our justice system is a farce.

What is a 'lie'
I do not have as many conversations with as many people as Mr. Libby and certainly I am not involved in as many heavy duty decisions, but still, I don't always 'remember' accurately. Oddly, several of the witnesses for the prosecution didn't remember accurately either.

But a 'lie' of necessity means calculated and deliberate deception. However, one can be made to appear as a liar even if one made an honest mistake. It all depends on how an antagonist wants to make it appear -- and whether that antoganist is 'convincing'.

A jury found Libby 'guilty', but other juries found John Gotti and O.J. Simpson 'not guilty' and later other juries found them 'guilty'. We have read many times that innocent people have been found 'guilty'. I for one, have absolute fear of 'going to court' for ANY reason because I do not believe that the lawyers involved are interested in Justice -- just WINNING and collecting as much in fees as possible.

Once things get in the hands of others, particularly lawyers and judges in a courtroom, all sorts of things can get in the way of Justice. Many times a person must prove their innocence, regardless of the old 'innocent until proven guilty' adage. Even being innocent and proving it can STILL be devastating financially. Judgements from divorce courts prove this time and again.

Things get worse when politics gets into the mix, and I guess many folks would be surprised if not astonished and outraged to discover that politics alone played a part in either 'law' or a decision handed down by a court -- even one with a jury.

Quite frankly, it seems that today we only have an Injustice System that is adorned by a statue of Justice with a blindfold -- blindfolded because the 'legal experts' don't want Justice to see what actually goes on within the courtrooms.

Libby and Iraq
The case aginst Scooter Libby for perjru and obstruction of justice and the decision to remove Saddam from power are two separate matters entirely. That Buchanan puts them together reflects how Buchanan continues to write nonsense.

The case against Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction of juctice was actually a weak one, based on the differences in undocumented recollections, between Scooter Libby and certain journalists like Tim Russert, of what Scooter Libby said to whom. You would not have gotten this conviction in mainland America. Fitzgerald in jury selection went for a Bush hating jury because he needed a jury to act out of Bush hatred, and he got one, complete with a juror who was a friend of Bob Woodward and a neighbor of Tim Russert.

The Libby case was brought at all because the prosecutor Fitzgerald could not indict anyone for violating the Agent Identities Protection Act, and he needed to justify having run a multi-year multi-million dollar investigatiion for which there was no crime with respect to the Agent Identities Protection Act. There was no crime under the Agent Identites Protection Act and Fitzgerald could not charge a violation for a simple reason: it did not apply to Valerie Plame. She was NOT "covert" within the meaning of the statute because she was a Washington D.C. desk bound analyst and had not had a foreign posting for over five years.

Fitzgerald, however, persuaded the judge to keep out of evidence Plame's non-covert status, and presented Wilson as a matter of having been an obsession to the Vice President. This was pure bunk. The Senate Intelligence Committee found that Wilson had lied; his op-ed column in the New York Times was false in important particulars; and the Administration had every right to correct public misimpressions from Wilson's garbage. Wilson intimated in his column that Cheney sent him; Cheney had not; Wilson's wife Plame had. Wilson wrote in his column that his written report had been ignored by Bush that Saddam was not seeking to buy yewllow cake uranium in Niger. Wilson had not done any written report, and his oral report was to the effect that Saddam was up to something in Niger. (He was; as Christopher Hitchens put it, "so sorry everyone, but Saddam did go uranium shopping in Africa.")

This whole case started when Bob Novak asked the question "who sent Wilson?" It was a question that was natural to ask. Wilson was a known hard core left wing Democrat around Washington D.C.. Why would he be chosen to go on a sensitive intelligence gathering mission? If Cheney did not send him (and the Vice President certainly did not), who did? It was Richard Armitage, one of Colin Powell's men at the State Department, a person known for not being in favor of the Iraq War.

The Libby casse was a miscarriage of justice, the kind asking for correction.

Jack in Phoenix
The "nest of vipers" that needs to be cleaned up is the Neocons, themselves. I highly recommend you research them, just google "neoconservatism". They are NOT conservatives.

Opinion
I think this case should be further investigated to see how far up the chain of command the problem ran. It is just my guess, but I think Libby was the sacrificial lamb.

Pat and the most apologists for
the incompetent and secretive administration are missing the point.
Even without clearly provable criminal conduct, the office of the Vice President conspired to savage a critic of the war who was trying to tell the truth about something. It involved the identity of a CIA agent. The CIA asked for an investigation. At the very least, Fitz had to investigate what was done, and whether laws were broken. In the process, Libby -- to cover up something which was Wrong, if not Criminal -- lied and obstructed justice.

The fact that Novak heard from Armitage does not mean that Cheyney, Rove, Libby and Fleischer didn't conspire to work the phones and get some stories about Wilson and Plame out there. Fitz had to investigate that.

Libby did something which was arguably criminal but certainly wrong, and lied about it because he didn't want anyone to know about it. That's a crime.

And as far as the covert/not covert discussion, I think enough people, close to the actual work, have said she was covert, and was working on WMD of all things.

Phil Byler
> Wilson was a known hard core left wing Democrat around Washington D.C.. Why would he be chosen to go on a sensitive intelligence gathering mission? <

* In 1991, the acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson, sheltered 800 Americans at the embassy in Baghdad during Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

* After he left Baghdad, Wilson was nominated by President George H.W. Bush as ambassador to Gabon. President Bill Clinton later named him to the National Security Council in charge of African affairs.

Why would he be chosen? Who else can you name that had a better working knowledge of both Iraq and Africa? As for your claim that he was a hard core left wing Democrat, how do you explain his appointments by Reagan and Bush Sr? In reality, he was considered a non-partisan career diplomat until the Times editorial.


Judgement
"And in the end, we are unlikely to know the truth of why it was we went to war."

Maybe that is correct, but it is becomong increasingly clear that it was simply an error in judgement and an ignorance of the potential implications of American action. That type of error is also becoming more obvious in most of the policies of this spend and spend administration. Republicans will likely have difficulty overcoming the errors. However, the Democratics provide little reason to believe they have any judgement.

Pat is right
This is indeed a sad moment for Mr. Libby. Nevertheless, you have to admit that it was rather foolish to lie to the FBI, et al. And for what? So we could continue to raise our war cry to a fever pitch against Iraq prior to our invasion in 2003? Where are the WMD's, the terror links to UBL etc.? The intel we used to justify our undeclared war was specious at best. Yes, Saddam was a monster, but so are quite a number of other tyrannts around the globe. Are we going to start up military campaigns against them as well? Whatever happened to the old rule of "a nation is considered a threat if it can combine hostility with capability"? Or, "nations act in their own self-interest"? Pray tell what self-interest do we find in Iraq other than death and debilitation for our military? When our forces leave we will then know what our blood and treasure hath purchased for us. It is indeed a sad thing that a man should go to jail for a just cause; but to go to jail for a lie and one that has resulted in the deaths and maiming of thousands of our young people is most regrettable.

Gathering of Eagles/Move America Forward
Not on topic but important. These two great organizations are combining efforts for the pro troop rally in DC on March 17th. Move America Forward has organized a caravan that starts tomorrow in SF and ends on the 17th in DC. There are about 20 stops scheduled for the caravan. If you can't be in DC on the 17th to show your support go to one of the rallys. You can find the information here:
http://www.moveamericaforward.org/
http://gatheringofeagles.org/

Liberty
Re: Bush is losing this war

And just how long did it take to defeat Saddam's army? Three weeks.

How many attacks has al Qaeda successfully executed in the US since 9/11? None.

How many of Iraq's 18 provinces are peacefully rebuilding without the interference and oppression of Saddam? 14.

What is our kill ratio in Iraq? Based on the numbers I have heard and read it would be at about 8 to 1 (although I admit I have no confirmed data for this). And this does not include enemy combatants who have been captured and imprisoned.

The goal was to depose Saddam and replace him with a government of Iraq by the Iraqi people that would not be hostile to the US or its neighbors. That is EXACTLY what is happening. Just because it isn't happening overnight and it is costing more than you would like to pay doesn't mean we are losing.

Re: The Downing Street memo

Do you know what "getting pissed" means to a Brit? It means to get drunk, not angry. Do you know that when an American says he wants to "table" an issue it means he wants to discuss immediately, but to a Brit the word "table" means to set it aside until later? Apparently not, since you also don't know that when a Brit writes that "...intelligence is being fixed about..." Iraqi WMD it means that the CIA is concentrated their efforts on WMD, not "fixing" existing intelligence the way some crooked cops and judges fix traffic tickets.

But since you're so concerned about what British intelligence has to say, why don't you mention that to this day MI6 stands by its assessment that Saddam tried to buy yellow cake from Africa. Why don't you mention that we have actually found 1.77 metric tons of yellow cake in Iraq? I could understand it if you were a liberal. After all, a good lib would never let a couple of inconvenient facts interefere with a good witch hunt. But you claim to be a Libertarian.

The idea that anything positive has been accomplished by putting Libby in jail is indicative of a small mind and narrow vision.

For Red Tooth
"So Libby took a public statement by president Bush as legal advice?"

No, as I clearly explained, Libby took Bush's statement as an instruction that he would lose his job if he refused to answer Fitzgerald's questions.

"Why did he bother to retain counsel?"

Are you serious? He was charged with a crime.

"Who asked him to lie, and why?"

Apparently no one asked him to lie. Fitzgerald spent two years bullying high-ranking officials in the administration with multiple subpoenas and couldn't come up with anything to charge any of the rest of them with. What part of this don't you understand?

What part of "Armitage was the leaker" don't you understand?

What part of "Fitzgerald knew Armitage was the leaker two weeks after the investigation started" don't you understand?

What part of "no underlying crime" don't you understand?

What part of "We have found yellow cake in Iraq" don't you understand?

Regarding the timing of Wilson's trip:

Yes, Wilson's trip came before the invasion of Iraq, but it came AFTER the State of the Union Speech in which Bush said that the UK had info that Saddam tried to buy yellow cake in Africa.

Is this really that hard for you?

"Pat Buchanan opposed the war in Iraq on conservative grounds. Democrats supported the war initially, while Buchanan has been a consistent critic of the war."

If Buchanan has opposed the war on conservative grounds then he doesn't need a "Bush lied" screed to add to his complaint. If Buchanan truly believes this war is wrong he and his argument retain more credibility if they do not sign on with petty political conspiracy theories that are prompted more by hatred of Bush than by any reasonable interpretation of facts.

"Please tell me where you disagree with the Neocons then and why their ideology is anathema to conservatives."

Since you have asked nicely I will respond in kind.

I can't tell you what neocons believe, only what I believe. As lilly pointed out in her post there apparently is great confusion and disparate understanding of what a neocon is. Also I should point out that I initially misinterpreted Furthest_Reaches' post on this. Upon re-reading it I realized he actually accused me of being an "enabler", not a neocon, so my response to him is off target anyway.

But I can tell you this much about what I believe.

I believe in smaller government: much smaller than we now have. Sixty percent of our budget goes for entitlements. That is RIDICULOUS. To that extent I am displeased with the recent Medicare prescription benefit as it is a preposterous boondoggle that can't possibly be maintained.

As far as this war goes I believe the federal government has no higher priority than to provide for a common defense. This is stated in the Constitution. I consider the Iraw war to be part of our common defense for many reasons, not the least of which is the direct benefit we now enjoy of having terrorists fighting our military on foreign soil instead of attacking our civilians in our homeland.

I also believe in lowering taxes as much as possible. Taxation is oppression. The less of it we have the freer we are. In this sense I support making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I support balancing the budget by cutting spending. I recommend that since we spend 3 times as much on entitlements as we do on dfense that cuts in entitlement spending should also be three times as high as Defense cuts.

Would you be interested in knowing that one thing that made Rumsfeld unpopular at the Pentagon was that he advocated cutting costs there?

I believe that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional.

And finally, I believe that if the left really wants to impeach Bush their best shot at it is accusing him of failing to do his job to defend our borders from illegal immigrants. Of course the left will never do this because that would require whoever replaced him to do it, and this is you would call a "anathema" to the left.




wiseone, a bit backwards
your american table, british table is backwards: an american tables something until later and a briton tables something for immediate discussion.

backup:

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/motable.htm
http://www.yourculturecoach.org/gbc_quiz.html
http://www.edupass.org/english/british.phtml
http://www.proz.com/translation-articles/articles/570/1/AMERICAN-VERSUS-BRITISH-ENGLISH
http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/usgbdiff.html

from the last link:
"To Table (parliamentary procedure, conference terminology) = to put on agenda for immediate handling; U.S. "to table" = to put aside [indefinitely], to delay further handling"

and please don't say you're not wrong because we disagree; there is no disagreement to be had.

as for fixed:

"fixing" is not only used to mean "concentrated upon" in british english... it can also have fraudulent connotations...

please stop giving people lessons in english if you are going to give them incorrect information... then again, you are a construction worker, aren't you?


This is payback, people
This is payback for the ridiculous impeachment of Bill Clinton. Pure and simple. That same Victoria Toensing who writes that Libby's obstruction is not a serious crime? Was one of the leading Clinton-bashers back in 1999. It's okay to prosecute someone for a non-crime if they're a Democrat, right?

If lying about Lewinsky was an impeachable offense, then so are: Katrina. Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo. Signing statements. Halliburton. Take your pick.

Anyone who continues to apologize for this amazingly corrupt administration is an idiot. Which has nothing to do with being a Republican. It's sad.

"fixed" in context
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy."

The usage of "but" at the beginning of the second sentence most strongly indicates that the connection between the removal and the justification was tenuous. It has a negative connotation. If the second sentence would have had a positive, non-fraudulent connotation, and that he was using fixed in the sense you describe, it is more likely that Rycroft would have used one of the following words:

thus, therefore, hence... etc.

So removing the prepositional phrase:

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy."

The intelligence and facts of sentence two refer to "the conjunction of terrorism and WMD" of sentence one. The policy of sentence two refer to "removing Saddam." So, let's replace:

"But the conjunction of terrorism and WMD were being fixed around removing Saddam."

But apparently this is all Greek to you.


wiseone and others
the initial quote from my last post was taken from the downing street memo, just in case you were wondering.

Just a few points.
First a general comment. Mr. Buchanan is a bit, forgive me, scatter shot in this piece. There are certain passages that I found unclear, such as the "Democratic Congress" circa 2002 that Mr. Buchanan criticizes for writing a "blank check" to Mr. Bush. I believe Mr. Buchanan is speaking to the Democrat minority in the Republican Congress, especially since he references Democrats in office back in 2002. I think his working, frankly, gives the Democrats too much benefit in their ability to resist a very fierce Republican majority.
It should also be noted in this regard that it is the Administration that controls intelligence gathering, selection, and reporting. I don't forgive the Democrats or the Republicans for their utter lack of doubt (with very few exceptions) but they were relying on the word of the Administration who, by design, filtered all of the intelligence seen by Congress.

I'd also like to clear up a few common misconceptions:

* Victoria Toensing argued in the Washington Post that perjury in a CIVIL case is every bit as much a crime as a 'real crime'. In the same piece she listed a number of case law examples. The only difference was, she was writing in regard to a Democrat, Bill Clinton. 8 years ago we were screaming for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying about a private matter in an investigation about a Land Deal. Now, the same people leading that charge are screaming that lying to a FEDERAL GRAND JURY to impede an investigation is not a crime. It is utter irrelevant whether the Covert Operative statue was violated, 4 real crimes were commited by Scooter Libby during the investigation.
I do believe that the Covert Operative statue was not violated, but only because the people who ordered her outing have the ability to declassify information at their whim. In this sense, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are not above but outside this law. It's unfortuate that Scooter broke the law in an attempt to stop political fallout over a dispicable act that likely wasn't illegal in this particular case (if anyone other than Cheney orchestrated this particular act I believe it would be illegal).

* Plame was classified Covert. It didn't matter whether she worked in Kazikstan or in the CIA headquarters. It was the CIA that asked for the investigation because their covert agent was outed. It is particulary egregious that she was outed since she worked in the WMD anti-proliferation group. Of all groups in the CIA, this is possibly the one single group that should be most protected by our Administration. In the interm since this leak, N Korea has built Nukes and we have much contradictory intelligence on Iran's nuclear programs. Too bad our administration chose to make the world less safe by damaging the WMD division.

* Wilson did NOT state that Cheney ordered his deployment to Niger. If you don't believe me, find a quote from him stating that. I dare you. I've looked, it doesn't exist. This is a lie.. and why do innocent people need to construct such cover stories?
Wilson said, he was sent to Niger by way of a request from the Office of the Vice-President. The Office of the Vice-President made a request to the CIA, that they send someone to Niger to look into the Yello Cake story. The CIA looked for someone and Valery Plame noted to her superiors that her husband had worked in the area and that he had contacts in the Nigerian government. Joe Wilson was sent by Valery Plame's superiors to fulfill a request by the Office of the Vice-President. I suppose everyone has forgot that the Office of the Vice-President was running a seperate Intelligence group at the time run by Fieth.. something that was unprecidented. BTW, the people running this were the same people that claimed the Soviet Union had death rays in the 1970s.. no I'm not making that up. Look up "Group B".

I could go on and on. There's so much BS in these comments it's astounding. 'WMD were moved before the war..'. You think? Where's the satallite recon photos? You don't think we had every eye-in-the-sky on Iraq prior to an invasion? P.S. We also had weapons inspectors on the ground before the war.

It's sad that this is where Conservativism is at. Massive deficit spending, corporate welfare, incompetent cronyism, and the over riding principal that it's Party Before Country.
A criminal is a criminal. Right now, 2/3s of the Republicans and 1/2 the Democrats should be voted out of office. I use those general numbers only because the Democrats have been refreshed and it'll be another 5 years before the new ranks are throughly assimilated and corrupted.
Ask me down the road and I'm sure I'll flip my opinion back.

One last point, What is the Republican count during this administration? 1 Congressman felon (2?), 2 Congressmen indicted, 3 felons from the White House, A half dozen ethics violations in the Congress, purportedly 60 more investigations on going from Abrahmoff alone? Please correct me, I think I missed some.

Downing Street Memo, wiseone
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy."

The usage of "but" at the beginning of the second sentence most strongly indicates that the connection between the removal and the justification was tenuous. It has a negative connotation. If the second sentence would have had a positive, non-fraudulent connotation, and that he was using fixed in the sense you describe, it is more likely that Rycroft would have used one of the following words:

thus, therefore, hence... etc.

So removing the prepositional phrase:

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy."

The intelligence and facts of sentence two refer to "the conjunction of terrorism and WMD" of sentence one. The policy of sentence two refer to "removing Saddam." So, let's replace:

"But the conjunction of terrorism and WMD were being fixed around removing Saddam."

But apparently this is all Greek to you

Stop Beating a Dead Horse

....Pat ...

.....How or why we got into the war is immaterial to the fact that we are there ...the question is ...do we surrender with our tail between our legs or do we do what is necessary to win? ...

....that fact that Libby got convicted while Burger got a love tap and a blow in the ear illustrated how much better the Democrats are at hard ball politics that the Republicans ....Bush came to Washington as an appeaser pleading for bi-partisanship ...what he should have done is go for the Democrats juglar ...

.....one of Bill Clinton's first official acts was to fire all the lawyers in the justice Dept. and replace them with his own people ...I don't remember any complaints from the Republicans ...now Bush has fired seven lawyers and the Democrat Senate is holding hearings ...this is political hard ball ...a game that the Republicans have yet to learn ...

.....The State Dept ...CIA ...FBI ...Dept. of Defense are all riddled with Liberals who do everything in their power to stymie the Presidnts agenda ...If the Republicans were smart the first thing they would have their President do is to clean house and expunge as many Liberals from these career jobs as possible ...otherwise just throw in the towel and go along to get along ...which is what they seem to be doing .....COLOSSUS

Pat
Don't you get sick and tired of writing the same muck? This case against Libby was nothing more than a political vendetta.

Joe Wilson and his wife ought to be tar and feathered and hung up in DC for all to see as the political hacks and bloviaters that they are.

Now, they will make a fortune from books and Hollyweird movies while Libby's life has been destroyed of no good reason.

peter lance on fitzgerald
Why is no one, anywhere, talking about Fitzgerald? Wonder what I'm referring to? Go to http://www.peterlance.com

merry_go_boy
wiseone is good at spitting out facts, much like rainman... he thinks it passes for intelligent analysis... don't expect much of a reply beyond, "i will not waste my considerable knowledge and vast experience" on you.

merry_go_boy
see my above post regarding his analysis of the usage of the word "fixed" in the downing street memo... he spits out a fact that "fixed" means something other than a fraudulent connotation in british english, but doesn't actually analyze the use of the word in context... if he did, he might see his spitting out of a fact doesn't fit the situation.

Clintonesque responses
drewrush,

Thank you for all of your corrections and augmentations, none of which refutes any point in my post in the least.

The word "table" does not mean the same in the UK as in the US, as you have proven.

Your exact citation from the Downing Street memo does not alter the FACT that the word "fixed" does not mean the same thing to the Brit who wrote it as it does to the American left.

sbandoyski,

"Wilson did NOT state that Cheney ordered his deployment to Niger. If you don't believe me, find a quote from him stating that. I dare you. I've looked, it doesn't exist."

and later in your post...

"Wilson said, he was sent to Niger by way of a request from the Office of the Vice-President."

Thank you for clarifying that salient point. I'm sure we were all dying to know the exact words of Wilson's LIE, which is still every bit as much a LIE the way he actually said instead of the way I (and others) have abbreviated it.

Also, what part of "no underlying crime" do you not understand? Toensing stated unequivocally that there was "no underlying crime" for the subpoena Fitzgerald served on Libby. (You see how it took Toensing only 3 words to say that, whereas you have used roughly 300 words to impotently dispute it. I find this fact intriguing when it comes from one who is complaining about "BS".).


Bill "I guess it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" Clinton would be proud of both of you (did I get that last quote exactly right?).





merry-go-boy
I will respond to your last question first
In a post on another thread I have stated that if the left really wants to impeach Bush their best chance is to base it on his failure/refusal to defend the border from illegal immigration.

Regarding your first point:

I wrote:

"If Buchanan has opposed the war on conservative grounds then he doesn't need a "Bush lied" screed to add to his complaint. If Buchanan truly believes this war is wrong he and his argument retain more credibility if they do not sign on with petty political conspiracy theories that are prompted more by hatred of Bush than by any reasonable interpretation of facts."

Nowhere in this paragraph did I state or imply that conspiracy theories are the "only" thing inspiring hatred for Bush.

But thanks anyway; for letting me know that you hate Bush and why.

I'm sure that makes yours a real objective opinion.




1 question about the conviction
I understand Libby being convicted on the perjury counts. But being convicted of obstruction of justice makes no sense at all.

How can one be convicted of, or even charged with obstruction of justice after it has been determined that NO CRIME WAS COMMITED?

Plain

old

stupid.

Correction
merry-go-boy,

Please read my response to Red Tooth in its entirety. You will see that at the end of that post I stated that illegal immigration is the issue that gives the left (or you, if you are game) its best chance to impeach Bush.

Jabelson
I'd respond to your comment but it doesn't make any sense to me.

table
"The word "table" does not mean the same in the UK as in the US, as you have proven."

i didn't prove that they meant something different... nor did i have to.. i proved that you were WRONG in saying the brits use it to put something off until later, while americans use it to look at something now... again, i proved you were WRONG or MISTAKEN... and, again, you have trouble conceding you were wrong about something and change what i proved to cover your mistake.

as for fixed:

it was not my citation that alters the alleged FACT that the word "fixed" does not mean the same thing to the Brit who wrote it as it does to the American left.

your claim that the word means something else to the Brit does not work in context. as i said, the word "but" would be replaced by "thus, therefore, hence" or some other similar word. if you had a grasp of english grammer, british or american, you would understand this.

you fail to comprehend that though "fixed" is normally used in one manner by a Brit and another by an American, it does not preclude the Brit from using it in the same way an American would.

my analysis of the usage of the word fixed within the context RYCROFT used it does prove that he intended it to mean that policy was paramount over fact.

i do agree with you, however, that there were WMD in Iraq regardless of what anyone said.


No crime committed
If there was no crime committed here because Plame wasn't a covert agent, I've got one question.

Assume that Libby had some of the best lawyers that money can buy in the United States.

Why didn't Libby's defense team bring this up as an issue?

Or did I miss that part?

Libby a Martyr?
No question about it, the media played a big part in helping to promote the Iraq War and abetted the Bush administration into taking the eventual action that has so far killed over 100,000 Iraqi citizens and put over 3,170 U.S. military in body bags.

But, the whole idea that our entire government would lie to us from the get-go, from the top down, including the 17 intelligence agencies who are charged with presenting incontrovertible evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed and intended to use his W.M.D. against our country was inconceivable to most Americans.

True, we can rewind to March 2002 when Bush's State of the Union speech charged that Iraq sought to acquire Niger yellow cake uranium for making nuclear weapons. This charge, along with a long list of other supposedly toxic weapons possessed by Saddam Hussein absolutely elevated the fear factor among most Americans, even those on the Democratic Party side of the aisle. What were people supposed to do? Make accusations that every single person in government, including the president, vice president, Secretary of State Colin Powell, all the intelligence agencies were lying to us? Yet, after 9/11 Americans believed Bush should have the power to go after anyone he chose to as long as we believed it was for the purpose of protecting American citizens.

But, as David Kay, Bush's chief arms inspector for Iraq, stated in his testimony before the U.S. Congress and one of the true believers, testified that "we were all wrong." And it wasn't until New York Times reporter Judith Miller went to prison over her purported involvement in the Valerie Plame affair, that the American public began seriously doubting the probity of the Bush administration. From then on it went downhill for Bush/Cheney. There's no turning back now because the lies have been exposed.

Far from being a martyr for the War Party, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby simply ended up being a dupe for the right wing extremists and war mongers whose entire raison d'etre was built upon the fantasy of converting the entire Middle East into democracies overnight -- at the end of a gun barrel.

America got fooled once: shame on Bush/Cheney; America got fooled twice: shame on Bush/Cheney/Rove; America did not get fooled three times. The shame is on the U.S. Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, and the mainstream media, for not exposing and acting on information that could have and would have saved thousands of lives which were lost, all because of an overreaching, authoritarian government that long ago dispatched with checks and balances and decided that international laws and the laws of our land were "quaint and obsolete."

drewrush
I'm just a bit curious about one of your comments to someone else. Just what is your problem with someone being a construction worker? It has always seemed like honest hard work. Why, by golly, I have construction workers in my family. Should I be ashamed?
I just can't figure it out. You seem to enjoy enlightening us, so, please-enlighten.

dog
Hope we don't prolong our prior conversation into another thread. Judge Walton prevented the introduction of evidence that discussed whether or not Plame was covert. To him, it didn't matter. Explicitely the defense was prohibited from offering as a defense that Libby had no motive to lie because no crime was committed to lie about. I am sure if Judge Reggie had not blocked this key piece of the puzzle the Libby defense would have jumped on using it. Because Libby wasn't charged with the crime of disclosing the identity of a covert agent he was barred from arguing that the underlying crime didn't occur.

Plame/Wilson
Conservatives believe in taking personal responsibility as long as it applies to others. Once they have to stand up and be counted.....

Regarding Joe Wilson, he simply told an inconvenient truth. The President exagerated almost every claim he made in the leadup to war. Yellowcake, aluminum tubes, mobile bio-labs, air launched delivery systems, mushroom clouds and on and on.

The inconvenient truth for conservatives is the Wilson affair is a metaphor for their movement. The leadup to war was based on falsehoods just like their movement is based on a series of falsehoods they continue to perpetuate. They are pro-family unless the family name is Schiavo and then they can bring the entire weight of the federal government down on a family choice, they are anti-stem cell research unless it's for invitro fertilization (they are identical techniques in that you are ending life of an embryo to create life, tax cuts pay for themselves, there is enough discretionary spending cuts to be made to balance the budget and the list goes on and on of falsehoods that represent core conservative principles.

Joe Wilson tugged a loose thread in the President's/VP's argument for war. It threatened to unravel a much larger falsehood (that SH had no link to al qaeda and there was no WMD program). Wilson had to be destroyed to perpetuate a lie. Everything that followed was based on that core precept.

For all the braying and belching you hear from the right a casual or careful reading of Wilson's original editorial reveals a pretty innocuous document. For all their knockdown claims by the right several things remain true:

1) Most of the claims by conservatives on the Sen. Intel. Com. report that damn Wilson are actually outside the report in a partisan letter inserted w/o the permission of the minority. What a surprise that the President's enablers would insert a series of falsehoods to try and continue to destroy Joe Wilson.

2) There was no yellowcake procurement by Iraq. Iraq already had 500 tons of yellowcake in Iraq and had no need for more. Niger couldn't/wouldn't sell it to them b/c of multiple reasons not the least of which that the mines were heavily regulated and moving 30 truckloads of ore across the dessert would have been pretty hard to conceal.

3) His wife didn't send him. She offered him and the resulting nonsense that she sent him is the result of a memo notation by a State Dept. official who took a potty break and misunderstood some comments when he came back. He has repudiated his notes for years.

4) Valarie was a NOC the most secret of agents. Even if you buy the myth that she was no longer a NOC her company was a CIA front set up over years to provide NOC cover. So the outing destroyed her career and it destroyed the company cover and it put in jeopardy any foreignors associated with the company over the years. Destroying that to protect a lie is the most disgusting part of this whole affair. Imagine conservatives being weak on national security. Another falsehood revealed.

Conservativism a movement based on falsehoods

An open mind is a GOOD thing!
Taking the time to read Pat's opinion, as well as everyone who took the time to comment, I continue to be amazed. Most of the comments were either standard democrat or republican talking points. There just doesn't seem to be much critical thinking going on. The fact that this site is not unusual is, to me, very disturbing. When I started to pay closer attention to politics and government I noticed a huge change. There were basically 2 opposite parties. These parties seemed to hate the other and would never work together. The object for the right was to stick together, no matter what, in order to maintain power. The left, a party with more diversity, seemed in disarray, never able to get a majority to agree on an opinion. Both sides used special words and language to convey their "message." It immediately struck me as a form of brain washing and propaganda. I continue to hear slogans every day and it is frightening because American citizens are adopting these phrases and repeating them as if they were true! I grew up in an America where both parties respected each other publicly. Where the American people still had a measure of influence in congress. When any PRECIEVED breech of the constitution was immediately stopped by members of both parties in congress as well as the public. The rule of law couldn't be trumped. Now people defending the constitution and the Bill of Rights are considered leftists? You see, there is no question that the republicans do not protect the document that makes us a nation of laws. Republicans have had the majority all of the time that W. has been president and they have even given him THEIR power as a co-equal branch of government. That is something the founders could never have imagined. The legislative branch giving up their power to a "unitary executive." Now, I am a proud liberal. Been one since back in the day when it wasn't a dirty word to some. However, I do not turn my head or defend them when the democrats do something that is clearly wrong! The public has the responsibility to stay informed. That means watching what members of both parties say and do and calling them out if they don't meet the smell test. Both sides have their faults and their good sides. Open your mind and evaluate for yourself if you agree. Don't wait for the pundits and their talking points to do your talking for you. In the last 15 years it seems you are expected to be on one side or the other. Kind of like your school is playing the cross-town rivals and no matter if your team cheats or gets a call that should've gone the other way, or deliberately injures another player, whatever, you WILL be for YOUR side, regardless. People, please realize this is not a game. Politics can be a deadly business as we see in the current wars we are waging, and how our deficit compels us to borrow from Asia yet have no bargaining power over a part of the globe that is rapidly growing their economy and their military. They are the bank and we operate under their terms. I read a comment above about how the writer believes in a small government. How can that person be a republican? Since W. became president the government has grown exponentially! The president started a whole new "entitlement" program to give seniors Rx drug coverage. To compound the problem he wouldn't allow the government to use its power to bargain for lower drug prices as the V.A. does. That would make the drug & insurance companies compete for business. Republicans are always preaching to allow the free market to set prices. But they couldn't in this case because those companies provide thier re-election funds. That bill was so bad that even the republicans had to leave the vote open for hours while arms were twisted and bribes offered. In the middle of the night they finally got their required number of votes. Conservatives believe in CONSERVING. These republicans are NOT conservative. The national deficit is so high it will take years to pay it down. Recall that W. started his term with a surplus! Conservatives were also great advocates for the environment. Nixon and Ford were great defenders of environmental issues. These presidents were responsible for protecting our resourses with cutting edge programs, making sure water and air were safe, and protecting forests and green spaces. Even growing up liberal, there were still many issues both parties could agree with. We should be able to do that today! Now, the democrats...the ones that voted for the war, I believe, voted for political reasons. They were AFRAID not to because the American public was in a state of fear due to threats of WMD. Democrats didn't want to be seen as "soft on national security." The case presented was flimsy and many people without access to the "classified intellegence" reports could clearly see Iraq posed no threat to us. Those few stood up but were ignored or ridiculed. It's the same reason both sides voted for the patriot act. The republicans brought it to the floor for a vote right before the election. Only a few legislators even admitted they read the bill! That bill was and continues to be an assault on our civil liberties. That should concern EVERYONE, not just liberals. Another major flaw of the democrats is that, now that they have the majority in both houses, they continue to be timid about advancing their agenda. The American public voted for a change of direction. A large majority wants to bring the troops home and yet we get non-binding resolutions? Both parties are guilty of ignoring the publlic good and I think there is nothing wrong with demanding they both work their butts off to find solutions to the nations ill's. Being critical is not being dis-loyal. Your first loyalty should be to the country anyway, not a bunch of politicians! You may not agree with my assessment, and that's your porogative, but use your OWN thoughts and words to argue your point. Realize that no ideology is perfect, left or right, and to defend one side as such isn't realistic. As for Pat B., I totally disagree with him on social issues. I grew up with a separation between church and state. IMHO Everyone seemed to get along much better that way. However, he is not afraid to disagree with his own party. And he may seem contrary and argumentative when faced with another viewpoint, but he does listen and I've seen him change his opinion during a discussion with "the other side." He is not one to grow older and more set in his ways and views. I admire him for continuing to listen and continue to keep an open mind. Is that too much ask of the general public? I write this in the sincere hope that there is still a chance for Americans to stop hating each other and act like responsible citizens. There is too much at stake, as a country, to continue these ridiculous feuds.

SJR
I was unaware of that.

If you're correct, I stand corrected.

Thanks.

Martyr of the War Party
Thank you, Pat, for implicitly distinguishing between the principle of conservatism and the practice of the current administration. My steadfast application of the former leads me to vehemently oppose the latter.

Big government is bad government. Public agencies, starting with best intentions, ultimately become bloated bureaucracies, corrupt enough to start manufacturing demand merely so they themselves can supply it. This phenomenon is nowhere more apparent, however, than in the U.S. military industrial complex. The only thing worse than a tax-happy government that "knows what's best" for the nation - and proceeds to distort markets in ways difficult to undo - is a trigger-happy government that "knows what's best" for the planet - and proceeds to destroy societies in ways impossible to undo.

Conservatism - at least, the libertarian aspect of it - derives from the fundamental principle that power corrupts, and must be prevented from concentrating in government. The current U.S. administration is pretty much Exhibit A - why is this not readily apparent to every conservative?

Throwing bombs at terrorism is about as productive as throwing welfare at poverty. Both amount to scratching at poison ivy; they offer short-term, gut-level relief of symptoms, but ultimately cause the disease to deepen and spread. Both are stupid - and cowardly. U.S. conservatives should muster the brains - and the courage - not to scratch.

Like we Canadian conservatives have.

blustrmom
i apologize for my comment regarding construction workers... i did not mean to offend any construction workers by saying they might be like wiseone... it is good, hard work and, again, i apologize... so, just insert another condescending remark of your choosing and apply it to why wiseone shouldn't be giving lessons on the english language

Misleading Statements
The CIA sent Joe Wilson to Nigeria to check out the yellowcake claim, because of the pressure brought by Cheney and Libby. They did not tell Cheney they were doing this, but they probably felt they did not need to brief Cheney on every facet of their intelligence assessment. Wilson's report was negative. All of this was reported in several books out on this subject including "Hubris". Libby was especially obnoxious with the CIA and thought he and Cheney were out to lunch on the whole Iraq issue but did not want to go up against Bush. The conservative spin on this subject has been unbelievable. What is especially bothersome is that innocent men and women died because of these clowns. This is a very sad chapter in American history. Bush and Cheney will be very poorly regarded when the history is finally written on this subject.

Iraq war -
let us not forget that Saddam - did fire at
our jets - a violation of the prior war agreement - to
remove his forces from Kuwait - that by itself
should have been enough.

Tortured Logic
How many people truly understand the jump required to go from yellow cake uranium to atomic bomb.

Or Aluminum tubes.

The Pentagon, not the NYT, release a threat assessment of Iraq in the October before the war.
The *Pentagon* said the following:

1.) Iraq was 5 - 10 years away from reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

2.) Even if Iraq could build an atomic bomb, they had no means of reaching the U.S.

These important facts were left out of Bush's speech in the following Januray.

The Pentagon threat assessment said that Iraq was no direct threat to the U.S. if Saddam did have an atomic or nuclear bomb because Iraq had not means of delivering it. And two, the technology required for Iraq to build a bomb from yellow cake and aliminum tubes was 5 - 10 years out.

When Cheney was asked about these points after the Pentagon's report was release, he glibbly replied, "I just believe that Saddam will sell his techonology to the terrorists. I believe the 5 - 10 year assessment is wrong, I believe it is more like 1 -2 years."


I'll give you some yellow cake and I'll challenge you to build a bomb.

I'll give you some aluminum tubes and challenge you to build a bomb.

In presenting the yellow cake and aluminum tubes to the country as evidence, Bush was insulting the American public.

Furhter more, if the main concern is the selling of nuclear weapons and technologies to terrorists is the primary concern, then other countries like Pakistan and North Korea are far more worrisome by any measure.

What's more, Iran is now 5 years ahead of where Iraq was back in 2003 with its nuclear capability. Kim Jungil has nuclear bombs and is just as crazy if not crazier than Saddam, certainly better armed and what are Republicans doing?

The whole yellow cake, aluminum tube, mushroom cloud sales job makes the Republican party look really sophmoric and silly when it comes to credibility on military decisions.

What next?

The Pentagon in Octbor said Iraq was 0 threat to the U.S. directly but Bush goes in front of the country and says it is with yellow cake and aluminim tubes.

It doesn't get and more black and white than that folks.

Republicans have destroyed all credibility about being better on defense by rolling out the yellow cake boogey man and then continuing to support it.





Mondamay
"Wrong, but thanks for playing. Furthermore it is completely irrelevant. The inspectors were being blocked..."

Actually it's not wrong. Before the war in Iraq began we knew 1)Curveball's testimony was unreliable -- he was the source claiming Iraq had mobile biological weapon labs 2) We knew from a report by the IAEA that Iraq had no nuclear weapon program and that the uranium documents were forgeries 3) We knew the sites Colin Powell mentioned in his presentation before the United Nations was false because Hans Blix inspected those sites and came away with nothing.

The inspectors in Iraq were not "blocked" but given free and unfettered access to any site in Iraq. Even surprise visits were granted. Since the case for war with Iraq was crumbling so quickly, why didn't president Bush do the honorable thing and request another NIE or at least give Congress the opportunity to cast another vote on the war since some members of Congress gave their authorization for war after thinking (erroneously) that Saddam was trying to acquire uranium from Africa.

"If the Bush administration has covered up anything (which is possible), it is far more likely that it is that the WMDs were moved out of the country while we wasted 14 months playing silly buggers with the UN."

This is a popular Bush Cult conspiracy theory, but one that lacks evidence. If Iraq did ship weapons out of the country, then can you name the facility Iraq was using to produce chemical weapons in 2002?

"Please tell me where you Paleo-cons (if I may coin a term) differ from liberals, and why your ideology is anathema to conservatives."

Paleocon isn't a term that you coined. Paleocons -- I'm not one -- differ strongly from liberals: liberals believe in big government; Paleocons in less governmnet; liberals believe in open borders; Paleocons believe in stopping mass immigration; liberals believe in quotas and affirmative action; Paleocons oppose them; liberals believed in "humanintarian" foreign policies e.g. Kosovo; Paleocons opposed Clinton's bombing in Kosovo.

Neocons however supported Clintons bombing of Kosovo, and support Big Government, quotas, and social welfare programs. In fact Bill Kristol said he would rather John Kerry be presient than Pat Buchanan, and that's because Neocons are just another type of liberal.




Wiseone
"Apparently no one asked him to lie. Fitzgerald spent two years bullying high-ranking officials in the administration with multiple subpoenas and couldn't come up with anything to charge any of the rest of them with. What part of this don't you understand?"

So why did Libby lie then? If there was no underlying crime, what's he trying to hide?

"Yes, Wilson's trip came before the invasion of Iraq, but it came AFTER the State of the Union Speech in which Bush said that the UK had info that Saddam tried to buy yellow cake in Africa."

This conspiracy theory requires a time machine. President Bush's SOTU address was in 2003 and Wilson's trip in 2002. So who gave Wilson a time machine?

"If Buchanan has opposed the war on conservative grounds then he doesn't need a "Bush lied" screed to add to his complaint"

Why not? If it's true that the intelligence regarding Iraq was manipulated, cherry-picked, or massaged, why shouldn't Buchanan say so? Buchanan's opposition to the war was on conservative grounds -- no national interest is at stake in Iraq; United States foreign policy shouldn't be involved in nation building. This is why Buchanan also opposed Clinton's bombing of Kosovo, while the Neocons supported it.

"I believe in smaller government: much smaller than we now have."

If you really believed this then you would oppose George Bush and the war in Iraq. So you cannot mean what you say.

"I also believe in lowering taxes as much as possible."

How is that possible when you support a president that is one of the biggest spenders in the post-WWII era?

"I believe that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional."

Then you should support impeaching president Bush since he signed it.

"Of course the left will never do this because that would require whoever replaced him to do it, and this is you would call a "anathema" to the left"

It's anathema to the Neocons who run the show at the White House. Border security is worse under Bush than it was under Clinton.

No one who supports Bush can call himself a conservative.
















Plame
Any cover she may have originally had was long since blown. She had been tagged by both the Cubans and the Russians as an operative years prior to all of this mess. She might has well have listed her name in the phone book as Valerie Plame "Secret" Agent.

For anyone to claim that she was put at risk of harm by any of the mess surrounding her husband (which she pretty willingly inserted herself into) is absurd.

And, lest we forget, Saudi Arabia - 4
US request dismissed
7Days.com (UAE), March 8, 2007

Gulf business leaders yesterday dismissed as UNREALISTIC a request by the United States to scale back dealings with Iran, saying that would only be achieved if their own governments demanded it. “I urge you to consider whether it is wise for your company to focus its efforts on doing business with Iran,” said Stuart Levey, the US Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the Treasury Department.

He was addressing a business conference in Dubai. “What the Americans are asking is unrealistic. The economic and social ties between the Arab states in the Gulf and Iran are too strong and intertwined,” a SAUDI BUSINESSMAN, who declined to be named, said. The United States has been seeking to isolate Iran, claiming that its nuclear programme could be used to build atomic weapons and that it funds Shia militant organisations such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah and militias in Iraq.

http://www.7days.ae/en/2007/03/08/us-request-dismissed.html?comment_add=1

Lest we forget, Saudi Arabia
US request dismissed
7Days.com (UAE), March 8, 2007

Gulf business leaders yesterday dismissed as UNREALISTIC a request by the United States to scale back dealings with Iran, saying that would only be achieved if their own governments demanded it. “I urge you to consider whether it is wise for your company to focus its efforts on doing business with Iran,” said Stuart Levey, the US Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the Treasury Department.

He was addressing a business conference in Dubai. “What the Americans are asking is unrealistic. The economic and social ties between the Arab states in the Gulf and Iran are too strong and intertwined,” a SAUDI BUSINESSMAN, who declined to be named, said. The United States has been seeking to isolate Iran, claiming that its nuclear programme could be used to build atomic weapons and that it funds Shia militant organisations such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah and militias in Iraq.

http://www.7days.ae/en/2007/03/08/us-request-dismissed.html?comment_add=1

Its late
I realize it's late and most people have gone home. I just have a few questions as to whether we were lied into a war.

How many people does it take to process yellow cake uranium into a nuclear weapon?

How big of a physical plant would you need.

How many people does it take to make a biological weapon, be trained to use it and then use it.

How many people does it take to produce chemical weapons? How big a facility? How many people to make and produce the delivery system? How many people trained to use the delivery system?

Once you figure out how many people it would take to make all these weapons, can that many people keep it a total secret? That is, you don't know if there is a program, you don't know where it is, you don't know how many people are involved.

When you can answer than, you can come to your own conclusion as to whether we were lied into Iraq or not.

Buchanan trying to overtake Carter
I guess when life has nothing left to offer its time to start using, "Jimmy Carter" logic and make like a complete fool...

I'm still trying to remember why this fraudulent old socialist was ever considered a conservative...

Pat Buchanan, Blowhard
You Sir, have crossed the line. You have fought George Bush at every opportunity. Instead of being the "Neo-con" you should be, you sell out to the Democratic moderates and the Left! BUSH TOOK US INTO WAR BECAUSE HE NEEDED TO!!!! Get that through your brain. I'm tired of moderates like you kissing the behind of the Left. They undermine our agenda at every turn and want this country to fail! You probably will never see this truth as you are stuck in the Moderate Nixon Past.

Libby Conviction


It is interesting to see so called conservatives attacking Buchannan. I'm not a conservative and I often find myself at odds with what Buchannan writes. I will however credit him for being one of the few remaining conservative public figures. Sadly, most of the peopel who claim to be conservative seem to lack any historical knowledge of conservative ideals: If they had any clue about these they couldn't possibly support the current administration in any of its policies. Bush/Cheney and their hirelings are a disgrace to the American conservativism and my guess is that it will take a long time for the movement to recover from the damage these demagogues, imbicles, and liars. If conservatives had any sense of patriotism they would reject Bush/Cheney and their policies and quit worrying about the next election.

Libby and Mark Rich
Fitzgerals was one of a group of Lawyers who were trying to convict Mark Rich on tax evasion charges. Scooter Libby campaigned clinton for a pardon for Rich. So Fitzgerald nailed Libby, but the REAL reason has nothing to do with Plame or Wilson or yellowcake, this is a rivalry between two lawyers. As someone who helped a criminal gain a pardon I think Libby is being justly punished. He shold do time, a lot of it, he should rot in jail. He's a filthy sleazy lawyer, it's amazing that the republicans are defending him.

Agents See Dangerous Precedent in Plame’
Do you think CIA agents are right to think “government could get away with anything” by only convicting Scooter Libby? Do you agree with the CIA agents that “more officials should be charged”?

NPR-The verdict in the trial of Lewis “Scooter” Libby is attracting attention among Valerie Plame’s former colleagues at the CIA.

Among intelligence insiders, there’s concern that nearly four years after the CIA called for an investigation into the leak of Plame’s name to reporters, no one has been charged for what they see as an unpardonable crime: outing an undercover operative.

Valerie Plame belonged to that secretive circle of spies who spend most of their careers
— in some cases, their whole lives — operating undercover. Within that circle, there appears to be mostly relief at the verdict. Larry Johnson, who was in Plame’s CIA class and has remained a close friend, calls it “wonderful news.”

Johnson adds, “I think there was a general perception that this government could get away with anything. With this verdict, the answer is, ‘No it can’t.’” Johnson sees the decision as a moment of vindication for his friend. But he says it shouldn’t be the end of the Plame story — that more officials should be charged.

READ MORE http://www.controlcongress.com

Wiseone is truly wise!!

I cant figure Pat out and have about had it with the constant beating of the adminstration

Right as Right
I don't know, let's see:

- allowing our borders to be overrun by illegal aliens

- refusing to protect our borders

- signing an agreement with Canada and Mexico to merge our country into a North American Union

I have more, but that'll do. Do you not think he deserves to be criticized for these actions?

Sickofhypocrisy
You said, "You Sir, have crossed the line. You have fought George Bush at every opportunity. Instead of being the "Neo-con" you should be, you sell out to the Democratic moderates and the Left! BUSH TOOK US INTO WAR BECAUSE HE NEEDED TO!!!! Get that through your brain. I'm tired of moderates like you kissing the behind of the Left. They undermine our agenda at every turn and want this country to fail! You probably will never see this truth as you are stuck in the Moderate Nixon Past."

He has fought him when it was warranted, yes. What the H*LL are you talking about that Buchanan should be a "neocon"? Do you even know who and what they are? Perhaps you should google "neoconservatism" and find out! They are NOT conservatives.

Bush took us into war to nation-build. NOT to protect us, not to avenge 9-11, not for WMDs. Geez man, the plans to invade Iraq were written BEFORE 9-11 by those same neocons you seem to love. They weren't in power until Bush/Cheney got into office. Once they did, the neocons were finally empowered and are now setting foreign policy. It is THEIR plans that we are executing.

Pat Buchanan is no moderate and neither am I. You know what, I am sick and tired of hearing Republicans bash one of the few authors on this website that sticks up for our country and our Constitution. I say, "Republicans", because conservatives tend to know better.

To Sickofhypocrisy
1) You seem not to understand how "Neoconservative" differs from "conservative". Either google the term or go to "Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception", a concise summary of Neoconservative political philosophy.

2) I am moved by your patriotism and your commitment to our troops. Will you accept a sizeable tax increase to fund the war and the lifetime medical care to pay for all of this military glory?

I am old enough to remember World War II---it was a time of shared sacrifice. Just about every family had a soldier at the front. Women took men's factory jobs because there weren't enough men to fill them. Meat and canned goods were rationed---we couldn't buy them if we didn't have enough ration stamps. We couldn't buy cars or radios or stockings or Hershey Bars because everything was going to the war effort. People couldn't find housing. The public was constantly dunned to buy war bonds to help finance the war. Even children in school bought special savings stamps that would add up to become a war bond. People lucky enough to have cars were encouraged not to drive them, to save gasoline. People grew their own food in the back yard ("victory gardens"). Women learned to cook without sugar or whatever else they couldn't get. And things were much worse in England where London was blitzed and bombed and people all over the country took strangers' children to live with them just to get them away from the bombs.

By contrast, the Iraq War has been a ton of fun for people like you and me. It's Business as Usual in the United States. Putting us hugely in debt, Bush has borrowed the money: no new taxes to pay for his war. He has encouraged a consumer spree. Journalists are forbidden to show returning coffins or wounded. Military funerals are ignored. Bad news about the war is mocked as slanted or untrue. And a long list of right-wing heroes (like Bush and Cheney and Hannity) managed to avoid combat altogether---google "Chicken Hawks" for a full list.

Liberty
Good points. Let's also remember how many times bush has lied directly to our faces, and I'm not talking of WMDs. How about the most recent time when he said there would be a change in the rules of engagement? There weren't changed, he told a bold face lie. How about "guest worker". What is beyond me is why ANYBODY still defends this man. I suspect some people see an attack on him as an attack on the country, this is a BIG mistake. There are people on here who are completely enemy centered, that enemy being the democrats. They are completely focused on them as the enemy that has to be defeated. I'm not saying they aren't harmful to this country but one also has to look at what bush is doing; Their vision is so clouded by their obsession with the democrats that they can't be objective about bush and the harm he is doing to us.

I was a fan from 70s til right now.
How can I respect you and others afflicted with a cancerous generational selfishness of not wishing the success of this war.

As for your constant elitist historical references, try these on....

"Some men cry "peace! peace!" but there is no peace." Patrick Henry

"The future belongs to the Brave." Ronald Reagon after the Shuttle disaster.

Shame on your and those at MSNBC responsible for your gelding.

Buchanan...
has finally and completely lost his mind.

RC

Mr. Buchanan . . .
You think "were we misled" is the larger issue, do you?

While I agree that there is plenty of blame for the Iraq debacle to go around, you seem to have missed something in your haste to assign Congress and the press their share in it: Did the Vice-President of the United States connive at the disclosure of information that, even if it is not technically classified, is certainly sensitive, for the partisan, political purpose of discrediting a critic who was almost certainly correct in his criticism?

Address yourself to that!

Tommy
Interesting that you would pick Patrick Henry to quote. He is one of my favorite. Here are some more of his quotes:

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."

"I know no way of judging the future but by the past."

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

You know what, Tommy, I don't believe you when you said you have been a fan of Buchanan's since the 70's. Unfortunately, you give yourself away by criticizing him for quoting "historical references". You said, "As for your constant elitist historical references, try these on...." Tommy, you think it is "elitist" to quote from our Founding Fathers and others of the time? Interesting. I personally find it valuable to learn from those, many of who risked everything to give us this Republic. They had studied history, you see, and all the various forms of government and picked the one for us that had been the most successful.

Mr. Buchanan has not been "gelded", as you put it so eloquently, Tommy. I am sorry that you cannot see what is happening to your country in front of your very nose. Mr. Buchanan is one of the very few on this web site who has the intestinal fortitude to stand up and speak about it. Please go educate yourself. You might want to go to:
http://www.newswithviews.com and start reading.

Sickofhypocrisy
Here's something I previously posted about the neocons that might interest you:

I have made no bones about the matter that I do not think the NEOCONS are operating in the best interests of our country. For some reason, because they call themselves, "neo-conservatives", i.e. (conservative is in their name), we conservatives go to sleep and think they have the same beliefs as we do. They do not. Their roots are in Trotsky. Irving Kristol, Bill's father, is who apparently coined the term. It is these folks that put together the plans to create a "New Middle East" long before 9-11. 9-11 was used as an opportunity to move forward with these plans. Ever wonder why we don't seem to care about Bin Laden?

Take a look at these:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=746312

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (developed in 1996)
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm


Then, you might glance at this article, called, "Liberate Iraq" from the Weekly Standard. It was published on May 14, 2001. The author was Reuel Gerecht, PNAC's Director of the Middle East Initiative. It may be noteworthy that the Weekly Standard is funded by Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News), the editor is Bill Kristol, son of Irving Kristol, who coined the term NEOCON.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm

Then, you might be ready to move on to the PNAC's (Project for a New American Century) paper called, "Rebuilding America's Defenses". It was released in 2000.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

You also might want to note the people that belong to PNAC and notice how many of them moved to Bush's administration. Note: PNAC is Bill Kristol's organization.

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

NEOCONS all...........

Who are the Neocons and what are they about:
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leo_Strauss

criminalizing a non crime.
Hey Guys, lets spread a rumor about a non-event, appoint a low character biased political enemy to investigate a the issue (in which he allready knows who committed the non-crime. Use the enormous power of federal law enforcement to find any inconsistantcies, spend millions looking for a offense that they already know the answer, find one, indite, try in a favorable court, find some weak jurors who need an explanation of the charge 10 days into deliberations, get your phoney verdit and prance around blameing anyone who is remotely connected to the non crime. Are the monkeys loose in the zoo or what.
Principal Rats in this deal
Proscuter guy who knew who did it prior to investigation of his political enemies.
Armitridge, the guy who did it
Colin Powell, the guy who knew the next day, and a employee of the administration (Sec of State)
(who is afraid to fly on airplane)and kept silent to hurt his benefactors and country
The press (who knew about this)
The no-brain jury who tried a man for so called offenses not related to the charge
Democrates who allow Sandy Berger to steal the most vital documents with concrete evidense and slap on his hand.
Allowed Clinton to lie on numerous times and Poo pooed it with a slap on the hand.
Allows one of theirs to lecture on "jesus" and selfiness with obcene palaces and extravigant lifestyles.
Keeps and protects one of theirs who kept his large bribes in his freezer, kind of a "cold case" bribe so doesn't count
Revisit another "cold case" murder and or failing to notofiy authorities bout a auto accident (while the accused made 150 calls to other folks, methinks the cops where call no.156
Hey! why doesn't the FBI shake out the 150 that were called and find a couple of dozen and bring them to the deep south and watch the juries slap them with some perjery and "obstruction of justice" crimes.
Major players, Dem's, Prosecutor, weak Dem jury, and most of all, the major press who has forgotten what fair reporting concepts is considered a dead practice because they are owned by libs who will fire them in a flash if they try to be honest and report the news in an unbiased manner...and they forget the American people aren't dumb.

The lesson for individuals
If you are interviewed by an investigator, your only response should be,

"I have nothing to hide, but in case my recollection is different from someone else's recollection, or in case I might make a mistake, I'm not going to answer any questions. You may contact my lawyer."


Martyr or the War Party
The supreme irony of all this definition/denial of neo-conservatism is the fact that extreme leftists first appropriated the good adjective/noun of "liberal" and now, decades later, have done the same thing with "conservative"!

Impeach now
Pat B....You make sense. But there is no real answer other than we need Bush, Cheney impeached now. The world will once again respect us and those whose ineptness and corruption that have caused this great country such pain and waste should be held accountable. It will send a message to others to never ever do this again.

Dubya is not a Conservative
I think for anyone who can define that word conservative, will have to own that Dubya Bush has not been one. He is perhaps less to the left than Teddy Kennedy but that doesn't mean he is a true conservative.
How could a conservative promote Nafta GATT and the WTO to the damage of US labor?
How could a 'conservative' president liberalize our borders with Mexico and promote a card carrying second class citizen policy for them?
How could a conservative president continue to spend recklessly in Iraq?
And why does he not offer a pardon to our two arrested border guards who now sit in prison for doing their job?

no conservatives just NEOCONS.
Pat speaks the truth again. You are one of the very very few traditional conservatives that left uncorrupted. How do I know? from the ferocious hatred of the neoncons against anyone who disagrees with them. No productive, intelligent debate. Their neurones seem to be in receiving/sleeping mode. They see everything through the eyes of EVIL vs GOOD. No wonder why all the nobel prize winners are liberals,from chemistry to medicine to..literature.

The conservative movement in the US died with the election of Bush to the white house.

Leftist Spinning
I did not look back at the posts here since I left mine at 8:00 AM Wednesday. I have had work to do in my practice of law, and what posting I did was with respect to Thursday's and Friday's Townhall articles. Now reading these posts, I have to say that some of the posts here are just wrong on issues and in a way that some seriously deceitful spinning went on.

One of the more important issues is Plame's non-covert status. Plame was NOT covert. To say, as one poster here did, that it did not matter whether she was posted in Washington D.C. or abroad reflects an ignorance of the statutory definition of "covert." The statute requires foreign posting.

If Plame had been covert, Fitzgerald would have been in a position to bring indictments under the Agent Identities Protection Act. He did not; he never will; he couldn't.

Phil Byer
Why do you keep telling us that you are a lawyer?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.