View Full Version : McClellan: BUSH was the one who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame
Brainiac
11-17-2008, 11:29 PM
K3kSMvVRnk0
It's too bad Scott McClellan waited so long to announce this. In my mind this is an offense worthy of impeachment. Outing a CIA agent is treason, plain and simple. Being elected President doesn't make you above this law any more than it made Bill Clinton above the law against perjury.
Unfortunately, impeaching Bush this late in his term would be a waste of time.
Before anybody jumps in to say that Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent, you might want to take a look at this document (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf). It was provided by the CIA as evidence in Scooter Libby's trial, and it clearly states that Plame was a covert agent until her cover was blown. So, on one hand you've got the Bush apologists who always insist that she wasn't a covert CIA agent. On the other hand you've got the CIA saying that she was.
I'll go with the CIA on this one.
George Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents ever, but his defenders have always said that he's an honorable man.
Apparently he's not even that.
Believer4Him
11-18-2008, 10:21 AM
K3kSMvVRnk0
It's too bad Scott McClellan waited so long to announce this. In my mind this is an offense worthy of impeachment. Outing a CIA agent is treason, plain and simple. Being elected President doesn't make you above this law any more than it made Bill Clinton above the law against perjury.
Unfortunately, impeaching Bush this late in his term would be a waste of time.
Before anybody jumps in to say that Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent, you might want to take a look at this document (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf). It was provided by the CIA as evidence in Scooter Libby's trial, and it clearly states that Plame was a covert agent until her cover was blown. So, on one hand you've got the Bush apologists who always insist that she wasn't a covert CIA agent. On the other hand you've got the CIA saying that she was.
I'll go with the CIA on this one.
George Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents ever, but his defenders have always said that he's an honorable man.
Apparently he's not even that.
One man's word is not proof that President Bush leaked the information. This guy was on a book tour right? He had something to gain by making this claim. I will hold back judgment without some concrete evidence. BTW President Reagans approval rating wasn't so great when he was in office and now look at how he is viewed.
Maybe President Bush made some mistakes, however, he is human and all we can ask of our president that we elect is to do the best that they know how to do. To make choices they believe in with the best interest of the entire country at heart. He may not be perfect but I do believe that he did the best he knew how to do and always had pure motives.
twila
11-18-2008, 02:38 PM
This guy is a weasel, why should we believe him as opposed to anyone else? So far, I haven't seen very many people come to his defense but many contradicting him. I have no way to measure the credibility when he has written a book to disclose such things when he didn't open his mouth when it may have mattered legally.
Valerie Plame and her husband lost all credibility when they posed for a magazine cover with her driving her husband in their convertible both with big smiles on their faces. If she were all that concerned about the safety of herself and her family then why set yourself up further for possible danger. Considering that dumb move, I'm glad she is no longer a covert agent for the CIA if indeed she ever was because she obviously doesn't have any common sense. Oh, and they wrote a book too.
Anyone smell $ and fame as possible motives?
of course money is an huge issue. if you got burnt by the people you work for, and nobody is willing to admit that a mistake was made, wouldnt you want some measure of revenge??
twila
11-18-2008, 03:09 PM
That is, of course, only human nature. But, if I were spewing forth in speeches and a book my sense of morality as the real reason I would be contradicting that statement.
He was in a place, in time when he may have made the difference between life and death for his fellow countrymen and what many believe is a war based on lies. If he knew for a fact that it was then he is guilty too. If he were to give the proceeds from his book to the betterment of the vets and families of those lost and injured his credibility would be enhanced and I could be more forgiving.
Plimpton
11-18-2008, 11:28 PM
That is, of course, only human nature. But, if I were spewing forth in speeches and a book my sense of morality as the real reason I would be contradicting that statement.
He was in a place, in time when he may have made the difference between life and death for his fellow countrymen and what many believe is a war based on lies. If he knew for a fact that it was then he is guilty too. If he were to give the proceeds from his book to the betterment of the vets and families of those lost and injured his credibility would be enhanced and I could be more forgiving.
Wow. You have a strange view of politics. The Bush folks outed her as a CIA agent and very likely could have resulted in the deaths of other agents. It was all done because they didn't like her husband's report on the Iraq mess.
Bush will go down in history as the worst president ever.
twila
11-19-2008, 12:06 AM
Wow. You have a strange view of politics. The Bush folks outed her as a CIA agent and very likely could have resulted in the deaths of other agents. It was all done because they didn't like her husband's report on the Iraq mess.
Bush will go down in history as the worst president ever.
Politics is strange and corrupt on many levels. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to explain. Besides how do we really know who, in fact, did disclose her ID. There have been various reports as to who the guilty one is. Bob Novak, the reporter, was the first to report it and claims it did not come from the W.H., as I recall. He also said it was very well known all over Washington she worked at CIA. I've heard many different versions from a lot of people as to what actually happened so why believe this guy over anyone else. Are there other books written about this other than his and the Plames? And if she was worried about other agents why did she put herself out there front and center so people could put two and two together and figure out who the others were. Doesn't have anything to do with my view on politics - it's always a game of sorts anyway.
We will not know how Bush will eventually be judged; they said the same of Reagan but now he is right up at the top.
We don't know what really goes on anyway. Tenet said at breakfast when the planes were hitting the towers that he hoped it wasn't those guys from the mideast that were taking flying lessons. I think there is plenty more to come out - much we will not know for awhile.
You may feel I have a strange of politics and that's okay - I do not trust them, too much has happend and it saddens me.
its the shrubs administration. the buck stops with him. anything that was done by his people, he is directly responsible for.
Plimpton
11-19-2008, 09:48 AM
its the shrubs administration. the buck stops with him. anything that was done by his people, he is directly responsible for.
Yep. He can't blame ignorance although in his case that might be a good argument.:rolleyes:
Yep. He can't blame ignorance although in his case that might be a good argument.:rolleyes:
hell, we have known the man was ignorant for years, just watch him speak.
twila
11-19-2008, 10:52 AM
its the shrubs administration. the buck stops with him. anything that was done by his people, he is directly responsible for.
True only to the extent that we have a system of checks and balances. What about the responsibility of Congress.
Christopher
11-19-2008, 01:50 PM
I'm pretty sure the president has the ultimate authority on what's a secret and what isn't in our country. So, he couldn't be busted even if this media whore lady really was covert.
DrScreed
11-19-2008, 07:34 PM
Richard_Armitage
and this guy had Nothing to do with her outing...oh wait, yes he did. However, he skated...WOW Just WOW!
twila
11-19-2008, 10:41 PM
Richard_Armitage
and this guy had Nothing to do with her outing...oh wait, yes he did. However, he skated...WOW Just WOW!
That's correct, and the problem - lots of people knew!
Brainiac
11-20-2008, 10:26 AM
I'm pretty sure the president has the ultimate authority on what's a secret and what isn't in our country. So, he couldn't be busted even if this media whore lady really was covert.
That's true if the President is the king or an absolute dictator who rules by fiat. Is that how this country is supposed to work?
I'll be interested to see if you apply that same standard to President Obama.
twila
11-20-2008, 10:33 AM
I'm pretty sure the president has the ultimate authority on what's a secret and what isn't in our country. So, he couldn't be busted even if this media whore lady really was covert.
There are a bunch of agencies within the govt. having the power to label things Top Secret, etc. It's not all left up to the president. NPR website has a good description of how this all is suppose to work.
Beancounter
11-20-2008, 01:33 PM
I'm pretty sure the president has the ultimate authority on what's a secret and what isn't in our country.
I disagree. It's called plausible deniability.
Christopher
11-20-2008, 02:14 PM
I'll be interested to see if you apply that same standard to President Obama.
You'd be surprised. Remember, I did my military time under President Clinton... The president is the president. The mayor is the mayor. It's pretty much the same song with me whichever way the door swings.
I disagree. It's called plausible deniability.
This executive order http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html seems to make it pretty clear who has the authority to classify/declassify information in our government. It would be the executive branch, headed by the president.
Brainiac
11-20-2008, 09:38 PM
You'd be surprised. Remember, I did my military time under President Clinton... The president is the president. The mayor is the mayor. It's pretty much the same song with me whichever way the door swings.
This executive order http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html seems to make it pretty clear who has the authority to classify/declassify information in our government. It would be the executive branch, headed by the president.
If George W. Bush truly had the authority to declassify the information about Valerie Plame, then why hasn't he said "I DID IT"? He could have saved everybody a hell of a lot of time and trouble.
The fact that he did not make that announcement indicates either (1) he doesn't have that authority, or (2) he is a coward for letting his assistants take all of the heat for a decision he made.
(2) he is a coward for letting his assistants take all of the heat for a decision he made.
thats the money shot right there
Beancounter
11-20-2008, 10:42 PM
This executive order http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-11.html seems to make it pretty clear who has the authority to classify/declassify information in our government. It would be the executive branch, headed by the president.
I'm not disagreeing that he has the executive power necessary, I simply refuse to believe that he actually knows everything that's going on. I think there's a lot going on under the table that the Prez doesn't even know about in order to preserve his plausible deniability. There are those who "know" what needs to be done, and who know that POTUS can't be the one to do them. Maybe I've watched too many movies, but I don't believe that everything literally crosses his desk.
twila
11-20-2008, 10:48 PM
I agree and I also don't believe "everything" is always written in pen and ink so there can be no trail.
Christopher
11-21-2008, 11:57 AM
I'm not disagreeing that he has the executive power necessary, I simply refuse to believe that he actually knows everything that's going on. I think there's a lot going on under the table that the Prez doesn't even know about in order to preserve his plausible deniability. There are those who "know" what needs to be done, and who know that POTUS can't be the one to do them. Maybe I've watched too many movies, but I don't believe that everything literally crosses his desk.
Oh, I totally agree. This is one of the reasons that "Bush's fault" is so funny. I just find it preposterous to consider that Bush could be brought up on charges for leaking something, when the president is the one who determines what is confidential and what isn't. I'm also getting embarrassed for my fellow countrymen who just can't stop beating on Bush. It's over already, time to turn the corner.
http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/0/2008/11/20/175x131/Pelosi.jpg Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that House Democrats would not approve a bailout for the auto industry until they saw a viable plan for recovery.
:DSpeaking of beating the pols up, and I am not being partisan here because I am not a Republican nor Democrat, as of today, I'm a Whig, but......I was watching Nancy Pelosi yesterday and almost fell off my chair as she used various forms of the word "viable" (see above) so many times I was embarrassed for her. I get such a chuckle out of these people. They get hooked on a word and beat it to death (clearly). But seriously, clearly I think a loan to the big three men who fly around in Lear jets clearly would be viable if we can see some viable viability from them.
Beancounter
11-21-2008, 12:33 PM
I just find it preposterous to consider that Bush could be brought up on charges for leaking something, when the president is the one who determines what is confidential and what isn't.
Yes! And like Twila said, she wasn't exactly hiding, either. I remember when it was big news on 20/20 or the like. I find it unconvincing that it's such a big deal to be "leaked" only to say IT WAS ME, I GOT LEAKED, LOOK AT ME! If Bush was able to "leak" it in such an off-hand manner, I agree with whomever said earlier that McClellan's only motive to sensationalize it for book sales.
I'm also getting embarrassed for my fellow countrymen who just can't stop beating on Bush. It's over already, time to turn the corner.
Again, YES! Bush haters nationwide can now hang it up and revel in their blissfully ignorant choice for our new President. You got what you wanted, now bask in the glow. Just keep in mind that "we told you so" when it all slides.
twila
11-21-2008, 11:18 PM
You got what you wanted, now bask in the glow. Just keep in mind that "we told you so" when it all slides.
You mean the Clintons all over again? :rolleyes:
Beancounter
11-22-2008, 01:21 AM
You mean the Clintons all over again? :rolleyes:
Heathen! This is the CHANGE we've been waiting for!
Aaron
11-22-2008, 04:42 AM
Heathen! This is the CHANGE we've been waiting for!
No...WE are the change we've been waiting for! :rolleyes:
Brainiac
11-22-2008, 09:42 AM
Again, YES! Bush haters nationwide can now hang it up and revel in their blissfully ignorant choice for our new President. You got what you wanted, now bask in the glow. Just keep in mind that "we told you so" when it all slides.
Don't blame the "ignorant" people who voted for the opposition party. Blame Bush for making it impossible for a Republican to get elected in 2008.
Don't blame the "ignorant" people who voted for the opposition party. Blame Bush for making it impossible for a Republican to get elected in 2008.
i blame the people that were so blinded by ignorance that they refused to look at what was really happening.
twila
11-22-2008, 12:05 PM
What a treat, nobody has blamed Palin yet! :)
Jennifer
11-22-2008, 12:07 PM
i blame the people that were so blinded by ignorance that they refused to look at what was really happening. It's not necessarily ignorance, con artists are just really good at manipulation and making people believe anything.
twila
11-22-2008, 12:51 PM
It's beginning to look like a cult.
Christopher
11-22-2008, 01:58 PM
Don't blame the "ignorant" people who voted for the opposition party. Blame Bush for making it impossible for a Republican to get elected in 2008.
I don't think that the 52% popular vote that Obama got shows that it was impossible for a republican to win.
Beancounter
11-22-2008, 03:04 PM
It's beginning to look like a cult.
Beginning...??
"I don't have to worry anymore about putting gas in my car or food on the table, making my mortgage payment...it's just so wonderful! If I help him, he'll help me!" Remember that fool, more or less speaking for the 52% who voted for him?
It's not necessarily ignorance, con artists are just really good at manipulation and making people believe anything.
Even worse, I don't think he's a con artist, I think he actually believe his own bull.
DrScreed
11-22-2008, 06:09 PM
I don't think that the 52% popular vote that Obama got shows that it was impossible for a republican to win.
We only needed a Republican to run on top of the ticket and I think it would have happened!
twila
11-22-2008, 10:49 PM
Beginning...??
Even worse, I don't think he's a con artist, I think he actually believe his own bull.
How about "both" - all politicians are "con artists" to some degree otherwise they could never get crossover votes. Yes, he believes his own "bull", only he calls it "change".
He will have to compromise.
Brainiac
11-22-2008, 11:01 PM
I don't think that the 52% popular vote that Obama got shows that it was impossible for a republican to win.
OK, maybe I should have said blame Bush for making it possible for someone so inexperienced and unqualified to win the election. If voters hadn't been so pissed off, Obama would never have had a chance.
Jennifer
11-22-2008, 11:36 PM
OK, maybe I should have said blame Bush for making it possible for someone so inexperienced and unqualified to win the election. If voters hadn't been so pissed off, Obama would never have had a chance.
No, if voters weren't so in awe of "making history" and having the first black president he wouldn't have had a chance. On a side note, this is the first time I've ever had somebody knock on my door trying to get votes at 6:00 on election night and guess who they were supporting. . .. .
Aaron
11-23-2008, 08:57 AM
OK, maybe I should have said blame Bush for making it possible for someone so inexperienced and unqualified to win the election. If voters hadn't been so pissed off, Obama would never have had a chance.
No, if voters weren't so in awe of "making history" and having the first black president he wouldn't have had a chance. On a side note, this is the first time I've ever had somebody knock on my door trying to get votes at 6:00 on election night and guess who they were supporting. . .. .
Do you really honestly think that Bush and the current state of the Republican party had nothing to do with it? What planet have you been living on the past 8 years?
Jennifer
11-23-2008, 09:24 AM
Do you really honestly think that Bush and the current state of the Republican party had nothing to do with it? What planet have you been living on the past 8 years? Maybe it did but I still believe it was more the "we're making history" aspect that got him the votes. I can't tell you the number of people I've heard say this very thing. Even though they "didn't want Obama to win" they still got wrapped up in electing the first black president.
Do you really honestly think that Bush and the current state of the Republican party had nothing to do with it? What planet have you been living on the past 8 years?
oh the shrub and his administration had a part in it. at least 2/3 of the people that voted for change, did so because they were taking part in the historical election of the first partially black guy into the white house.
Aaron
11-23-2008, 09:37 AM
oh the shrub and his administration had a part in it. at least 2/3 of the people that voted for change, did so because they were taking part in the historical election of the first partially black guy into the white house.
Well if it weren't for Bush, McCain and the current state of the Republican party, the Republicans would have gotten a vote from me, and I know I'm not the only one they lost. But before you go thinking it...I didn't vote for Obama either.
Moderator
11-23-2008, 09:38 AM
Please folks, this thread is about a CIA agent being outed not about the election.
Back to topic please.
Brainiac
11-23-2008, 07:50 PM
Please folks, this thread is about a CIA agent being outed not about the election.
Back to topic please.
You're right. Instead of talking about the election, we should be talking about what a shame it is that W was never impeached for allowing a CIA agent to be outed on his watch by his administration. It is shameful.
DrScreed
11-23-2008, 07:53 PM
You're right. Instead of talking about the election, we should be talking about what a shame it is that W was never impeached for allowing a CIA agent to be outed on his watch by his administration. It is shameful.
Impeach a guy for what someone else did? Jeez! No one answered the fact that Armitage was the one that outed her not Libby! No matter, hell impeach him for that hurricane machine he has also!:mad:
Brainiac
11-23-2008, 08:04 PM
Impeach a guy for what someone else did? Jeez! No one answered the fact that Armitage was the one that outed her not Libby! No matter, hell impeach him for that hurricane machine he has also!:mad:
You're right. George Bush is no Harry Truman.
http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/bp6.jpg
DrScreed
11-23-2008, 08:05 PM
You're right. George Bush is no Harry Truman.
http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/bp6.jpg
Do you need me to move that, or can you stretch that far?
Brainiac
11-23-2008, 08:06 PM
Do you need me to move that, or can you stretch that far?
Sorry, I don't get your point.
Christopher
11-23-2008, 09:47 PM
Impeaching Bush for something that only a disgruntled underling says he did is nuts.
If you wanted to bring him up on dereliction of duty in regards to the security of our borders I'd stand with you.
Brainiac
11-23-2008, 09:58 PM
Impeaching Bush for something that only a disgruntled underling says he did is nuts.
I agree that as far as impeachment goes, the standard of proof would have to be a little higher than the word of Scott McClellan.
DrScreed
11-23-2008, 10:12 PM
You're right. Instead of talking about the election, we should be talking about what a shame it is that W was never impeached for allowing a CIA agent to be outed on his watch by his administration. It is shameful.
So here it is ok to impeach Bush...but
I agree that as far as impeachment goes, the standard of proof would have to be a little higher than the word of Scott McClellan.
Here it is not...
twila
11-23-2008, 10:45 PM
Impeaching Bush for something that only a disgruntled underling says he did is nuts.
Especially when someone else admitted to it. As in "Armitage" to a reporter.
If you wanted to bring him up on dereliction of duty in regards to the security of our borders I'd stand with you.
Their here to stay - cheap labor! It's convenient. Not fair to the people of this country.
One more reason we can't take care of the people of this country. I'll say one thing though - the fast food restaurants and other businesses don't have any problem hiring them because many THEY WANT WORK and are not afraid to do it. Many of these jobs are not beneath them as they appear to be to our young people and those out of work needing money some kind of way to get them through.
Brainiac
11-23-2008, 11:47 PM
So here it is ok to impeach Bush...but
Here it is not...
The answer is obvious. Outing a CIA agent is treason, and treason is an impeachable offense. When I say it's a shame that Bush was never impeached, I am saying that I think he knew all about it and I wish a real investigation had taken place.
When I say the standard of proof would have to be higher than the word of Scott McClellan, I am simply saying that the smoking gun wasn't found.
Or, I could just say "Wadda ya want, consistency?" :)
twila
11-25-2008, 10:18 AM
When I say it's a shame that Bush was never impeached, I am saying that I think he knew all about it and I wish a real investigation had taken place.
Trouble is nobody believes there are "real" investigations in Washington any longer. These people are favous for "I don't recall" in answering questions among other non-anwsers. Real pros at it. CYA all over the place along with back room deals.
vBulletin® v3.8.3, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.