"Mr. Russert could not remember the exact day of his telephone exchange with Mr. Libby, the time of day, or the duration of their conversation. A defense lawyer read an F.B.I. report where Russert said that he could not rule out discussing Ms. Wilson with Mr. Libby, but had no recollection of it. Mr. Russert said he did not believe he said that."

Well, now. With all these reporters lacking "memory" of important events----how in the heck is it that Libby was supposed to have had a perfect memory? No way this guys should be convicted of anything.

So far we have.....

--the original leaker being Richard Armitage from the State Dept---and who, BTW, was not keen on the Iraq war therefore would NOT have been interested in smearing Wilson or his wife.

--all the reporters who have testified being unsure of the timing, their notes, or lack of notes, and other details. Several of them said one thing to FBI investigators, one thing in the Grand Jury, and yet something else in this actual trial.

--no one who has testified either for the prosecution or the defense had any idea during that summer when they were discussing Plame and Wilson had any idea of a covert status. And in fact---there was NO covert status as no one was indicted under such law----EVEN THOUGH Fitzgerald knew early on that Armitage was the original leaker.

This trial is ONLY about memories. And it seems that no one person's memory was excellent. Not Libby's nor any of the reporters. And to have a cover-up or obstruction of justice, there must be some reason to lie. There must be a motive and proof of some kind of conspiracy. There clearly was NOT in this case.


http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/LIBBYDIARY.html

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Posting this will cause the liberals that were smelling blood to want to takes their lives. They must feel even more stupid than they did with Dan Rather the liar.

Have you noticed no one has posted any of their venom on this subject, why?

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

What this ALL boils down to is this:

The Wilson's were supposed to be allowed to go to a reporter, leak Classified CIA information; LIE about it to the press, imply heavily that the VP's office sent him.....and YET, the VP's office was NOT supposed to defend themselves from these lies, NOT supposed to set the record straight for the American people.

That's fair, eh?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

No, no! It's terribly unfair. JP, you need to fly to Washington DC immediately and explain to Fitzgerald that the Wilson's outed themselves. He'll have to ammend his indictment and then this case will evaporate into the mist!

They DID out themselves. And then they proceeded to talk about who would play them in their movie. Glad you realize it.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

LAME


First off it looks as if this was hot topic in the Whitehouse.....if you taling about this with Cheney, the President, Rove, and other cabinet members and insiders then you are much more likely to remember that conversation then you are one phone call from some dork named "Scooter".

The case your making strains the realms aof believeblity and smacks of the usually whining from the Bush booster club.

There you go logic and venom all in one post.....

Liberals are seething, they want blood, they want to even the score with Clinton.

Alas, I don't think so, this straw man is going to burn, and the lefty loons will have no victims, how sad for them. Oh well, Dan Rather still believes he was right to just make up his phony info too. What a sad bunch of losers.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

let the Jury decided. Libby already feels
as if he was thrown under the Bus. but lets
wait for the outcome.

When we back off and look at the facts in this case, we have a non-covert Democrat agent sending her Democrat husband to discredit the Bush administration by giving a false report claiming Saddam's innocence. The Bush administration felt the need to bring that falshood to light. Now, a Democrat prosecutor is trying to "Nifong" an accusation of Libby for harming no one. Gee, is this political?

Why do Democrats feel the need to try to defeat Republicans by demonization instead of supporting your ideals in public debate? Are you people that afraid of your liberal philosophy not measuring up to the scrutiny of logical review?

Now that's FUNNY!

You just basically make up a false case about Clarke, his wife and the democrats and then accuse democrats of demonizing republicans! HAHAHAHAHA

Now lets look at what Clarke did:

Give a false report ? Nope that was the report of sales of Yellow Cake to Saddam. Clarke just reported the news to the Bushies that this was a no go...something that was already known scuttlebutt in the intel circles.

Did they demonize their opponents? Nope again that came from the rightwing....that is essentially what we are actually hearing in this case.

Bush lied and got caught that's not called demonizing its called accountability.

Finally it looks like Bush, Cheney, Libby and Rove all had some dirt on their hands in the push to demonize Clarke.

Unless of course you were just be fececious(sp) then my humble apologies....