BTW, I never said that I bought into the thesis. However, the piece is interesting and worth a discussion.
cicerone imposter wrote:McGentrix wrote:JTT wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Advocate wrote:BTW, please give me support on your statement. But I know you lack this because you a lying POS.
Whether she is or isn't (and I believe she isn't), remains for you to prove.
However, what is undeniable is that you are a conspiracy-theory believing nutjob.
Give an idiot a paintbrush and a can of paint and he'll paint himself into a corner every time.
Yes, you have proven that time and time again.
Totally strawman; please show us evidence of your claim.
From JTT's online scrapbook:
McGentrix wrote:JTT wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Advocate wrote:BTW, please give me support on your statement. But I know you lack this because you a lying POS.
Whether she is or isn't (and I believe she isn't), remains for you to prove.
However, what is undeniable is that you are a conspiracy-theory believing nutjob.
Give an idiot a paintbrush and a can of paint and he'll paint himself into a corner every time.
Yes, you have proven that time and time again.
It's you wingnuts that have done that, McG. You've defended liars, still doing that, criminals, still doing that, defended innumerable failed Republican policies and you still have the audacity to show your face around here. Talking about idiots. Have you no sense of morality?
Show some common sense, slither back under your rock.
I can't recall that McG, Tico, or Okie ever being right about anything.
Advocate wrote:I can't recall that McG, Tico, or Okie ever being right about anything.
Out of the 3, there has been occasions when okie has been spot on, but that's a rare event.
Thanks, ci, and maybe many more occasions than you would ever dream?
okie wrote:Thanks, ci, and maybe many more occasions than you would ever dream?
okie, It's possible we don't cross paths too often on a2k, simply because our interests differ. In that event, it's very possible you may be right more often.
Ex-press secretary decries 'secretive' White House
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 43 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Former presidential spokesman Scott McClellan on Friday said President Bush has lost the public's trust by failing to open up about his administration's mistakes and backtracking on a promise to tell all about the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.
"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to," McClellan told the House Judiciary Committee. "And that's why I think more than any other reason we are here today and the suspicion still remains."
The former White House press secretary suggested that Bush could do much to redeem his credibility on the Plame matter and his reasons for going to war in Iraq if he would embrace "openness and candor and then constantly strive to build trust across the aisle."
"This is a very secretive White House," McClellan said. "There's some things that they would prefer not to be talked about."
I watched some of the hearings today, and it was truly sickening to watch the Reps, to a man, making personal attacks on McClellan. They basically never questioned his revelations. I guess they feel that they must put politics over the good of the country.
Advocate wrote:I watched some of the hearings today, and it was truly sickening to watch the Reps, to a man, making personal attacks on McClellan. They basically never questioned his revelations. I guess they feel that they must put politics over the good of the country.
They always have, so expecting them to change their stripes now is not realistic. The country be damned.
Could it be that Cheney, or even Bush, is responsible for leaking Plame's ID, and the ensuing coverup? [Does anyone really doubt this?]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/23/BL2008062300877.html
It sure raises a whole lot more questions about Fitzgerald's ability and ethics; somebody's not doing their jobs - in a timely manner.
I read Advocate's link, and it appears to be nothing but speculation. McClellan had nothing new to offer as far as I could tell.
We still have a situation where Armitage was the first to leak, and so everything following would have made no difference as far as I can tell. Whether the president of vp, or their underlings discussed Plame, is immaterial, as they were all privy to her identity, and rightfully so. All that really matters in the end is where did Novak get the information originally, and all of this has been discussed hundreds of times.
And at the very root of it all is whether Plame's identity was covert, and whether the people outing her knew that was her status and whether it was covered under the law, in other words intent to break the law had to be demonstrated. To this day, Fitzgerald has not been clear about much of any of this, in regard to whether the original crime even happened, let alone who did it.
If McClellan had pertinent information, he should have told it all to Fitzgerald and let it go at that instead of trying to strike gold with a book, and he would have more credibility now.
Nothing new? McClellan essentially told congress that Bush and Cheney told him to lie. If that isn't "new," when did "that" news come out?
Here: Former aide blames Bush for leak deceit - USATODAY.com
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice ... Karl Rove and Scooter Libby told him to lie but Vice President Cheney, ...
I did. Same results of speculative spin from both sides. Since you made the statement, ci, perhaps you can cite a quote where it indicates Cheney or Bush told McClellan to lie? I am not being argumentative here, I would just like to see what statements you are talking about.
