Originally Posted By jonvn Yes. In the meantime, Libby managed to get himself convicted of perjury. Truly nice and neat.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Ahh yes, the same story reported a dozen different ways. And without having to ask for it! Meh.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> And no one has produced a shred of credible evidence that links Bush to it. << Here's some ... <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19728346/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19 728346/</a> Bush admits administration leaked CIA name July 12, 2007 AP WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course." "And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference. "I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person," Bush said. "I've often thought about what would have happened if that person had come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But, so, it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House. It's run its course and now we're going to move on." << ----------------------------------------- But what does he know - he's probably just trying to sell a book.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Wow. Bush says he thinks there might possibly have been someone in his administration that just maybe leaked the name, and that's a link? Especially considering that we all know it was leaked in the first place by the Deputy Secretary of State, before Joe WIlson's initial memo that supposedly spurred the administration to leak the name. Seriously, this story has played out and everyone knows what happened.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder This entire episode stinks from the head down and no amount of denial changes that. The pardon, an absolute of abuse of power, confirms that beyond all reason.
Originally Posted By ecdc The story isn't, or shouldn't be, over. The insistance that it's over sounds an awful lot like saying Watergate was over after the burglars were convicted. (And speaking of the Usual Suspects, is there any doubt that those saying this is over would be saying exactly that in 1973?) You can keep referring to the same thing over and over (and insult everyone by saying you're doing their homework for them - we can always count on Dug to not make it about personalities) but you're dodging the point. That Armitage was the leaker doesn't mean others didn't know about it, approve of it, and cover it up. As for targeting McClellan, it got old long ago to just watch the Republican smear machine crank into gear anytime anyone says anything bad about the administration. Can we even keep track of the number of books, op-eds, and statements from former Bush administration officials detailing the incompetence, the disregard for civil liberties and the rule of law, and the dishonesty? Apparently, they're all just in it for the money and glory. Wow. What pretzels people will twist themselves into...
Originally Posted By DAR Some of you are calling for impeachment. I have to ask at this time in the administration what would be the point, by the time they get around to any hearings Bush will be out of office. As for Americans not caring, well count me as one of them. Personally I find the story to be a little boring.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By gadzuux One small point of order - the fitzgerald investigation isn't "technically" closed. He could still resume the investigation, including subpeonas for witness testimony. Of course the white house would stonewall, foot drag and refuse - presumeably on grounds of 'executive privilege', which means that they would be in the position of having to publicly assert their "right" to lie to congress, grand juries, and us - the american public, at will. I'm for it - if we can't convict them, at least we can force them shame themselves- if they're even capable of that emotion.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage revealed Plame's identity in June, 2003 to Bob Woodward, and in July of that year to Robert Novak. This is all public record. Armitage himself finally admitted that it was he who revealed Plame's identity.> Let's be very clear on this, as this line of defense is often trotted out, and is disingenuous on its face, unless the person does not know that Armitage was not the only leaker. Armitage was NOT the only leaker. He was the source for Novak, who decided to publish, but at the same time this was happening, Rove was leaking Plame's name to Matt Cooper, for instance. Cooper decided not to publish, Novak did, therefore Novak's source is sometimes trotted out as the only one. But he was not. Plame's name was leaked to multiple people BY multiple people. There was clearly a concerted effort to get her name out there to punish her and her husband. McClellan could hardly have been clearer about this. When he said Rove, Libby, et al were not involved, he was lying, albeit unwittingly. That means they were involved. It's very convenient to try to say it was all Armitage, and so case closed, but that dog won't hunt. As McClellan has said clearly, others were involved. Matt Cooper has also said so, as have other journalists receiving the leaks.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I've said nothing "personally" about anyone here, although it seems it's open game to say anything, however cruddy, about me. There's a reason there is very little civil debate around here, just a lot of threads with everyone high fiving each other, or flame wars the instant anyone says anything contrary.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder You're not getting it Dug, and there was no reason for my post to be Admined. I was saying the Bush Administration has stooped so low as to go after Joe Wilson's wife, hence outing her. Therefore, on a much smaller scale, it was be as if we had an issue with you and went after your wife instead. Nowhere does that infer you made any personal attack. Get a grip. Further, I made that analogy to demonstrate the very deep level of distrust many have for the current Administration. If they'll go after a guy's wife, they'll arrange for an Armitage story that he's the leak. Clear now?
Originally Posted By jonvn I mean, it wasn't anything intentional, but there was some info in there that was a tiny bit personal, and that may not have been wanted to go out.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Anything I know about people here I got from reading these boards.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm still waiting for the response to Dabob's post. Anyone looking at this can see what happened. At this point it's defending the indefensible to say otherwise.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Like what?" You mentioned that someone was married to someone else. That's my thought. I've seen stuff like that get deleted. Otherwise, I saw nothing wrong with it, myself.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You mentioned that someone was married to someone else. That's my thought. I've seen stuff like that get deleted. Otherwise, I saw nothing wrong with it, myself." That wouldn't be it. Heck, if memory serves they met online here and eventually announced their marriage on the site. I'm guessing he didn't read it closely enough and requested a deletion.
