My OperaLewis Libby will not pursue appeal after all.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 1:08:27 PM
..wow, what a suprise. What a shocker.. Aiie. Bam. *sigh*
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWE1OWQyYWZmYmQzNjY5Y2IyYzBjNDgwN2YxMDRmMjc=
"..we just couldn't escape the fact that he was guilty as hell, and any further investigations would be a greater burden to the White House than trying to bury the case altogether. And it took some doing, but His (I, mr. Wells') Ego was satisfied with receiving salaries from the poor Libby's defence- fund, for work that was only contemplated in fevered right- wing minds. Which, incidentally, is all that matters, and therefore the cause was just, and so is His (My) salary".
The question now is: will the Washington press start to require that the White House answer their questions about this case? Now the investigation and all legal process in this matter is over, and that excuse - "it's an ongoing investigation" will not be acceptable. And therefore it would be entirely appropriate - even more appropriate than before - that the White House answers questions on what Libby knew, when he knew, how he knew, and whether the White House is going to do anything about lax security- procedures.
Furthermore, the issue of having security- clearances given to political operatives, in light of this case, should be something that would be essential to take a look at in the light of this particular case.
But the essential discussion that should take place is the way the intelligence services interact with the White House, the intelligence committee, and Congress. To what extent does political operations like Libby's insert themselves into actual intelligence assessments? In what ways is the intelligence- community required to comply with political games like these? In what ways are the authoritative intelligence assessment summaries the president sees influenced by this push from the White House and the Vice- president's office?
Oh, wait, now I'm just dreaming again..
Sorry about that. Carry on.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWE1OWQyYWZmYmQzNjY5Y2IyYzBjNDgwN2YxMDRmMjc=
We remain firmly convinced of Mr. Libby’s innocence. However, the realities were, that after five years of government service by Mr. Libby and several years of defending against this case,
"..we just couldn't escape the fact that he was guilty as hell, and any further investigations would be a greater burden to the White House than trying to bury the case altogether. And it took some doing, but His (I, mr. Wells') Ego was satisfied with receiving salaries from the poor Libby's defence- fund, for work that was only contemplated in fevered right- wing minds. Which, incidentally, is all that matters, and therefore the cause was just, and so is His (My) salary".
The question now is: will the Washington press start to require that the White House answer their questions about this case? Now the investigation and all legal process in this matter is over, and that excuse - "it's an ongoing investigation" will not be acceptable. And therefore it would be entirely appropriate - even more appropriate than before - that the White House answers questions on what Libby knew, when he knew, how he knew, and whether the White House is going to do anything about lax security- procedures.
Furthermore, the issue of having security- clearances given to political operatives, in light of this case, should be something that would be essential to take a look at in the light of this particular case.
But the essential discussion that should take place is the way the intelligence services interact with the White House, the intelligence committee, and Congress. To what extent does political operations like Libby's insert themselves into actual intelligence assessments? In what ways is the intelligence- community required to comply with political games like these? In what ways are the authoritative intelligence assessment summaries the president sees influenced by this push from the White House and the Vice- president's office?
Oh, wait, now I'm just dreaming again..
Sorry about that. Carry on.
