Cheney & Libby: It’s Not Over By a Long Shot
Lost in the tsunami of commentary on the Libby perjury trial verdict is that a second trial looms that could be far more damaging to Vice President Cheney and the Bush administration.
That trial would be on the lawsuit that Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame have filed against Cheney, Libby, Karl Rove and Richard Armitage.
The lawsuit would have proceeded no matter the outcome of the criminal trial. That is because it is not about whether Libby obstructed justice and lied, but whether the high-profile defendants violated the constitutional rights of the former diplomat and his CIA agent wife by conspiring to retaliate against them after Wilson revealed that one of the key rationales used by the administration for going to war in Iraq was phony.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
58 Responses to “Cheney & Libby: It’s Not Over By a Long Shot”
A (slightly more) Moderate Voice:
“A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false — and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame’s name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.
The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame’s name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak’s primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame’s identity — and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.”
(Washington Post, 3/7/07)
steveh:
The statement that there was no conspiracy flies in the fact of considerable evidence that there was.
As noted in my post, testimony presented to the grand jury and perjury trial jury will be incidental, in most respects, to the evidence presented to a civil trial jury if the lawsuit gets that far.
That WaPo editorial is a perfect example of why I hate unsigned editorials.
The conviction of former White House official Lewis “Scooter� Libby on Tuesday dealt another blow to President Bush’s beleaguered administration and marked the latest chapter in a record of mistakes, missteps and setbacks growing out of an Iraq war policy that went badly awry.
What Libby’s actions do indicate, however, is a White House more than willing to play fast and loose with the truth, as well as spin everything necessary to justify its policies.
Wilson wants to prove the existence of a “conspiracy” that Dick Cheney and Richard Armitage worked together on?
Yeah, good luck with that.
iconic midwest:
It’s really very simple. The bar is considerably lower in a civil trial. All that Mr. and Mrs. Wilson’s lawyers have to prove to get a verdict in their favor is that their life was thrown into turmoil because of the leak(s) and so on and so forth.
I am not saying that will be easy, but they don’t have to prove that there was obstruciton of justice and people lied.
That is why I believe that Cheney and his posse should be worried.
iconic midwest:
It’s really very simple. The bar is considerably lower in a civil trial. All that the Wilsons’ lawyers have to prove to get a verdict in their favor is that their life was thrown into turmoil because of the leak(s) and the malicious intent behind them.
I am not saying that will be easy, but they don’t have to prove that there was obstruciton of justice and people lied.
That is why I believe that Cheney and his posse should be worried.
An additional thought: Cold logic won out over emotion in the perjury trial. If the Wilsons are to succeed in a civil trial, emotion will have to win out over cold logic.
What interests me is revealing the truth about Cheney’s role in getting us into Iraq. It would be fascinating if the civil trial were to reveal-
what happened to Joe Wilson’s report- if there was one?
Whether Cheney received the report and decided to quash it?
Tenet’s role in the leak case—whether he ever received Wilson’s report
BTW, I’m not sure if malicious intent is easy to prove, even in a civil trial. I do think there was evidence (revealed in Libby’s trial) of a conspiracy between Cheney, Libby, Fleischer and Rove—but I’ve never understood how Armitage fit in. Obviously, Fitzgerald didn’t have enough to prove conspiracy charges in court.
kritter:
Like I said, “discovery is going to be a bitch.”
Armitage is a throwaway
They would need more than emotion, they would need the perfect jury, or maybe the perfectly gullible jury. (Not that that isn’t possible.)
The fact is the only person who could have possibly been implicated in a “crime” that would warrant penalties in a civil action is Richard Armitage. You are simply never going to be able to make a case that he was in cahoots with Cheney, Rove or whoever else the Dems… I mean Wilson and Plame, feel like going after.
Armitage is not a throw away. To prevail in their claim against the Cheney et al., the Wilsons must prove:
1) that the “leak” was tortious, legally wrongful,
2) that they suffered financial damages (tough given the book deal, Vanity Fair cover, upcoming movie, etc.) AND
3) that the “leak” by Cheney et al. was a cause in fact of their damages (i.e., that they would not have suffered the damages but for the wrongful conduct.
If Armitage had already outed Plame before Libby did, then the Plames would have suffered the damage whether Libby leaked her name or not. Once it was out there, nobody can say it was wrongful to discuss the fact and the weakness and falsehoods Wilson spread in public. If there was any legally wrongful (tortious) conduct, it can only have been in the leaking of Plame’s employment in the CIA. If Armitage, independent of Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Libby, made that disclosure first, or if the defense shows that he would have made it even if Libby and them had not, then the Libby “leak” is not a “but for” cause of their damages (if they had any).
How is Armitage a “throwaway?” HE’S THE LEAKER! If you can’t prove he was working under Cheney’s order you have nothing.
Without that the case devolves to saying it is “illegal” to criticize Joe Wilson.
You are all forgetting that in a civil trial…if the Wilsons proceed…Wilson himself will be subject to cross-examination under oath.
That will be sweet revenge, given the night-day contradictions between his report and his NYT op-ed.
He is simply not a credible figure, given his multiple spins on this story. Plus, the MSM is not at all happy about this case as it has exposed their incestuous dealings with politicians. Thus, the only positive media Wilson is likely to get will be Vanity Fair and the NYT.
The fact that Armitage was the original source of the leak…and given the notorious distance between Powell’s State and the Cheney operation…establishing a conspiracy will be difficult indeed.
Wilson has been able to snipe from the sidelines…but having him under oath would be sweet!
iconic midwest:
Once again, there is less here than meets the eye. The Wilsons’ case turns on plain old invasion of privacy, not conspiracy, perjury, obstruction of justice, so on and so forth.
I agree that getting a guilty verdict will not be a slam dunk. As it was, the Libby perjury jury was unusually well educated. That is exactly what Fitzgerald wanted. You’d better believe that education will matter less during jury selection for the Wilsons’ lawyers. They will try to seat jurors whose profiles would seem to suggest sympathy for people whose lives are thrown into turmoil by powerful people in high places.
Kim,
You may want to check out this page from the WaPo online:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/03/07/GR2007030700384.html
WaPo certainly isn’t a source that is biased toward the administration, yet their answers to the questions that you pose about Cheney’s involvement and the Wilson report don’t support the cynical role that you seem to assign to him.
That’s not to say that the way he responded was above board either, because I dislike the political hardball approach that he seems to have taken (at the very least, he probably commissioned Libby to discredit Wilson in response to Wilson’s inaccuracies). What’s really frustrating is that he probably could have played it straight and refuted what Wilson wrote in the OpEd and it would have been the end of the story.
Shaun wrote:
So to paraphrase you, Shaun (correct me if I’m wrong), it matters not whether the Wilsons can prove that their case against Cheney and Rove is true, but you consider it only necessary for them to prove that damages were done to their privacy by their leak. You seem to be saying that they don’t have to prove WHO did this to them, but only find a sympathetic jury who will award damages to them regardless of whether the people on trial were actually shown to be the perpetrators of the damage.
You may be right, unfortunately, but what an indictment on our system.
marlowecan:
Wilson’s credibility is indeed suspect and I note in my post that I don’t find him to be a sympathetic figure, but it is not his crediiblity that would be on trial.
For every attempt by the defense to paint Wilson has a multiple spinner, there will be a tale of woe by the plaintiffs about how the Wilsons’ children were ostractized at school, how the Missus couldn’t get a job post-CIA job she wanted because of her notoriety, how the UPS man started leaving packages out in the rain instead of in the carport, how a right-wing neighbor’s dog started defecating in their rose garden, how their sex life went to heck . . .
Once again, it’s all about invasion of privacy.
Komrad Marlow – Like the Bushanistas are a credible group. Wilson has a diplomatic history in Africa and the ME. Now what about Brownie and Simone Ledeens qualifications. Wilson, like politicians of both stripes, is an egostical blowhard. But the Right did go after him because of the NYT editorial. I wonder what the experts at ArmsControlWonks say about…….
Your experts are on Hannity, like Hamesfahr and Cham Dallas….
dream on shaun.
what’s the basis for their lawsuit and your dreams that it will cause all sorts of problems for Bush and Cheney?
They weren’t slandered. No administration official committed a crime or invasion of privacy in talking to reporters about her identity/ position / role in sending Wilson to Africa. They could have held a press conference, flashed her picture on the screen and passed out her resume. The Wilsons suffered no loss, financial or otherwise, from any of these supposedly improper disclosures… in fact, some might say, they’ve benefitted from this whole brouhaha. While she ‘quit’ her job, she’ll have a tough time proving constructive discharge (nobody at the White House would have dared push for her to be fired and, in any event, she was a hero at the anti-Bush/Cheney CIA)..
At worst, it will be a bit of an annoyance for the White House… and, in the end, yet another disappointment for you. the whole thing has to be disappointing for you, right? all of the hype that this would bring down Rove and Bush and Cheney and all you get is a conviction on a few relatively minor charges (sounds like a logo for a Tshirt). And while I personally hope Bush doesn’t pardon Libby, should he do so, it would be a nice bit of salt into your wounds…
Here is a link from ArmsControlWonk about the yellowcake and Wilson. The wonks have advanced degrees in science(even more that Dr. Science). The Wingnut hacks (Hannity,Levin…) have no scientific degrees and make their livings as sycophants. Now whom are we to believe, scientists or the RR and Hannity?
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/686/wilson-bashers-rove-defenders-hearing-you-talk-is-a-waste-of-silence
stevesturm:
First of all, thanks for taking a civil discussion about criminal vs. civil procedures, Wilson’s credibility and the potential for exposure to the plaintiffs in an invasion-of-privacy case and making it personal. That really sucks, but its your prerogative.
Second of all, as a onetime supporter of the war and someone who votes for more Republicans and Democrats, I do not look at this as an Us. vs. Them matter, let alone a modern day version of the Roman Colisseum.
Look no further than the approval ratings for Bush and Cheney to see where a large majority of sentient Americans are. You obviously are part of the small and shrinking minority.
The rigging of pre-war intelligence, the lying about the rigging of the pre-war intelligence, and the consequences of the rigging and lying about the pre-war intelligence have been anything but negligible, and calling it “a bit of an annoyance” for a White House that has screwed up everything it has touched is sweet, but kinda sad.
Shaun – I linked above to a site run by arms control and weapon scientists. These people look at the data to make their observations, they don’t just repeat Republican or Democrtat talking points. I believe the site was started because of Bush propaganda and MSM ignoring the spin.
stevesh,
keep your head buried deep in the sand…in fact, i urge all wingnuts to do the same
your butts are more attractive anyway
It was the press who invaded their privacy and caused almost all of those things, Shaun. She wasn’t forced to pose for the cover of Vanity Fair, you know. Nobody was hounding her relentlessly a la Javert, except the media. The leak, the original leak, is what caused her damage, if any. Once her name was out in public, all those things were going to happen to the Wilson Plames. That was inevitable. Once her name was out in public, it was entirely proper for politicians and pundits to denounce her nepotism and bias in arranging for her husband to make a trip, and to point out his repeated lies about what he found.
Wilson himself chose to become a public figure and insert himself into a highly controversial political matter by writing a New York Times op/ed. By doing so, he was guaranteeing himself a fair amount of that public scrutiny. Unless you’re suggesting that the White House had an obligation, for the sake of his “privacy,” to let his lies go unchallenged in public?
The only “retaliation” ever wreaked upon the Wilson Plames, if any, was the release of her name and employment status. That’s it. There has been not a single allegation that anybody from the White House called to keep her from getting that job or any other “retaliation.” Are you suggesting that Karl Rove called UPS to change where their packages would be left? The negative consequences came as a result of the publicity. Armitage, Libby, et al. are only liable if they unlawfully caused that publicity by releasing her name and employment status. And if Armitage released it first, or would have released it anyway, then there is no liability for Libby or anybody else. Period, end of story.
Rudi,
I accept what is stated at the site you referenced about the yellowcake, but who here is disputing that? At issue is how the White House reacted when it was alleged that Wilson had completely debunked any credible links between Iraq and Niger for yellowcake transactions. The broader narrative that I see is that there was a lot of political hardball going on between the CIA and the Whitehouse, with State dept sometimes getting thrown into the brawl as well.
Personally as I stated above, I think it’s reprehensible (and tragic) that Cheney probably reacted by saying “who sent this guy, anyway? Get me some dirt!” instead of correcting the inaccuracies that had been reported about Wilson’s trip. I think that Cheney saw the reports as the CIA playing hardball with him, and he decided to give it right back to them.
But does that rise to the level of criminal or impeachable? I fear that if we decide that it does, then a week wouldn’t go by in DC without similar offenses being prosecuted.
PatHMV – Her husband had been to Niger before, he knew people there. You repeat Republican talking points, VP(wife) recomended/suggested her husband. Upper management at the CIA sent him. It wasn’t like they sent Brownie or Simone Ledeen to look into something they had no history or knowlege about. I recomend ArmsControlWonks over NationalReview if you wish to talk about facts versus’ politics.
Shaun: if you can’t even get it straight that I am no supporter of Bush and am counting the days until he leaves office, then what can you get straight? once again, you failed to answer a question I asked, in this case, the grounds you think the lawsuit will do anything more than be a annoyance. I cited the lack of damages, the lack of any expectation of privacy regarding her employment status and the fact that no law was broken by the administration talking to reporters in support of my position and you responded with, what, oh yes, nothing but an accusation that I was turning this nice civil discussion into something personal. sure, it’s your perogative to not answer the substance of my rebuttal but don’t you think that if you’re going to allege that this lawsuit is going to cause all sorts of damage to the Bush White House, you ought to back it up?
C Stanley: along the lines of your comment, I think the big mistake Cheney made was in trying to go backdoor in fighting back. They should have called a press conference and made everything public (her recommending him, that his report didn’t back up his interviews, etc..) but he and his staff tried to play the inside washington game and got bit. serves them right.
stevesturm:
I have covered a goodly number of trials, including both O.J. sagas, and have been an editor and observer on many others, so I make the following points in answer to your question based on personal experience:
(1.) The invasion-of-privacy angle is bloody brilliant.
(2.) A jury mostly sympathetic to the Wilsons will be huge, especially if it does not take a unanimous verdict — which can be the case in civil trials — in Virginia or wherever the trial will be held.
(3.) I cannot tell you how many times I have seen lawyers take a weak case and turn it into a huge payday.
That’s my answer and I’m sticking to it. Please don’t take it personally.
An invasion-of-privacy claim by a couple who willingly entered into a major political fray by the husband publishing an op/ed piece in the most prestigious newspaper in the country, and who reacted to the supposed invasion of privacy by posing for the cover of Vanity Fair is the farthest thing from “bloody brilliant” I have ever seen.
Keep in mind, Shaun, as you continue to try to analyze the strenght of the case without actually addressing any of the legal issues, that Wilson and Plame were not on trial here. Their own misdeeds weren’t relevant and so weren’t discussed to any extent. In their lawsuit, they most certainly will be on trial. What was Ms. Plame’s role in writing her husband’s op/ed? Did she support it? Help write it? Did they discuss the risk of her cover being blown as a result of the publicity he sought? How much have they made since all this happened? Those questions and many more, much tougher, will be asked of them, and they will have to answer. Personally, I’d love to see it. But I don’t think that will help the country any more than the misbegotten pursuit of Scooter Libby did.
PatHMV:
Yes, the defendants’ lawyers will try to dissect everything that the Wilsons said and done, and in that respect the comparatively relaxed rules of civil procedure help them as much as the plaintiffs.
But I cannot stress enough — and yet again — that the bar here will be fairly low compared to the bar at the perjury trial, which was set high. For example, details of Plame’s employment could not be mentioned, nor could the various machinations and intrigues between the unindicted co-conspirators (my term).
Insofar as helping the country: No way. A civil trial will be another distraction.
Shaun said: “…how the UPS man started leaving packages out in the rain instead of in the carport, how a right-wing neighbor’s dog started defecating in their rose garden, how their sex life went to heck . . .
Hahahaha…that is true. All sorts of damage claims are possible.
But all the defense would have to do is enter the Vanity Fair cover shot of the pair of them…”invasion of privacy”…they longed for the life of celebretards…they are shopping a movie deal….
I don’t think an invasion of privacy claim would work if the jury hears that.
Comrade Rudi…your links had me thinking that there could be someplace at TMV were links to interesting sites could be collected – with a brief description of same.
Not political rants left or right…but FYI sites. Shaun’s helicopter threads and medicinal marijuana threads yielded such interesting links…and you post such links regularly.
But these links are often lost in the depths of TMV. Anyhow, I had this thought. I don’t know how you would feel about adding such links, or whether Joe would go for it. But it would be cool to have an information resource link section at TMV as a Go-To place for knowledge.
CS – If you click on the links with the post above at ACW, you will find data that supports much of what Wilson says and debunks the Wilson attackers. The difference between assertions and facts. Politicians(left and right) typically deal in assertions, scientists deal with facts.
Shaun: thanks for your final answer.
while the bar is indeed lower in civil cases than in criminal cases, there still is a bar and in this case, the Wilsons have to prove that the defendants did a wrong that resulted in a net loss to the wilsons… and I’m sticking to my line that (1) nothing bush et al did in mentioning her name/job/relationship to lying joe to reporters was (a) illegal, (b) a violation of her employment agreement with the CIA (while agents have to promise to be quiet, I don’t believe the government makes similar promises), or (c) counter to public policy, and (2) she/he/they suffered no net loss, financial or otherwise, as a result of whatever bush et al did. Keep in mind that lying joe was already a used-up has been with no real job prospects (and that was before he wsa proven to be a liar and thus radioactive) and the extent of her potential monetary damages are whatever salary she gave up by quitting (and that would be offset by whatever she is now earning, including money paid to her for books, movies, speaking engagements and so on).
And just as what wilson said or did and what the admin did or didn’t do in the buildup towards the Iraq invasion was pretty irrelevant to the question of whether Libby lied to the FBI and grand jury, so too will most, if not all, of that be irrelevant in this civil case.
I think “all the defense would have to do ‘this’” and “all the defense would have to do ‘that’” is looking down the complete wrong barrel.
It’s the jury. It’s the attorneys. It’s the jury. It’s the attorneys. It’s the jury. And it’s the attorneys.
That’s it. The law sets the somple rules of the game.
CS Here are the links from the first ACW post.
1) Scrounging for Iraq excuses
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/index.php?id=439
2) Lying about Iraq, again
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/index.php?id=401
3)Bush and Rice Insist on Prewar Iraqi Threat Despite ISG Report
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_1_25.html
And the take on Bolton’s honesty and qualifications.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/index.php?id=599
Gordon Mitchell on Bolton’s Warped Intelligence
posted Wednesday May 18, 2005 under bolton, iraq by jeffrey
Gordon Mitchell argues that John Bolton’s handling of intelligence in the Niger Uranium intelligence should preclude his confirmation as Ambassador to the United Nations:
If arms control and weapons scientist prove that the Iraq/Niger claims are LIES. Is the Wilson/Plame affair about facts or “hard ball” politics. Where are the “scientists” at AEI, Hudson or NRO to prove the Bush assertions, there are none. We have Frank Gaffney and Amir Taheri making those claims in 2002/2003 about Iraq. Those same people are say this about Iran today.
WaPo certainly isn’t a source that is biased toward the administration, yet their answers to the questions that you pose about Cheney’s involvement and the Wilson report don’t support the cynical role that you seem to assign to him.
CS- Considering his track record, I admit its hard for me to be anything but cynical when it comes to Cheney. Doesn’t it make you wonder why the information about Niger was left in the SOTU, long after Wilson returned from Africa? I’m not sanctifying Wilson totally either, but if I had to chose, I would find his version closer to the truth than Libby, Rove or Cheney. I don’t understand why the right considers Wilson to be a liar, but doesn’t say the same about Cheney.
Komrad Marlow – But science is for nerds, pundits can say the moon is made of Martian cheese, and politiucal sides will be taken pro/con.
What I meant to ask, was would it be an impeachable offense if false information was purposely left in the SOTU to lead the public to believe that the situation in Iraq was much more urgent than it really was? Would it be an impeachable offense to conspire to reveal a covert agent’s identity, who was working in the sensitive area of nuclear proliferation in the ME? I think it would be, but such offenses are extremely difficult to prove, given the realms of executive privilege and the politicized environment surrounding DOJ and the CIA.
But science is for nerds, pundits can say the moon is made of Martian cheese, and politiucal sides will be taken pro/con.
This is a little o/t, but two state senators from the religious right refused in my state to honor a nobel prize winner who discovered evidence that the “Big Bang” theory is in fact the truth. Guess it clashed with Genesis.
Quite simply, Rudi, it’s about both of those things. I’m happy to defer to the scientists about the technical and factual matters, but a separate issue here is “who knew what and when did they know it.” When it comes to that part of the discussion, the scientists are no less subject to political bias than any other human being on earth.
And quite frankly, as scientists seem to be engaging more and more in political discussions, I’m starting to wonder whether or not they can really put their biases aside even when they analyze the factual stuff too.
I don’t know, Kim, maybe because the Brits were saying that they had reliable intel (aside from the documents which we knew were forgeries) about Iraq seeking yellowcake from Niger? A claim, BTW, which is still made even in the Butler report:
Why is it either/or? Like I said earlier, it looks to me like it was all about political games being played between CIA, WH and SD. I think they all played loose with the facts.
CS – The components used in WMD’s are under strict safeguards, real “aluminum tubes” are limited to a select few suppliers. Pakistan developed nukes after Khan learned his physics in Europe. Israel and India had helpin developing their WMD programs. The US and USSR needed German scientists to get their programs accelerated. There is no “Nukes for dummies”.
Why is it either/or? Like I said earlier, it looks to me like it was all about political games being played between CIA, WH and SD. I think they all played loose with the facts.
CS- Yes I agree that they did-but there were factions within the CIA that vigorously protested a lot of the evidence as faulty, that eventually was presented as factual. Cheney and Libby were at the CIA daily, Feith went through raw intel because he didn’t trust the CIA, to come up with his own erroneous conclusions. It was Libby himself who wrote the now infamous speech that Colin Powell gave at the UN.
If you look at the evidence in total- I’m not talking about what’s been proven in court- I don’t see any other way to look at it but to say that mostly Cheney’s office twisted the intel to make a case for war. Some in the CIA made honest errors, but a lot of evidence was used after agents at the CIA assured the administration that it was not reliable. Isikoff’s Hubris is the best source on this. He was also somewhat critical of Wilson, so its not a partisan rant.
The main contention in Wilson’s op-ed was true- that Iraq had no deal to get uranium from Niger. The administration was forced to retract its own claim shortly after Bush put it in SOTU. But what happened to the information after he was debriefed is the real mystery.
Shaun,
Is the bar set so low that complete and utter BS can rightfully win the day? (I mean that in a completly level headed manner.) If so, shouldn’t we raise our sights a little higher?
You seem to implicitly acknowledge that Wilson/Plame have no case as far as merits are concerned…but you would be willing to go along with it as long as it offers a chance to “get” Cheney. Or, to put it more neutrally, you wouldn’t have a problem with other folks trying to “take down” Cheney on just this basis.
This would differ from a witch hunt how exactly?
iconic midwest:
A fair question.
I am looking down the other end of the telescope from you on this one; that is, the many unintended consequences of the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The Wilsons are bit players. If their lawsuit goes forward, there is a trial and they are “vindicated” to the tune of several million dollars, that will be a mere footnote in the story of the troubling times in which we live.
I have no interest in “getting” Cheney. Historians will “get” this vain man, who will retire to a rocking chair at his Maryland estate and brood about the harsh judgment that their writings will pass on him until he draws his last breath and goes to that special place reserved for people like himself who abused their powers in vile and contemptuous ways.
Iconic Midwest:
I am please to see that you have already completed the discovery on this case, examined quite sensative documents, and been able to come to the broad, sweeping conclusions only one with a thorough understanding of all the facts of the matter might be able to begin to make.
Cheney in my mind is pondscum, but will probably end out his days as Shaun says. Plenty of lives have been sacrificed for his arrogance and folly, but it would be nice if the truth was not victimized by his secretive nature (and staffers willing to fall on the sword to protect him and his legacy) as well.
CS says:
And quite frankly, as scientists seem to be engaging more and more in political discussions, I’m starting to wonder whether or not they can really put their biases aside even when they analyze the factual stuff too.
The WH assertions on WMD’s at the startup.
Iraq nuke program restaring – false
Niger yellowcake – forgery
aluminum tubes for centrifuges – false
mobile weapons labs – false
UAV delivering CW and BW – no proof, spin?
Now who is using bias to assert falsehoods?