Thursday, September 28, 2006

Dodd's Senate Speech on Torture and the CT Delegation Votes

I won't post the whole thing, but it's on Dodd's site in full. The House passed Bush's torture bill. The NyTImes:
Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.(nytimes,)

Johnson, Shays & Simmons Vote Yes, DeLauro & Larson vote No.

Dodd's Speech

Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, America was attacked by
ruthless enemies of this country. It is my strong belief that those
responsible for orchestrating this plot, and anyone else who seeks to
do harm to our nation and our citizens, must be brought to justice,
and punished severely.

These are extraordinary times, and we must act in a way that fully
safeguards America’s national security. That is why I support the
concept of military commissions -- to protect U.S. intelligence and
expedite judicial proceedings vital to military action under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. In my view, as we develop such
means, we must also ensure that our actions are not counter-
productive to our overall efforts to protect America at all levels.

As you know Mr. President, 430 detainees are being held in Guantanamo
Bay facilities as so called “enemy combatants.” The President has
claimed the authority to detain prisoners indefinitely without
formally charging them with a crime, to use questionable
interrogation practices which some experts say violate international
law banning torture, and to set up secret tribunals in which some
detainees could be convicted without ever seeing the evidence against
them, while others receive no trials at all. The Supreme Court ruled
in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld this activity is unconstitutional. But the
groundwork for this decision was laid in the Supreme court decision
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, two years ago, in which Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor declared “A state of war is not a blank check for the

Mr. President, the Administration and Republican leadership would
have the American people believe that the War on Terror requires a
choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the
basic tenets upon which our country was founded -- but not both. This
canard has been showcased in every recent election cycle.

I fully reject that reasoning. We can, and we must, balance our
responsibilities to bring terrorists to justice, while at the same
time protecting what it means to be America. To choose the rule of
law over the passion of the moment takes courage. But it is the right
thing to do if we are to uphold the values of equal justice and due
process that are codified in our Constitution.

Our founding fathers established the legal framework of our country
on the premise that those in government are not infallible. America’s
leaders knew this sixty years ago, when they determined how to deal
with Nazi leaders guilty of horrendous crimes. There were strong and
persuasive voices, at the time, crying out for the execution of these
men who had commanded with ruthless efficiency the slaughter of six
million innocent Jews and five million other innocent men, women, and
children. After World War II, our country was forced to decide if the
accused criminals deserved a trial or execution.
Read more of Dodd's Speech

Updated: Lieberman Yes Dodd No Senate Passes the Military Commissions Act of 2006: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.


Dodd Supporter said...

This is why Dodd is running for President. I wished John Kerry hadn't run in 2004 (I wish Dodd had. It would have made 2008 an exciting reelection) and made things tougher for Northeasterners.

Bobby McGee said...

Any word on how Sen. Lieberman plans to vote?

Anonymous said...

funny, his would be colleagues Rep. Ford and Rep. Brown decided to tell Dodd and co. to pound sand.

Guess running a Club Fed for terorists might not sell in a statewide senate campaign

Most of America is still more afraid of Al Queda than Republicans. Sorry, Chris

Anonymous said...

Jeez ... I hate to have to point this ouy (AGAIN!) but comparisons with Nazi Germany are spurious - AT BEST. We are fighting STATELESS terrorism. I don't recall the Al Queda boys on the planes that hit the World Trade Center towers holding political trials before they drove those 767s in ... they just hammered 'em home. Dodd and his ilk are - as always - fighting the last war (or two) instead of groking where we are today.

These are hate-consumed, hate-motivated, hate-filled and hate-obsessed psycopaths who can ONLY be stopped by "martyrdom." I say we meet their needs in full, ASAP, on a wholesale scale, until something resembling sanity once again prevails among the barbarians now ascendant in Middle Eastern politics.

Anonymous said...

According to a diary at DailyKos, Sen. Lieberman failed to show the courage to uphold the rule of law over the passion of the moment. Sen. Lieberman chose to sacrifice "the basic tenets upon which our country was founded". Sen. Lieberman voted for S. 3930.

Bobby McGee said...

Lieberman voted for the torture measure.

turfgrrl said...

The Senate should cringe in shame for passing this atrocity, Arlen Spector summed the situation here:
Specter said hearings before his Judiciary Committee showed that the military Combatant Status Review Tribunals do not have an adequate way of determining whether suspects are enemy combatants.

He charged that by striking habeas corpus rights for terrorism suspects, the bill "would take our civilized society back some 900 years" to a time before the Magna Carta was adopted. He said this was "unthinkable."

"What this entire controversy boils down to is whether Congress is going to legislate to deny a constitutional right which is explicit in the document of the Constitution itself and which has been applied to aliens by the Supreme Court of the United States," Specter said. If the bill passes without habeas corpus protections, it will be struck down by the high court, and "we'll be on this floor again rewriting the law," Specter predicted.
Washington Post

Jim said...

Joe Lieberman: Pro-torture, pro-war.
anti- habeus corpus.

Them's some fine principles you got, Joe.

Genghis Conn said...


Safety and security isn't worth this. It just isn't.

Anonymous said...

This is a long way from over, to the Supreme Court we return...

ct_husky said...

I sincerely hope that, in the coming days, the people of this country, the same people who elected the officials responsible for this travesty, realize the magnitude of the stain this bill has left on the very foundation this nation was founded on. My feeling of disgust right now prohibits me from rambling on further in any coherent fashion. I just hope that the wholesale change that is so desperately needed in Washington comes about this November.

"We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
-Edward R. Murrow

Anonymous said...

and unlike Hamdan, CJ Roberts will not be recused from voting

and based on the acturial chart, possible the court gets another Roberts clone

Anonymous said...

By the way, will Chris Dodd stop reminding people his dad prosecuted's like he has no accomplishment of his own to discuss after 32 years in Washington

Grumpy said...

Anon 6:39,

You said "Most of America is still more afraid of Al Queda than Republicans. Sorry, Chris .

You made Senator Dodd's point for him. Do you see how?

Anonymous said...


Please park you fake disgust at today's legislation. That is unless you've made a clean break with Joe Lieberman and his Neo-con buddies.

It shouldn't escape you that Ned Lamont would have quickly sided with Chris Dodd against this abominable Congressional action.

Anonymous said...

My point was that the Democratic party is more afraid of Karl Rove than anyone associated with bombings and beheadings

The American public has a more rational view of the world

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:14 - You fail to see that since 9/11, all of our actionshave played directly into the hands of the Islamic radicals. The way we defeat Islamic fundamentalism is by winning over the "Arab Street." More of the same on our end will only serve to radicalize more of the Middle East, to our ultimate detriment. Is it too much to ask for a deft foreign policy? Aren't all of these people Ivy Leaguers?

GMR said...

This bill passed 65-34. Republicans voted 54-1, with Chafee being the exception. Arlen Specter voted for the bill. Jeffords voted no. 12 Democrats -- more than a quarter of all the Democrats -- voted yes. Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.), Menendez (N.J), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich.), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.)

Of the 12 Democrats voting for the bill, 5 of them are from Blue states (NJ, NJ, CT, MI, DE). So it's not as if they didn't want to vote this way, but had to because of the electoral politics in their home state.

Rockefeller is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and he voted yes.

Anonymous said...

Instead of hating Republicans so much maybe they should join the Republicans in hating terrorists. Then again, the terrorist insurgents in Iraq are providing the Democrats with most of their campaign material so I guess it makes sense to hate Republicans instead.

Funny how the Democrats say exactly the same thing as Chavez of Venezuela and Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Anonymous said...

Congratulation to the Republican Party and Joe Lieberman.

You've now given George W Bush the same power over Americans Saddam had over Iraqis.

Check Mate,Osama wins.

disgruntled_republican said...

Anon 1151 -

You state, You've now given George W Bush the same power over Americans Saddam had over Iraqis.

Can you please explain this logic? Agree with the bill or not, it doesn't add up.

Brian said...

Joe Lieberman just voted for total martial law.......I don't live in the United States of America anymore. Nothing like to cut and run on American democracy. Lets vote out this Lieberman asshole!! Lieberme has just become a official republican without a doubt after this disgraceful vote.

Anonymous said...

Um, DR--
To throw anyone in jail without the right to a fair and speedy trial.

I think they used to call it "habeus corpus".

Don Pesci said...

“Mr. President, the Administration and Republican leadership would
have the American people believe that the War on Terror requires a
choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the
basic tenets upon which our country was founded -- but not both.”

So said Dodd in his talk. But as a mater of fact, if not a matter of law, he is wrong. The protections of the US Constitution apply only to citizen; to all others we owe courtesy – which means we may, if we so choose – often we do – extend them the courtesy of those protections.

However, if someone comes into my hose and burns it down, he has put himself outside the protection of my courtesy. That is what happened on 9/11. One of the terrorist planes on that day narrowly missed the Capitol building in Washington, and one cannot help but wonder whether Dodd, so courteous to Hugo Chavez and others who mean us harm, would feel differerently if the terrorists had been more successful.

The constitutional protestions Dodd wishes to extend to the declared enemies of his country mean that, in coloquial terms, “he’s begging for it.” One wants to be careful what one wishes for.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to hear a Dodd speech on how his own policies in the 1970's created the boat people

GMR said...

To throw anyone in jail without the right to a fair and speedy trial.

I think they used to call it "habeus corpus".

Does this bill apply to American citizens, or only to "illegal combatants" captured outside of our borders.

After the US captured German soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge during 1945, these prisoners were not afforded POW status and were executed within 24 hours, obviously without trial, since they wearing US army uniforms instead of Wehrmacht uniforms.

Anonymous said...

GMR - it applies to anyone deemed an enemy combatant, regardless of their citizenship or where they were captured...

Anonymous said...

The way to deal with the Arab Street is to win the war. To win the war you Kill and Destroy your enemy. We are fighting this war with our hands tied behind our back because fools like Dodd would rather appease and "understand" our enemy. The enemy started this war with the first WTC bombing, the Cole, and 9/11. We should obliterate the "Arab street"

Anonymous said...

This Bill applies to ANYONE the President declares an Enemy combatant,American citizen or not.

disgruntled_republican said...

Um Anon,

To throw anyone in jail without the right to a fair and speedy trial.

They aren't Americans. They are suspected terrorists who would kill you given the chance. Not the same as Saddam...not by a long shot.

Disgusted_Republican said...

Disgruntled -

Check your facts. The bill would allow anyone, American or not, citizen or not, captured here, Iraq, or anywhere, to be held forever, without trial, without ability to see the evidence against them, and without being able to challenge their detention in court via habeas corpus (indeed, one reading of the bill would essentially end court oversight, so the detention order could not eben be appealed).

They want to destroy our freedoms? Mission accomplished...

Anonymous said...

Don Pesci -

Athough so far in your career you have seen no need to do so, you might consider having a frigging clue about what you are talking about before you spew inanities out of your blowhole.

This bill would allow ANYONE deemed an enemy combatant, including American Citizens captured here or overseas, to be held forever without access to the courts or the evidence against them.

TrueBlueCT said...

We won the hearts and minds of every last Muslim/Arab in Canada when that Maher Arar was "rendered" from New York's JFK to Syria, where he was jailed for 10 months, and oh yeah, beaten and tortured. Link.

It's really a brilliant strategy. Don't just give angry Muslims justification for their hatred of America, but do everything you can to infuriate them over the edge to a point at which martyrdom is preferable to humiliation.

TrueBlueCT said...


Facts don't matter to them b/c they're Republicans. If you want to see blind partisanism at its ugliest, take a look at the internals from yesterday's polls. CT's Independents are pretty close to Dems on the Iraq Debacle, and then out there on their own, in absolute la-la land, are CT's Republicans.

The grossest irony is that with their Utopian, nation-building experiment having all but failed, it is nearing the time for them to blame it on us yellow-livered liberals. Heaven forbid they take responsibility for the Bush/Neo-con insanities.

Anonymous said...

TBlue - You forgot to mention that, a the end of all that, he was released because he didn't have a damn thing to do with terrorism. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

Trueblue--Fortunately the majority of CT voters are smart enough to realize the utter stupidity of electing Ned Lamont. R's, D's, and I's make a majority. Not far left blogs. And how is Ned doing with that fundraising? Gee he put up another $750,000--guess the people power ain't coming thrugh!!

TrueBlueCT said...

You make a hell of a point when you say that it would be stupid to elect Ned Lamont. Without a shred of anything to back up your assertion. Let me try arguing like a typical Republican poster.

Bloggers are far left wackos.
DeStefano is a Communist.
Jodi Rell has a big butt.
Lamont = Hugo Chavez.
People don't like Chris Murphy.

Are you really stating that the way to win the "War on Terrah" is to Kill and Destroy more and more Arabs?

And you're calling Chris Dodd a fool?

Anonymous said...

TB--So it's allright to categorize R's as brain dead or something to that effect, and little Ned can spend all his money saying how horrible and evil Bush is, yet one poster says something bad about D's and your feelings get hurt. So sad.

Anonymous said...

the facts are that Ned and the Nutroots spent the summer alienating R voters and moderates. That was stupid. And the chickens are coming home to roost.

TrueBlueCT said...

My feelings aren't hurt.

I've never heard Ned call Bush either horrible or evil. (Do facts ever matter to you?)

Yet it does get tedious when this place starts sounding like Free Republic or Little Green Footballs...

If you were voting for your pocketbook, you'd vote for Lamont. (Or Schlesinger.) Don't try to blame me or anyone else for your lowly embrace of Joe Lieberman. What you don't want to acknowledge is the idiocy of your President, and his foreign policy.

Just tell me, if we gave you guys another eight years, do you think you could get us to Armageddon?

Don Pesci said...

From the blowhole.

Anon 10:48 :“This bill would allow ANYONE deemed an enemy combatant, including American Citizens captured here or overseas, to be held forever without access to the courts or the evidence against them.”

In order to be a COMBATANT one would have had to engage in COMBAT against the United States, here or abroad. The law permits the president to treat COMBATANTS as combatants. If George Washington could have laid hands on Benedict Arnold – an enemy COMBATANT when he turned spy – he would have hung him, even though he wasn’t wearing British military clothing at the time he was apprehended. Nathan Hale, an enemy COMBATANT was hung by the British.

Calm down. The bill has just been passed. If Sen. Dodd thinks it is defective then – as a non COMBATANT senator – he can avail himself of his constitutional right and offer amendments to the bill. I certainly would defend his right to do so.

bluecoat said...

United states military lawyers - past and present - asked for modifications to this bill along the lines of what Dodd called for; just thought I'd point that out.

TrueBlueCT said...

Yeah Don Pesci. But to be a COMBATANT, you don't actually have to be a COMBATANT. Someone could just deem you a COMBATANT, then throw your innocent ass in jail. Like this poor fellow.

Not everyone apprehended by our government is guilty. Wouldn't you agree?

And that is the reason many of us are clamoring for the preservation of basic Due Process.

Thouroughly said...

Don Pesci -

Are you joking? The people you are talking about are going to be called enemy combatants without trial, without evidence being shown, and without a chance to show that they aren't, in fact combatants. If they aren't actual combantants, how will they show that they aren't and ever be released from detention?

We just codified guilty until proven innocent. Oh wait, no we didn't, because there is no access to courts in this bill. We just codified guilty.

A bill that allows the president, any president, to determine what torture is and removes all access to the courts is as unamerican as if it stripped everyone's property rights.

Please see the Canadian refrenced above who was detained, renditioned, tortured, and then released after it was determined that he had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Ooops.

Also, NTAC, you didn't at all address the substantive criticism of the previous post - namely, that you got on your oversize soapbox to say that the constitution only protects citizens and were completely bughouse wrong in implying that this bill only affects non-citizens. It applies to citizens and non-citizens alike.

bluecoat said...

I should also point out that a number of military lawyers - past and present - felt these trials of stateless terrorists could be handled quite well in the US Courts without creating the military tribunals; and these are lawyers who defend and prosecute.

bluecoat said...

Lamont blasts Lieberman over detainee bill
By Don Michak, Journal Inquirer

Jim said...

bluecoat said...
United states military lawyers - past and present - asked for modifications to this bill along the lines of what Dodd called for; just thought I'd point that out.

12:09 PM, September 29, 2006

along with a half-dozen or so former Chiefs of Staff, a couple of dozen retired high-ranking intelligence officers....

But Joe voted his convictions. Boy, he truly is admirable. It's not like this is something threatening to the Constitution or basic morality like, say, a video game or rap lyrics.

Don Pesci said...

One of the lessons of history not cited by Dodd in his floor speech is contained in the following document:

Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Abraham Lincoln
September 24, 1862
Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;

Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:

Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Note the reason given for the suspension of Habeas Corpus by Lincoln, not generally regarded as an enemy of the US Constitution: The persons to which the suspension applies “are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law.” That reason would apply to “enemy combatants.”

Don Pesci said...


You and I are talking past each other. Dodd mentioned the "so called" enemy combatants at Guantanamo in his floor speech. My remarks are an examination of that specific speech. Perhaps you can tell us how many of the “so called” enemy combatants there were American citizens. I would hazard a guess and say: none. Since most of them were taken on the field of battle, how many of them may we safely regard as “so called” enemies?

Dodd does this stuff all the time and no one picks him up on it. You should not suppose that I grieve any less than you over Canadian citizens unjustly accused and then sent to torture facilities outside the United States. My view on torture is the same as Albert Camus. It never should be allowed, under any circumstances for the reasons he stated in his notebooks.

Back to Dodd. The senator holds up the Nuremburg trials as a model that the US should use in the present instance. He does not mention that these trials occurred after Germany’s defeat. If you do not think the timing of the trials are important, consider this question: What do you suppose Hitler would have done to the many American citizens residing in areas he conquered if the US, having captured Ghering, decided to prosecute him publicly before Germany was defeated? Trials are fine for war criminals once the war has been concluded. I think you may agree that the public trial of Saddam Hussein in Iraq – a hideous waste of time – hasn’t helped to convince the terrorists in Iraq that democratic forms are preferable to jihad.

Bobby McGee said...

Could Lieberman and Chafee just swap and get it over with?

bluecoat said...

Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq by David Sanger in today's NYT I kinda put Sanger and Woodward in a different category then Pesci.

bluecoat said...

:Senate, 100-0, Backs Budget for Pentagon from the AP fresh today; the cut-and-run libs are something else aren't they?

Brian said...

latest post from blog.....its interesting knowing that people's number one issue is the economy other than war related issues

......well here is my research

....there aren't many good things to point out for hard working connecticut residents and families
on this issue

.......I think Jodi Rell and Joe Lieberman could do a little explaining about this rather than trying not to let the cat out of the bag.

I think its accurate description and poytral of the state's current economy.


Over the last couple of weeks the only thing the Lieberman campaign has done is complain about the supposed negative attacks being made by the Lamont campaign. However, in reality, these aren’t negative attacks at all, but massive failures being pointed out through effectively constructed messages in form of television ads, radio spots, and speeches.

Also, everybody wants to isolate Ned as a one issue candidate who does not possess adequate experience to become a United States Senator, or is an individual who has a grasp of the issues facing Connecticut voters. These statements and beliefs attacking Ned’s ability to be an effective senator are dead wrong and misleading.

In hindsight, as we get closer to the debates and then election-day, people will finally realize that NED LAMONT is the better choice for United States senator.

Firstly, we must ask ourselves what do we want in our senatorial candidate? To me the most important thing a state senator has to do to get my vote is visibly represent his state, produce results, and make it work! According to the latest Quinnipiac poll, 83% of those surveyed agreed upon that in deciding your vote for United States Senator; the ability of getting things done for Connecticut is very important. All in all, everybody is on the right page, but my question to the voters: are you going to vote on a misleading reputation or a senator who will produce results?


A.) The most important issue among voters regarding the state of Connecticut.

According to the organization, “Connecticut Voices For Children”, there has been a visible increase in the amount of state residents are living in poverty from 7.5% in 2000-2001 to more than 9% in 2004-2005. ( Also, this paper uncovers in explicit detail that the overall current status of the economy for working families, lower-income persons, and children has grown worse since the quick lived economic upturn since 2003 recession. The effects of our declining economy have resulted in a decrease in median household income from “$57,853 in 2000-2001 to $56,889” in 2004-2005. ( In addition, the percentage of Connecticut residents without adequate health insurance has actually increased from “10% in 2000-2001 to 11.3% in 2004-2005. (

*Median Household Income declining
*Residents without adequate healthcare is on the rise
*Loss of over 40,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000
*Loss of over 16,000 professional-business service jobs since 2000
*Modest losses in most sectors while there has been a limited gain in others
*Modest wage increase for educated-highly skilled workers, however the increase is small in comparison when measuring it over the last 20 years. When keeping in consideration the cost of living in Ct has become expensive to extremely expensive in some parts. (usually where jobs are located)
*Wage gains of low income workers demonstrates the massive problem of Wage
Inequality among workers
*Wage inequality of black and minorities workers is significant and leads to tremendous
Amounts of poverty in lower-income or inner city communities
*Wage inequality between men and women shows significant gap….
*Wages period aren’t enough for single residents or families to maintain an economic healthy lifestyle in this state.

These mostly negative economic numbers, indicators and trends show both single residents and families are not finding enough sufficient financial resources to maintain an economically healthy lifestyle in this state. While some Connecticut families are finding it very difficult to remain above the poverty threshold, an increasing amount is falling below it faster than ever before. (as well as not having adequate healthcare). In summary, many individuals and working families wages aren’t financially enough to support an adequate or fulfilling lifestyle in this state. From an economic perspective this is the most imperative socioeconomic issue facing us and is a benchmark situation for Ned Lamont to fix in the senate as the next state senator.






(I am a recent graduate from the University of Connecticut with a Bachelor Degree in Economics. If anybody needs research assistance for this campaign or other endeavors I would be glad to help your cause.)

bluecoat said...

and Pesci, Saddam Hussein should have been tried at the Hague - even Simmons said that - but Bush didn't want that...thus the circus.

Don Pesci said...


Woodward … Woodward; sort of rings a bell. Oh yeah, he was the intrepid reporter who maintained a courageous silence while special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald mis-prosecuted the Valerie Plame case. You remember that one Bluecoat, right? Plame, the wife of Joe Wilson, supposedly was outed as an undercover CIA agent by someone high in the Bush administration – possibly the devilish Karl Rove, who may have slipped the information to Robert Novak, or maybe the big enchilada himself, the liar in chief, George Bush.
As it turned out, Richard Armatige, second in command to Colin Powell and a critic of Bush’s misadventure in Iraq, slipped the information to – Mr. Woodward. The whole sordid story might easily be made into a book, but not, one supposes, one written by Woodward. You, however, might have read about it here or here or here or here

Don Pesci said...


Why would a change of venue make the trial any less a farce?

Anonymous said...

I love how the non-lawyer posters always have an opinion about how the legal/military justice systems work in this country.

Anonymous said...

Have any of the Republican-haters on this website thought to do a comparison of this bill to the anti-terror laws of other nations, including those of our traditional European allies like France, Italy, Britain, etc? I didn't think so.

Don Pesci said...

Funny how some conspiracy theories float right over the heads of the lefties. Woodward's new book -- a dull slog of rehashed material designed mostly to get him back in the good graces of the libs after his previous two books flatering to the Bush administration -- might be selling more briskly had Fitzgerald nailed Rove or even Bush for outing Plame. But it was not to be, because the leaker was not Rove, but Armatige, an opponant of the war in Iraq and Colin Powell's second in command. Powell is the subject of a flattering new bio written by another Post reporter, not Woodward. Ah well, at least the Post sold a few newspapers while the Plame farce was hot. Way to go Post.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:27 pm - Those countries do not possess (or perhaps I should say "did not possess") the constitutional protections against governmental excesses that we enjoy/enjoyed. Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?

Prof Rufus T. Snarkfly said...

Anonymous said...
Have any of the Republican-haters on this website thought to do a comparison of this bill to the anti-terror laws of other nations, including those of our traditional European allies like France, Italy, Britain, etc? I didn't think so.

11:27 PM, September 29, 2006

Typical Republican.... bashing the US Constitution and wishing we could be more like the French. If you love all those foreign countries so much, Traitor, I'll buy you a one-way ticket to Britain (a cowardly traitor like you doesn't deserve French or Italian food).

bluecoat said...

Pesci; the book might be selling more briskly were it actually on the bookstands, which it will be come this Monday. As for you dissing Woodward and missing the point on the leak investigation - I know spin when I see it.

bluecoat said...

and I am sure you know that once Richard Armitage knew he had done what he had done he fessed up and even testified before the grand Jury without a lawyer by his side while remianing quiet about his involvement at the request of Fitzgerald.

Don Pesci said...

“and I am sure you know that once Richard Armitage knew he had done what he had done he fessed up and even testified before the grand Jury without a lawyer by his side while remianing quiet about his involvement at the request of Fitzgerald.”

I know nothing of the sort. Armatige spent a good amount of time watching Fitzgerald’s parade go by. Robert Novack, the reporter to whom Armatige slipped the information in what Armatige said was an inadvertant chatty remark, has a much different view of the matter. See here:,CST-EDT-NOVAK14.article

Don Pesci said...


In the link to the post cited about, Novack pointedly answers your charge that Armatige was being silent because he was under orders to do so by Fitzgerald:

"When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silence three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."

Gotta break through the bubble every so ofen, bulecoat; get out into the wide world; have a look around. The fresh air will do you good.

Anonymous said...

"Joe Lieberman: Pro-torture, pro-war. anti- habeus corpus.

Them's some fine principles you got, Joe."

Worked for Lincoln.

bluecoat said...

and since Armitage told Gonzalez rigt awy; why was Fitzgerald even commisioned? go awy pesci, go away.

the real bluecoat said...

Bingo! Finally a good question bluecoat. Stevenson would be proud of you. And by the way, this is a public bar. Pesci ain't going anywhere. The problem with you guys is: When someone you disagree with gets a little too close to the truth, you want him to go away -- and take the truth with him. Stevenson's bluecoat loved the truth; it was wine to him -- and honor -- enough to die for it. I'm a little disappointed in ye.

bluecoat said...

and didn't Bush and Gonzalez agree to the special prosecutor after Armitage spoke with Gonzalez? The knowledge of how the process goes astounds me among the cons on this blog.