And the feeding frenzy begins, including this little gem:
Who here wants to start a Libby death pool? I'll lay 2 to 1 odds he won't live to kiss his kids on graduation day..
Nothing gets the day going like slinging assassination predictions around, does it?
Oh, but that's all just a joke, I'm sure.
Ha ha.
I'm guessing that the excitement will die down when they realize that the document mentions only specific parts of the National Intelligence Estimate, and says nothing at all about Valerie Plame.
Key quotes from the NYSun story:
Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE...
Hmmm. No mention of Plame here, and since she didn't participate in the building of the NIE, hard to see how her name could conceivably fall under such a narrowly focused authorization. If Libby did release her name at the time, it would not appear to be covered by the President's authorization.
Mr. Bush's alleged instruction to release the conclusions of the intelligence estimate appears to have been squarely within his authority and Mr. Fitzgerald makes no argument that it was illegal.
It'll be tough to run an impeachment when the boss prosecuter finds no evidence of a crime.
Once again, a lot of sizzle, but no steak.
Now, there is a little for the left to get happy about in this report. They can now make a case that the President released classified intelligence for the purpose of discrediting a vocal critic. It's not illegal; it's not even unethical unless releasing the information could damage national security. Since we had already made the charge that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium, releasing evidence that supported the charge doesn't fall under that catagory.
Also, the President has not only the right, but the responsibility to respond to critics, particularly when they're lying, as Joe Wilson was, and their lies can affect national policy, as well as national security. Viewed in this light, the case that the President was abusing his power to silence a critic loses credibility. It looks more like a reasoned response to a scurrilous attack.
Posted by Rich at April 6, 2006 6:26 PM | TrackBack