Washington Post: WH not responsible for Plame leak. - page 4

In an 9/1/06 editorial, the Washington Post admits that since the leaker was a WH critic, Richard Armitage, that: "It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush... Read More

  1. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from stevielynn
    I know that President Bush was hoping that this FARCE would end with the jury making the right decision. And I know he is hoping the appeal will work.

    This is so frustrating for me . . . . if any sane person looks at the facts in the case you can see that Mr. Libby was greatly wronged.

    It drives me crazy when I hear people talking about how he was found guilty of "outing" Valerie Plame . . . . .that wasn't even what the trial was about.

    The public may not care . . . because the public pays no attention to the facts of the case.

    And this is rallying conservatives . . . . I hear it every day. And from some who sat home during the election to teach the President and Republicans in Congress a lesson about straying from conservative principles.

    Maybe it will work to good in the end as you say Tim . . .but in the meantime, there is steam coming from my ears.

    steph
    Scooter will be just fine. At the moment, he's a 'martyr for the cause' and he is probably justly proud of that fact.

    And he will NOT suffer long term. He will be taken care of by those that understand that he is being wronged in the name of political calculation.

    In the end the correct facts DID come out: Wilson was a flagrant liar put up to his lies by the misuse of gov't by the position held by his wife.

    Wilson and Plame might also end up being liberal cause celebs, but they were also revealed for the liars and schemers that they are.

    It comes down to this: I believe in Karma and THAT is why this case doesn't bother me so much.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  2. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA

    In the end the correct facts DID come out: Wilson was a flagrant liar put up to his lies by the misuse of gov't by the position held by his wife.



    ~faith,
    Timothy.

    But this is the point I'm making . . . . . people do not understand the facts of this case.

    It is still "Libby outed Valerie" . . . . . .

    Ok, I'll go calm down now.

    steph
  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    Friday, March 16, 2007
    Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity
    Live Webcast of Hearing Begins at 10 a.m.
    Live video from the hearing room:

    http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1205
  4. by   Simplepleasures
    Just my two cents worth, Libby will be pardoned, because if he doesnt he will probably write a "tell all" book from prison and then all hell will break loose, plus I do think Karl Rove is on the HOT seat for this scandal and the Alberto Gonzales affair. I believe we are going to hear many more details in weeks to come.
  5. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    Just my two cents worth, Libby will be pardoned, because if he doesnt he will probably write a "tell all" book from prison and then all hell will break loose, plus I do think Karl Rove is on the HOT seat for this scandal and the Alberto Gonzales affair. I believe we are going to hear many more details in weeks to come.
    I've said this before, if the party labels had been reversed, the mainstream media would have jumped on the Plame/Wilson story as a classic case of government insider manipulation of an election. The story would have been as big as watergate and the evil villians would have been those scheming republicans: Plame and Wilson.

    The HERO would have been the democrat: Scooter Libby, who had the guts to blow the whistle on this classic case of government corruption.

    And the question would be this: what did President Bush know about the actions of his evil colleagues, Plame and Wilson, and when did he know it?

    As far as firing the US attorneys: Clinton fired them all and replaced them when he first came into office. Bush did NOT, because he wanted to present a new image of 'bipartisanship'. So, he fires a fraction of them, in year 7 of his term, instead of all of them, in year 1, and it's a scandal? Yeah, sure it is.

    Those attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. He doesn't NEED a reason to fire them. If I were in the administration, what I'd tell the Senators on Capital Hill wringing their hands with false piety is this: be GLAD YOU don't serve at the pleasure of the President, or this would be an issue of YOUR firing. . . stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 17, '07
  6. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Those attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. He doesn't NEED a reason to fire them. If I were in the administration, what I'd tell the Senators on Capital Hill wringing their hands with false piety is this: be GLAD YOU don't serve at the pleasure of the President, or this would be an issue of YOUR firing. . . stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Then you could say,"You serve at the pleasure of the Dictator,YOU"RE FIRED!"
  7. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ingelein
    Then you could say,"You serve at the pleasure of the Dictator,YOU"RE FIRED!"
    All of this is just diversion from the real news story of the day: violent crime is down 80% in Iraq since the surge began, and only 1/4th of the surge is in place.

    By all means, the Democrats HAVE to provide diversion from the fact that the war is turning around.

    As far as the attorneys go, Clinton fired all 93 in his first weeks in office. There IS NO story here unless you first explain why that was OK, but firing 7 of them in year 7 of Bush's Presidency is not OK. In other words, this whole story is a non-starter, and a load of hypocrisy. These are political appointments, and meant to be. That means, that politics govern the decision to remove them, and rightly so.

    From MY perspective, the REAL scandal is that 7 Democrat appointed U.S. attys were still in office in year 7 of a Republican Administration. . .

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 17, '07
  8. by   Sheri257
    Quote from bluesky
    Look the republicans spent millions of dollars and countless national resources trying to destroy the office of the president because he got a sexual favor and lied about it. Libby destroyed the career of a CIA operative putting countless other Americans at risk in a cool and calculating move to punish someone who opposed the current administration and then lied about it. I feel, they are not parallel situations. Now if Bush was pictured snorting some cocaine, then lied about it on TV, and then the democrats tried to impeach him for that reason alone, now that would be a decent parallel.

    The democrats would have had a far more substancial argument for impeaching Bush due to his scandalous pre- Iraq lies. Yet they didn't.
    I have to agree. To be blunt ... what do I care more about? BJ's in the WH or breaches of national security while we're at war? I think national security is much more important.

    BJ's and sex scandals are fun and entertaining but, ultimately I don't care if the President is getting laid with whomever as long as he's doing his job.

    It's funny but, Clinton's approval ratings rarely dropped below 60 percent even during the sex scandals. Apparently most of the voters didn't care much either.

    Probably because Clinton was a philanderer long before he was elected. All of that stuff was aired out with the Flowers bimbo during Clinton's first presidential campaign. The voters already knew well in advance that was the deal when they voted for him.

    This scandal is entirely different. The Republicans got elected because of national security. The voters thought they were getting an administration that would protect them. Instead, they compromise a CIA agent's identity? No wonder we still haven't caught Bin Laden. It's unbelieveable.

    :typing
    Last edit by Sheri257 on Mar 17, '07
  9. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from lizz
    I have to agree. To be blunt ... what do I care more about? BJ's in the WH or breaches of national security while we're at war? I think national security is much more important.

    BJ's and sex scandals are fun and entertaining but, ultimately I don't care if the President is getting laid with whomever as long as he's doing his job.

    It's funny but, Clinton's approval ratings rarely dropped below 60 percent even during the sex scandals. Apparently most of the voters didn't care much either.

    Probably because Clinton was a philanderer long before he was elected. All of that stuff was aired out with the Flowers bimbo during Clinton's first presidential campaign. The voters already knew well in advance that was the deal when they voted for him.

    This scandal is entirely different. The Republicans got elected because of national security. The voters thought they were getting an administration that would protect them. Instead, they compromise a CIA agent's identity? No wonder we still haven't caught Bin Laden. It's unbelieveable.

    :typing
    So, what you are saying is that Sandy Burger shoving highly classified National Security documents from the National Archives in his socks to hide Clinton's involvement in 9/11 should be front page news?

    It's amazing to me how the degree of 'scandal' so closely corresponds to the degree of bias.

    btw, if you want to compare President Clinton's 'approval' ratings with President Bush's, look at the only 'approval ratings' that count: President Bush won re-election by a higher percentage of votes, and by a much higher actual number of votes.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 17, '07
  10. by   Sheri257
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    So, what you are saying is that Sandy Burger shoving highly classified National Security documents from the National Archives in his socks to hide Clinton's involvement in 9/11 should be front page news?

    It's amazing to me how the degree of 'scandal' so closely corresponds to the degree of bias.

    btw, if you want to compare President Clinton's 'approval' ratings with President Bush's, look at the only 'approval ratings' that count: President Bush won re-election by a higher percentage of votes, and by a much higher actual number of votes.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    No, that's not what I'm saying. Of course, that's the right wing version of the Berger case but as you probably know, at least some of those claims are in dispute. According to the Wall Street Journal (not exactly a democratic publication) none of the original records were destroyed and they still exist today.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger

    Look at the approval ratings that count? Ok, let's take a look.

    You're not taking into account the fact that there are more people who vote with each election. For example, at least 25 million more people voted in the presidential election of 2004 than the number of people who voted in 1996.

    By this same logic, Kerry could be more popular than Bush since he got 59 million votes in 2004 versus Bush only getting 50 million votes in 2000. But since more people voted in 2004 than 2000, obviously that's not a fair comparision ... not to mention the fact that Bush beat Kerry in 2004.

    The bottom line is: how many votes did one guy get over the other guy in that particular election. Let's compare:

    First Presidential Campaigns: Clinton vs. Bush Jr.

    In 1992 Clinton beat Bush Sr. by 5 million votes, even though Ross Perot got nearly 20 million votes in that election.

    In 2000 Bush Jr. didn't win the popular vote at all ...

    Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush Jr. did ... even with Ralph Nadar getting 3 million votes in that election which, most people acknowledge, hurt Gore more than Bush.

    Presidential Re-Election Campaigns: Clinton vs. Bush Jr.

    In 1996, even with Ross Perot getting 8 million votes in that election .... Clinton still beat Dole by 8 million votes.

    While Bush only beat Kerry by 3 million votes in 2004.

    So ... I wouldn't say that Bush is doing that well by comparision, even with the number of votes that do count. Clinton is ahead of Bush by 5 million votes in both their first and second presidential elections.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

    :typing
    Last edit by Sheri257 on Mar 17, '07
  11. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    ... stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    You are truly a Texan! :roll :

    Americans 3-to-1 Against a Libby Pardon
    Bush approval rating holds steady

    http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26893
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    You are truly a Texan! :roll :

    Americans 3-to-1 Against a Libby Pardon
    Bush approval rating holds steady

    http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26893
    Come on. Do you now how many people gallup had to call before they could find anybody that even knew who Libby is? Most likely, the didn't bother and the poll came down to some variation that was interpreted my most people as, "should the President pardon some criminal I never heard of." And so, your results are not surprising.

    This is the 'inside' game. Nobody not acutely interested in politics cares. And nobody acutely interested in politics are going to be swayed by pseudo-scandals. Most of the people that pay attn have at least half a brain. That cuts both ways.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Mar 17, '07
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    I'll put that in my smoke and pipe it!

close