"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:33:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


NBC reportter Andrea Mitchell knew, but the NBC Washington Bureau chief
didn't? Not likely.

Christof knew. Pincus knew. Mitchell knew. Russert knew. Russert lied
to the GJ about not knowing.

Why would he?

To further an agenda?
To protect his source?

Who knows!


Besides, Russert is only a small part of the equation. A
half dozen other sources have Libby knowing about Plame, before his talk
with Russert. Are you saying they all lied?

I believe that Libby knew about Plame before his talk with Russert. But
that fact alone doesn't mean that Russert didn't know...nor that he didn't
lie about his conversation with Libby.

How anyone is supposed to recall the details of a conversation that took
place 2 years ago is beyond me. I write down the dental-related portions of
my conversations with my patients. If I forget to write it down, and
discover one month later that I forgot to write it down, there is no way in
hell I remember the *exact* details and chronology of the discussion.




Actually, the White House has already been convicted by the media and
public opinion. They stand more to gain than lose with this
investigation.

I'm not sure public opinion has convicted Libby, but it is slowly starting
to indict Bush on his run-up to war. If Americans are still dying when
Libby goes to trail, even if he is exonerated will be irrelevant to public
opinion on Bush.


The Libby perjury charges and Bush's run-up to the war are mutally exclusive
and not linked in the least way.

I still can't figure out how anybody can make that stretch.

Carl Levin just spoke with Chris Matthews on Nov. 7th:


MATTHEWS: What came first do you believe, Senator? Their desire to go to
war or the way they looked at the evidence?

LEVIN: I think basically they decided immediately after 9/11 to go after
Saddam. They began to-LOOK THERE WAS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HAD
NUCLEAR WEAPONS, BY THE WAY. THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THERE IS PLENTY OF
EVIDENCE OF THAT.

Where they fell short, the administration fell short, was getting
intelligence from the intelligence community about a link, alleged link
between the people who attacked us, al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein.



Remember, though, that Bush listed Saddam's pursuit of WMD as the casus
belli. And Levin does not dispute that the evidence suggested that Saddam
had WMD.



I realize that Levin voted against House joint resolution 114 (for war in
Iraq), but the democratic Vice-Chairman of the intel committee saw the same
intel and voted yes.