Real quick....Bush and Cheney were involved from the very start...duh. We've always known that. Is it possible that Scotty is the whistleblower? We'll see over the next few days whether he weasels out or stands pat. Fitzgerald never closed his investigation...come on FItz, these guys lied to you and they lied to us. OPEN IT UP, Fitzy boy. Go get them. Here is your chance.
Posted by T2 at November 20, 2007 05:19 PMI truly had given up all hope regarding Scotty as a retarded grown-up cabbage patch kid ... but he's proven to be worth some oxygen ... way to go. It would have been nicer had this come in, oh say ... 2004, but whatever ...
Posted by CitizenBoo at November 20, 2007 06:16 PMWhat a preposterous way to dream up sales for what is certain to be a dog of a book. Reading Scottie Mac would be like reading the efforts of a teen nerd of below average intelligence. I guess there are only so many ways to "capitalize" on the awesome position of Bushco press stooge.
This "teaser" will turn out to be some weak, vague spin about Bush n' Cheney somehow leading lil' Scottie into making a "misstatement" about Rover and Scooter (Scooter, scottie, scotter, what a pack of freaks). There won't be any there there.
This fat-assed doughy numbskull wouldn't have the balls to blow a dog whistle on Bushco to save his kid's life. He probably can't believe even this much is happening, has crapped his pants and is hiding in the basement having his porcine wife answer the phone.
Posted by euzoius at November 20, 2007 06:47 PMW has surrounded himself with "enablers" or whipping boys. I think anyone with common sense knows that W and Dick were in cahoots togehter in outing Plame. I want to know who gave Jeff Gannon a press pass?
"I want to know who gave Jeff Gannon a press pass?"
a4L, so do I.
Typical thugs. No honor among them. They scream like little piglets when a buck is to be made. This will die because Scottie will either be vague enough in his book that you still won't know who did what and when. Case closed. Of course, we know damn well who leaked the name and why. Wonder if the old man still thinks anyone leaking a covert CIA agent is a traitor.
Posted by Judith at November 20, 2007 09:32 PMSo what? No crime was committed for them to lie about.
Please talk about something real.
Posted by pud at November 20, 2007 09:34 PMOuting a CIA agent and "company" working on nuclear intelligence is treason. Period.
If a dem did it, the right wing screaming would be non-stop.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 20, 2007 09:42 PMIf a dem did it, the right wing screaming would be non-stop.
Only because the left has a history of traitorous actions.
Evil, traitorous actions.
Oh great. Another putz. Oops, I mean Pud.
Posted by Judith at November 20, 2007 10:07 PMTIKI AL, it's only treason when it's a Democrat. Of course, Bush Senior calls it "treason." But hey, what does he know.
"So what? No crime was committed for them to lie about."
So let's see if we can comprehend Putz and his logic. They lied, yet no crime was committed for them to lie about. Yet they lied. Makes perfect sense to me. Idiot.
Posted by Judith at November 20, 2007 10:14 PMi want to know who gave jeff gannon something else..
Posted by dennis at November 21, 2007 02:33 AMAnd the real question is, so what?
Posted by jj at November 21, 2007 03:30 AMthe jeff gannon thing always bothered the hell out of me..a male prostitute..with free access to the white house..asks the president of the united state a puff question on national tv...no one ever really answered the question...how and why was he there....they impeached bill clinton for lying about a consensual sex act between adults..how and why did jeff gannon have free access
Posted by dennis at November 21, 2007 03:48 AMwould have been nice if scotty had said it back when...i think everyone pretty much knew bush and cheney were lying..they pretty much lie about everything...how did dick shoot someone in the face?..and they weren't even going to say anything..since they robbed al gore it's been one long progression of deceit and lies...but oil is around $100.00 bucks a barrel..so what the heck
Posted by dennis at November 21, 2007 04:37 AMEuzoius has it right. A teaser to drum up sales for a worthless book. Nothing more.
Posted by snark at November 21, 2007 04:52 AMThis is just a money-making strip tease. Scottie was and still is a weasel. There will be weasel-words to come, you can be sure, that will let Bush off the hook. Not so sure about the others, though.
Posted by via at November 21, 2007 06:28 AMAnd the real question is, so what?
Posted by jj at November 21, 2007 03:30 AM
jj it is called treason!
Posted by goose1 at November 21, 2007 06:55 AMpure and simple: if you are a Republican, no laws have been broken. If you are a Dem, it's impeachable.
Posted by T2 at November 21, 2007 07:22 AMThat is probably the only worthwhile paragraph in the whole book. There won't be more. The only question is it enough for Leahy to open a hearing on.
Posted by mainsailset at November 21, 2007 07:24 AMI wonder what this does for Plame's civil case. Wasn't it dismissed? Seems to me this should give her a 2nd chance to go after them all. Collusion and all, right?
Posted by dianne at November 21, 2007 07:26 AMAt the very least, Fitzgerald will be reviewing Scotty's testimony (he did testify, didn't he?) to look for lies. Re-opening the Plame case to get Scotty's testimony on record would be sweet.
Posted by T2 at November 21, 2007 07:42 AMjj it is called treason!
Posted by goose1 at November 21, 2007 06:55 AM
If that was the case, half of the nut-fruit side of the Democratic Party would be in jail.
Try Again
Posted by jj at November 21, 2007 08:44 AMPerino said it wasn't clear what McClellan meant in the excerpt. "The president has not and would not ask his spokespeople to pass on false information."
And that dear folks, is the biggest lie of all.
Posted by Judith at November 21, 2007 08:58 AMjj it is called treason!
Posted by goose1 at November 21, 2007 06:55 AM
If that was the case, half of the nut-fruit side of the Democratic Party would be in jail.
Try Again
Posted by jj at November 21, 2007 08:44 AM
What democrat outed a CIA NOC?
Try Again
Posted by goose1 at November 21, 2007 09:20 AMOh I'm sorry-I should have left "Democrat" out of it. Just nut-fruit. On second thought, no that was correct.
You screw-offs have never cared about the CIA and never will. Just when it suits your fancy.
Frank Church and Robert Torricelli ring a bell?
Posted by jj at November 21, 2007 09:37 AMjj I see you couldn't answer my question. Bush and his administration committed TREASON! Deal with it!
Posted by goose1 at November 21, 2007 10:15 AMI think it will be revealed that jj is jeff gannon..
Posted by headxray at November 21, 2007 11:24 AMBush and his administration committed TREASON! Deal with it!
Then I expect he will be impeached. Will he not? And if not, why not? Damn. That evidence thing again!
CIA NOC? Not exactly-not even close, but you already know that.
Your silly !!
Posted by jj at November 21, 2007 11:46 AMCIA NOC? Not exactly-not even close, but you already know that.
Your silly !!
Posted by jj at November 21, 2007 11:46 AM
jj why is it you can't handle FACTS? I'm silly?
You need to live in the real world and not fantasy land.
Read jj. What childish posts. As usual, no foundation for accusations. Just throw shit out there and see if he can get some badly needed attention.
Posted by Judith at November 21, 2007 12:15 PMToday McClellan's publisher is saying "He told him something that wasn't true, but the president didn't know it wasn't true," Osnos said in a telephone interview. "The president told him what he thought to be the case."
But Scotty never said that he asked the President. Scotty said that Scotty asked Libby and Rove.
October 7, 2003, "They are good individuals. They're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you. And that's exactly what I did." - Scott McClellan
So what does the publisher mean when he says "The President told him (Scotty) ..."? What conversation between Scotty and Bush is the publisher talking about?
October 10, 2003 Press Briefing
Q Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.
Q So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.
Q Can I follow up on that?
Q They were not involved in what?
MR. McCLELLAN: The leaking of classified information.
Q Did you undertake that on your own volition, or were you instructed to go to these --
MR. McCLELLAN: I spoke to those individuals myself.
Posted by mo2 at November 21, 2007 12:39 PMRead jj. What childish posts. As usual, no foundation for accusations. Just throw shit out there and see if he can get some badly needed attention.
Posted by Judith at November 21, 2007 12:15 PM
WOW! Coming from fruit-nut posts that I have seen here over time, your comment is amazing. Do you really believe yourself at times?
"throw shit"? If that was used as a parameter here, there would be very little to read.
You nuts are experts at it. But then again , you already know that.
A little more research from CREDIBLE sources would be helpful for you.
Happy Thanksgiving
Posted by jj at November 21, 2007 01:23 PMA little more research from CREDIBLE sources would be helpful for you.
Research, I stated a FACT! She was a NOC. You might want to change your Credible sources because they misled you.
Posted by goose1 at November 21, 2007 01:38 PMYour own "facts"? Check the time line-it does make a difference.
Posted by jj at November 21, 2007 01:54 PMYour own "facts"? Check the time line-it does make a difference.
Posted by jj at November 21, 2007 01:54 PM
Time line? She was a NOC (covert, Under cover) until outed! That is a FACT. I know you don't believe it but it is still a FACT!
Posted by goose1 at November 21, 2007 02:00 PMSorry for another long post, but I am struck by Scotty's October 7, 2003 Press Briefing.
MR. McCLELLAN: There ... is a difference between setting the record straight and people going out, trying to punish someone for speaking out. We -- this White House -- it is absurd to suggest that this White House would seek to punish someone for speaking out with a different view.
But let's also make clear that when you're talking about setting the record straight, there were some issues that came up after the op ed was initially published, back in July I believe it was. There were some statements made that were not backed up by the facts. There were two points of specific contention. And we set the record straight. We made clear that the Vice President's Office was not the one who directed Mr. Wilson to go to Niger. In fact, it wasn't us, it was the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, who made that statement in remarks that he made public when he said that the people in the counterproliferation area, on their own initiative, made the decision of who to send to Niger.
The other point of contention was that his findings contradicted what the President said in the State of the Union address. Well, Director Tenet also pointed out, no, that wasn't the case, that his findings were actually inconclusive on that point. Now that is perfectly acceptable when you're talking about setting the record straight. It's perfectly acceptable when someone makes statements that aren't based on the facts to correct that information. And this White House will vigorously work to set the record straight when facts -- when information is presented that is not based on the facts.
Q So was his wife fair game, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I think I went through that.
Q No, you --
MR. McCLELLAN: There are some, now, who are trying to move the goalpost by changing the subject and changing the story. There are some, unfortunately, here in Washington
A statement cleared by CIA director Michael Hayden reads:
"During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information."
Is someone calling Hayden a liar? If someone higher than CIA director Hayden refuted him, please post a link.
Posted by mo2 at November 21, 2007 02:49 PM