Scott McClellan will testify in CIA leak case.

[Loyal Rogue]

Looks like McClellan is trying to scrub the crud from his soul since leaving the Bush administration.
First he comes clean in his book, and now he's going to do the unthinkable in the Bush crime family and actually testify against them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06...y4167264.shtml

Damn, looks like we have a new "Henry Hill" in America.
From some of the comments I've heard today, he better seriously consider going into a witness protection program...

I've always maintained that the Plame leak was the worst (legally) of the charges against the Bush administration.
Everything else up to and including lying us into war is covered under "High crimes and misdemeanors" and would only result in impeachment, but the deliberate leak of a NOC, covert CIA agent responsible for middle east WMDs in "wartime" can only be seen as treason and punishable by hanging under the current laws.
Of course, we all know that in the extreme the only outcome will be a bunch of pardons and no accountability or justice to speak of, but the drama should be interesting to watch.

I wonder how many more members of the Bush "family" are going to "find Jesus" in the next few months as the party comes to an end and the hangovers start looking eminent?

[gerbick]

Nothing's going to happen to anybody...

[FlashLackey]

I've always maintained that the Plame leak was the worst (legally) of the charges against the Bush administration.

I agree. It is a horrible charge to make. Especially since the charge turned out to be false.

Are you not aware that it has already been found that Richard Armitage is the one who passed on the Plame information and that it was not illegal or a purposeful "leak"?

This is nothing more than Democrats grand-standing a non-story in exchange for helping a guy sell more books.

Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, has acknowledged that he was the person whose conversation with a columnist in 2003 prompted a long, politically laden criminal investigation in what became known as the C.I.A. leak case, a lawyer involved in the case said on Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/wa...tage.html?_r=1

Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the source who revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in 2003, touching off a federal investigation, two sources familiar with Armitage's role tell CNN.

...

The revelation that Armitage was the source of Novak's column is somewhat anticlimactic for Bush administration critics who had used the story as a weapon in Washington's partisan battles.

During the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003, Armitage was viewed as one of the more skeptical voices in the administration about the need to depose Saddam Hussein by force.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...age/index.html

[Frets]

Bush approved the leak.
Libby said so in court fillings then retracted everything during the trial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/wa...=1&oref=slogin

In hearing testimony He changed his story hence the charge.

[Loyal Rogue]

Armitage is the only scapegoat in the Plame outing as much as Lindy England and Charles Graner were the architechs of the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo torture crimes.
If that was true they would have never let Libby get convicted and disbarred for covering up and obstructing.

There were 23 other people in the administration with known connections to leaking Plame's identity up to and including Dick Cheney and George Bush.

FBI documents obtained by a congressional committee indicate that Vice President Dick Cheney may have authorized his former deputy to leak the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.

In a June 3 letter sent to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Rep. Henry Waxman, Democratic chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called on the Justice Department to release transcripts of interviews that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald conducted with President George W. Bush and Cheney about the leak of Plame's identity.

Waxman said the Justice Department has turned over to his committee redacted transcripts of interviews that federal investigators conducted with former White House political adviser Karl Rove and Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

According to those transcripts, Libby told federal investigators that Cheney may have told him to leak Plame's association with the CIA to reporters, Waxman said in the letter to Mukasey.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=sec-politics

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,362482,00.html

Keep in mind that even if Armitage was an unwitting pawn that doesn't absolve any of the other deliberate plotters of treason in this case, and make no mistake, this is the very definition of treason no matter what kind of smokescreen they throw over the matter.

I'm sure you believe Rove was an innocent pawn as well?

Novak has never revealed the original source of the information about Plame. However, he has said that Rove confirmed the information and was the second source cited in the column.

The mountain of lies and deception the Bush administration piled on when this happened makes it impossible for any rational or reasonable person to believe that this was all a product of one person having an innocent and idle conversation.
I remember well all the press conferences and speeches given by Bush and his lackeys as they lied and claimed to have no knowledge on the matter even though we now know that this was discussed at the top levels from the beginning.

Scott McClellen interview "But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized."

I'm sure that a few people will be happy to accept the first convenient and expedient explanation that's thrown to the public, but in this, just like in all the other actions and crimes surrounding this administration, the truth is as messy as it gets and has more lies and layers than an onion.

[FlashLackey]

Bush approved the leak.
Libby said so in court fillings then retracted everything during the trial.

He declassified some information relevant to whether or not Iraq was trying to obtain uraniam. Not regarding Plame's CIA status.

However, the sections of the N.I.E. that Mr. Libby said he was freed to discuss make no mention of Valerie Plame, the C.I.A. officer who was exposed in the course of the arguments over the intelligence, prompting the leak investigation.

Armitage is the only scapegoat in the Plame outing as much as Lindy England and Charles Graner were the architechs of the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo torture crimes.

Yeah. Armitage, a guy who was critical of the Bush administration freely admits that he was the one who leaked Plame's information to Novak and detailed how it happened under oath. The whole thing is investigated by a guy willing to charge Libby for a crime because he couldn't remember the details surrounding an event that turned out not to be a crime at all, and you're convinced enough of the opposite outcome to call for executions.

Sorry man, this looks to me like another one of your 2% equals "most" situations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=sec-politics

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,362482,00.html

The only news from these links is that Henry Waxman is the leader of the Democrat three-ring circus on this subject.

The document in question has Libby saying that it's "possible" that he was told to leak this information. In other words, he couldn't remember everything everyone told him several years ago. It's typical witness-speak coached by lawyers that know their client is being looked at for perjury. The document was in the hands of Fitzgerald, Libby was questioned about it, etc. The only thing new about it is that Waxman just now read it.

Let me guess, Patrick Fitzgerald, who was once the Democrats knight in shining armor for charging Libby is now part of the grand plot to cover everything up that you just know in your heart is true!

The mountain of lies and deception the Bush administration piled on when this happened makes it impossible for any rational or reasonable person to believe that this was all a product of one person having an innocent and idle conversation.

It's just the opposite. By piling on the mountain of nonsense and suspicion, Democrats have effectively made the subject too complex for the average citizen to have time to go through. I'm certain that I've suffered more than one headache myself going through all of the frivolous tangents, inconsequential witnesses, speculation and conspiracy theories.

I remember well all the press conferences and speeches given by Bush and his lackeys as they lied and claimed to have no knowledge on the matter even though we now know that this was discussed at the top levels from the beginning.

They were talking about not knowing anything about a plot to leak Plame's status. Of course they were aware of Wilson's report and who was involved in it's genesis. That was simply a heavily debated topic at the time.

I'm sure that a few people will be happy to accept the first convenient and expedient explanation that's thrown to the public, but in this, just like in all the other actions and crimes surrounding this administration, the truth is as messy as it gets and has more lies and layers than an onion.

Convenient and expedient?

Those words couldn't be further from an accurate characterization of what happened. The investigation into the leak case has not been convenient. In fact, Fitzgerald discovered that Armitage leaked the info very early on in the investigation and delayed revealing that info for a long time, despite the hand-wringing of Democrats across the country. I guess it is kind of convenient for a laugh to imagine a bunch of people with malice on the brain, wetting their pants in anticipation of a scandal, only to find a pet rock under their pillow.

Perhaps you have a different idea of what an expedient investigation is. This one has covered years. But, I'm sure that some people will not accept any outcome except the one that they emotionally attached themselves to years ago.

[jAQUAN]

man one of you guys are wrong A LOT!

[Loyal Rogue]

Yeah. Armitage, a guy who was critical of the Bush administration freely admits that he was the one who leaked Plame's information to Novak and detailed how it happened under oath.

Ah, that's fantastic.
So if this is your standard for who to believe then I guess you will be treating as gospel the words and testimony of a guy who was a Bush loyalist like Scott McClellan if he has his "come to Jesus" moment and blows the whistle on the administration, right?

Sorry man, this looks to me like another one of your 2% equals "most" situations.

Sorry man, this looks another one of your distortions where you try to make an apple turn into an orange to support your position again.

As we both know from the thread you are referencing, the 2% you mention was referring to current owners of hybrid gasoline cars... apples.
My statement about "most" people had nothing to do with hybrids and only was about electric vehicles if they were made available and marketed the same as any other vehicle... oranges,... but why let the facts get into the way of your characterizations now when you're on a roll?

/tangent

It's just the opposite. By piling on the mountain of nonsense and suspicion, Democrats have effectively made the subject too complex for the average citizen to have time to go through.

All the revelations and questions arose by Bush and company not being able to keep their lies straight while talking to the press... not the democrats.
Also Libby is the one who got convicted because he was the one who was obstructing justice so much that the prosecutor said he was "throwing sand into the umpire's eyes"... not the democrats.
Bush and Cheney even refused to testify unless they weren't sworn to tell any truth, so please don't try to rewrite history and blame the nonsense and suspicion on the democrats when Bush and Cheney were the creators of it in the first place.

Convenient and expedient?

Those words couldn't be further from an accurate characterization of what happened. The investigation into the leak case has not been convenient.
...
Perhaps you have a different idea of what an expedient investigation is.

Sorry, my friend, can you please point out where I said the investigation was convenient and expedient?

Seems like another case of you trying to turn apples into oranges again.

I never said the investigation was either.
The investigation is still going on, and will be for a long time.
I just said that you were willing to accept the first convenient and expedient explanation and excuse to your cause at the expense of any and all other testimony and evidence to the contrary.

As I said, the truth in this matter has been so buried and obfuscated that it couldn't be any more messy or difficult to get to the bottom of.
I seriously doubt that either of us will ever know even 10% of what really happened behind those closed doors unless there is a whole wave of whistleblowers like McClellan, or those millions of illegally deleted emails and evidence are somehow recovered.

But, I'm sure that some people will not accept any outcome except the one that they emotionally attached themselves to years ago.

Ah yes, you mean just like some people who will completely ignore any and all evidence except for the one piece that they think validates their loyalty oath to Bush and party, and supports the only allowable explanation that they became emotionally invested in since voting for and blindly defending their man for years?
In that case, I agree with you.

man one of you guys are wrong A LOT!

LOL
Yeah it would seem so... but considering both FL and I approach every subject from polar opposites, the real truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Unfortunately since we're talking about crimes committed by the most secretive American government ever, one who's successfully destroyed most of the evidence that could be used against them, we may never know where exactly that middle is.

[FlashLackey]

So if this is your standard for who to believe then I guess you will be treating as gospel the words and testimony of a guy who was a Bush loyalist like Scott McClellan if he has his "come to Jesus" moment and blows the whistle on the administration, right?

Hah! Let's compare standards here. I take testimony taken under oath as substantial evidence. You are ready to call for executions with zero evidence contradicting that testimony. I find this ironic, given your concerns regarding torture, habeus corpus, etc.

I'm open to new developments in this case. If McClellan sheds some new light that changes what is currently known, it's possible that it could change my view of this. Considering that McClellan just published a book and has been doing the promotion circuit, I believe it is highly unlikely that he would have left any bombshells out of his book. What is in the book is relatively unremarkable in regard to the Plame case. I expect that this will be nothing more than Waxman adding another layer of speculation to cloud the issue, opening the door for the willing to still think "hmmm, something must be up!"

As we both know from the thread you are referencing, the 2% you mention was referring to current owners of hybrid gasoline cars... apples.
My statement about "most" people had nothing to do with hybrids and only was about electric vehicles if they were made available and marketed the same as any other vehicle... oranges,...

Apples and oranges? Sure. That is a mighty argument to deal with.

Your claim was that, if "allowed", "most" Americans would be "happy to buy a 100% electric vehicle." The evidence shows this claim to be way off the mark. Hybrids represent 2% of the current market. I believe that hybrid cars are more marketable than electric cars. The reasons are pretty obvious. But, let's entertain your claim and go with the idea that electric cars are so much more marketable than hybrids that they would have sold 1000% better. No, let's really err on the side of electric cars and say that they would have sold 2000% better if only GM wouldn't have discontinued the EV1. Even if you accept that absurd outcome, for which there is zero supporting evidence, electric car sales would still not represent "most" car sales today.

Also Libby is the one who got convicted because he was the one who was obstructing justice so much that the prosecutor said he was "throwing sand into the umpire's eyes"... not the democrats.

The point of the statement was that Fitzgerald has clearly demonstrated no substantial allegience to Republicans. He saw the document Waxman is doing cartwheels over months if not years ago. If you believe that the document reveals anything new, you have to also believe that Fitzgerald purposely ignored it. Again, zero evidence to suggest that he would do that and significant evidence that he would not.

Sorry, my friend, can you please point out where I said the investigation was convenient and expedient?

You said that the explaination that some are accepting was convenient and expedient. My interperetation of what you wrote was perfectly reasonable. However, I accept your revision.

LOL
Yeah it would seem so... but considering both FL and I approach every subject from polar opposites, the real truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

LR is just worked up because his lady makes him go to church and watch Fox News. He likes to take it out on me.