VP's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby Indicted in Plamegate Scandal

[Mr-Blonde]

CIA probe 'not over' after Cheney's top aide indicted

source: CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/index.html)

Lewis Libby indicted on 5 counts

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CIA leak investigation is "not over," special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said Friday after announcing charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

Fitzgerald said he will be keeping the grand "jury open to consider other matters." But, he said, "substantial work" is done.

Libby resigned Friday after a federal grand jury indicted him on charges related to the leak probe, including one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements.

During an afternoon news conference, Fitzgerald said, "A CIA officer's name was blown and there was a leak and we needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it. Given national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts."

Libby was charged with lying to FBI agents and to the grand jury about two conversations with reporters, Tim Russert of NBC News and Matt Cooper of Time magazine. (Read the full text of the indictment)

Libby testified that he heard Plame's identify from Russert when, in fact, he learned of Plame's identify from a CIA official, the indictment alleged.

Libby also testified that he told Cooper that other reporters told him Plame's identity, which the indictment alleges was not the case.

Fitzgerald said none of the charges stem any misrepresentations of his conversations with Judith Miller of The New York Times, the reporter who sat in an Alexandria, Virginia, jail for two months after she refused to testify before the grand jury.

The indictments were not directly related to the actual leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name.

Libby discussed Plame's identity in the summer of 2003 with reporters after her husband, diplomat Joseph Wilson, wrote a highly critical op-ed column in The New York Times that challenged intelligence used as a rationale for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Descriptions of those conversations by reporters say Libby discussed Plame's identity, in part, to cast doubt in the reporters' mind about Wilson's account and criticized the CIA, the indictment alleged.

"These are very serious charges," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada. "They suggest a senior White House aide put politics ahead of our national security and the rule of law. This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq."

These indictments are the first in a nearly two-year investigation.

There was no immediate response from Libby to the charges. His attorneys have previously denied that he was guilty of any criminal conduct.

Cheney said in a statement he accepted Libby's resignation "with deep regret" and said Libby must be "presumed innocent" before he is proven guilty. Libby told Cheney he was "resigning to fight the charges brought against him," the statement said.

"Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known," the statement said. "He has given many years of his life to public service and has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction."

Meanwhile, President Bush's top political strategist Karl Rove will not be indicted Friday by the federal grand jury investigating the leak, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. But, the sources said, Rove is not out of legal jeopardy as the matter is still under investigation.

Lawyers involved in the case have told CNN that Fitzgerald is focusing on whether Rove committed perjury. Rove testified four times in front of the grand jury.

'No decision'

Rove's attorney Robert Luskin issued a statement Friday that Fitzgerald "has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges."

"Mr. Rove will continue to cooperate fully with the Special Counsel's efforts to complete the investigation," Luskin's statement said. "We are confident that when the Special Counsel finishes his work, he will conclude that Mr. Rove has done nothing wrong."

As Rove departed his home in Washington Friday morning, he told reporters, "I am going to have a great Friday and a fantastic weekend and hope you do too."

Libby's indictment came at a time when Bush's approval ratings already are at a low ebb.

This week alone the president's embattled Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, withdrew, and the number of U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war surpassed 2,000.

Bush suggested at the beginning of the investigation that he would fire anyone on his staff who was involved in the leak.

He appeared to set a higher standard in July, saying, "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

The event that triggered the legal and political quagmire that has put the White House on edge was a syndicated newspaper column by Robert Novak, published on July 14, 2003, about Joe Wilson.

Before Novak's column, Valerie Plame's role as a CIA officer was "not widely known" outside the intelligence community, Fitzgerald said at the news conference. The information was "classified," he said. Her friends, neighbors, and college classmates "had no idea she had another life."

A week before the column, Wilson, a retired U.S. diplomat, publicly claimed that Bush administration officials, intent on building a case to depose Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, hyped unsupported claims that Hussein sought to buy uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger.

Novak, who also is a CNN contributor, was writing about the CIA's decision to send Wilson to the African nation in February 2002 to investigate the claims, which later wound up in Bush's 2003 State of Union address.

About midway through his column, Novak noted that Wilson "never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

An angry Wilson accused administration officials of deliberately leaking his wife's identity as a CIA operative -- thus ending her career as an undercover agent -- to retaliate against him for going public with his criticism.

Both Rove and Libby have denied leaking Plame's name.

Deliberately disclosing the identity of a CIA operative can be a crime, and Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was named in September 2003 as a special prosecutor to investigate after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused his office to avoid any conflict of interest.
--------------

This case is about more than just a national security leak. This is about how the Bush administration utilized false intelligence to go to war in Iraq and then when faced with someone who was critical of the lies being put out (and in a position to know better) how the administration attempted to get revenge on them. Quite simply they put politics ahead of national security. Karl Rove didn't get indicted yet but is still under investigation. Hopefully they will uncover any of his wrongdoings also. However this potentially could go to go straight to the very top of the administration.

[The Postmaster General]

Imagine going to prison with a nickname like "Scooter"...

But yeah, I think someone had to take a fall, and these guys look out for each other, so I don't expect it to go any higher than this. Who knows, though?

[Lynn7]

This is just all so dumb. And why didn't Rove get indicted? And notice that Libby got indicted for lying, not for blowing the cover- I heard that the law only applies to an agent who has worked overseas in the past x years and that law did not apply with Plame so now they move ot the lying or obstruction of justice card (like what happened to Clinton). Alittle payback for the Clinton years I guess.

And this from the AP:

"The grand jury indictment charged Libby with one count of obstruction of justice, two of perjury and two of making false statements. If convicted on all five, he could face as much as 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines."

It's funny how child molesters seem to get out in a few years only to molest and murder some poor innocent kids and murderers might get out in 10 or 15 years, but a political lie could get you 30 years. You just gotta love it. and the AP prints this without mentioning that discrepancy in our laws.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
This is just all so dumb. And why didn't Rove get indicted?

Wait for it. Just because they didn't get indicted together, doesn't mean he may not get his turn.

Remember how long it took them to indict Kenneth Lay over say Martha Stewart. Her shit started WAAAAAY later than the Enron scandal, and she was indicted BEFORE he was!

Originally posted by Lynn7
And notice that Libby got indicted for lying, not for blowing the cover- I heard that the law only applies to an agent who has worked overseas in the past x years and that law did not apply with Plame so now they move ot the lying or obstruction of justice card (like what happened to Clinton). Alittle payback for the Clinton years I guess.

I'm curious, what are those "x" years in numerical form?


Originally posted by Lynn7
And this from the AP:

"The grand jury indictment charged Libby with one count of obstruction of justice, two of perjury and two of making false statements. If convicted on all five, he could face as much as 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines."

It's funny how child molesters seem to get out in a few years only to molest and murder some poor innocent kids and murderers might get out in 10 or 15 years, but a political lie could get you 30 years. You just gotta love it. and the AP prints this without mentioning that discrepancy in our laws.

It says HE COULD get 30 years. Come on, you've seen trials of celebriteis and high ranking officials. Unless he's been marked as the fall guy for this administration, he's not doing 30 years.... however alot more people knew who Karl Rove was over "Scooter" Libby till now, so he may very well be the guy to take the bigger hit for the team.

If Rove is indicted he'll get a slap on the wrist, while comparatively, Libby may actually get worse.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
This is just all so dumb. And why didn't Rove get indicted? And notice that Libby got indicted for lying, not for blowing the cover- I heard that the law only applies to an agent who has worked overseas in the past x years and that law did not apply with Plame so now they move ot the lying or obstruction of justice card (like what happened to Clinton). Alittle payback for the Clinton years I guess.


So it was equally dumb to go after Clinton, right?

[outsyder]

Do we really need to add "gate" to the end of every scandal?

It makes no sense.

IT WAS A HOTEL!!


Anyway, he lied and that's obvious. Now they just need to indict someone for actually revealing the information and we'll be fine.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
Wait for it. Just because they didn't get indicted together, doesn't mean he may not get his turn.

Remember how long it took them to indict Kenneth Lay over say Martha Stewart. Her shit started WAAAAAY later than the Enron scandal, and she was indicted BEFORE he was!



I'm curious, what are those "x" years in numerical form?




It says HE COULD get 30 years. Come on, you've seen trials of celebriteis and high ranking officials. Unless he's been marked as the fall guy for this administration, he's not doing 30 years.... however alot more people knew who Karl Rove was over "Scooter" Libby till now, so he may very well be the guy to take the bigger hit for the team.

If Rove is indicted he'll get a slap on the wrist, while comparatively, Libby may actually get worse.

x represents a number I do not know and am too lazy to look up.

I know i is not probable that he will get 30 years in prison but the organization prints it for a certain effect and I just can't take that lightly when we have all these really dangerous criminals who are running around cause some judges don't know how to sentence.

If Rove devised leaking her name in order to jeopordize her life then I would agree that he should suffer the consequences. But since I know that she had a desk job and many in Washington social life knew she worked for the CIA I just can't take this that seriously. Also, if his wife was in such a precarious job then why would her husband take such a high profile assignment in conjunction with her very place of employment.

People are looking for a way to get rid of Rove cause they see him as "Bush's Brain" I think that he is probably good at what he does but I have never seen him as Bush's brain and Pres Bush will function quite nicely without him.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
So it was equally dumb to go after Clinton, right?

It certainly seems so now since all the women who he abused have their reputations tarnished while he enjoys the status of being an ex-president as if he had never done anything wrong; this, despite the fact he sexually harrassed many women and cheated on his wife in the Oval office in the same building where his wife worked. Such a fine man!!! He lied in the Jones case so he could stay out of trouble and the people who came to his defense saying everyone lies are now saying that those are the good grounds on which to charge Libby. Double standard again.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
He lied in the Jones case so he could stay out of trouble and the people who came to his defense saying everyone lies are now saying that those are the good grounds on which to charge Libby. Double standard again.


Clinton was never charged for "lying" about Jones, he was charged for lying about Lewinsky.

And I've never heard a single person ever say that it was good that he lied, although many supporters have said that maybe he should have never been asked to begin with.

While I don't condone Clinton's lie --- I think your comparison is really weak. Clinton lied about a personal matter, and Scooter lied about a felony.

Again, I think Clinton shouldn't have lied, but the circumstances between him and Sccoter are apples and oranges. It somewhat bothers me that you don't see the difference for the sake of just bringing up how much you disliked Clinton.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
It certainly seems so now since all the women who he abused have their reputations tarnished while he enjoys the status of being an ex-president as if he had never done anything wrong; this, despite the fact he sexually harrassed many women and cheated on his wife in the Oval office in the same building where his wife worked. Such a fine man!!! He lied in the Jones case so he could stay out of trouble and the people who came to his defense saying everyone lies are now saying that those are the good grounds on which to charge Libby.

Oh, I see...

Clinton: tarnished a woman's reputation (don't see how though. Monica was consentual to my understanding thus she's the one that got involved while him at her own free will). Oh, and not like people started painted him as a sex crazed maniac afterwards.

Rove: endagered a woman's life by revealing her i.d. while she was undercover and jeoparized a U.S. mission, bordeing on (if not flat out) treason.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Double standard again.

"you're ugly" said the leper to the beauty contest winner.

Gime me a fucking break. Rove comited a crime and you argue he should't face a big penalty because other people commit more heinous crimes. That's like if somebody snatched your purse and was caught but argued he shouldn't be punished because he didn't rape you and somebody else buys into his bullshit and decides to let him go off the hook.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Clinton was never charged for "lying" about Jones, he was charged for lying about Lewinsky.



The reason he lied about Lewinski is so he would not get into trouble in the Jones case. Who would've ever believed that Clinton had hit on Jones (having a state policeman summon the young goveernment worker up to the then Governor Clinton's qurters in the hotel) so he could ask her for a "BJ" UNLESS it came out that he had a young government intern giving him regular "BJs" in the White House?

He lied not in a PERSONAL matter but so he would not look guilty in a sexual harrassment suit that someone had brought against him.And he had Monica tell Linda Tripp that if she told what she knew she could lose her longtime government job. He was and is so low.

[someguy]

Please Lynn, do go on.

I love seeing you explain how the president cheating on his wife is worse than a member of an administration giving the identity of a CIA agent out as revenge for their husband bashing said administration.

Please, do go on. I just want to see how you explain that it's worse.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The reason he lied about Lewinski is so he would not get into trouble in the Jones case. Who would've ever believed that Clinton had hit on Jones (having a state policeman summon the young goveernment worker up to the then Governor Clinton's qurters in the hotel) so he could ask her for a "BJ" UNLESS it came out that he had a young government intern giving him regular "BJs" in the White House?

He lied not in a PERSONAL matter but so he would not look guilty in a sexual harrassment suit that someone had brought against him.And he had Monica tell Linda Tripp that if she told what she knew she could lose her longtime government job. He was and is so low.


Yeah, but he was still never charged for lying about Jones.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by someguy
Please Lynn, do go on.

I love seeing you explain how the president cheating on his wife is worse than a member of an administration giving the identity of a CIA agent out as revenge for their husband bashing said administration.

Please, do go on. I just want to see how you explain that it's worse.

It's apples and oranges.

But give me a break. What Clinton did was perjury. Plain and simple, a president lying under oath is awesome!!!!!:rolleyes:

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
What Clinton did was perjury.


No doubt, but I'm not buying the way Lynn is trying to dimminish the severity of Scooter's crimes just because we like Clinton.

It's not a double standard to be down on Scooter - No one really denies that Clinton shouldn't have lied, as Lynn is trying to say in her spin.

The only thing that I think is worse - it's mearly a personal take - but you would think after Lewinsky, these guys would be a bit more low profile in their crimes, not get involved in things that seem, to me, to be of higher risk in getting "busted". Although it's no different to me, because it just goes with the way I view this administration as being a bit too ballsy- Clinton was ballsy too, but the difference is keeping a secret with one person, and keeping a secret with dozens of people - obviously a more risky situation.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Yeah, but he was still never charged for lying about Jones.

Yeah, his testimony went something like this- I can't remember, I can't remember, I can't remember etc etc etc anyone looking to escape these kinds of charges would do well to follow President Clinton's lead- oh, I forgot- it will only work if you are powerful or rich. That tact would have never worked for us.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yeah, his testimony went something like this- I can't remember, I can't remember,


No, he was charged for lying about Lewinsky in the Jones deposition. He was never charged for lying about Jones.



I can't remember etc etc etc anyone looking to escape these kinds of charges would do well to follow President Clinton's lead- oh, I forgot- it will only work if you are powerful or rich. That tact would have never worked for us.


That tact is actually a legal staple called giving evading, misleading, or incomplete answers.

It's the same tactic that many used to escape being prosecuted as Communists during the McCarthy hearings, and any American, in American courts is perfectly capable of using the same tactics barring they are educated enough to know how to use them successfully.

On a slightly related note - People living in the US, if suspected of terrorism, can be arrested, not given a speedy trail, and thereby prevented from being able to use such tactics. Just a little legal tib-bit....




But again - this is all smoke and mirrors, and really doesn't change the fact that Cheney's number one guy is corrupt, and that Chaney could probably be just as corrupt himself.

[Lynn7]

Well, right now corrupt is a strong word to use for a man who has not had a hearing yet. I'm looking forward to the hearing. I hope to hear more stuff about what Wilson was doing and who sent him there. I'd like to see why he would take such a high profile assignment and write about it in an op-ed piece if his wife was in such a dangerous position. Can't wait to hear all about it.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Well, right now corrupt is a strong word to use for a man who has not had a hearing yet. I'm looking forward to the hearing. I hope to hear more stuff about what Wilson was doing and who sent him there. I'd like to see why he would take such a high profile assignment and write about it in an op-ed piece if his wife was in such a dangerous position. Can't wait to hear all about it.


I would imagine your felt the same way before Clinton's trial -- wanting to hear all the sides before condemning him.

[Lynn7]

If it hadn't been for all of those women coming out of the woodwork I would have been veery willing to put my faith in Bill. And if it hadn't been for the Lewisnky stuff and then that damn DNA on the dress I would have beleived him.

[Mr-Blonde]

Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

source: AP

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide told prosecutors that President Bush authorized a leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

The filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also describes Cheney involvement in I. Lewis Libby's communications with the press.

There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity. But it points to Cheney as one of the originators of the idea that Plame could be used to discredit her husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson.

Before his indictment, Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on prewar intelligence on Iraq and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure, the court papers say. According to the documents, the authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller. In that meeting, Libby made reference to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

According to Fitzgerald's court filing, Cheney, in conversation with Libby, raised the question of whether a CIA-sponsored trip by Wilson "was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife."

The disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday the White House would have no comment on the ongoing investigation. At a congressional hearing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the president has the "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information."

Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information from the government in order to defend himself against five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame affair.

He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.

Bush's political foes jumped on the revelation about Libby's testimony.

"The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put the interests of his political party ahead of America's security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "The more we hear, the more it is clear this goes way beyond Scooter Libby. At the very least, President Bush and Vice President Cheney should fully inform the American people of any role in allowing classified information to be leaked."

Libby's testimony indicates both the president and the vice president authorized leaks. Bush and Cheney both have long said they abhor that practice, so much so that the administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt down leakers.

The most recent instance is the administration's launching of a probe into who disclosed to The New York Times the existence of the warrantless domestic surveillance program.

The authorization involving intelligence information came as the Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the president and his aides had given for going to war.

Plame's husband, a former U.S. ambassador, said the administration had twisted prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.
---------

I told you that this scandal went to the top of the administration.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Lynn7
It certainly seems so now since all the women who he abused have their reputations tarnished while he enjoys the status of being an ex-president as if he had never done anything wrong; this, despite the fact he sexually harrassed many women and cheated on his wife in the Oval office in the same building where his wife worked. Such a fine man!!! He lied in the Jones case so he could stay out of trouble and the people who came to his defense saying everyone lies are now saying that those are the good grounds on which to charge Libby. Double standard again.

There's a difference between lying about a blowjob and TREASON.

[EVILxxx]

Do we really need to add "gate" to the end of every scandal?

I was just gonna write that.

Imagine going to prison with a nickname like "Scooter"...

If found guilty he will unfortunatly go to a white collar resort (sorry if I ruined the joke.) If he is convicted, hopefully he will rot there.

[Lynn7]

I can see that this is going to be around for a while- it takes out minds off illegal immigration and also the Mckinney debacle.
We'll see what happens when all the dust settles. I would like to know what was so secretive about Plame's job. She certainly didn't shy away from having her husband in the limelight by suggesting his name for a high profile mission. Very strange and then of course the posing in the magazine with hubby when her life has been in
"jeopardy."I'd be the first one to empathize with her if the surrounding details were different but they aren't.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I can see that this is going to be around for a while- it takes out minds off illegal immigration and also the Mckinney debacle.


You must be fucking kidding. You mean to assert that a congresswoman hitting a security guard in a misunderstanding is a "debacle" and the Vice President's CHIEF OF STAFF, the man known as "Cheney's Cheney" being indicted for treason is merely a distraction fluff item in the news? Corruption and dangerous crimes committed at the highest levels of the government is a serious, important, real story that has a lot of impact. The settlement of a lady punching a cop has none.

Plame's circumstances and the aftermath are inconsequential since they do not change the fact that IT IS A FEDERAL CRIME TO REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF A CIA AGENT. That happened, it was clearly done, this crime was committed. At best, it was the rogue action of one of the most powerful people in the White House. At worst, it was a sanctioned order by the President or Vice President. Either way, it was a deliberate, underhanded, unethical, and illegal means of attempting to discredit an opponent of the White House. I don't know how your morals could ever possibly defend this, regardless of political affiliation.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I can see that this is going to be around for a while- it takes out minds off illegal immigration and also the Mckinney debacle.

Uh... lynn.... illegal immigration is the distraction. it's the new 'gay people fucking is gross'.

[The Heart Collector]

haha oh man, i hadn't even noticed lynn actually implied that the mckinny thing was a 'debacle'.

never ceases to amaze me.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Very strange and then of course the posing in the magazine with hubby when her life has been in
"jeopardy."I'd be the first one to empathize with her if the surrounding details were different but they aren't.


Didn't you say that you sympathized with Paula Jones or Lewinsky or someone because they resorted to similar actions after being "put in jeopardy" by Clinton?

LOL

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Lynn7
[BShe certainly didn't shy away from having her husband in the limelight by suggesting his name for a high profile mission. Very strange and then of course the posing in the magazine with hubby when her life has been in
"jeopardy."I'd be the first one to empathize with her if the surrounding details were different but they aren't. [/B]

So someone commits a federal crime, a fucking betrayal to the country, and you attack the victim because SHE POSED IN A FUCKING MAGAZINE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Joshmo]

I DESPISE this Republican Administration..never in my life with any other ADMIN' have I had so much clarity that I know its right to believe how wrong they all are.

Fitzgerald is finding he's gotta go to the TOP in order to get at the bottom of things with this treacherous crew.

Kerry said yesterday if true, it appears Bush has been looking for HIMSELF all along. :D

The Bush crime family has more tentacles than one can imagine. You can spend hours reading about them going all the way back to the Nazis..the same with the Kennedy clans patriarch

[littleupstart]

I think that the most important facts in this case aren't being addressed. I mean, if Cheny, Libby and Busy were all trying to discredit Wilson because they knew that the claims of Iraq purchasing yellowcake from Niger were false, then they obviously had a reason to do so. Why else risk jail time and accusations of treason if you don't have something invested, right? So, the ten thousand dollar question is this: WHY did they still want the public to think that Iraq was trying to build nuclear bombs? it all seems a little fishy to me.

[Thrizzle]

More and more i'm realizing that the administration is run like the mafia.