The Tim Russert interview that had Libby angry-from HuffPost

[liveoaktx]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeralyn-merritt/russert-and-libby-the-sh_b_9762.html

Interesting because Chris Matthews correctly says back then that Wilson was sent BY THE CIA at the behest of Cheney's office.

[bklyncowgirl]

1. That was interesting.

If Wilson was leaking to Tweety (among others) before he wrote the op-ed, then that explains Tweety's courtesy call to Wilson to tell him that Karl Rove had declared his wife "Fair Game".

[librechik]

2. it's interesting because Tweety NEVER CORRECTS liars

who say "Wilson claimed Cheney sent him." He knows that is not true! and yet even this week Andrea Mitchell said it to him again and he just said uhuh.

[KC21304]

3. At least now CNN is saying that the CIA is denying

that Mrs. Wilson got her husband the gig. I heard David Ensor and Candy Crowly both say that the CIA said they made the decision to send Wilson, not his wife.

[librechik]

7. yeah, NOW he is--

he did a big 180 last Sunday largely because of bloggers who called him on the Andrea Mitchell thing--his whoredom on this point had become too public.

This non-fact is only TODAY being clarified in such a way that no one can go around claiming itas justification for Cheney's beastliness anymore.

Thank you David Ensor, you always have shown integrity.

And once again, thank you Fitz for making this even possible.

I don't know what FAUX is going to do for content now though. About 30 percent of everything they say is dependent on that one lie, which has now been utterly debunked.

Do they all now shriek and melt like the Wicked Witch of the West?

[Virginian]

11. I think it was really the other way around.

I think Wilson went as cover for Plame. That she was the one doing the covert investigation while he was asking questions on the surface.
I think it was a working trip for both of them as a team.

[TacticalPeek]

4. Jesus, Matthews is really taking it to them in that show.

I'm surprised Libby could even talk when he got Russert on the horn.

:evilgrin:



Matthews has always been on their case about the false war and the blowing of Plame's cover.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

5. Wouldn't be a hoot if someone had the balls to say to

Tweets, "well what about what you said on July 8, 2003 regarding Joe Wilson's trip to Niger? According to the Huffington Post, your comments were the reason Scooter called Russert?"

Would that finally shut that imbecile Matthews up???

[Wordie]

15. You realize that if it is Matthews about whom Libby complained, that then

in a weird way, we have him to thank for Fitz's indictment of Libby.

My reasoning? If there had been no comment by Matthews, then there would have been no call to Russert by Libby, and therefore, Libby would not have lied about the call, and Russert would not have been able to say that Libby lied, so who knows, maybe Fitz would not have been able to indict! I read someplace that Fitz saw the contradiction between the Libby version of the conversation and the Russert version as quite damning of Libby.

Matthews makes me crazy sometimes, because he says things that, for instance, sound like the RW talking points. But then, at other times his questions of the RW are so hard-hitting, that I just have to forgive him.

We really shouldn't expect, I suppose, for any of these guys to take a definite side. I am confident that when the really hard questions are asked of people on BOTH sides, that our guys will come out ahead, in the end. So, that's what I want to see.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

6. can somebody explain to me why it matters who sent Wilson?

or why it matters who said whom sent Wilson? it sounds like a red-herring kind of argument and I'm interested in knowing what this angle is all about.

[liveoaktx]

8. Because...

IF it was really Cheney that wanted the information, and IF Scooter Libby lied in order to protect Cheney as that source, then it matters.

According to the above transcript, Matthews CORRECTLY said that Wilson was sent by the CIA at the behest of a Cheney request. Why would Libby get so angry about that being said unless he was trying to keep it on the downlow that Cheney was behind it. And why would he not want Cheney's name out there? That's the 60 million dollar question.

But if it made no difference WHO sent him, then why else did Libby get mad when the truth was spoken, and then why did he continue to lie about it, even under oath?

And why does do Republicans so fiercely want to turn attention away from Cheney?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

10. ok i think i understand a little bit better now.

Did Libby lie under oath about who sent Wilson?

[Garbo 2004]

13. As far as we know that subject didn't come up, or at least Libby isn't

charged with lying about it.

The key to not wanting Cheney linked to any inquiry that showed the Niger claim to be bogus is that they didn't want anyone to know the Administration knew the info was crap before they used it to justify the attack on Iraq.

As it was, the State of the Union speech cited Brit intelligence to distance themselves from the Niger claims. But still they knew it was crap. The CIA, State Dept had been telling them it was crap since 2001.

[pacalo]

9. Very interesting -- thanks.

[TacticalPeek]

12. Kick night.

:kick:

[TacticalPeek]

14. Kick night.

:kick: