McClellan To Testify About Outing Of Valerie Plame.

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I'm amazed that Conyers now finds 'obstruction of justice' to be something 'worth looking in to'... He sure didn't feel that way in 1998.

This is nothing but a bitter partisan witch-hunt.

Its gets awful hard to morph a consensual blow job into obstruction of justice. GWB&co is an entirely different matter.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Bush and all of minions should be in prison including all thier supporters.

Sounds like something Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini would opine.

You're in grand company.

Actually, it's Bush who is in good company with those names, some of whom he's borrowed things from, even if he's been unable to duplicate their worst crimes.

(Sorry, Bush, you've only gotten a bit under 10% as many Iraqis killed as Hitler did Jews).

Of course, Bush has been able to do to the US the harms those figures never were able to.

None of those figures ever harmed the US's reputation the way Bush has.

 

[kage69]

Cold Steel - did that hurt? It had to hurt. Sure was painful to watch. I bet it hurt.

Just sit yourself in a bucket of ice for awhile, that'll fix ya right up... I mean, after you pass Harvey's boot and all...


CAD...*shakes head* Still don't wanna let go of those talk-radio retorts, eh? I hope someday you're able to process why it makes you sound so dishonest and detached.


As for the OP, I'm interested in seeing if McClellan's testimony but I think it will most likely confirm what we've already found out about these crooks and their contempt for our country and it's defenders. Probably won't make too much difference to the usual Noise Squad; if they can disregard and deride a former counter-terrorism czar, then a press secretary is small potatoes, no?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: kage69

Cold Steel - did that hurt? It had to hurt. Sure was painful to watch. I bet it hurt.

Cold Steel told me by PM that his "pink-boy" reference was supposed to be some kind of attack on my sexuality, not my ethnicity... like either one actually related to the point. He still has to deal with the other boot after questioning whether I really am an engineer, as if that relates to to the topic, either.

But yeah, I called him an ass licking Bushwhacko neocon sycophant. "Ass licking" is a crude but exact definition of the other word I used, "sycophant," but it isn't racist. I could as easily used "brown nosed." Guess I'd have to be sure to clarify that the color reference stopped beyond his nasal passages.

Frankly, with all the evidence on the public record about the admin's massive criminality, I can't see how anyone still defends them with a shred of honesty. The only ones I see still parroting the admin line are the criminals, themselves, and their sycophants.

As for the OP, I'm interested in seeing if McClellan's testimony but I think it will most likely confirm what we've already found out about these crooks and their contempt for our country and it's defenders.

It already has. The difference is, it's from the inside.

The bad news is, regardless of the merits of the case against them, it's physically too late to impeach them before the election. The best possible news that could come after the election is that the next adminstration will pursue appropriate criminal charges against all of the administration criminals. It's the only way we stand a chance of regaining any credibility for our system of Justice in the eyes of our own citizens and the world.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And again, Richard Armitage was the supposed "leak" so for you and others to try to claim others were "involved" with it means the supposed after affects is mainly just spin trying to get it to fit the narrative of Bush trying to "out" her.

You fail to take any responsibility for your dishonesty. As for your claim here, Rove leaked her to Matt Cooper, he was Novak's second confirming source when Novak asked him, and he told Chris Matthews that it was fine to discuss Plame. And his story to the investigators was so misleading that Fitzgerald had planned to file perjury charges at one point.

There is evidence that a group of people including Rove, Libby and Cheney, conspired.

Whatever it takes to fit your narrative...

How does Richard Armitage fit into this conspiracy? Coincidence? :roll:

Yes, Armitage was a coincidence, not part of the conspiracy, as I understand it.

And it's not 'whatever it takes to fit my narrative' - if you make an insinuation, back it up.

If you can challenge anything I said, do so.

If you are simply posting a lie and have nothing behind it but insinuation, you're doing fine.

Armitage was the leaker and "yes" it doesnt fit the narrative:

"Journalist Bob Woodward of The Washington Post revealed on November 15, 2005 that "a government official with no axe to grind" leaked to him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003. According to an April 2006 Vanity Fair article (published March 14, 2006), former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee said in an interview "that Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption," ....On September 7, 2006, Armitage admitted to being the source in the CIA leak"

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

Armitage in NY Times:

"Source of C.I.A. Leak Said to Admit Role "
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...ington/30armitage.html

Novak on McClellan:

"In Scott McClellan's purported tell-all memoir of his trials as President George W. Bush's press secretary, he virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of StateRichard Armitage's role leaking to me Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee. That fits the partisan Democratic version of the Plame affair, in keeping with the overall tenor of "What Happened."



http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/32497.html

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Armitage was the leaker and "yes" it doesnt fit the narrative:

"Journalist Bob Woodward of The Washington Post revealed on November 15, 2005 that "a government official with no axe to grind" leaked to him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003. According to an April 2006 Vanity Fair article (published March 14, 2006), former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee said in an interview "that Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption," ....On September 7, 2006, Armitage admitted to being the source in the CIA leak"

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

Armitage in NY Times:

"Source of C.I.A. Leak Said to Admit Role "
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...ington/30armitage.html

Novak on McClellan:

"In Scott McClellan's purported tell-all memoir of his trials as President George W. Bush's press secretary, he virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of StateRichard Armitage's role leaking to me Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee. That fits the partisan Democratic version of the Plame affair, in keeping with the overall tenor of "What Happened."

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/32497.html

Your post adds nothing to what I said. To repeat, Armitage was *a* leaker, and was a coincidence relative to the other leakers in the conpiracy.

It's natural that Novak would slant his comments to minimize the role of the conspirators, because they are his political allies.

You do not refute any word in my post. Again. Rove leaked to Matt Cooper, and was nearly indicted by the grand jury for perjury for covering it up at first.

Rove and Libby lied to McClellan about their role in the leaking. You can say, correctly, that Armitage was *a* leaker all you like, and it doesn't change that.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Armitage was the leaker and "yes" it doesnt fit the narrative:

"Journalist Bob Woodward of The Washington Post revealed on November 15, 2005 that "a government official with no axe to grind" leaked to him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003. According to an April 2006 Vanity Fair article (published March 14, 2006), former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee said in an interview "that Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption," ....On September 7, 2006, Armitage admitted to being the source in the CIA leak"

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

Armitage in NY Times:

"Source of C.I.A. Leak Said to Admit Role "
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...ington/30armitage.html

Novak on McClellan:

"In Scott McClellan's purported tell-all memoir of his trials as President George W. Bush's press secretary, he virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of StateRichard Armitage's role leaking to me Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee. That fits the partisan Democratic version of the Plame affair, in keeping with the overall tenor of "What Happened."

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/32497.html

Your post adds nothing to what I said. To repeat, Armitage was *a* leaker, and was a coincidence relative to the other leakers in the conpiracy.

It's natural that Novak would slant his comments to minimize the role of the conspirators, because they are his political allies.

You do not refute any word in my post. Again. Rove leaked to Matt Cooper, and was nearly indicted by the grand jury for perjury for covering it up at first.

Rove and Libby lied to McClellan about their role in the leaking. You can say, correctly, that Armitage was *a* leaker all you like, and it doesn't change that.

Your stubborn like a girl

 

[Cold Steel]

I would like to apologize to the forum at large if anyone construed my "pink-boy" comment to be racist or homophobic.

Harvey feels free to attack me, but I guess he feels it was "related" so it's OK.

And no, it didn't hurt at all. I don't feel he made any point whatsoever. You all need to read what's actually written, get off partisan high horses and don't make assumptions about other people's political beliefs. I know that's probably going to be very hard for some of you to do, because it means you'll have to stop being convinced of your own superiority that's based solely on what you think about politics. How can anyone who may possibly disagree with you be anywhere near as intelligent as you are. Typical.

 

[kage69]

Harvey's jab at you was over your inability to comprehend what has been spelled out for you - makes you sound like a kiss-ass apologist. Please note the connection there. Now, your homophobic slam on Harvey connects to what exactly, in this thread?
There's your answer, and why the two aren't the same.

And no, it didn't hurt at all. I don't feel he made any point whatsoever. You all need to read what's actually written, get off partisan high horses and don't make assumptions about other people's political beliefs. I know that's probably going to be very hard for some of you to do, because it means you'll have to stop being convinced of your own superiority that's based solely on what you think about politics. How can anyone who may possibly disagree with you be anywhere near as intelligent as you are. Typical.

Thank you for this incredibly amusing reply. I really enjoy seeing mouthy little blow-hards like you honk off only to get brutally stomped by facts and the historical time line. Wasn't really expecting someone of your mental acuity and maturity to acknowledge it, but you really out do yourself by trying to chastise others for the same behavior you've exhibited in this very thread.


The bolded portion is especially damning for you, because it shows you didn't even bother to peruse all the info thoughtfully provided - there is no superiority complex hiding there kid, that's all a matter of fact and doesn't involve what anyone else "thinks of politics."
Someone with 166 posts who debates like a petulent 3rd grader, dismissing others as "Typical." LOL, are you trying to make us laugh?


You're entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts. When you figure out the difference come on back and try again. Maybe then you'll be more in a reading mood and discover how to support your argument with something more than cherry-picked sources, insults, and faux indignation.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I don't care who leaked what.

Bush and all of minions should be in prison including all thier supporters.

In fact the number is so huge I recommend the end on the false war on drugs to make room to put all them in those prisons.

Isn't it amazing how outright falsehoods, through mindless media repetition, turn into political slogans that are just accepted as truth, and any argument against them is regarded as precisely what the slogan itself represents? Personally, I'm fascinated by it. I seem to remember a filmmaker in the 30's and 40's that was famous for this sort of thing.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Your stubborn like a girl

Any intelligent woman should and would be stubborn enough to call you on your bullshit, and she'd be right. :laugh:

Originally posted by: Cold Steel
I would like to apologize to the forum at large if anyone construed my "pink-boy" comment to be racist or homophobic.

If you'd bothered to read four posts above yours, you would have found that, two days ago, I had already posted that you had PM'd me that your "pink-boy" reference was not intended to as racist. I also acknowledged that I flamed you first and explained my intended meaning, exactly as I explained it to you by PM. Beyond that, I already apologized to you, personally, for any misunderstanding of your intended meaning on my part.

I've got to say, your sense of timing sucks, and furthermore, your supposed apology that it is not homophobic is disingenuous bullshit. You explicitly said in your PM that it was intended as an attack on my "manhood," and you added:

It's really not hard. When you're born, you get a pink blanket if you're a girl and a blue one if you're a boy.

That is, in fact, homophobic, and it leaves only two possiblities:

1. You don't have a clue about the meaning of your own words.

2. You do understand what you write, and your own denial is just another of your lies.

Which is it? :roll:

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I've got to say, your sense of timing sucks, and furthermore, your supposed apology that it is not homophobic is disingenuous bullshit. You explicitly said in your PM that it was intended as an attack on my "manhood," and you added:

It's really not hard. When you're born, you get a pink blanket if you're a girl and a blue one if you're a boy.

That is, in fact, homophobic, and it leaves only two possiblities:

1. You don't have a clue about the meaning of your own words.

2. You do understand what you write, and your own denial is just another of your lies.

Which is it? :roll:

It's not really homophobic, as he's not implying that you are gay, but that you are female (or transgender). It's really "queerphobic" more than anything, though you could easily argue sexist as well. But however you classify it, it's a stupid ad hominem attack that completely ruins his credibility and makes his argument null.

Still, sex is not the same as sexual orientation. I've always found that cries of homophobia for referring to someone by a different gender identity are misplaced.

 

[Cold Steel]

What a horrible life you must lead, Harvey. To spend so much time being so angry, to spend so much effort looking to be offended.

 

[Fern]

Hi Folks. Please stay on-topic. This thread is about Scot McClellan and his testimony.

T.I.A.

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Cold Steel
What a horrible life you must lead, Harvey. To spend so much time being so angry, to spend so much effort looking to be offended.

I'm angry because your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal started a war based on lies that has killed thousands of Americans, wounded tens of thousands more and squandered trillions of dollars of American taxpayers' money and shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under the U.S. Constitution.

If you're not angry about that, you're seriously disconnected from reality.

I'm offended by idiots who, in the face of their crimes, their lies and their deceit, continue to deny that they happened or otherwise spew a continuous stream of denials, distractions and diversions from the truth.

Your posts in this thread are fine examples.

Assuming for the sake of argument that all of your lies about me, personally, are true -- that I have a horrible life, my manhood is non-existent and I'm not the engineer I really am -- please explain how any of that disproves the long list of Bushwhacko lies I and others listed that you claimed didn't exist.

Your lame diversion that they haven't been established in a court of law is meaningless. They are hard quotes with names and dates. Google will tell you they're all accurate.

You told me you're an engineer, as well. Good. I won't question that. It isn't rocket science. Use the technology to prove the Bushwhacko lies are not accurate quotes and/or that they're not lies. We'll all be waiting to see how that turns out. :laugh: