If Libby did not commit perjury to cover it up, would Cheney be in prison by now? Or would he have been exonerated?
Plame outing congressional flow chart (pdf)
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070316173308-19288.pdf
2007-10-29 18:29:21 · 13 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Remember, neither Libby or Cheney disclosed Valerie Plame's identity.
Your link is not correct.
It was actually Armitage who disclosed Valerie Plame's identity.
Also, the reason her identity was disclosed was not for spite.
Valerie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson were political opponents of George Bush.
Valerie Plame used her position in the CIA to get her husband assigned to do the investigation of whether or not Saddam Hussein had attempted to by nuclear material.
However Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson had already decided that they wanted to report that Saddam Hussein had not attempted to buy nuclear material.
Joe Wilson, with his wife, Valerie Plame's help got the assignment and traveled to Iraq, but did not do an investigation.
Upon Joe Wilson's return he wrote a report that stated that Saddam Hussein had never made any attempt to buy nuclear material, even though Joe Wilson had made no investigation and did not actually know whether or not Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy nuclear material.
Valerie Plame's identity was exposed in the process of explaining why Joe Wilson's report was worthless because he had not made any attempt to investigate the question.
Joe Wilson had already decided to write a report that said that Saddam Hussein did not attempt to buy nuclear material because both he and his wife were politically opposed to George Bush.
.
2007-10-29 18:51:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 6⤋
If what you say was true, then yes, a crime was committed. However, Valerie Plame was no longer a covert agent and had been "in from the cold" since 1997. The statute of limitations for outing a covert agent is 5 years which had expired when Bob Novak mentioned that Ms Plame was a CIA employee. Also since 1997 Plame was commuting to a 9 to 5 job at Langley, not exactly covert.
When prosecutor Fitzgerald went after Libby, he already knew the identity of the 'leaker', Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state(2001 - 2005). The investigation should have ended right then. Libby was convicted of perjury because he could not remember the exact details of a conversation that he had a year previously.
2007-10-29 19:32:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Yes, I believe that it is treason. Isn't it ironic too that at the same time the case was being built to invade Iraq for WMDs... a CIA agent, whose job was to find missing nukes (WMDs) was outed?
As for Cheney... supposedly the documents that mentioned Plame had been declassified by Bush or Cheney. At the same time of this alleged declassification (2002/2003), Cheney ceased to comply with an Executive Order to provide information to the National Archives about material his office had classified and declassified. In 2004, Cheney's office blocked the archives from doing an onsite inspection of his office to make sure classified information was being properly protected. To further avoid compliance, Cheney tried to abolish the National Archives. When that tactic failed, he tried the infamous "I'm not part of the Executive Branch" trick.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3304171
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062501565.html
There is something very fishy and stinky about this whole mess!
2007-10-30 02:34:58 · answer #3 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your question assumes a lot on the motive.
However, you left out the person who has even himself said he outted her - Richard .Armitage.
Having said that, the question could EASILY be raised as to why Fitzgerald (who was so hot and heavy to get Libby prosecuted) never went after Armitage(though the reason given in the link below seems pretty lame - so you can out them if you don't know their status??)
Since Robert Novak wouldn't reveal his source in this "treasonous" act, he too should be held accountable since he outted her to the public in mass (obstruction of justice at a minimum - like Libby.)
Personally, outing a CIA agent for a news story is worse. In the same vein, shouldn't outing CIA operations be prosecutable?
2007-10-29 19:05:01 · answer #4 · answered by Hawk 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
This one isn't going anywhere. At least for now. The fix is in. Plame got screwed over by the Bush Junta and it looks like they're going to get away with it. Sometimes the bad guys win. When the right wing talk show bums got a hold of this and began spouting about how all this was a plot by the 'liberals' to dump on Bush it was obvious that the GOP's Ministry of Propaganda, fronted by FOX was going to swift-boat anyone that tried to make a case against these clowns . Someday the truth will come out.....which is the main reason the reactionaries of the GOP live in fear of Hillary Clinton.....she WILL open all the hidden secrets of this administration's den of thieves. Can you say Freedom of Information Act? Unless this band of right wing back shooters manages to get one of their own in after Bush they know that there'll be a posse after them. Which way to Brazil?
2007-10-29 18:58:39 · answer #5 · answered by Noah H 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Amazing the difference eight years makes. Outing a covert agent, putting the lives of all the people she had contact with in jeopardy, put the lives of her family in jeopardy and compromising intelligence gathering in the Middle East is okay because a member of the agent's family pissed off Dick Cheyney. Getting a hummer in the executive office is tantamount to high crimes and misdemeanors.........hmmmmm, what sounds wrong with that.
2007-10-30 04:00:49 · answer #6 · answered by momatad 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If that's treason, there's been a /lot/ of treason committed in the past 6 years.
2007-10-30 06:34:27 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yep-no brainer
the opposing answerer has the usual lies used to justify the act-no surprise they are still using those excuses but not all people are ignorant to the details Once one reads the whole story it is clear that they are lies and excuses and dont cut it Its embarassing of ocurse so one would try I suppose to come up with some story to try to cover it.
2007-10-30 00:13:58 · answer #8 · answered by FoudaFaFa 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The man is Justice proof ? He knows how to get away ??!
2007-10-29 20:03:58 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Off with their heads.
2007-10-30 00:42:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋