You won't believe what you read.
Heres the quote you cite, ci.
"McClellan Says Bush, Cheney Asked Him to Lie
Scott McClellan, President Bush's spokesman for three years, told Congress that Bush and Vice President Cheney asked him to tell the press that Cheney's staff was not involved in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.
Cheney's chief of staff at the time, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was later convicted of obstructing the federal investigation into the leak. McClellan said he doesn't know whether what Bush and Cheney did was a crime, but that the cover-up continues.
"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it," he said. "And they have refused to." He doesn't believe Bush knew the truth, but isn't sure about Cheney."
Lets take the first paragraph. Bush and Cheney did not tell McClelland "to lie" in those words, but told him to tell people that Cheney's staff was not involved in the leak.
Second paragraph, McClelland admits he doesn't know if what Bush or Cheney did was a crime. That seems a little puzzling. What if they believed Libby was not the original leaker, and he wasn't as a matter of fact, or was not really a leaker, but simply concurred when the information was mentioned? There are lots of possibilities here, needless to say.
Third paragraph, what if this whole affair is not behind us totally yet? What makes McClelland think it is all behind us? And where are the quotes from the Whitehouse in regard to talking about all of this when this is behind us, or is this an idea McClelland came up with? And it seems McClelland is contradicting himself, because if he believes Bush did not know the truth, how could Bush have lied? And he admits he doesn't know if Cheney knew the truth, so how can he say for sure that Cheney told him to lie? Lastly, what is the truth as McClelland thinks he knows it, and is it the same as the real truth? I doubt it. Conclusion is that the accusation of lying is nothing more than speculation, an accusation based on nothing but speculation.
As much as I have argued about this case, I am willing to say I am wrong if absolute proof comes forth, but it has to be proof, ci. You may not believe I would, but I would try to be fair and objective in regard to this issue. But again this looks like nothing but speculation based on not much of anything more than we have known for a long time.
What if I told someone to tell everyone that it was raining outside when I thought it was, but maybe it wasn't? Am I asking that someone to lie? Obviously not.
And maybe there was a question of whether it was raining, or snowing, or maybe just a thick fog. But when someone tells someone to tell everybody something in good faith, it is not accurate at all for that person to be accused of telling someone to lie. I think McClelland is going a bit far here, and he has actually contradicted himself. On the one hand he claims Bush probably wasn't aware of the leak, and that Cheney may not have been either, but then turns around and accuses them of telling him to lie when they told him they were not involved. If he doesn't know that they knew anything, how can he assert they told him to lie? Sounds a bit hokey to me. Of course these tell all books have to have something juicy to sell books, don't they?
When there is actually something pertinent to this case that we might learn somewhere down the road, let me know.
okie, Your analogy fails on its own merits; it's not about rain or snow.
okie wrote: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.
There were additional leaks of Plame's ID BEFORE Novak's publication of this, which served to exacerbate and add to Armitage's leak. These additional leaks were also crimes.
Advocate, You are correct; just because a secret is revealed before, it doesn't make subsequent revelations free of crime.
CI:
I believed this from the start! :wink:
cicerone imposter wrote:Advocate, You are correct; just because a secret is revealed before, it doesn't make subsequent revelations free of crime.
Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent, ci. I hereby let everyone know that. I will be waiting here to be arrested for my crime.
By the way, we have finally transported WMD components or materials out of Iraq, the country that had no WMD materials, after all Hussein did not have a program, according to Joe Wilson and obviously would not have wanted to buy yellowcake from Niger, it had to be something else that Niger had that Iraq was interested in. Wilson proved that when he went to Niger and had tea with some officials there, right?
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609
okie wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Advocate, You are correct; just because a secret is revealed before, it doesn't make subsequent revelations free of crime.
Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent, ci. I hereby let everyone know that. I will be waiting here to be arrested for my crime.
By the way, we have finally transported WMD components or materials out of Iraq, the country that had no WMD materials, after all Hussein did not have a program, according to Joe Wilson and obviously would not have wanted to buy yellowcake from Niger, it had to be something else that Niger had that Iraq was interested in. Wilson proved that when he went to Niger and had tea with some officials there, right?
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609
Okie, you are safe. Her ID was already covered in the media thanks to those treasonous bastards in the White House.
okie, Your ignorance is showing again. To have committed the crime, you would have to have been approved for a) Top Secret or Secret clearance by our government, b) had knowledge of a military or national security information, and c) exposed military or national secrets to the enemy.
As Advocate has stated, Plame was exposed by "those treasonous bastards in the White House."
That is a crime.
Your statement is not a exposure of any secret; it's probably common knowledge around the world.
ci and Advocate, I am very gratified that you finally are seeing the light on this issue. Apparently it took a tiny comment by me to do it, but I guess whatever it takes!
I guess some people are just too dense.
okie wrote:Advocate wrote:I guess some people are just too dense.
Agreed.
Yeah, but are you agreed that it is you who are too dense?
Do you understand why they (the admin) were committing a crime, and you (joker on the internet) are not? I can explain it to you, if you like.
Cycloptichorn
okie is too far gone to understand that a crime was committed by the Bush administration. Too bad Fitzgerald turned out to be a Bush puppet; he didn't do his job (incompetence seems normal to this administration).
cicerone imposter wrote:okie is too far gone to understand that a crime was committed by the Bush administration. Too bad Fitzgerald turned out to be a Bush puppet; he didn't do his job (incompetence seems normal to this administration).
Not just of this administration, but it's clear too, that the Democrats are "willing" accomplices! They stand on the sidelines and yell, yeah, give it to the Repugs, while they all vote the same way, give the Pres. what he wants and they talk out of both sides of their mouths! I'm sick of all of them, including Obama, Clinton and Pelosi! They all suck, as far as I'm concerned. There ARE no "lessers", here; they ALL belong to the SAME club! We just don't get it! As far as alternatives, I wonder whose paying THEM to run?
