“This indictment is not about the war”
In his press conference, Special Prosectutor Patrick Fitzgerald said, “This indictment is not about the war.”
UPDATE: Now that Bruce has posted the entire transcript of Fitzgerald’s press conference, I can include the entirety of the special prosecutor’s answer to the question as to whether the indictment represents “a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises.”
Fitzgerald’s response:
This indictment is not about the war. This indictment’s not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person — a person, Mr. Libby — lied or not.
The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.
And I think anyone’s who’s concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn’t look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.
33 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I imagine this indictment is also something of a conundrum for all those Clinton supporters who spent the years 1998-2000 scoffing at the notion that lying and perjury were serious offenses.
Comment by V the K — October 28, 2005 @ 3:17 pm - October 28, 2005
This indictment is not about the war.
GPWest
==========================
No it’s about VP Chief of Staff Libby being indicted on 5 felony counts:
obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements.
I forget which ones are multiples.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 28, 2005 @ 3:21 pm - October 28, 2005
#1
This type of investigation would never have been brought against Clinton if the Special Investigator statute had tolled. There IS a difference between getting a blowjob from a officegirl and blowing American security.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 28, 2005 @ 3:26 pm - October 28, 2005
There is no indictment for any charge related to the compromise of American security. In fact, there is no underlying crime at all alleged in the indictment.
Comment by V the K — October 28, 2005 @ 3:34 pm - October 28, 2005
But, the real reason the left will embrace their own hypocrisy is because they love Clinton and hate Bush. Although they will come up with an amusingly twisted rationale for their double standard.
And it will work its way out in reverse on the right.
Comment by V the K — October 28, 2005 @ 3:40 pm - October 28, 2005
“This indictment is not about the war”
Correct. At this time, these indictments only tell us that Scooter tried to obstruct justice. We don’t know why.
Comment by anon — October 28, 2005 @ 4:16 pm - October 28, 2005
Actually, the LibLeft pundits are opining right now that SpecProsFitzgerald is just plain old wrong. He doesn’t get it.
IT (the indictments) IS all about the failed military operations of the Bush Admin in Iraq, about the lies that got us into war, and about the singluar effort of the highest ranking official in govt (see Downing St Memo) to deceive the public, the press, and the people. And then to try to cover up those lies by smearing whistleblowers like the good Joe Wilson, the truthboi of intern’l relations.
And IT IS about the stolen election in 2004 and the artful voter disenfranchisement in Florida of the hanging chads.
And IT IS about disputing the scope and power of this WH, the radical religious right’s stormtrooper tactics, and giving honor to our dead soldiers by showing their caskets arrive at Dover.
And IT IS about restoring America’s faith in the policies, politicians and preferences of the Left. IT IS about hurting the poor in NO. IT IS about keeping our naitonal forest safe from drillers and loggers. IT IS a vindictation of all that’s been forgotten about the agenda of the Left.
And IT IS about a free press, about the people’s right to know, about accountability and about how absolute power corrupts.
Nevermind what that professional prosecutor says. This is ALL ABOUT the ascendancy of the Left in the wake of a failed era of Reagan wannabes. John Kerry said so at Georgetown.
Gosh, you gotta love the stretch in all that.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 28, 2005 @ 4:30 pm - October 28, 2005
No. 6…Exactly! But we’re gonna find out, aren’t we? As someone was saying earlier, it’s the start of a Very Merry Fitzmas for one and all!
My, that Mr. Fitzgerald handled himself so incredibly well. Makes me proud to be an American. He’s got the boys down at the WH (or out at Camp David by now) in a vise, trying to figure out what to do next. Do you let Scoots plead (and in the process spill the beans — and still get himself 5 years)? Or do you make Scoots stick to the party line in a 6-9 mo. trial and then face up to 30 — and still risk beans spilling? Either way, there WILL be beans on the floor.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 28, 2005 @ 4:32 pm - October 28, 2005
#3 Chandler… “blowing national security”? Oh please.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 28, 2005 @ 4:32 pm - October 28, 2005
Chandler: yes, but there is no difference between lying under oath to cover up the blow job and lying under oath for whatever reason Libby appearently did.
Lying under oath is lying under oath – period.
Comment by Robert — October 28, 2005 @ 4:36 pm - October 28, 2005
I say let’s consult with Sandy-stuff-your-pants-Berger… what’s fair ol Sandy? Decide Libby is guilty as indicted and have him pay a fine? Why presume any innocence or make the prosecutor prove the charges… let’s just consult Sandy.
No, let’s consult the only modern President to be impeached… SlickWilly. Hell, let’s have the impeached President ask his felonious crooked pal at the UN, Kofi-can-I-take-the-money-when-they’re-not-looking Anon… he can guide us in what to do with Libby.
What do you think, Queer? Why wait for a defense or anyone to prove the indictments… let’s just decide it all by a panel of former Clinton Admin govt officials still steeped in corruption.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 28, 2005 @ 4:40 pm - October 28, 2005
#8 the only beans on the floor fell out when you tipped your head to far to the Left… gheez.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 28, 2005 @ 4:42 pm - October 28, 2005
Oh, hi JVGuy (No. 11-12), still at it, huh? Well, let me tell you how to get to Carnegie Hall…
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 28, 2005 @ 5:07 pm - October 28, 2005
Like QP, I too was impressed by Fitzgerald. However, we should note that Michael Ledeen was not:
“I’m not impressed at all. I think he’s straining, I think he’s forcing this issue, I think it’s unreasonable.”
Plus he’s got a tip on how to lie and get away with it.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_23_corner-archive.asp#081151
Comment by anon — October 28, 2005 @ 5:11 pm - October 28, 2005
#10
Which is why Bush will move heaven and earth never to testify under oath.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 28, 2005 @ 5:11 pm - October 28, 2005
Uh-oh. Someting’s wrong here. I agree with QP and anon. I too was impressed with Fitzgerald in his press conference.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 28, 2005 @ 5:20 pm - October 28, 2005
No. 14, Anon, the fault in Ledeen’s argument is that it is based upon an assumption that the Traitors In The White House affair is now over. I don’t think it is — I think the more interesting week is the next one. In Chicago, they talk about how legalistically coy Fitz can be. I think we’re seeing how he works. What an inspiration he is.
Comment by Queer Patriot — October 28, 2005 @ 5:26 pm - October 28, 2005
QP, what are you smoking, my friend? Libby appears to have screwed up, yes, but do you honestly think he will get 30 years even if convicted, when so much of Fitzgerald’s prosecution will hinge on the testimony of Judy Miller, whose credibility has been made a hash of by her own employers?
Comment by The Malcontent — October 28, 2005 @ 5:57 pm - October 28, 2005
#3 There is a difference between national security and a blow job but there is NOT a difference between perjury and, um, perjury.
Frankly, what I found most significant when it was Clinton telling lies wasn’t that he felt it was okay to lie about little stuff, but that he felt it *necessary* to lie about little stuff. Why bother? I told my mom at the time (in case you think this is hindsight) that if the man had just said, yes, and taken his lumps, it would have been over and soon forgotten. People who thought he was a letch, would be of the same opinion as before and people who didn’t *care* that he was a letch would still not care.
The BJ didn’t break any laws (at least not without a claim of sexual harassment from Lewinsky) but the perjury did.
Comment by Synova — October 28, 2005 @ 6:14 pm - October 28, 2005
Oh, and it seems this is a perfect example of the “truth by poll taking” that I mentioned before. Public opinion is (it seems) that Rove and Libby and bunches of other people are guilty as sin. So… in order to be trustworthy, Fitzgerald has to agree with the polls. He didn’t, so he’s not.
Should have skipped all the hard work and just filed the poll data… foolish man. At least then we’d know we were getting the real facts.
Comment by Synova — October 28, 2005 @ 6:25 pm - October 28, 2005
That was a response to #7… I’m sure our resident liberals wouldn’t be so foolish.
Comment by Synova — October 28, 2005 @ 6:27 pm - October 28, 2005
Makes me proud to be an American.
Could have fooled us.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 28, 2005 @ 8:45 pm - October 28, 2005
#11
What about consulting with Leaky Leahy, Jay Rockefeller, Turban Durbin and John F.You Kerry?
#15
Too damn bad he already has, eh Chumpler Pussy?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 28, 2005 @ 8:52 pm - October 28, 2005
Con, Pussy here! You looking for me?
Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 28, 2005 @ 9:19 pm - October 28, 2005
Ya know, Pussy, the weak as water GayPatriots will let any of their horrid circle jerk with me, personally and professionally, but poke a little fun at their toading toads and VOILA, our posts get deleted.
Hippo Crates they are.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 29, 2005 @ 7:17 pm - October 29, 2005
Chandler, what sort of things are they deleting? And can it be any worse than RancidGayConFish?
Love, Pussy.
Comment by Pussy Patriot — October 30, 2005 @ 8:48 am - October 30, 2005
Comment 6 – Incorrect! The indictments don’t even go so far as to tell us Libby tried to obstruct justice!
Remember the concepts of “innocent until proven guilty”, “2 sides to every story”, “you can indict a ham sandwich”, and “Cross examination”?
So, wait for the trial, and jury verdict.
Then we’ll know if Libby officially tried to obstruct justice. Now, we don’t.
Comment by Calarato — October 30, 2005 @ 7:41 pm - October 30, 2005
Comment 25 – It might be nice to know what CH is really talking about and what posts (if any) have really been deleted.
On the other hand – It so totally doesn’t matter. Because GP/W can do what they want, it’s their blog. CH can the snarly Grima Wormtongue stuff, or better yet, help pay for the site.
Hey, speaking of Wormtongue – you all simply must see this – click here!
Comment by Calarato — October 30, 2005 @ 7:46 pm - October 30, 2005
The chagrinned GapriotLA keeps removing what he calls name calling.
That’s a nice word for censorship considering all the truly nasty crap glisteny posted without problem.
Oh, well, one man’s fascism is anothers good taste.
Chacon a son gout.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — October 31, 2005 @ 12:01 am - October 31, 2005
No, Chandler it’s not censorship. It’s just me exercising my free speech right. This is my blog and, in a private e-mail, I’ve warned you about your language.
Censorship is when the government blocks (or limits) what someone else may say. You have numerous other outlets to express your opinion. This is where Bruce and I express ours. And we have been remarkably tolerant in allowing those who disagree with us to express themselves in the comments.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 31, 2005 @ 2:42 am - October 31, 2005
Dan,
I am not surprised that you delete my posts, in this PUBLIC web forum.
I am neither surprised that do not delete others.
I am surprised that you feel justified.
However, it is nice that a GAY conservative blog has comments at all.
Usually it is only the horrible liberal Democratic blogs that foster the free excgange of opinion as opposed to dogma swallowing that pervades the ConBlogs.
I still think Ralph Reed is cuter than your Kenny Mehlman.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — November 1, 2005 @ 1:44 am - November 1, 2005
Chandler, it’s unfortunate that you still don’t respect my freedom of speech. And that freedom of speech include removing posts I find offensive and/or distasteful.
Many readers have written in to note that certain gay liberal blogs routinely delete all critical comments. Do you fault them for that?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 1, 2005 @ 10:38 pm - November 1, 2005
If you deleted all nasty for the sake of nasty comments, I would be quite happy. But you only remove the half you don’t approve of. That is your right to active discrimination. If you removed all CRITICAL comments, which drive your discussions no matter how lame the thread, most of the replies would be:
VtheK: Yup.
North Dallas Thirty: Yup.
ThatGayConservative: Yup
Malcontent: You nailed it.
glisteny: (something stupid)
Glisteny is the only entertaining one in the circle jerk.
That says something.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — November 3, 2005 @ 3:53 am - November 3, 2005