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.
Though it denotes a sickness, it is amusing that Mary Matalin calls Scott McClellan a liar, when the record shows that she has been a serial liar in the Plame matter.
News Hounds
We watch FOX so you don't have to.
Mary Matalin Contradicts Her Own Story While Accusing Scott McClellan Of Lying
Mary Matalin appeared on Hannity & Colmes last night (5/28/08) for the purpose of defending the White House in the wake of the buzz about Scott McClellan's forthcoming "kiss and tell" memoir about working for the Bush administration. Predictably, Matalin attacked McClellan and repeatedly called him a liar. But while attempting to rebut McClellan's assertions about the Valerie Plame case, Matalin also contradicted her own previous statements. She also falsely claimed that Rove was not a leaker. With video.
During the portion of her interview with Alan Colmes, Matalin said, "Alan, I know you'd like this to be different but it was true then, it's true today. (Scooter Libby and Karl Rove) were not the leakers... The only person that's been called a liar through this entire investigation, investigative process has been Valerie Plame."
This is in marked contrast to Matalin's previous assertion that Joe Wilson was the only person called a liar. On July 11, 2006, Matalin said, "The only person through several investigations documented to have been a bona fide liar in this case is Joe Wilson."
And that assertion has been demonstrated to be false.
Matalin's claim that Rove was not a leaker is likewise untrue. As Media Matters reported,
(Robert) Novak has identified both Rove and Armitage as the sources for his July 14, 2003, column, which publicly revealed Plame's employment with the CIA. Former Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper also named Rove as his source who identified former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA agent during a telephone conversation on July 11, 2003.
This is not the first time Matalin has told falsehoods about the Plame case. Nor is the Plame case the only instance in which Matalin has been caught telling untruths on Hannity & Colmes.
When Colmes asked who had called Valerie Plame a liar, Matalin gave the dubious response that the Senate Intelligence Committees had done it. "That's positively true. Know your history," she said high-handedly.
Matalin went on to say that McClellan was asked to leave the White House, he had not quit on his own. She explained, "He never shared any thought. I can't remember one meeting walking away saying, ?'Wow, that was a contribution!' ...Scott was not a player, did not make any contributions, and yes, he was asked politely - and I guess the favor's not being returned - and civilly to take the honor of his service and to move on."
Hannity was also ready to go after McClellan. Hannity asked, "Why didn't (he) stand on (his) principles then? Why did it take money? Why did it take a book deal?"
There was no consideration that maybe McClellan's thinking evolved over time, that maybe he had not felt then as strongly as he feels now, when viewing the situation in retrospect.
Hannity continued, "This is a betrayal on a pretty high level for him and he had all the opportunities to get out. How do you analyze this? Do you see it as a betrayal?"
Matalin claimed, "I don't care." But then she added, "All I know is that all of us that were so honored to work for this president and his Daddy... It's not even something you could call a betrayal. To quote my husband recently, this is Judas on steroids... (McClellan) was either living a lie or for decades or he's now spewing lies to make a living."
She continued, "In any event, at some point, he has to tell his nieces and his nephews and his kids, ?'What did Daddy do?' ?'Well, I was a liar. I'm a liar for a living.' And in many ways, it's just really sad."
Matalin may have to tell her kids something similar.
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.