Scooter Libby's trial delayed until after 06 Midterms

patricia · February-3rd-2006, 06:02 PM

The explanation given is that it will take until January of '07 to gather all the defence material by Libby's lawyers.
But it looks like a re-play of the holding back of the second part of the 9/11 Commission's report until after the '04 Presidential election.
Both would have been potentially damaging to the Republican candidates running for election.
Coincidence?

Scott Dolan · February-3rd-2006, 06:18 PM

Conspiracy theorists unite!!

I know that jmj will have a thousand times more insight into this type of process, but from what I've always seen almost all major cases, such as this one, are normally dragged out for an extended period of time.

patricia · February-3rd-2006, 06:23 PM

I'm not thinking conspiracy necessarily, Scott. I simply think that it's interesting that the two issues, the 9/11 inquiry, part 2 and this situation would both potentially damage the political position of the administration and were both delayed until safely after an important election.
There are many reasons that this could happen, but one of them is certainly the consideration of the possible political backlash. Even you have to concede that point.

Scott Dolan · February-3rd-2006, 06:33 PM

Eh, I'm not sure. I think anybody and everybody who was going to, or has, jumped ship woul not be swayed one way or the other by this.

That's just my opinion. I understand your reasoning, and it is sound enough, but I just don't see it making a huge difference.

Monte Smith · February-3rd-2006, 06:38 PM

Did the 9/11 Commission issue its report in two parts, patricia? I don't recall it being in two parts. I think it was only the one book-length report issued in summer 2004, before the election.

GregM · February-3rd-2006, 07:32 PM

Not to mention the Lancet report about Iraqi casualties which was published on the eve of the '04 election.

patricia · February-3rd-2006, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Did the 9/11 Commission issue its report in two parts, patricia? I don't recall it being in two parts. I think it was only the one book-length report issued in summer 2004, before the election.

I don't know if the second part of the Commission's report was issued in book form as was the first. I've seen the first part, in soft-cover periodical form which was indeed on news stands before the Presidential Election. The second part, which was the part that actually laid out who was responsible for which decisions, as well as the lapses in security etc. has yet, as far as I know, to be issued in a similar form.
Perhaps it has been by now and I just haven't seen it.

That part was held back so as not to influence the Presidential Election. This was stated at the time, both by the commission members and by Scott McLellen.

Monte Smith · February-4th-2006, 12:30 PM

I'm still not sure what you are talking about, patricia. Maybe you have a link to this information?

Scott Dolan · February-4th-2006, 01:10 PM

Poor particia.

I'll finally throw you a lifeline since that malicious oger Monte is having so much fun toying with you.

There is no "part II" of the 9/11 commission report. If there was, they would have had to form another commission. The 9/11 commission conducted their investigation and published their findings and recommendations.

What you are likely mistaking that with is the "phase II" report on the pre-war intelligence that led up to the war in Iraq.

patricia · February-4th-2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I'm still not sure what you are talking about, patricia. Maybe you have a link to this information?

Are you saying, Monte, that the 9/11 report, released before the '04 Presidential Election, assigning no responsibility to anyone for the warnings ignored by the administration is the final word??
What I was referring to was the decision to hold back the specific failures by the administration to take seriously the threats by bin Laden.
Do you actually believe, for example, that Ms Rice's contention that because they weren't told that planes would be used to attack the WTC and the Pentagon on the morning of Sept 11, 2001, that the threat was not important? As I recall, she said that the conclusion was reached that attacks were being planned, but they didn't know that the targets would be in the U.S. .

You might want to google, 9/11 commission report,final

Scott Dolan · February-4th-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patricia

You might want to google, 9/11 commission report,final

You might want to as well.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

I try to help you out, but you want to continue with this foolishness. Party on, particia.

There is no "second edition", or whatever you wish to refer to it as.

Again, see my previous post.

patricia · February-4th-2006, 01:57 PM

Whatever you say, Scott and Monte.

Scott Dolan · February-4th-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patricia

Whatever you say, Scott and Monte.

No, not "whatever we say", particia.

You made a point. You were wrong. And now you refuse to acknowledge it, for whatever reason.

There is no second part to the 9/11 commissions report, you simply confused it with "phase II" of the investigation on pre-war intelligence. It's no big deal, it was a simple mistake.

Why do you have such a problem with that?

But, since it's "whatever Monte and I say", then I'm jumping onboard with him and asking that you show proof of this mysterious "second part".

patricia · February-4th-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

No, not "whatever we say", particia.

You made a point. You were wrong. And now you refuse to acknowledge it, for whatever reason.

There is no second part to the 9/11 commissions report, you simply confused it with "phase II" of the investigation on pre-war intelligence. It's no big deal, it was a simple mistake.

Why do you have such a problem with that?

But, since it's "whatever Monte and I say", then I'm jumping onboard with him and asking that you show proof of this mysterious "second part".

I don't have a problem with the terminology.
Perhaps I am confusing my term Part 2 with "phase II" of the investigation. The point I am making is that the second part of the report, the one which assigned blame for the lapses in action, which could very well have prevented the 9/11 attacks, was not revealed until after the '04 Presidential Election.
The reason given was that assigning blame would be prejudicial.

Am I wrong in thinking that this was done in order to prevent criticism of the handling of the intelligence being received about the threat to the U.S. from bin Laden and his terrorists, intent on attacking the U.S. the revealing of which may have influenced the outcome of the '04 Presidential Election adversely ?

Scott Dolan · February-4th-2006, 02:42 PM

*sigh*

The 9/11 Commission Report: The Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States was published in July 2004.

Note the word "final" in the title.

Their was no second part. I know it's a dream of yours for some magical second edition to come out and assign 100% of the blame directly on Bush's skinny little head, because it's already obvious to you and those who think like you do.

But, like the tooth fairy, there is no such commission, or forthcoming report.

Again, the commissions report is final.

The report is final. There is no second part.

Finito.

Now, the phase II which you are really referring to here, again, is about investigating the pre-war intelligence that led to the current invasion of Iraq.

Remember when good ole Harry Reid (D-Nev) and his band of tricksters kicked all the civilians out of the Senate chamber, demanded the cameras all be turned off, and held everyone hostage so that they could force the GOP side to get their ass in gear with the investigation?

Yes, that is the phase II that you are referring to. But, again, that has to do with the pre-war intelligence that led to the current invasion of Iraq.

This phase II has nothing to do with the 9/11 commission report.

I do hope this has been helpful.

February-4th-2006, 03:42 PM

I think there's more to the story than time to gather evidence; probably has more to do with the "hiding" of evidence, maybe figuring out various strategies and spins and various consequences on the evidence. I bet the evidence has already been found/gathered, it's just being "digested."

Monte Smith · February-4th-2006, 03:43 PM

patricia, you ask if I am asserting something, but I'm not. I was struck by your mention of a second half to the 9/11 commission's report being held back until after the 2004 elections and I have never heard of any such "second half." I think I follow things closely enough that I would have heard about something like that, but maybe I missed it, or maybe it doesn't exist. I think Scott may be right and you are confusing the 9/11 Commision with something else.

As to Scooter's trial getting pushed back, surely that timetable is set by the court and not the President. It's certainly possible that the judge is a Republican flunky, or is the recipient of unseemly pressure. It is also possible that Scooter has some good attorneys. A lot of things are possible, I haven't read any article on the course the case has taken.

patricia · February-5th-2006, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Now, the phase II which you are really referring to here, again, is about investigating the pre-war intelligence that led to the current invasion of Iraq.

Remember when good ole Harry Reid (D-Nev) and his band of tricksters kicked all the civilians out of the Senate chamber, demanded the cameras all be turned off, and held everyone hostage so that they could force the GOP side to get their ass in gear with the investigation?

Yes, that is the phase II that you are referring to. But, again, that has to do with the pre-war intelligence that led to the current invasion of Iraq.

This phase II has nothing to do with the 9/11 commission report.

I do hope this has been helpful.

And it has. Thank you. If I don't ask, I won't know, right??

patricia · February-5th-2006, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

As to Scooter's trial getting pushed back, surely that timetable is set by the court and not the President. It's certainly possible that the judge is a Republican flunky, or is the recipient of unseemly pressure. It is also possible that Scooter has some good attorneys. A lot of things are possible, I haven't read any article on the course the case has taken.

I am simply struck by the fortuitousness of Phase II AND Libby's trial being set after events which might have been different, had all the information been available.

And Scott, I don't hate President Bush and have stated that on numerous occasions. I don't know George Bush, personally. I am simply distressed by what has happened in the world since he has been in office and by the disastrous decisions that his administration has made.

Scott Dolan · February-5th-2006, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patricia

And it has. Thank you. If I don't ask, I won't know, right??

Absolutely.

Hey, there's no shame in confusing the two.

Monte Smith · February-5th-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patricia

I am simply struck by the fortuitousness of Phase II AND Libby's trial being set after events which might have been different, had all the information been available.

Well, you don't have to invent a Phase II to the 9/11 report, which apparently you have (I'll hold out definite word until I see a link), in order to decry a second example of politically fortuitous timing. Such asynchronicities abound if you look for them. The timing of a thing is always more convenient for one party than another. For instance, on the NSA domestic-Qaeda surveillance issue: the NYT had the story in fall 2004 (election time) but held it until this winter. Were there reasons they held the reportage? But what reason could be more important than bringing down the regime of an unelected moron? Hmm.

patricia · February-5th-2006, 10:32 AM

It becomes more and more difficult to manipulate the news now that technology has made not only the national press, but the international press reports available to anyone who cares to look for them and read them.

The elements of the 9/11 commission's report which zeroed in on who was responsible for the disconnect between the CIA, the FBI and other security bodies were not discussed, apparently because they were not completed, until after the '04 Elections for fear of predjudicing the electorate.
But, my own feeling is that if the revelations already known, as revealed by the 9/11 Commission, as well as easily available news reports, did not affect the outcome and the administration was nevertheless given it's second term, it clearly didn't matter that much.
But, the question that I kept asking myself was what, if any, security was in place before 9/11?

Monte Smith · February-5th-2006, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patricia

It becomes more and more difficult to manipulate the news now that technology has made not only the national press, but the international press reports available to anyone who cares to look for them and read them.

But that's exactly what I think you are doing here, patricia. Perhaps inadvertently. But maybe not. You are insisting, without the proof that I would think would be easy to come by in this new technology, that the 9/11 report was only partially released to the electorate.

patricia · February-5th-2006, 11:04 AM

Certainly not my intention, Monte.
If anything, I'm suggesting that none of us should rely on carefully orchestrated press conference's reports and expand our news reading beyond national tv and newspapers' reporting which until recently was to say the least, timid.
I am attempting to discover whether the news, given the holding back for example, of the New York Times stories until now, whether the public, you and I, are being given selected factoids, rather than the whole truth.

Scott Dolan · February-5th-2006, 11:41 AM

particia, the report was published in a 488 page book. Did you read it?

patricia · February-5th-2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

particia, the report was published in a 488 page book. Did you read it?

Yes I have. I've read the account you mention of what happened on 9/11 and what the failures were, followed by the recommendations by the commission, none of which have been implimented fully, as far as I know.
What puzzles me is why nobody has been held to account for the failures.

Scott Dolan · February-5th-2006, 10:36 PM

Because the commission could not find any particular person/people/organization responsible.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here. Well, I mean, I know what you're driving at, I just don't understand why you cannot accept the findings of a bipartisan commission who investigated and combed through all of the evidence.

They knew more about it than you could ever dream of knowing.

Get over it, and move on.

patricia · February-5th-2006, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Because the commission could not find any particular person/people/organization responsible.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here. Well, I mean, I know what you're driving at, I just don't understand why you cannot accept the findings of a bipartisan commission who investigated and combed through all of the evidence.

They knew more about it than you could ever dream of knowing.

Get over it, and move on.

If none of the questions I have are important enough to warrant further investigation, then there is no other choice I guess.
It's just a shame that whole departments and agencies were in existance, before Sept 11, 2001, funded to the tune of billions of dollars, only to discover that they were totally ineffective if a security breach, or an actual attack occurred.
What was their purpose, if not to guard the security of the country?
That's all I'm asking.
If somebody, or several somebodies dropped the ball, thus allowing 9/11 to happen, they should be fired.
But nobody was.
Don't you think that odd??

Scott Dolan · February-6th-2006, 12:43 AM

What I think is odd is the over simplification you are employing here.

patricia · February-6th-2006, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

What I think is odd is the over simplification you are employing here.

OK. Point taken. Perhaps I could simplify it even further. If there was a national security system in place, whose job is was to know of threats to the U.S. and deal with them, what were they doing while all the plotting and scheming was going on before Sept 11?
Apparently, they were going to work, compiling reams of information which just sat and was never dealt with, and going home. It was a job which was insignificant, if the whole reason for their existance was to protect the security of the country.
After Sept 11, the shortcomings of the existing security systems were thought serious enough to create a whole new department, The Department of Homeland Security, which it seems to me should have been redundant, unless whatever system, or systems which were already there did nothing.

Perhaps I am over-simplifying, but what could be a more simple plan than hijacking four commercial airliners and using them to attack the WTC and the Pentagon? Even if the Homeland Security Department were in existance in 2001, the chances of them predicting those particular attacks would have been no greater than whatever was in place prior.
So, even with the billions of dollars and additional hires, the same circumstances exist. What exactly is being done differently?