What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- wakethefockup, on 11/16/2008, -19/+261WE NOW know the truth, let the proceedings begin.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/17/2008, -36/+5Witch hunt much?
The proceedings are meant to discover the truth.- Heiminator, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2let us do the proceedings monty python style :-)
- e2superman, on 11/17/2008, -4/+19It is called presidential pardons... even for yourself. Expect nothing from this to ever occur.
- KibibyteBrain, on 11/17/2008, -1/+18There is much debate about whether a President can pardon himself. Even if he could, it would be an unprecedented taboo. But there is now sort of an expectation for a future President to pardon a previous one "for the dignity of the office".
- fedja, on 11/17/2008, -13/+3You need to look up "taboo" in a dictionary.
- oldman, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4IANAL but a pardon is a forgiveness for a specific charge. In order to be valid charges would need to be filed. To get forgiveness for crimes not charged you need immunity which afaik not among the powers of a president ( you remember the immunity of the TELCOs required Congress)
Even so I doubt anything will come of this. All of Congress will cry to "move on" even though personally have dreams of Obama taking his oath of office and turning to Bush & Co and announcing "you are under Arrest for Crimes against your country, and humanity! - yellowcakewalk, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3Start making some noise about it. Call your congresscritters every single day. Write letters. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Find a way to bring the criminals to justice. Don't accept helplessness.
- thesnarebear, on 11/17/2008, -0/+13Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.
Rtfm. - olsonea, on 11/17/2008, -0/+8Best RTFM ever.
- xxpor, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4@ oldman
not true, when Ford took office, he pardoned Nixon for whatever crimes he may or may not have committed. Nixon was never formally charged beforehand. - Kyzzyxx, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Yes, Bush is trying to Pardon his Administration for any future charges that may be brought against them, but there is already a petition started by the Democrats to Impeach him from being able to enact the pardon before it happens.
http://www.democrats.com/pardon - StarThrower2, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1xxpor, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but the fact is that Ford may have pardoned Nixon for any crimes he committed while in office, but he was never impeached! That's WHY he resigned; he knew if he didn't, he would face impeachment charges, so he resigned in order to avoid that. He was aware that if he was impeached that he wouldn't be eligible for pardon and that there wouldn't be any way he could restore his name to good graces (as he managed to do) after leaving office.
- TheInformer, on 11/17/2008, -28/+8Of course McClellan wouldn't be biased in the least or have a bone to pick with the administration that fired him, would he?
- sarahlee, on 11/17/2008, -3/+24He wasn't fired. McClellan quit.
- captric, on 11/17/2008, -2/+8You should read Valerie Plames book.
- IKORKYI, on 11/17/2008, -17/+5wasn't this the same dude that came out about a bunch of stuff about the Bush admin in a book a couple months ago - and then people started saying he didn't know what he was talking about, then he retracted all his statements?
this could be a great insight into what actually took place in a world where a subpeona can't even get the truth out of people, but learning from the past - its at least possible this guy is an attention whore and just wants to write another book and make some money.- 4bit, on 11/17/2008, -2/+8Book yes. Retract? Not that I heard of. If you've got a source though....
- IKORKYI, on 11/17/2008, -4/+2youre right, he didn't retract, but he refuses validate the factuality of what he claims in the book. the man is a master at not answering questions...wouldn't he have had to be?
i would just think that if you were serious, the fbi would be the place to go instead of a publisher.
and if you really think the fbi wouldn't take it seriously, why are you still in the country? if i honestly believed the system was that broken, i would leave that very day. - MWeather, on 11/17/2008, -0/+5Go to the FBI? What for? So the Justice Department can prosecute? Don't make me laugh.
- 4bit, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3The thing is, and this is key:
The president is allowed to do this. He can declassify information at will. If he chose to declassify her status, he can.
It's *****. But there's no law against being a ***** person.
So, what is you'd like the FBI to go after him for? - LBTS, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2@ikorky. You wrote "why are you still in the country? if i honestly believed the system was that broken, i would leave that very day."
Where have you been the last 8 years? You're overdue to purchase an airplane ticket or a sailboat.
Godspeed. - mrswirl, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3"but he refuses validate the factuality of what he claims in the book."
umm...let me just point out the fact that he was there. Everything that he says in his book are from first-person accounts of conversations that he had with various persons such as Libby, Rove, and Bush directly. How exactly does one 'validate the factuality' of something that he himself was a part of?
Now, you can question his motives or say that what he claims has been distorted but his book is a first person narrative of events. I tend to find that highly credible. - MWeather, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1"The president is allowed to do this. He can declassify information at will."
But he didn't.
- tillerman00, on 11/17/2008, -5/+6Proceedings my ass. Maybe another ***** dog & pony show like the last non-impeachment impeachment hearing.
- duckley, on 11/17/2008, -3/+13Investigate. Prosecute. Convict. IMPRISON.
- DagonNL, on 11/17/2008, -1/+6Europeans watch with keen interest if the US is still a lawful state.
- flameboy, on 11/17/2008, -0/+8"WE NOW know the truth"?
Uhh... We knew this in June when his book was released. He has already testified before congress about it under oath. It was on CSPAN.
Why all the sudden hype now?- mummbleswers, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2Yeah, you took the words out of my mouth. People are acting like this is a sudden nail in the coffin or something. Nothing will come of this, and why weren't people getting on this story when it actually happened? We all knew Bush and his cronies were involved, but they distracted us with Skooter. I hate all those crooks, but you got to admit - when it comes to pulling off bold faced lies to the American Public, they're good.
- Anonymerican, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1The election is over?
Those sluts in the media are losing all the attention they were getting, so they keep a few cards up their sleeves...
- ASfinkterSezWut, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2We knew all along.
NOTHING will be done. - TheNWO, on 11/17/2008, -2/+3Prove that McClennan's claims are true. Oh, and I thought that if Bush did it that there was nothing illegal about it.
- flameboy, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1"Prove that McClennan's claims are true"
Do you know what a logical fallacy is? Why don't you try looking this one up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoran ...
Obviously it cannot be proven true because nobody can fully investigate the secretive Bush administration. Use your brain please. - TheNWO, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1If you cannot verify this to be true then the kids in this thread need to stop acting like it is, flame.
- flameboy, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1"Prove that McClennan's claims are true"
- bluezinc, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Nothing will be done with this, sorry to upset the idealists in here.
Unless powerful people who arrived at their thrones by being ruthless and generally sociopathic suddenly change their minds and grow a conscience, Bush will spend his remaining days rich and free and allowed to do whatever he wants. - johnboycanada, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Is that illegal? I followed that case closely and the illegality of the leak was based on the presumption that a person with a security clearance leaked it to a member of the media (or civilian with no security clearance). And that the knowledge in passing from a privileged person to a non-privileged person was what was actually being investigated and could therefore be a violation of the law. If the president did authorize this leak, a few questions for me remain: 1) Does he have the authority to disclose to the public classified information? If so, that ends the investigation right there. 2) But if not, then was his authorization to subordinates to do so legal? If so, it could meet his subordinate committed a crime precluding him from prosecution for that crime. In other words, if you superior tells you to commit a crime and you do so in ignorance of the law can that mean your superior be held to account?
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/17/2008, -36/+5Witch hunt much?
- booksnmore4you, on 11/16/2008, -8/+328Okay. If true, this is criminal, even for a president.
- JenniferInMO, on 11/16/2008, -6/+24Actually, I think the President has the authority to declassify top secret information. I am no expert in this area, but he may just be able to avoid this one. Cheney and others may not, but of course they will be pardoned.
- publiclurker, on 11/16/2008, -3/+38I think you would have to declassify it before it was released.
- Ajajadude, on 11/17/2008, -1/+19Well, I think that's a very, very fine line that he's toeing if that's what he's going to claim. If anyone else did what he did, they'd be charged with treason.
Since there's no other reason other than political motives behind this, I don't see how he can get away with that argument. - oldhick, on 11/17/2008, -3/+12Yes, he's guilty.
- JenniferInMO, on 11/17/2008, -0/+18You all bring up good points. I am not defending him, I guess I am just cynical about any hopes of justice on that issue. If he gets charged with anything relating to outing Plame I think he will use the defense that he had the authority to declassify her identity. Do I think that defense will be an afterthought? Yes. Do I think he is guilty? Yes. Do I think he will be brought up on charges? I hope so, but I have doubts.
- WAAngel, on 11/17/2008, -1/+24I just can't shake the visual of Bush saying, "When we get to the bottom of this, if anyone in MY administration had anything to do with it, they will be gone."( or some other run on sentence to that effect.) It is disheartening to know how often and how badly he lied and got away with it....and probably will get away with it.
- JenniferInMO, on 11/17/2008, -0/+20@aangel: "... they will be fired." That was the end of that sentence. I had forgotten about that. What he meant to say is "... they will be pardoned."
I think I am desensitized to all that he has done. It has been so much and we have all spent nearly 8 years in a state of outrage. There are never any consequences so here we are. - KibibyteBrain, on 11/17/2008, -0/+8Even if he has the right to declassify the information, he could still face other charges or responsibilities. Much in the same way the President could legally declassify all our key troop positions in a time of war, but the action could still be treasonous.
- Mujokan, on 11/17/2008, -0/+5As I recall they put out an "executive order" claiming that Cheney also had that power.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20060216084 ... - SpenderH, on 11/17/2008, -12/+2Haven't we all learned that Plame was not undercover when she was outed, and therefore no crime was committed by anyone?
- caramba420, on 11/17/2008, -0/+9@SpenderH
Absolutely not. She was "operating without cover." This, in essence, means that she is more undercover than undercover. To "operate with cover" means that you are given a black passport by the State Department and ostensibly operate as a "diplomat." This means that if you get picked up in a foreign country, you have diplomatic immunity. This also means that everyone kind of knows that you are a spy to some extent. To "operate without cover" means that the CIA and State Department will both outright deny that you work for them. If you get imprisoned by a foreign country, you are on your own. Mrs. Plame was of the latter case. She worked for a "company" that provided devices that would be necessary to construct nuclear weapons. When she was compromised, that mean that the entire company was compromised. Dozens of agents in "deep cover" were compromised. All of these people were key in ensuring that nuclear weapons did not end up the hands of enemies to our national security, and they were all rendered useless for political ends.
- JenniferInMO, on 11/16/2008, -2/+7@publiclurker: How do we know he didn't? I would love to see him live out the rest of his life behind bars, but I'm not sure this is the thing that could do it.
- oldhick, on 11/17/2008, -0/+16It is. They wouldn't have lied so profusely if they had declassified her position. For instance, she would have been told.
- JenniferInMO, on 11/17/2008, -0/+10@ OldHick: That's a pretty persuasive point
- hiimcliff, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3I'd like to see him hung just like Sadam was. They made the case why he was such a tyrant. Sadam gassed his own people. Bush sent his soldiers to die in a cooked up war. They should suffer the same fate.
- novenator, on 11/17/2008, -1/+26This is TREASON! This must be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
- shodanx, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1only a lowly citizen can exact punishment,
the law does not serve to punish
but even if it were you should know by now that the rich and powerful don't go to prison or worse
so it only a lowly citizen that can exact punishment on the rich and powerful no matter what - staunchcentrist, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Where are the calls of treason for the media who knowingly reported it?
- gandhii, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1The fullest extent for treason would be the death penalty.
I'm usually against the death penalty, but the seriousness of this issue warrants it.
- shodanx, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1only a lowly citizen can exact punishment,
- countdownmsnbc, on 11/17/2008, -1/+15criminal...especially for a president
- AchaIemoipas, on 11/17/2008, -12/+8I wouldn't believe Mclellan if he said "hello".
Bush probably did it, wouldn't even surprise me. But I'll have to hear it from somebody else.- jtotheoe, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2I know no one else seems to agree with you, but i definitely do. Theres something about that guy that i just really dont trust at all.
- asskicker32, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2dugg because I agree with you and because I lol'd at your first sentance.
- blackinthmiddle, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2So you won't believe the very spokesperson for the president? Ugh, let's be honest, you wouldn't believe Jesus Christ himself if he accused the president of outing Plame!
- TonyLocNE, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2If I seen Jesus Christ, I would be just as skeptical.... you can't trust a zombie.
- AchaIemoipas, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1"So you won't believe the very spokesperson for the president?"
You mean the guy whose job is lying to the american people on the behalf of the president?
- tk121, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4He's done plenty of other criminal things he won't answer for. Sadly, this will just get added to that list.
- surian, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2Bush may adhere to the Nixon philosophy of the legality of this situation: "It's not illegal if the President does it".
- kemp34, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2The president should be held to a HIGHER standard than your average joe.
- surian, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Actually... legally, he should be held to the *SAME* standard as your average joe. The law is the law for everyone (theoretically).
Am I being Dugg down because people think that I'm saying that I *agree* with Nixon's statement about his immunity to laws due to his position? Because I don't...
- SirSaggySack, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1
- biotch, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Well if its any consolation, his name is now closely associated with utter ineptitude and failure.... 8 years too late though.
- mummbleswers, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Also stupid, she worked on finding loose nukes around the globe to prevent a catastrophic terrorist attack. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame#Career - johnboycanada, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Is that illegal? I followed that case closely and the illegality of the leak was based on the presumption that a person with a security clearance leaked it to a member of the media (or civilian with no security clearance). And that the knowledge in passing from a privileged person to a non-privileged person was what was actually being investigated and could therefore be a violation of the law. If the president did authorize this leak, a few questions for me remain: 1) Does he have the authority to disclose to the public classified information? If so, that ends the investigation right there. 2) But if not, then was his authorization to subordinates to do so legal? If so, it could meet his subordinate committed a crime precluding him from prosecution for that crime. In other words, if you superior tells you to commit a crime and you do so in ignorance of the law can that mean your superior be held to account?
- JenniferInMO, on 11/16/2008, -6/+24Actually, I think the President has the authority to declassify top secret information. I am no expert in this area, but he may just be able to avoid this one. Cheney and others may not, but of course they will be pardoned.
- homercles337, on 11/16/2008, -4/+161Was there really ever any doubt? Sure the Corporate Media tried to obfuscate the facts, but we all knew this decision came from the top. However, i expect the Corporate Media to continue to cloud the waters by putting McClellan into the "disgruntled ex-employee" category.
- SpoonBender13, on 11/17/2008, -8/+3i think i just obfuscated
- indubitably, on 11/17/2008, -9/+3eww, spoonbender! i can smell it from here. :P
- richirwin, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5This isn't the Scott McClellan I knew.
- sandwichkid45, on 11/17/2008, -5/+1corporate media. just figured i'd throw that in there for you once more. think that's enough?
- zip000, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3Yes, we all thought that it came from the top...Cheney.
- edcro, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2I didn't think Bush got involved in this level of detail. Still seems more like a Cheney thing.
- SverigesKung, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Hmmm that is strange. I also think it strange that McCain lost the election. Where was Diebold? Maybe they saw what was coming and didn't want to be in charge? I think its pretty weak totalitarianism when you throw elections because you are scared pussies.
- Batfishy, on 11/16/2008, -4/+174I just wish people like McClellan wouldn't have waited until their book deals to start telling the truth. That means everyone, including the press. Even if telling the truth would have been a daunting task.
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 11/16/2008, -1/+38What drives me nuts are the reporters who sat on the Palin shenanigans like thinking Africa was a country. Americans deserved to know that kind of information before the election, and they sat on it. Dicks.
- Batfishy, on 11/16/2008, -1/+8I know, I know. But then I thought - we need those people on those buses and they need to be able to make some promises to ride along. It's just the way it goes. Can't win 'em all.
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6We do, but then again so do the respective campaigns. Then again, the reason we need them is to get actual reporting. When the stop doing that, I got no use for 'em.
- Mujokan, on 11/17/2008, -2/+2They have to protect sources or they wouldn't get access in the future. This is why we have professional ethics.
- Bojanglesmn, on 11/17/2008, -2/+6That wasn't true though?...it was made up by a blogger to prove a point. The MSM apologized for even reporting it when they found out. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/ ...
More people need to be aware of this. - nextekcarl, on 11/17/2008, -0/+6Reread your article Bojanglesmn:
"The pranksters behind Eisenstadt acknowledge that he was not, through them, the anonymous source of the Palin leak. He just claimed falsely that he was the leaker--and they say they have no reason to cast doubt on the original story. For its part, Fox News Channel continues to stand behind its story." - Bojanglesmn, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2lolzerz stop making me look like an ass.
Apparently I need to work on my reading comprehension. The fake blogger lied about the source, not the report. I still don't believe the Africa ***** though. ***** Carl Cameron and his unnamed sources.
- quomen, on 11/17/2008, -10/+4Yeah.. G.W.B. is a badbadbadbad President, but McClellan is a little bitch too. I'd smack that man.
- colonelbuckshot, on 11/17/2008, -3/+6After listening to McClellan spin his "talking points" story, I don't trust him.
- TonyLocNE, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2As the former spokesperson for the President, you would think that he could get through a ten-minute speech without stuttering and an extremely unsteady voice. If what he said was true, that ***** should spill off your tongue.
- bjacobel, on 11/17/2008, -4/+3He's been saying this for years. It's just it's getting media attention now that everyone's on the Hating Bush bus.
- Batfishy, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4Heck - I'll drive that bus!
- TonyLocNE, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1Can you cite that information?
The only bus that is relevant here, is the one McClellan takes on his book tour.
- junkwheel, on 11/17/2008, -2/+2Daunting task meaning having some story created about you, public humiliation, and fired?
It's a nice thought that people could bring the machine down from the inside. - tbrand86, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Actually, you're wrong. McClellan started talking right after he stepped down. He's one of the few people I respect that came out of this administration.
- ThsGuyRightHere, on 11/16/2008, -1/+38What drives me nuts are the reporters who sat on the Palin shenanigans like thinking Africa was a country. Americans deserved to know that kind of information before the election, and they sat on it. Dicks.
- Anomaly100, on 11/16/2008, -5/+106He couldn't do the right thing and come out with this when it would have mattered? What is he doing, trolling for book sales here? Well, he has to live with himself, and I'm not going to help him by buying the book he's peddling. It's going to be easy for others to dismiss this since he waited so long-
I guess Bush better expedite those pardons he's most likely signing.- gwycliff, on 11/17/2008, -3/+1everybody gotta eat
- noxcovenant, on 11/17/2008, -3/+2Anomaly100, honestly, you sound a bit douchey with a touch of self-righteous bastard sprinkled in. How do you know you'd do things differently if you were in Scott McCellan's shoes? I doubt you've ever been the mouthpiece of the leader of the free-world. Don't you think you'd be a LITTLE overwhelmed/intimidated if you were put in that position? Maybe even give the "benefit of the doubt" to your higher-ranking officials because of the selective information you'd normally get as a White House Press Secretary (because if you didn't know the president outed Valerie Plume, what ELSE do you not know)? A lot of us would, because we're human.
- Anomaly100, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Let's see now, douchey. You are just so sweet and lovable. Will you be my BFF? ::::kiss::::
Douche:
a small syringe with detachable nozzles; used for vaginal lavage and enemas - noxcovenant, on 11/17/2008, -0/+0That was either a bad joke or a veiled attempt at hitting on me. Either way, it was pretty uncomfortable.
- Anomaly100, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Let's see now, douchey. You are just so sweet and lovable. Will you be my BFF? ::::kiss::::
- GrandmaSheila, on 11/16/2008, -4/+209This is treason, and McClellan is an accomplice. Everybody involved in the Executive needs to be brought to account for this, as specified in the Constitution.
" I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."
George H.W. Bush- junkwheel, on 11/17/2008, -4/+6I would not believe anything he says either.
- squelched, on 11/17/2008, -3/+2quote the fascist pig
- sonnybobiche, on 11/17/2008, -2/+3Except that everyone involved is basically... Richard Armitage. This has been done to death.
Funny how nobody mentions that Armitage has already admitted to it, and Robert Novak has already said that Armitage was his primary source.
But you're right, it must have been Bush, because he is to blame for all the world's faults. - hiimcliff, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1I feel the same way. The fact that he only feels compelled now to tell the truth because he's making money from it speaks of his character. I believe him but I think he is an opportunist and needs to be in the cell next to GWB.
- rexcrouch, on 11/16/2008, -31/+18So McClellan is saying it is true to sell a book and Bush is saying nothing. I need evidence beyond one persons say so.
- torgarman, on 11/16/2008, -8/+26Are you kidding? Are you also undecided about gravity being real?
- mirunit, on 11/17/2008, -9/+8Did you just try to compare the factuality of gravity with some junk Scott McClellan said? Valerie Plame was nobody and quite possibly one of the least covert CIA agents ever. I seriously doubt the President himself was sitting there hatching some scheme to 'out' her (is this not the same President you lament as being infinitely stupid?). At the end of the day, nobody is ever going to hire McClellan to do anything important and his sole source of income will be writing books, thus he must promote these said books in ways as we have seen in the story.
- TigerStar337, on 11/17/2008, -1/+8Isacc Newton was a arab muslim socialist, who palled around with terrorist.
- Anonchrist, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3I think he is referring to your statement on waiting for more people to publicly state that GWB violated several laws. Even if you disagree or remain skeptical, it is ridiculous to deny that other people have not come out and given similar claims after retiring or being fired.
- rexcrouch, on 11/17/2008, -8/+5I know there are people who hate Bush with a passion but McClellan selling a book is not proof in my world that any crime was committed. He's just a guy selling a book.
As far as the gravity comments… F=GMm/R^2 and yes I can do the simple derivation to get that out of Newton’s second law. Newton was a physicist who executed more people than any other physicist in history while he was the Royal Minter – not an Arab socialist which ever freak came up with that line.
AND FOR THIS TO BE A CRIME – Plame had to be a covert agent. Just one of those technicalities of the law that most of you don’t seem to know or are too simple to understand. Just working for the CIA and landing jobs for your husband in conflict of interest with your position does not make you covert – just makes you a desk jocky and the law does not apply to you. Please come out of the trees and do some research.- temsi, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4OK, there obviously one HUGE part of this you've decided to deliberately ignore (nobody is this clueless unless it's on purpose):
Valerie Plame WAS a covert agent. She worked under cover in at least two known locations, Athens and Brussels.
How about YOU pulling your head out of your ass and doing some research?
Do you seriously think this would have been as big a deal as it was if she hadn't been under cover? Do you think it was all a conspiracy by the "liberal" media to boost ratings?
Seriously, how ***** ignorant can you be?
Plame was a covert agent. Outing her was a criminal act.
The person who blew her cover should be arrested for treason.
And to think it was for political purposes makes it all the more disgusting. - rexcrouch, on 11/17/2008, -3/+2Temsi, I’m so ignorant that I spent a lifetime in Army special operations working with many different agencies and I know that you are in fact wrong. Regardless of Plame’s past assignments, Plame was not “covert” when she was working a desk job at the time it was revealed she worked for the CIA. The letter of the law says no crime was committed. I am going to make your failure to understand simple law my next major blogging point—your stupidity will help others to learn.
- mrswirl, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3@rexcrouch - not that old red herring again. She was a covert agent - plain and simple. There is no ambiguity on this fact anymore. The CIA and Justice Dept have both confirmed it publicly.
I suggest you follow your own advice and do some more research on the subject. - temsi, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2Whenever anyone has to preface their statements with what they do for a living, you know they're full of *****.
The CIA has stated she was under cover at the time of her outing, this is not in dispute, so drop it.
If she hadn't been, there would never have been a need for a special prosecutor.
You are completely and utterly wrong, I don't care how many agents you may or may not have interacted with in your lifetime. You are simply demonstrably wrong on this issue.
Let it go, and stop repeating Sean Hannity's *****.
Also, I find it humorous that you start talking about my "stupidity" because I counter your argument with facts. The letter of the law is clear, and a crime was indeed committed. No amount of your delusion is going to change that.
What's the URL to your blog, btw, I'd love to see what kind of paranoid crap you're spewing about my "failure to understand simple law".
LOL - what a boner.
- temsi, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4OK, there obviously one HUGE part of this you've decided to deliberately ignore (nobody is this clueless unless it's on purpose):
- notanidiot, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1I must admit, I do wonder why he didn't say this while under oath.
- torgarman, on 11/16/2008, -8/+26Are you kidding? Are you also undecided about gravity being real?
- caferrell, on 11/16/2008, -4/+118Does anyone remember Bush and Cheney making great noise about how they could not release any more information about Hussein's supposed WMDs or his supposed links to Al qaeda because the administration had to protect their undercover assets. I distinctly remember Bush saying that anyone that released information that outed a CIA operative would be tried for treason.
OK, so try Cheney for treason. Go ahead. - riverrunner, on 11/16/2008, -2/+51hello CNN?
- dkistner, on 11/17/2008, -2/+10Forget CNN. Watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann at 8/10 p.m. EST. That's where you'll find out not only what's really going on but be treated to intelligent analysis as well. Then you might want to hang in there for Rachel Maddow at 9 p.m. EST. CNN has been falling down on its job too much lately, competing for those disaffected Fox News viewers....
- UK4Life58, on 11/17/2008, -4/+4While I watch and enjoy Countdown don't hold your breath waiting for Olbermann to say anything critical of Obama or his administration.
- prodigitalson, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4"While I watch and enjoy Countdown don't hold your breath waiting for Olbermann to say anything critical of Obama or his administration."
Id agree to a certain extent. But then I dont watch Olbermann for objective analysis and commentary, I watch him for "teh funney".
But whats even funnier is the dkistner is unable to distinguish between bias (albeit entertaining and fairly inline with my personal politics) commentary and objective news.
- 1310nm, on 11/17/2008, -0/+5They won't pick it up, because Scott McClellan is already being demonized by the fundie media, as though he's another Michael Moore.
- dkistner, on 11/17/2008, -2/+10Forget CNN. Watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann at 8/10 p.m. EST. That's where you'll find out not only what's really going on but be treated to intelligent analysis as well. Then you might want to hang in there for Rachel Maddow at 9 p.m. EST. CNN has been falling down on its job too much lately, competing for those disaffected Fox News viewers....
- thenekkidtruth, on 11/16/2008, -4/+98The technical name for that is . . treason.
- melt33, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1And so is this:
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a391 ...- thenekkidtruth, on 11/18/2008, -1/+2Jokesters are that desperate to believe this absurdity. Good luck with that . . . did you catch the part where Bush Manchild's handpicked SCOTUS refused to hear the case? Didn't think so.
And as wishful/hopeful as you mooning phools may be, no, that's not treason. Outing our CIA officers is treason. - melt33, on 11/18/2008, -1/+1FYI: BookTB is to Left Wing Democratic crap as Fox News is to Right Wing Republican crap. I think the Democrats really enjoyed seeing how many Americans they could fool this election and continue to fool. You would fit into the fooled group thenekkidtruth. Just a reminder Al Gore (democrat) invented the internet.
- Zeitgeist101, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1stupid!
How is that treason? btw, John McCain actually was born on foreign soil.... but who cares?
- thenekkidtruth, on 11/18/2008, -1/+2Jokesters are that desperate to believe this absurdity. Good luck with that . . . did you catch the part where Bush Manchild's handpicked SCOTUS refused to hear the case? Didn't think so.
- melt33, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1And so is this:
- Batfishy, on 11/17/2008, -2/+27I really like C-SPAN Book TV.
- TheJimid, on 11/17/2008, -6/+15That is like Willie Nelson high treason.
- Berkana, on 11/17/2008, -2/+64This is treason! He should be tried and penalized.
Valerie Plame was working to stop Iran from getting nukes. Even Halliburton was selling nuclear materials to Iran via foreign subsidiaries, in order to skirt the US laws forbidding them from doing so. This whole notion that Bush's power grab has been for protecting us is *****.- Karlitzor, on 11/17/2008, -3/+1lol you said penalized
- PWoT, on 11/17/2008, -4/+31Did he link to the wrong video? This video says Bush authorized the leak of the NIE report, not Plame's identity. They are two separate things.
- Treoinmypocket, on 11/17/2008, -14/+11Shhhh...its digg and they're talking about a Republican....
- demonicume, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5i won't bother to recap the audio here, but i think there was a reporters question echoed to the president in a yes or no format... and he answered yes. just sayin. you should prolly watch the video again.
- Mujokan, on 11/17/2008, -2/+17You are correct. McClellan is talking about Libby's testimony in 2006 regarding the NIE. He says this may have also "set in motion the chain of events" or something that then led to the Plame outing. But that is not the same thing.
- Treoinmypocket, on 11/17/2008, -14/+11Shhhh...its digg and they're talking about a Republican....
- RickHyatt, on 11/17/2008, -23/+3Go to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAQ4A9NG7mY
if you'd like to know some more dirty laundry on the Bush's.
Or,
http://www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com
Will take you there with the connections between Gary Condit, Dick Cheney, and the then Dallas Investigator GHW Bush during the JFK Assassination.
How this 40 years of a foreign-based assassination campaign has left us with no one to vote for - Only vote against.- Karlitzor, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1I had this jerrycurley guy blocked and I didn't even remember why, now I do.
- Nodaki, on 11/17/2008, -3/+12Amazing someone has a conscience in this administration. Of course a Bushie would only betray his man for his own personal greed.
If he had written a full free report and signed an affidavit swearing to its truth; this man would have more respect.- haydesigner, on 11/17/2008, -1/+6"Amazing someone has a conscience in this administration"
And where has that conscience been the past few years?? Don't be so quick to praise him.- caitymac, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2Ummm, did you even get far enough to read the second sentence?
"Of course a Bushie would only betray his man for his own personal greed." - haydesigner, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1@caitymac, did you read *my* second sentence??
"Don't be so quick to praise him."
- caitymac, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2Ummm, did you even get far enough to read the second sentence?
- northwatuppa, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1You don't think you're being a tad self-righteous?
- haydesigner, on 11/17/2008, -1/+6"Amazing someone has a conscience in this administration"
- paintgrl, on 11/17/2008, -1/+28Bush and friends must answer to the law. We are a country of laws and no one is above them.
- 1310nm, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4Sadly, I think it will be proven that there are some above those laws, and we are powerless to do anything about it.
- nextekcarl, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1I wish that was true. I'm pretty sure that isn't the whole line. No one who makes less than several million a year is above the law, or something like that.
- GuacamoleSan, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2But but the Prez is "the decider"....duh....
- swrostmore, on 11/17/2008, -10/+24McClellan is full of *****, he even admits he was out of the loop and had no idea what was going on. Maybe Bush signed off on it, but the actual order, like most everything related to the Iraq war, probably came out of the Office of the Vice President.
- hillkiwi, on 11/17/2008, -1/+21One law for the rulers, another for the ruled.
- palehorse864, on 11/17/2008, -2/+3Another for Ferris Bueller, Rooney got schooled!
- hammelman, on 11/17/2008, -1/+0One rule to rule them all!
- stevenr21, on 11/17/2008, -12/+4dear valarie plame, if that really is your name
- lesfleanut, on 11/17/2008, -6/+1I would just shout the same to the world.
- irishjays, on 11/17/2008, -2/+3digg liberals aren't decemberists fans
- metapop, on 11/17/2008, -12/+15the tip of the iceberg, this is. i can't wait until the reopen the 9/11 investigation.
- captric, on 11/17/2008, -3/+7The 9-11 investigations? Are you joking??!! This administration cannot keep the secret of who outed a CIA agent let alone keep secret a massive conspiracy by a super efficient team of brainwashed government employees. This is proof that 9-1 was NOT a government conspiracy and the only people that cannot see that are the wacko 911 troothers.
- metapop, on 11/17/2008, -6/+1sounds like you've done your research, i'll just take your word for it. thanks. seriously though, instead of talking nonsense like "brainwashed gov't employees" i suggest you start investigating things for yourself. here's a good place to start.
http://physics911.net/stevenjones - 1310nm, on 11/17/2008, -1/+5Perhaps, but retain an open mind. After 9/11, the Bush administration pushed very hard to go to war with Iraq, like a child chanting, "Are we there yet?" from the back seat. Richard Clarke - "Find the Iraq link," Colin Powell, given false evidence by the CIA to present to the UN. Constant reports that the UN inspectors in Iraq were being fooled; Hans Blix and his team being rushed through inspections and finally being forced to evacuate from Iraq. How did the Bush administration garner (at the very least, flimsy) support for the war in the first place? You ask how they could have kept it a secret? Well, how did the terrorists who did it maintain secrecy? How is it that we have satellite imaging systems that can pick you out by the mole on your face, have full understanding and control of communications systems, have the best military of any on the planet, and still not be able to locate some goat-humpers traveling from cave to cave?
I'm just saying, keep an open mind - there's still a lot we don't know about 9/11. - captric, on 11/17/2008, -2/+4I have more than an open mind, I have experience in the military, government , and intelligence gathering. This is not a movie like James Bond, there are MANY limitations that you seem to not be aware of when trying to find an individual goat herder in a land filled with millions of goat herders where only half of the day is daylight, just like the rest of the world, and you are looking almost directly down on peoples heads from above.
Richard Clarke, Colin Powell. Hans Blix and every other person in the know dismisses the 9-11 truther theory as a bunch of wackos who cannot understand how the real world works, the limitations of humans ability to keep a secret and the impossible difficulties involved in a a massive conspiracy. For instance, how do you get the thousands of people who would have to be involved in a criminal venture like this and who KNOW they do not have to obey an illegal order from ANYONE including the President, to keep this a secret when you can't even keep a blow job in the white house a secret? It is impossible to the Nth degree.
You are trying to associate unrelated events in a futile attempt to prove an impossibility. I can draw together enough events by cutting and pasting to convince people like 911 truthers that the Pamplona Running of the BULLS is a proof of a 9-11 conspiracy! Here is a good place to start: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
If you want to research 9-11 start reading the proof AGAINST it. All of the theories have been disproved by calm, objective scientific analysis by non governmental associated parties ad nauseum. Where have you been? - reedatschool, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Wow, people here have an open mind. I have objectionably looked at the evidence and it it is clear that the governments official story has more holes than Swiss cheese.
The real conspiracy is that the events unfolded the way we are lead to believe, that three identical pancake collapses happened in the same day. This is so far from reality it isn't funny.
The simplest explanation suffices, it is clear that three buildings were demolished that day with explosives, and no amount a "paid off physics professors" will ever get me to believe other than I saw with my own eyes.
- metapop, on 11/17/2008, -6/+1sounds like you've done your research, i'll just take your word for it. thanks. seriously though, instead of talking nonsense like "brainwashed gov't employees" i suggest you start investigating things for yourself. here's a good place to start.
- Zeitgeist101, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1Over 500 educated, professionals, architects and engineers have signed on to say that the official 911 story is scientifically impossible...on what planet can two airplanes knock three buildings down, all three in picture perfect free fall collapses? Not this one!
Architects and Engineers for 911 truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
aviation professional who also say, "NOT SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE!":
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
the bigger picture:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847 ...
pull your heads out and demand the truth!
- captric, on 11/17/2008, -3/+7The 9-11 investigations? Are you joking??!! This administration cannot keep the secret of who outed a CIA agent let alone keep secret a massive conspiracy by a super efficient team of brainwashed government employees. This is proof that 9-1 was NOT a government conspiracy and the only people that cannot see that are the wacko 911 troothers.
- TunaFishGangsta, on 11/17/2008, -2/+18Supposedly, there are a lot of White House insiders who will blab come Jan. 20th.
And yet I'll be surprised if it gets any traction.- Dumbledorito, on 11/17/2008, -0/+8You mean the ones that don't get pardons?
- hchdzl, on 11/17/2008, -0/+18That's the longest consecutive string of legible youtube comments I've ever seen.
- Sogladtobehere, on 11/17/2008, -2/+8Remove him from the White House in cuffs!
- e2superman, on 11/17/2008, -3/+25From someone who has been briefed for DOD clearance...
I am not supporting Bush but part of having a clearance is personal accountability for the classified information you possess. Bush ordering a subordinate to release classified information may be an ethical violation or negligent (and require investigation) but the ultimate "sucker" so to speak is the personal who violated their duties as described by their DOD clearance and released that information. There is a formal procedure and specifically a DOD Classification Guide for that information that they are responsible for consulting before releasing anything and it is up to them to check since they were the ones giving that information out. They are liable for releasing the information. The old adage about "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.- pilobilus, on 11/17/2008, -2/+7Ordering a subordinate to release classified information in violation of DoD procedure is not "an ethical violation or negligent", it is conspiracy before the fact to commit a felony crime, making the person giving the order equally guilty. If the person giving the order is superior in rank, it makes him liable for stronger penalties than the person who carried out the order.
Ironically, this offense, which would have gotten any Democratic President impeached and thrown out of office at once by a Republican Congress, is a trivial sidebar compared to the multiple capital felonies committed by Bush and his circle of criminal co-conspirators, who we call his "Administration", on the public record and without denial or apology.- e2superman, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1When you are briefed it is very clear that "you" are responsible for the classified information you possess and liable for the consequences of mishandling it. "Because my boss said so" is not an excuse. Maybe I am coming from the perspective of the civilian defense side (non military) but I doubt the DSS distinguishes in its requirements.
- doublefelix, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3You must have some set of balls to think it would be the clear path to disobey a direct order of the President of the United States because it conflicts with some information in a handbook they gave you when they hired you.
- pilobilus, on 11/17/2008, -2/+5It's called military discipline. If a base commander attempts to enter a secure area without proper procedure and it's your job to guard that area, your job is to use deadly force if necessary to stop him. "Balls" do not enter into it; failure to disobey a clearly illegal order is a court martial offense in the military and a felony crime for civilians.
You must be living in some testosterone soaked delusional fantasy world if you think otherwise. - doublefelix, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1First off, If you can follow a thread and reply correctly I wasn't responding to your comment Pilobilus - which makes my post appear out of context. . More than likely the parties responsible for the controlled leaks in these cases have a political science, and/or law school background, not military. You're the one who is delusional if you believe that in the last 8 years there were any "made men" in this toady administration that chose to disregard, disobey or report a direct order of "W" due to ethical qualms or military discipline. Instead, the opposite has appeared to be true, blindly following the chain of command that ostensibly leads all the way to the commander in chief in such ethical travesties such as Abu Ghraib.
- pilobilus, on 11/17/2008, -2/+5It's called military discipline. If a base commander attempts to enter a secure area without proper procedure and it's your job to guard that area, your job is to use deadly force if necessary to stop him. "Balls" do not enter into it; failure to disobey a clearly illegal order is a court martial offense in the military and a felony crime for civilians.
- BuryBrigade08, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3You just wanted to show off that you had a DOD clearance, didn't you?
- pilobilus, on 11/17/2008, -2/+7Ordering a subordinate to release classified information in violation of DoD procedure is not "an ethical violation or negligent", it is conspiracy before the fact to commit a felony crime, making the person giving the order equally guilty. If the person giving the order is superior in rank, it makes him liable for stronger penalties than the person who carried out the order.
- chase001, on 11/17/2008, -4/+18He knew he was lying and the press knew he was lying when he worked for Bush. How noble be became when he had a book to sell.
- 1310nm, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4There was always something about Scott McClellan's behavior on the podium when he was still the Speaker that told another story than the one that was coming out of his mouth. You could tell he was frustrated, having to keep misleading people with the talking points given to him.
- CiDaemon, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxKuc2vBlZw
- TheDougem, on 11/17/2008, -22/+12Oh, come on Scott, drop it already. We already know you just want to sell your stupid book, while you admit yourself that you didn't know the full story.
He was discredited long ago people.- macgarp, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2the thing is, he hasn't been discredited.
- superkendall, on 11/17/2008, -23/+7She outed herself, if you look at what actually happened - unlikely on Digg.
- captric, on 11/17/2008, -1/+9WTF are you talking about? Where did you get that nonsense - from the drug addicted nicotine addict draft dodger Rush Limpwrist? Read Valerie Plames book if you want to see what happened. You do read I assume. So many Republicans seem not to be able to, or at a minimum, can read but have so little education that they do not know how to read and interpret and check sources and think critically.
- jerrycurley, on 11/17/2008, -19/+5
- haydesigner, on 11/17/2008, -2/+4And anyone can investigate such a serious, serious matter.
Oh, wait... Bush hasn't let anyone investigate.
- haydesigner, on 11/17/2008, -2/+4And anyone can investigate such a serious, serious matter.
- brickbat, on 11/17/2008, -6/+27Who wants a bet that Obama will say that for the good of the country we should "move on" and "get on with the job". There won't be any indictments. W will go down in history as misguided but well-meaning. It makes me sick. We need a clean slate.
- junkwheel, on 11/17/2008, -1/+8For the good of the country, and the safety of the incoming administration.
- geesamba, on 11/17/2008, -1/+3@brickbat:
I was just thinking the same thing. I support Obama but I will be severely disappointed if any kind of blanket pardons "for the sake of national unity" are given. Thousands of lives were lost and will be lost to fight these occupations, and our nation's economy was dramatically affected by reckless gov't spending.
I'm not saying jump straight to sentencing, but I would like a formal and detailed investigation under federal supervision to be carried out. It'll take years and lots of money, but I think we deserve justice given the overwhelming amount of evidence to support the claims. The dead and wounded soldiers and civilians on both sides of our wars deserve this.- TonyLocNE, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Well, start getting severely disappointed then. There will nothing of what you hope for in this situation. He has said it before, he will not pursue that action.
So I blame this on you, as an Obama supporter. You voted for the other side of the same coin and now we're all *****. It's sad really... you guys had such good intentions, but just too stupid to figure out how to apply them.
- TonyLocNE, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Well, start getting severely disappointed then. There will nothing of what you hope for in this situation. He has said it before, he will not pursue that action.
- TypeEE, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1You reminded me of batman, he covered up two face's wrong doing so that citizens will not loose hope.
- TonyLocNE, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1And you think that that kind of ***** just accidentally makes it into a movie that is going to be seen by everyone and their grandma?
- ObamAmerican48, on 11/17/2008, -1/+1I think Obama will prosecute once he gets a handle on all the crises he has to deal with once he enters office. Anyone who thinks the priority of the Obama administration should be to prosecute the Bush gang has their priorities in wad.
First things first. Economy. War. Terrorism. Middle class financial relief.
Prosceuting the Bush administration should be fairly far down on this list or priorities. I'd love to see Bush et al fry, but first things first. - pilobilus, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1First things first: Earn the confidence and respect of the American people, necessary to override the Republican and Corporate elites to obtain /any/ results except "more of the same ending in an overt Fascist police state". If Obama fails in this, he fails in everything.
Obama's Attorney General must prosecute Bush and his gang for capital felonies, and set procedure in place to disburse the Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld fortunes in settlements for civil lawsuits brought by their victims and the survivors of their victims.
If the Obama administration fails to do this, I will work tirelessly to undermine and negate his administration on all fronts by all lawful means available, regardless of the merits or otherwise of any other policy agenda. If millions of Americans send this message loud and clear for the next two months, we just might get some action.
- salesmasters, on 11/17/2008, -34/+0
- dsterber, on 11/17/2008, -0/+4lame and unprofessional...
- Mujokan, on 11/17/2008, -3/+12Bush does have a track record of leaking classified information.
"Libby's participation in that conversation with Miller "occurred only after the vice president advised defendant that the president specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate," according to the papers filed by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190843,00.html- Mujokan, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3After reading pWoT's comment, I actually bothered to go watch the video. Contrary to the title of the video, McClellan is talking about leaking the NIE to Judith Miller, not the decision to out Plame.
- gospe1337, on 11/17/2008, -14/+4Old news is old.
- dkistner, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Unless we're talking about what somebody did forty years ago.... Retire the "old news is old" meme. It's getting old.
- asaone, on 11/17/2008, -2/+7Holy ***** Batman
- Alheithinn, on 11/17/2008, -3/+9Bush should have been impeached a long time ago. Best solution now is to turn him over to the World Court the moment he leaves the White House for prosecution as a war criminal.
- Xet6996roV, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1ABSOLUTELY ....
and pack CLINTON , C. RICE, CHENEY and RUMSFELD.
And have them HANGED , TOGETHER ... SLOWLY.
- Xet6996roV, on 11/17/2008, -2/+1ABSOLUTELY ....
- superfusion, on 11/17/2008, -3/+9That's an anti-American action. You can hide behind the office for a while, but after Jan. 20, you're a retired Texas private citizen who broke federal law by exposing the ID of a CIA agent.
- jonmills, on 11/17/2008, -15/+7Actually, if Bush outed her, then there's probably no story. The president has the power to out CIA agents.
- IIAmusedII, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1The *****?
- humptyz, on 11/17/2008, -4/+17History is going to remember the Bush years as one of the darkest in its history. Dealing with the country tearing itself apart during the Civil War was bad, getting attacked by a foreign nation during Pearl Harbor of World War II was bad, watching it turn water hoses on its citizens who only want equal rights was bad, having its leaders corrupt the soul of America is terrible. Leaders have lied all throughout history, in this country and others, so that's not new. What makes the Bush years so horrible is that the American people by and large let Bush get away with so much. Previous generations would've tarred and feathered those accountable for the lies, but Bush and his accomplices will probably get away scot-free. It's not only disgusting but also sad.
- 1310nm, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2The problem is that so many people believe the lies. AM radio and Fox News are working hard to make sure that a dictatorial authority can rise up, accepted by the fascist right they are slowly indoctrinating, in the name of patriotism and irrational fear. Bush The Decider seemed to desperately seek that power.
- MediaWeasel, on 11/17/2008, -1/+6It's something I've considered as truth for a long time, that Bush outed Plame by whatever means. This was during those dreadful years when blame was being thrown here there and everywhere. It's the time that Dr Kelly was murdered (oh yes he was).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/24/4544/49231 - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/17/2008, -14/+6Buried as inaccurate, it was Richard Armitage.
- mrswirl, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4Ok - here we go again....
It was Armitage AND Libby AND Rove AND Fleischer. You can grasp the concept of multiples, can't you?
- mrswirl, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4Ok - here we go again....
- TampaJoe, on 11/17/2008, -16/+8Richard Armitage released the information on Plame, without any direction from the President. Stop with the Fascist propaganda people, oh, that is correct only conservatives can be that. Not to be confused with history, but, the left wing socialist/communist/fascists are the problem with the world today. Their work has been tireless and the misinformation and community organizing has been effective in taking over journalism schools and the press. Good work.
- eagee, on 11/17/2008, -2/+6"socialist", "communist", "fascists"
You just contradicted yourself three times in one sentence. Each one of those are pretty much mutually exclusive, and have nothing to do with community organizers. - hierophantus, on 11/17/2008, -2/+5Would you like to know (one of many reasons) why you're so frustrated that no one seems to go along with your communists/fascists conflation?
Fascism is by definition right-wing. The word you are looking for, and apparently never learned, is "authoritarian." It's not the same thing. Communism itself is not necessarily authoritarian, either, though its implementation usually has been authoritarian in practice.
I'll leave it to you to sort out the rest of your paranoid ignorance on your own.- Skywise, on 11/17/2008, -4/+2Fascism is right-wing? Try telling that to the National Socialist party...
- ironhide, on 11/17/2008, -0/+3Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism,
- eagee, on 11/17/2008, -2/+6"socialist", "communist", "fascists"
- AsylumAleikum, on 11/17/2008, -11/+7McClellan does not claim that Bush authorized outing CIA non-agent Valerie Plame. Buried.
- captric, on 11/17/2008, -1/+4CIA non agent? Valerie Plame was recruited and served as a NOC. Do you know what that is??? That stands for Non Official Cover. She worked overseas gathering Intelligence data from foreign sources - that is - individuals who she spoke with - under the cover of an employee for a non governmental business. That is different from Official Cover where a person works at the Embassy and enjoys diplomatic immunity if caught spying. Even though she was promoted to a supervisory position supervising Intelligence Agents doing analytical work at the Director of Intelligence Office, she was forever to remain covert. When she was outed by Libby with the permission of higher ups, ALL of the people that she had EVER had contact with are now outed and some were outright killed!! So how do you think she is a "non agent".
- pilobilus, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2McClellan does not claim that Bush authorized the outing of Valerie Plame. He states that Bush told him he did.
- CasaWood, on 11/17/2008, -3/+8Further evidence we are truly living in a time when the Constitution is in exile and our federal government has become more of a nationalist oligarchy. Join us Sunday, Nov 23rd (7pm EST) when Dr. Kevin Gutzman will discuss his books, "Who Killed the Constitution" and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution." Also, you can listen to our archive shows either through PodCast or stream. We can reverse these abuses. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/March-of-Liberty
- MadKennyP, on 11/17/2008, -2/+10An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the CIA indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003. The summary says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
Unclassified employment summary, from the court records (pdf): http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/07 ... - ren1999, on 11/17/2008, -3/+12Don' let Bush pardon everyone and don't let him escape to Paraguay. Once his activities and those of Cheney and Rove, and everybody else that stayed with the White House are exposed, it is time for them to submit to the law.
- krahzee, on 11/17/2008, -8/+14Not saying the man is lying, but I am saying take the accusation with a grain of salt considering the source.
The man is a disgruntled former employee who took to writing a book.
Whether that was done out of some sense of moral obligation, or more likely done as an opportunistic attempt to capitalize on the unique role he served in as White House Press Secretary.
Me personally, I find it odd that the man stood up in front of the House Judiciary Committee and stated this under oath about President Bush: "I do not think the president had any knowledge" [of the revelation of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity];
and this about Cheney: "In terms of the vice president, I do not know."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/20/mcclellan.t ...
So either he perjured himself then, or is full of ***** now, and just trying to sell more books.
There is no way to spin saying what he said to the Committee and then claiming the president admitted it to him personally and still looking honest in this. They don't match. Not when he had already left the job and had written his book attacking the administration when he testified.- macgarp, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1you'll have to read the book and you'll know why he said those things. He didn't knowingly perjure himself.
- krahzee, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1All I know is:
1) That he testified to the committee that he didn't think Bush knew.
2) Then, he claims that Bush told him he knew in a private moment between the two.
3) He had already written his book when he testified.
How does he testify AFTER leaving the adminstration and writing his book and say that He thought Bush didn't know and reconcile it with his claims to have had this conversation with Bush in his role as Press Secretary?
Sorry, to me it just does not add up.
- krahzee, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1All I know is:
- macgarp, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1you'll have to read the book and you'll know why he said those things. He didn't knowingly perjure himself.
- glitchbit, on 11/17/2008, -3/+5did he write his own book or someone else? Seems like he can't even give a speech without pulling his book out.
He was a horrible speaker when he worked for bush, and the press seemed to always unbalance the guy. At this point I think he is trying to win over the left so he doesn't look like a failure.- MWeather, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2"did he write his own book or someone else? Seems like he can't even give a speech without pulling his book out."
It's called BookTV for a reason. - glitchbit, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1but shouldn't he know what's in there... he wrote it, right? Why do I have to hear it word from word from the author himself? If we wanted that then we'd just buy the audio form.
- macgarp, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1he pretty much talks this way in all the interviews I've seen. :) Book TV is basically a video of a "reading." Then later on there's a Q and A and a signing. Usually the books are boring but every once in awhile they have cool stuff.
- MWeather, on 11/17/2008, -1/+2"did he write his own book or someone else? Seems like he can't even give a speech without pulling his book out."
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is