Maybe not, but it seems as if Scott McClellan busted President Bush, Cheney, and others for lying about the CIA leak of Valerie Plame in his new book. Thoughts?

Quote :

"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21903753/"

11/21/2007 12:46:54 PM

Conservatives will say: He's just trying to sell books.

Liberals will say: Told ya so.

11/21/2007 12:48:31 PM

Politicians lie to cover up their shady deeds?


SHOCKING!

11/21/2007 12:54:33 PM

Some people will piss and moan and write about this in their blogs, but beyond that no one will say anything. The MSM will not devote any coverage to it, and even if the average American was to find out, they'd simply change the channel back to American Idol. Either way, the net result is nill action.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 1:07 PM. Reason : grammar]

11/21/2007 1:06:22 PM

But Bill Clinton lied about getting a blowjob in the oval office!!!!!!

11/21/2007 1:08:26 PM

^^ That's how I see this playing out.

11/21/2007 1:10:13 PM

McClellan always struck me as someone who was genuinely uncomfortable spewing the bullshit that he said day in and day out. He was often caught in lies and coverups, and it was obvious that he was not comfortable keeping up his stories, and did not have the capacity to gracefully do so.

Tony Snow, on the other hand..... he was a master at taking legitimate questions and making the questioner look and feel like an idiot for asking them.

11/21/2007 1:11:06 PM

Quote :

"The MSM will not devote any coverage to it, and even if the average American was to find out, they'd simply change the channel back to American Idol. Either way, the net result is nill action."

Unless McCellan would or could use any knowledge he has to testify that any of the people implicated but never charged lied under oath. I'm not sure if they did or not - as i recall, Bush and Cheney almost certainly avoided going under oath while answering questions regarding this, but i don't know about Rove or Card. Of course, well all know Bush and Cheney lied to the public in press conferences, but since just "talking to the people" is not under oath, those lies are probably not legally punishable.

11/21/2007 1:15:42 PM

Quote :

"those lies are probably not legally punishable"

And why should they be? We shouldn't hold our president to any higher standard when he speaks in public. Public speaking is tough man. And besides, outing Plame was in the best interests of security from terrorism for our nation...right?

11/21/2007 1:24:51 PM

Politicians lie to cover up their shady deeds?


SHOCKING!

11/21/2007 1:27:31 PM

do you have a point?

11/21/2007 1:36:08 PM

I thought our leaders in DC were superheros who work hard everyday to protect our freedom and making our country a super awesome place.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 1:57 PM. Reason : a]

11/21/2007 1:57:30 PM

This would be an impeachable offense if there was a Democrat in the White House. Thank our unrepresentative Senate for letting the White House be totally unaccountable for anything.

11/21/2007 2:20:13 PM

right, because lying to your press secretary is exactly the same as lying under oath in a deposition...

11/21/2007 2:26:05 PM

Don't short change the crime. He didn't just lie to his press secretary, HE HAD A ROLE IN THE OUTING OF A CIA AGENT.

11/21/2007 2:28:28 PM

Uhhh, no.

I'm pretty sure that 2 year special investigation turned up exactly nothing except for Scooter Libby lying under oath.

11/21/2007 2:33:33 PM

Yea, so why the calls for a new investigation

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Scott_McClellan_Bush_involved_in_Plame_1121.html

11/21/2007 2:36:16 PM

ummm...rabble rousing? Politics? Attention whoring by Dodd?

Who knows. Who cares.

11/21/2007 2:40:57 PM

Thats a sign of the decline in democracy if we argue against keeping our leaders accountable

11/21/2007 2:45:46 PM

money corrupts... and you have to be rich to run for office.

11/21/2007 2:56:04 PM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure that 2 year special investigation turned up exactly nothing except for Scooter Libby lying under oath. "

That's not too surprising if the most powerful man in the world and his friends are advisors are lying about something. If they wanted to cover it up, they can. McClellan could be lying, but if he's not, i'm sure it's not something Bush expected.

11/21/2007 3:01:39 PM

Quote :

"right, because lying to your press secretary is exactly the same as lying under oath in a deposition... "

Bush has not only lied to his press secretary, but he has lied directly to the American People. He has stood in front of a camera, addressed his "fellow American's", and lied to them.

Now i fully understand that this it not technically illegal, at least not in the same sense that lying while under oath in deposition is. But this begs the question..... why not? When addressing the country, the people who voted you in office, is it not as important to tell the truth as when speaking before a court of a committee? If a President really wanted us to trust him, shouldn't he be willing to take an oath before every time he gets on camera? Why should the burden of telling the truth be artificially inflated depending on who the audience is? I do understand that the President is privy to information that sometimes/often cannot be shared outside of closed-door or confidential meetings. that's fine. But why is it acceptable for him to spout blatant lies to people, simply because he isn't "under oath"?

11/21/2007 4:35:17 PM

b-b-b-b-but Clinton!!!

*sputter*

*froth*

11/21/2007 7:57:51 PM

^cute

The difference is clinton lied under oath, which is illegal. I could care less who blows him, and I disagree with there being an investigation into it, but there was... and he lied under oath.

I dunno about this latest bush thing, but it does concern me that a little blurb gets leaked out of a book that someone is trying to make money over.

11/21/2007 8:11:11 PM

an excerpt from someone's book... seriously? this isn't huge or breaking anything. i'll give this excerpt about as much credibility as someone with the name "IMStoned420" until i see something solid to back it up. it takes more than just a book, kid.

11/21/2007 9:55:40 PM

Quote :

"Conservatives will say: He's just trying to sell books."

Quote :

"I dunno about this latest bush thing, but it does concern me that a little blurb gets leaked out of a book that someone is trying to make money over."

Told ya.

11/21/2007 10:26:29 PM

Its a little more than just a chapter in a book. This isn't a memoir of JFK, forty odd years after his death. This is a sitting president. And that has consequences on the Hill.

11/21/2007 10:50:39 PM

Quote :

" an excerpt from someone's book... seriously? "

you do realize that the "someone" happened to be the sitting White House Press Secretary at the time of this event..... right? It's not just some random Joe off the street. I would say this guy has as much first hand knowledge as you're going to get from anyone who's been in the White House for the past few years.

11/21/2007 11:29:32 PM

Quote :

"Conservatives will say: He's just trying to sell books. Liberals will say: Told ya so."

11/21/2007 11:37:22 PM

Quote :

"I dunno about this latest bush thing, but it does concern me that a little blurb gets leaked out of a book that someone is trying to make money over. "

So are you not concerned about the president and his staff potentially blatantly lying to the people? Or even refusing to testify under oath at all (I guess he learned something from Clinton...)?

11/22/2007 12:01:36 AM

I agree with ^


If this wasn't during Thanksgiving and the Congress was in regular session, it would be everywhere

The Senate is being kept in a special session so the President can't make recess appointments while the Senate is away (no more sneaking in the John Boltons while congress is recessed)

[Edited on November 22, 2007 at 12:21 AM. Reason : .]

11/22/2007 12:15:19 AM

Quote :

"you do realize that the "someone" happened to be the sitting White House Press Secretary at the time of this event..... right? It's not just some random Joe off the street. I would say this guy has as much first hand knowledge as you're going to get from anyone who's been in the White House for the past few years."

does anyone here trust anyone from the white house? lol

11/22/2007 12:58:16 AM

^ i guess it depends on your agenda. most of us don't trust much of what Bush and Co. say, so when something like this comes out that backs up ideas that we've had for a while anyway, we're inclined to believe it.

You, on the other hand, probably think that Bush and Cheney "never tell a lie", so if something comes out that that diss's them, you'll refute it.

11/22/2007 8:51:46 AM

I don't believe that any politician, regardless of political party, is either honest or possesses altruistic intentions.

11/22/2007 9:35:24 AM

Seems like Scott is back tracking some.

The president's role, however, has never been clear. And despite the book's provocative excerpt, it still isn't. Today McClellan is still standing by what he told CNN earlier this year, that the president was as much a victim as he was. He told Larry King, quote, "I said what I believed to be true at the time. It was also what the president believed to be true at the time based on assurances that we were both given."


My prediction, liberals will still hold onto an excerpt from an unreleased book and not let go, dispite the fact the "writer" has refuted the excerpt. LOL

11/22/2007 11:58:14 AM

you know what's really clever and makes you sound smart and aloof of the whole situation at the same time? adding "lol" to the end of all your posts.

11/22/2007 12:24:00 PM

awe, thanks for noticing. Happy thanksgiving

11/22/2007 12:28:32 PM

the way a few things have been lately there aren't a lot of people i trust. i don't expect a politician to be totally honest.

my point is that i'm waiting for something solid before i start believing anything taken from one person's book.

agentlion, you're right, a lot of it has to do with agenda. you're clearly anti-bush/cheney. that's fine. personally i just want the truth, not assumptions and accusations.

11/22/2007 2:01:05 PM

seriously. you put a link to a webpage as a quote. seriously.

11/22/2007 4:57:48 PM

Yeah, with the buttons being right next to each other that's a completely unforgivable mistake that automatically makes me a dumbass for all of eternity...

11/23/2007 8:12:09 PM

Quote :

"ummm...rabble rousing?"

Scott?

11/23/2007 8:19:39 PM

and "Edit post" was too difficult to click?

And seriously, they aren't right beside each other. jeez.

[Edited on November 23, 2007 at 9:31 PM. Reason : ]

11/23/2007 9:31:07 PM

Yeah, I did edit it you moron. And... the two buttons for linking and quoting are right beside each other. Seriously.

11/23/2007 11:04:42 PM

Quote :

"I don't believe that any politician, regardless of political party, is either honest or possesses altruistic intentions. "

I think that there are a handful, but they are few and far between.

Barry Goldwater
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich (although I detest him)

maybe John McCain (I used to believe this about him...now I'm not sure)

maybe Joe Scarborough (didn't he resign his Congressional seat after a couple of terms because he'd been advocating term limits)?

11/25/2007 6:01:48 AM

1. Plame was not covert.

2. Many people in Washington knew this.

3. Richard Armitage admitted "leaking" Plame's name and reporter Robert Novak confirmed this. Armitage has since apologized--he obviously felt some need to do so.

Quote :

"Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage says he was foolish to have revealed the identity of a CIA employee. Armitage's acknowledgment Sunday came in response to comments by Valerie Plame, who said the former Bush administration official had no right to talk to a reporter about where she worked."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/12/national/main3486987.shtml

4. Neither Armitage nor anyone else was charged with "leaking" Plame's name because it was not a crime to do so.

5. The president can change a CIA agent's status at will.

6. Get over it.

11/26/2007 4:04:32 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

1. Plame was covert. (see above)

2. See 1.

3. He should be charged with any crimes he committed just like any other US citizen would be.

4. See 1 and any appropriate laws for releasing the identity of a covert agent.

5. Using this as a weapon would be foolish and any standing president that would do so for political gain should be charged with treason. Given this, I don't this Bush did this.

6. Real mature.

11/26/2007 7:25:57 AM

Quote :

"3. He should be charged with any crimes he committed just like any other US citizen would be."

B-B-B-But he apologized!

11/26/2007 7:49:54 AM

Armitage might have leaked the name, but the order came from Cheney. Libby then obstructed the investigation, actually got charged with that and then was set free by Bush. An entire administration of zero accountability.

11/26/2007 10:59:49 AM

^^^ From your link:

Quote :

"No one was ever charged with the leak of Plame's name itself, which would have been a crime only if someone knowingly gave our information about someone covered by a specific law protecting the identities of covert agents."

And the "Get over it" comment was addressing the fact that this issue has been dead for a while now.

^^ I only referenced Armitage's apology in relation to his admission of "leaking."

^ Prove that the order came from Cheney. Frankly, I don't believe it.

11/26/2007 11:31:32 AM

Your argument stated this:

Quote :

"1. Plame was not covert. 2. Many people in Washington knew this."

And this was blatantly wrong. They disclosed the name of a covert CIA agent. The devil is all in the details in this case. These people worked their way around the law so that they wouldn't get in trouble, this doesn't mean they didn't break the law, it means they outmaneuvered it.

11/26/2007 11:46:47 AM