A tribute to Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush who, despite voluminious evidence to the contrary, said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," adding that "even in retrospect" there was "nothing" to suggest that" and "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," respectively.

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Looks Like Everyone Got the Memo: GOP Lying Points and Spurious Conclusions 

The GOP Lying Points about the Libby indictment can now be identified:

John Cornyn on This Week and Lindsey Graham on Face the Nation, apparently were recipients of the memo.

This was the act of a single individual and not a broad effort to discredit Ambassador Wilson or cover it up because only Libby was indicted.

This is contrary to information in the public domain, assuming of course, that what we heard is true. Cheney had to know Libby was making false representations to the public, the Special Prosecutor, the Grand Jury and to Scott McClellan who further disseminated the falsehoods. Of course, it is implausible that Libby acted alone, or even if was able to pull that off, that no one else in the administration knew he was a source of the leak or of the attempts to cover it up.

Since no crime was charged, no crime was committed.

This could also mean that no crime was charged because it cannot be proven. Perhaps a result of Libby’s obstruction or perhaps because Alberto Gonzales gave the White House time to destroy documents with a heads up. This is analogous to saying that OJ is innocent because the jury found him not guilty. They do not mean the same thing. Innocence is not having committed the crime, “not guilty” is the failure of the state to prove a crime was committed by the person charged to the satisfaction of the trier of fact.

Essentially, they're making the argument that an indictment is not proof of guilt but the lack of an indictment is proof on innocence. These guys have law degrees?

Rove cooperated fully with the Special Prosecutor and the grand jury.

Did he cooperate fully the first time, the second time, the third time, or the fourth time he appeared before the GJ?

Rove is exonerated because he was not indicted on Friday, October 28, 2005

Rove may be innocent or he may be guilty as sin, neither of which is proven by the failure of the SP and the GJ to issue an indictment. Again, perhaps it just can’t be proven or perhaps an indictment will be forthcoming.
On Lindsey Graham:

I thought there was hope for Lindsey Graham, but sadly, I was mistaken.

Lindsey Graham continues to defend the smear of Wilson using the debunked claim that Wilson said/suggested the Vice-President/Vice-President’s Office had sent him (Wilson) to Niger. He continued with the White House knew this was false and therefore had a right to defend itself, or something similarly inane. Graham should read “What I Didn’t Find in Africa” and then explain to us where exactly Wilson made the claim he was sent by the Vice-President. What sort of man would attack a critic by attacking the critic’s wife. Hardly seems the Christian thing to do. Besides which, the claim about Niger has been proven false and a crude forgery was the evidence to support the false claim. These continued attacks on Wilson are a diversion from the real issue, the admittedly false claim in the President’s State of the Union Address.

Lindsey Graham is nothing but a hypocritical asshole. During the Clinton impeachment he made the claim that because a phone call was made in the early morning hours, the call must have been the result of sinister motivations. And his great fact-checking led him to accuse Vernon Jordan of involvement in a cover-up attempt at a time when Jordan was in a plane over the Atlantic. Personally, I wouldn’t trust his “legal” judgment any more than I believe Halliburton protects the interests of the American taxpayer. Lindsey Graham is a weasel.

BTW, if Cornyn’s appearance on This Week is any indication of his legal reasoning ability, he belongs nowhere near the Supreme Court or any other body dealing with legal issues.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?