Quote:
Originally posted by Rodeo
Glad to hear you are not defending Libby.
I'll point out that Clinton never had a trial, yet you have no problem saying that Clinton lied (nor do I), but I guess that we have to wait for Libby's trial to understand that the vp wanted to go after Wilson, that Libby did the dirty work, and that Libby then lied about it because he was using classified information to smear a political opponent.
Even though the public record establishes all the above, we'll wait for his trial to determine whether he or the vp did anything wrong.
|
Clinton admitted he lied, I need no trial.
And we know why Cheney wanted to discredit Wilson, there is no mystery there either. He read read Wilsons editorial and felt it was a partison attack veiled as a legitiimate exorcise. No mystery there.
There is no crime in trying to discredit Wilson, especially if he lied. And disclosing Plame is not a crime if she was either not covert and/or the discloser did not know or do so with malice. Apparently Fitz found no crime.
And you can quit waiting to find out if Cheney "did anything wrong", Fitz has already decided he hasn't.......or are you still holding out hope?