Okay, so there are legal technicalities involved in the outing of CIA agent Plame, but the bigger question is the idea that this administration would use the media as a vendetta against Wilson. Which is the real crime? Just think if this was turned around, and a democrat revealed the agent of a republican government official. We know what they did to Clinton for a sexual indiscression.
The Underlying Controversy: A Vicious Act of Political Revenge Via the Media?
just imagine the uproar if a Democrat were to be observed shoving classified documents into his shorts and and hauling them home.
Oh, yeah. Well, never mind.
Quote: administration would use the media
To further its goals? All the time.
For political purposes? Ditto.
To libel and slander someone? Dirty politics, but it happens.
As a tool to knowingly and wilfully break a law or two? Now that is something else again.
No doubt about it, Bush was being very cute in that statement. It was certainly deceptive, showing his disregard for the American public.
Tico's noncondemnation says a lot about him. It was so typical of those on the right.
cicerone imposter wrote:Okay, so there are legal technicalities involved in the outing of CIA agent Plame, but the bigger question is the idea that this administration would use the media as a vendetta against Wilson. Which is the real crime? Just think if this was turned around, and a democrat revealed the agent of a republican government official. We know what they did to Clinton for a sexual indiscression.
The Underlying Controversy: A Vicious Act of Political Revenge Via the Media?
An even bigger question is the idea that Wilson would use the media as a vendetta against the administration.
By the way, if Bush ever did the sexual indescretion, are you talking about taking advantage of helpless white house interns barely past being innocent teenagers, imposter?.....I would say its curtains for Bush for sure. Impeachment proceedings would be drawn up immediately, and he would be gone within 30 days. And he would deserve it. No president worth his salt would dream of doing that king of stuff, in our house, with our daughters less than half his age, when he should have been minding the store.
Get off it, okie. Your's is the statement of someone who can't address the issue at hand. Or choses not to. Which is it?
I've addressed the Plame issue at length.
When people blithely compare the controversies of today with Clinton's "indiscretion," I simply will put it into historical perspective. I believe that if Bush had done the same, it would not be described as an "indiscretion." People in much lesser jobs would be routinely fired over such routine "indiscretions," much less the president. I did not bring the subject up. Cicerone did. I am merely correcting the record.
Advocate wrote:No doubt about it, Bush was being very cute in that statement. It was certainly deceptive, showing his disregard for the American public.
What's deceptive about it? In other words: What part of that statement didn't you understand?
We are getting blatant sophistry from Okie and Tico.
Bush knew the details of the Plame outing, and probably even participated in it, but spoke to the American public as though he didn't. That is a disgusting deception. But, after all, he lied us into a war, which was the ultimate deception.
At least some Americans are waking up from their slumber.
Advocate wrote:We are getting blatant sophistry from Okie and Tico.
No, you're getting direct questions that require you to do more than provide a generalized statement for an answer, and that appears to make you uncomfortable.
Quote:Bush knew the details of the Plame outing, ...
Really? What proof do you have to substantiate this statement?
Quote:... and probably even participated in it, but spoke to the American public as though he didn't.
Same question.
Quote: But, after all, he lied us into a war, which was the ultimate deception.
More histrionic fantasy from you, with nothing to substantiate any of it.
Advocate wrote:
We are getting blatant sophistry from Okie and Tico.
ticomaya wrote:
No, you're getting direct questions that require you to do more than provide a generalized statement for an answer, and that appears to make you uncomfortable.
Look who's talking about "generalized statement" for an answer? This lowyer doesn't say much when he posts responses like "plankboard," he thinks he's offering some wise response.
Quote:
Bush knew the details of the Plame outing, ...
ticomaya the lowyer wrote:
Really? What proof do you have to substantiate this statement?
When you refuse all the evidence presented, one has to be pretty stupid to think Bush was not aware of what was happening in the Plame case.
Quote:
... and probably even participated in it, but spoke to the American public as though he didn't.
Same question.
Same answer.
Quote:
But, after all, he lied us into a war, which was the ultimate deception.
ticomaya wrote:
More histrionic fantasy from you, with nothing to substantiate any of it.
This lowyer still can't figure out why Plame was even outed! He's about the most ignorant lowyer I know.
_________________
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
I got a fever! And the only prescription ... is more cowbell!
Ticomaya wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate wrote:
We are getting blatant sophistry from Okie and Tico.
No, you're getting direct questions that require you to do more than provide a generalized statement for an answer, and that appears to make you uncomfortable.
Quote:
Bush knew the details of the Plame outing, ...
Really? What proof do you have to substantiate this statement?
Quote:
... and probably even participated in it, but spoke to the American public as though he didn't.
Same question.
Quote:
But, after all, he lied us into a war, which was the ultimate deception.
More histrionic fantasy from you, with nothing to substantiate any of it.
Quote:When you refuse all the evidence presented, one has to be pretty stupid to think Bush was not aware of what was happening in the Plame case.
Either that or you think Bush is even dumber than his blind supporters as everyone around him knew.
Quote Advocate
Bush knew the details of the Plame outing, ...
Quote Ticomaya
Really? What proof do you have to substantiate this statement?
**********************************************************
I wonder, Ticomaya, when Advocate will learn that merely stating something contoversial without proof means absolutely nothing.
He did not give you any proof. His statement is, on its face, ridiculous!!!
Here is some more interesting information on the Wilsons' lawsuit. Plame says, backing Joe's previous statements, that she had NOTHING to do with Joe going to Niger.
The suit, which is against 10 people, says there was a concerted effort to get the Wilsons.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmVjMDBmMDk2ODhhNDU1OGNkOTBjYzk3ZjlhNTc5MmU=
Wikipedia provides the various statements from the White House. It is telling that Bush first says that he will dump anyone who leaked Plame's name. He later says that he will dump anyone who leaked classified information. He later says he will dump anyone who broke the law. As you may know, the White House later claimed that, early on, Bush declassified the informtion about Plame; thus, no law was broken.
Statements by the Bush administration
Bush and his White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan have made several statements about the administration's response if anyone was found to have been involved in the leak:
McClellan - September 29, 2003: "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." [25]
Bush - September 30, 2003: " And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. ... I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [26]
McClellan - October 7, 2003: "Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants." and "If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business." [27]
Bush - June 10, 2004 (Responding to a media question which asked "do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have . . . leaked [Valerie Plame's] name?"): "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts." [28]
Bush - July 18, 2005: "I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
All Bush has to do is ask his cronies the direct question: "did you leak Valerie Plames name to the media?"
Instead, he continues to play the ignorant pussy that he is.
