Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Libby indicted  (Read 626 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cimics

  • Prevalent User
  • *
  • Feedback: +9/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1110
    • http://home.roadrunner.com/~cimics
Libby indicted
« on: October 28, 2005, 05:56:50 PM »
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/default.jsp

Comments?  What does this mean for the Bush administration?
Logged

SoughtFound&Alive

  • Regular User
  • *
  • Feedback: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139
Re: Libby indicted
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2005, 06:02:30 PM »
Quote from: cimics
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/default.jsp

Comments?  What does this mean for the Bush administration?


How do we spell fallguy?
Logged
Is it ALL meaningless?

Copernicus

  • Paramount User!!
  • *
  • Feedback: +30/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2226
    • Naastika Blog
Re: Libby indicted
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2005, 08:01:21 PM »
Quote from: cimics
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/default.jsp

Comments?  What does this mean for the Bush administration?


The interesting thing is that the administration has taken the official position that neither Libby nor Rove were involved in leaks to the news media about Plame's CIA connection.  Either both men lied to their bosses, or their actions were condoned.  There is no other way to look at it.  Libby's resignation is understandable, and he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  However, why is Rove still employed by Bush?  Does he get away with a lie, or did he tell the truth to his boss?  If he told the truth, then how does Bush reconcile his administration's position that Rove was not in any way involved with the leaks?

 :-k
Logged
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.  Religion is answers that may never be questioned.  --Anonymous

cimics

  • Prevalent User
  • *
  • Feedback: +9/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1110
    • http://home.roadrunner.com/~cimics
Libby indicted
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2005, 09:47:10 PM »
Not sure how this is all going to play out, but Novak had two sources and it looks like they were Libby and Rove, but Libby may have been the leaking source and Rove the confirming source.  That really put Libby in a hotter seat because Rove can say he didn't reveal Plame's ID.  Of course, the indictments are not about revealing the ID but perjury and obstruction of justice.  Perhaps Rove told all under oath when it really counted, but Libby fudged, especially understandable if Libby were the original leaking source.  

Or it's still possible that Rove will be put on the hotseat soon.

What seems true though is that Libby must have presented an easier target.
Logged

Copernicus

  • Paramount User!!
  • *
  • Feedback: +30/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2226
    • Naastika Blog
Libby indicted
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2005, 09:54:56 PM »
Quote from: cimics
What seems true though is that Libby must have presented an easier target.


I certainly agree with that.  The problem for the Bush administration seems to be over whether the whole business stops with Libby.  If not, then they face the same creeping rot that finally brought down Nixon.  Still, I can't foresee Bush getting in the same untenable position that Nixon finally ended up in.  (And years later, it turns out that Nixon was directly involved in the break-in--what everyone suspected all along.)
Logged
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.  Religion is answers that may never be questioned.  --Anonymous
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
 

More Details