[magprob]

Not wiser than anyone. I just don't believe a word they say. I know the Bush family are crooks. Law and accountability does not apply to the super rich and their puppets.

[Ash123]

Indeed... and it doesn't stop there... cheney walks free in a year. All the rest have slowly left town before the law arrives (rummy, rove, wolfowitz... etc)

[magprob]

No one has left town. They are all the same. The elections are bought and paid for. The elite will not allow a "Real President" that would stop their crimes against humanity. They have lived in complete opulence on the backs of us all for too long. They are very used to it and refuse to give it up.

[tomder55]

news flash (no one tell Wexler please ) ........Richard Armitage leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the press.

Bob Novak picks apart Scotty's charges about Rove and Libby

RealClearPolitics - Articles - McClellan on Plame

[Ash123]

It's all political comedy.

Novak? Come on. We all know he is a silly desperate man.

As for lying - here is transcript of Novak getting caught lying on Fox News:
John Amato: Novak Caught Lying about Murray Waas - Politics on The Huffington Post

If Novak was not literally in bed with the Bush Admin. And part of their own spin cycle, his one page talking point rebuttal would have more weight.

The funny thing is he literally chats with Karl Rove (mr. fox news talking points) and quotes him in his one pager:

"....Rove told me last week he never said that to McClellan..."

HA. I wonder what Cheney told him? :-)

[tomder55]

The reason the Novak story is relevant is because it was his column that first named Plame. All the facts he presents have been confirmed .

[magprob]

These days, it's not that the facts have been confirmed... it's "whom" has confirmed those facts.

[tomder55]

Novak is not a Bush-bot. In fact he has publicly opposed most of the Bush foreign policy. Also note that Richard Armitage ;who also was opposed to the Iraq initiative ;was the admitted leaker of Valerie Plame. Further ;everyone ,and especially Prosecutor Patrick Fitgerald knew Armitage was the leaker BEFORE he begans his witch-hunt.

[Ash123]

Novak is a credible nullification of McClellan
Because it's "his" column (and 'his" leak). Really?


So, Scott McClellan doesn't count now? Even though Novak has stated that he "confirmed" the leak with Rove...And McClellan would have the same, in fact better, access to Rove and Bush. Who KNEW of the leak.

Novak already made a fool of himself n public many times on credibility issues and in this chestnut on Meet the Press on July 16, 2007 - an awkward interview marked with such quotes to Tim Russert as: "That was a misstatement on my part. I -- I'm -- I've found I'm much better -- I hope I'm not screwing up on this interview... "

Libby has already been charged because Patrick Fitzgerald was... crazy? Armitage and Novak can join in too. They should.

Still, Scott McClellan's charges still make sense. It takes bravery to walk away, but the truth does not reside with Novak, Bush or this administration.

One can still be a conservative without falling on their sword or drinking the Kool-Aid for this bunch.

[tomder55]

And McClellan would have the same, in fact better, access to Rove and Bush. Who KNEW of the leak.


Libby has already been charged because Patrick Fitzgerald was... crazy? Armitage is yet another to out Plame, let's toss him in there too. But Scott McClellan's charges still make sense.

Again not the facts .
1st ,McClellan knew what the administration wanted him to know. He was not in the inner circle.
2nd , Armitage inadvertently disclosed the information about Plame while speaking about the Wilson trip to Niger .He was not "out to get Plame"
3rd Libby made some minor lies to the Prosecutor and was charged and convicted of them .

I am a critic of this administration where it is justified . Want to talk to me about not vetoing any Republican spending bill in 6 years you'll get an ear full from me. Want to talk to me about expanding entitlements . I'm in the opposition to this administration... same with border security and a number of other issues.

This McClellan book is just as reguritation of Democrat talking points. Even McClellan admits that he had no intention of being so harsh on the administation but his publishers had a hand it writing the book .

[Ash123]

1st - If your Press secretary is not in the inner circle that says a lot. Who gets the truth if not him?
2nd - Armitage did speak of it inadvertently. But what happened after is pure manipulation. Do you think that Rove did not know the implications of confirming the leak to Novak?
3rd -"minor lies" Hmmm. I like that one... It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

I am not drinking from the same vessel. And it saddens me how they take loyal folks like you down with them.

Whether it's Yellow Cake or Mission Accomplished or WMD's or pre-war budget manipulations or day to day propaganda, it has gone too far to be called justifiable errors.
The American people, and you, need not defend this madness as people, such as McClellan and others, clear their conscience. The White House and the conservative press corps make it their job to discredit all naysayers. Fortunately, some fight on. And slowly the truth comes out.

If no one spoke out after leaving the White House would that be preferable?

Imagine if all were silent... like robots... It would be chilling. So, when Novak quickly tries to discredit someone on "his" issue, I ask, does he speak for me? And I think his credibility has passed on this matter.

[tomder55]

Press secretaries are not that big a deal .They come and go and clearly are NOT in the Inner Circle of any administration. Also if he was critical of the administration and the President over policy he should've resigned .

[Ash123]

I would say that we both know a Press Secretary's job is to trot out there and spin and duck. Some are better than others. He was the messenger rather than the originator, but amid his tenure he is clearly privy to info that many are not.

(It's the White House's job, incidentally to discredit all that challenge them)

Mc's only mistake or conundrum was one of loyalty, which is common in both politics and the military. One must ask themselves when should I challenge my rank, my role, my superior if I feel something is not right? What is the perfect time? There never is.

Colin Powell faced the same cognitive dissonance. His later criticisms have also been tempered by incidents of his complicitness.

At no time (McClellan) would his resignation have benefitted a public quest for the truth. He would simply have just been labeled a malcontent, an incompetent, an opportunist. You cannot win. I applaud him for allowing himself to be pilloried now.

What White House naysayer do you agree with?

[NeedKarma]

[Ash123]

The white house memo appears to be: "puzzling, shocked, puzzling, puzzling, doesn't add up..."

AHEM.

The truth is always hard to kill. Isn't it.

[tomder55]

What White House naysayer do you agree with?

I made it clear that there are a myriad of issues I disagree with the President about or about his performance.

I have generally do not read the books of the outgoing advisers . They are usually too selfserving to be of any real use .Bob Woodward gained unprecedented access to the White House and I think his books on the Presidency are generally fair. If I was going to read McClellan's book then I would feel compelled to also read Ari Fleischer's book Taking Heat: The President, the Press, and My Years in the White House I don't suppose you've read that have you ?
Nor do I suppose that you agree with Dough Feith in his new book about the Iraq war even though he does have some issues with the planning and execution of the war.

[Ash123]

Ok, well good to hear you agree with Woodward.

I think he showed that this White House is big government at it's most dangerous: A big stick and a self-induced moral imperative to use it.

Feith? I'm well aware of that epistle.

The Pentagon's #3 has lots to say... including this when he was in office:

"OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Unfortunately, that was not the case...

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration.

His inside view, no matter how jaundiced, may be is worth sharing, but he shares the same problem that I see with all those who are falling on their sword for the party.

It's not really their fault, but at the time it was politically expedient, and is that mentality that makes this all so irksome.

He seems to blame everyone - and yet like all those involved cannot see the fundamental issue but wants to just reinforce what they hope and think to be true.

Bonus: Karen Kwiatkowski, who was a Desk Officer in Feith's Policy organization, spoke of Feith as follows:

"He seeks information that confirms what he already thinks. And he may go to jail for leaking classified information to The Weekly Standard."

Gen. Tommy Franks called him "the dumbest [bad word] guy on the planet." (that is a little rude, but I like Tommy and he did all he could for the White House...)

As for Woodward, whom we can call "Fair" there was no doubt in his mind (or his book) that the White House was trying to build the case for the Iraq war at all costs - despite disagreement from Powell and others.....And calls Cheney a "steamrolling force" in the effort to get the American people to buy off on a needless war.

I can provide quotes from the book if you wish.

The truth is that the White House screwed up BIG TIME....BIG TIME....and there is no two ways around it...This is an administration that has no credibility left.

The fact that a white house press secretary that was once one of theirs is now airing his opinions is but one small "wafer thin mint" in the bulbous body of overwhelming evidence of misdeeds and bad motives.

I DO agree with Feith that there are a lot of people to blame. Our President and Vice President are chief among them.

Let's hope we get better next time... whomever the party he represents.

[excon]

The fact that a white house press secretary that was once one of theirs is now airing his opinions is but one small "wafer thin mint" in the bulbous body of overwhelming evidence of misdeeds and bad motives.

Hello again,

Indeed!

excon

[tomder55]

Interesting you quoting the Weekly Standard. I bet that doesn't happen often.

Do you suppose now in retrospect Woodward would like to retract Bush at War ,or Plan of Attack ? Especially the part where he confirms George Tenet ;a Clintonoid holdover ,told the President the intel about Iraq was a "slam dunk" ? That Bush was planning on attacking Iraq months after 9-11 is of no concern to me. That Powell objected ? He certainly sounded convincing during his address to the UN about Saddam's WMD. Some more revisionist history for Powell when things did not go as planned ? I think so. General Franks did a good job running the war ;then he bolted when things began to go south. Why should I believe his account over Feith's ;especially when Feith is 100% accurate in his central critique of the post-invasion period ;when the big mistake was made,and Viceroy L Paul Bremer was installed.