McClellan blames Bush for CIA leak deceit

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
They are guilty of covering their own asses? You call it indefensible, but everyone does it.

NO! "Everyone does it" is not an excuse for ANYONE doing it, and unlike the Bushwhackos, everyone does NOT commit TREASON by disclosing highly classified informatation, such as the identity of a covert CIA operative. Lying and "covering their asses" is conspiracy further to their TREASON. Furthermore, their lies to cover up that felony comprises a conspiracy to obstruct justice, and lying to Federal investigators and/or Congress about it comprises further felonies, even if their statements were not under oath.

What a great "law and order" "conservative" writes off such gross criminality by the President of the United States and the rest of his administration as "NOTHING more than partisanship?" :roll:

Screaming traitor in chief and beating our chests for how horrible it is, is a mockery.

Not when it's the truth. The only mockery, here, is the mockery of justice by your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal... and YOU! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[Lemon law]

Well one thing for sure, when McClennen dies at some future unknown date, he is likely to find himself barred from GOP heaven. He sold his soul for the sake a few lousy book sales. No beam Scotty up Scotty for you, thou hast violated the 11'th commandment. And in terms of bearing false witness, telling the truth now is at best an admission that you lied before. And the fact that you tell the truth or retain any principles means you go off to the group W defrocked Republican bench and stand with the likes of O'Neil, Ashcroft, and Colin Powell until judgment day.

That or 11/4/2008, whichever comes first.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your question whether to be 'guilty without guilt' is the wrong question for limiting the issue to criminal guilt - the question is whether they're guilg of doing wrong, not just of a crime.

The answer to that is clear, but your partisanship blinds you to the obvious yet again, so you are hear defending the indefensible, again.

They are guilty of covering their own asses?

You minimize it to the point of misrepresenation; it's like saying all OJ Simpson did was to 'confront' his wife. People do that every day!

CYA is not ok to begin with when it involves misleading a nation into war - but it'd typically be hiding information. This was exposing an innocent wife of a man who told the truth.

And not only did it ruin her situation, it was a blow to the CIA and the people she has recruited in the past. It was a blow to the counter-proliferation efforts - for CYA.

You call it indefensible, but everyone does it.

That's a lie - see the OJ analogy above.

I understand it is red meat for you to chew on, just as Republicans chewed on Bill Clinton, but that makes this whole thing appear to be NOTHING more than partisanship.

No, your misrepresentation and minimizing makes your post appear to be nothing but partisanship.[/quote]

Screaming traitor in chief and beating our chests for how horrible it is, is a mockery.

Defending this for your ideological reasons is the mockery of legitimate political discussion.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Fern-

Well, the "leak" in question is Armitage's. You can't leak something but once.

That's not true at all, and therein lies the basic deception in the whole rightwing representation.

None of the Whitehouse conspirators were aware of Armitage's earlier indiscretion, and Novak needed confirmation before he could blow Plame's cover...

The argument is fallacious, in the extreme. If, for example, a nazi sympathizer had informed the Kreigsmarine of the departure time and date of a convoy leaving Halifax, it'd still be espionage, even if the nazis had already obtained the information via a different source... independent confirmation lends credibility to any source of intelligence.

It seems clear that the efforts of Libby and others to discredit Wilson as they outed Plame were quite intentional, and that the after the fact revelation wrt Armitage an extremely convenient scapegoat. No credible source has ever claimed that Libby et al knew that Plame's status was already known to Novak when they set out to reveal it themselves... The fact that somebody else accidentally beat them to the punch in no way lets them off the hook...

Without their confirmation and filling in of the details, Novak's story never would have been published- Novak acknowledges that himself.

And it was smart of the Bush Clan to keep Scotty in the dark- he was a lot more convincing when repeating what he thought was the truth than he would have been when lying willfully...

 

[shadow9d9]

It is upsetting to hear people thinking its ok for their politicians to lie because others lie. Pathetic.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
They are guilty of covering their own asses? You call it indefensible, but everyone does it.

NO! "Everyone does it" is not an excuse for ANYONE doing it, and unlike the Bushwhackos, everyone does NOT commit TREASON by disclosing highly classified informatation, such as the identity of a covert CIA operative.

They didn't do that.

This is classic bait and switch. You want to convict them on something you cannot convict them of because they didn't do it. Instead what they did do was, like all stories, spin PR. McClellan claims they are guilty of "deceit" and not of "disclosing highly classified information".

That's not good enough for a hardcore zealot though, you want blood and you'll take it anyway you can get it.

 

[HomerJS]

Anyone notice Fox News shows not talking about this? Probably didn't get talking points yet.