McClellan: Bush, Cheney, had me pass on unture information on the CIA leak case

[Smash255]

Not surprising.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/20/cia.leak.mcclellan/index.html

[Lief 🗽]

This is without a doubt the most criminal, corrupt administration in the nation's history. A scant 30 years ago, when the legislative branch still had a backbone, but Bush and Cheney would have been impeached by now.

[Wakie]

Perhaps the single most amazing thing about this administration is that there are still people who defend it.

[Eraserhead]

Yes we know they are criminals. But will anyone do anything to stop them? The answer is no.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

dishonest?  yes, they lied and were dishonest

but you can't impeach someone for lying to the press.  lying to the press is not even a crime

[Dr. Cynic]

dishonest?  yes, they lied and were dishonest

but you can't impeach someone for lying to the press.  lying to the press is not even a crime

But leaking CIA identities, and lying to the American people about it is criminal. You Republicans got up in arms over a f-n blowjob. How is a CIA leak not more important that what our last President did?

[bullmoose88]

dishonest?  yes, they lied and were dishonest

but you can't impeach someone for lying to the press.  lying to the press is not even a crime

But leaking CIA identities, and lying to the American people about it is criminal. You Republicans got up in arms over a f-n blowjob. How is a CIA leak not more important that what our last President did?

Get Bush/Cheney under oath...then things will be much harder to squirm out of.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

dishonest?  yes, they lied and were dishonest

but you can't impeach someone for lying to the press.  lying to the press is not even a crime

But leaking CIA identities, and lying to the American people about it is criminal. You Republicans got up in arms over a f-n blowjob. How is a CIA leak not more important that what our last President did?

Get Bush/Cheney under oath...then things will be much harder to squirm out of.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is without a doubt the most criminal, corrupt administration in the nation's history. A scant 30 years ago, when the legislative branch still had a backbone, but Bush and Cheney would have been impeached by now.

That is because the Democratic party is a  total joke. In 1969, Republican Senator Goodell introduced a resolution calling for Nixon to be impeached.

[Wakie]

What would impeaching Bush do?  Cheney would become President and nothing would change.  Cheney would then pardon Bush and nominate a new Republican VP to prevent a heart attack from giving power to Pelosi.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What would impeaching Bush do?  Cheney would become President and nothing would change.  Cheney would then pardon Bush and nominate a new Republican VP to prevent a heart attack from giving power to Pelosi.

If Congress impeached Bush, I think they'd be willing to impeach Cheney and to not confirm whatever wingnut he nominated as VP.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Impeaching Bush would mean... amazingly.. that he would be impeached!

[MODU]

What would impeaching Bush do?  Cheney would become President and nothing would change.  Cheney would then pardon Bush and nominate a new Republican VP to prevent a heart attack from giving power to Pelosi.

No, Cheney would not become President if Bush is impeached.  Clinton was impeached, and Gore never became President.  Impeachment is just a statement by Congress listing charges against the President.

[Wakie]

What would impeaching Bush do?  Cheney would become President and nothing would change.  Cheney would then pardon Bush and nominate a new Republican VP to prevent a heart attack from giving power to Pelosi.

No, Cheney would not become President if Bush is impeached.  Clinton was impeached, and Gore never became President.  Impeachment is just a statement by Congress listing charges against the President.

The implication of the thread seemed to me to be impeachment followed by a conviction and removal from office.  Impeachment in and of itself is worthless.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ooops....

Publisher: McClellan doesn't believe Bush lied
Spokesman 'did not intend to suggest' the president purposely misled him

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21917188/

[Eraserhead]

MSM has buried this story in a shallow grave already.

[J. J.]

I think the question is with Cheney.

There are very serious questions about what he did.

The second question is if Valerie Plame was covert or not, for which I've never had a satisfactory answer.

I think I've stated my opinion about if there was a leak of covert agent's identity.

[Boris]

The second question is if Valerie Plame was covert or not, for which I've never had a satisfactory answer.

Hasn't that already been established as fact? If she was not covert, wouldn't people be aware of her existence, and, as such, she wouldn't have had any 'cover' to be blown?

[Ebowed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you know what for?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you know what for?

According to wiki it was for Nixon's (extremely immoral, illegal, insert superlative here) invasion of cambodia.

[J. J.]

The second question is if Valerie Plame was covert or not, for which I've never had a satisfactory answer.

Hasn't that already been established as fact? If she was not covert, wouldn't people be aware of her existence, and, as such, she wouldn't have had any 'cover' to be blown?

No, because if the answer was yes, Libby could have been charged with much more.

The real questions are if she was a "covert agent" and if Libby knew that.  (It actually seems that Rove didn't and didn't have direct knowledge of her.)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I have long suspected Cheney was at the center of this and this excerpt would seem to imply that, After all, The government functions on a need-to-know basis.  Rove and Libby didn't have reason to know that Joe Wilson's wife was an undercover agent, or even a CIA agent.  So who told them.  Even if we assume Rove didn't know, someone had to have told Libby this information.  Cheney would certainly've been in a position to find out, but this raises the question of how he knew (I suspect someone in the CIA leadership, though I have no evidence to support this theory).

[J. J.]

I have long suspected Cheney was at the center of this and this excerpt would seem to imply that, After all, The government functions on a need-to-know basis.  Rove and Libby didn't have reason to know that Joe Wilson's wife was an undercover agent, or even a CIA agent.  So who told them.  Even if we assume Rove didn't know, someone had to have told Libby this information.  Cheney would certainly've been in a position to find out, but this raises the question of how he knew (I suspect someone in the CIA leadership, though I have no evidence to support this theory).

I think you are asking the impeachable question.

It's not Bush (who probably could disclose that information legally), but Cheney.

Yes, I am taking a hard stand on this.

[Smash255]

The second question is if Valerie Plame was covert or not, for which I've never had a satisfactory answer.

Hasn't that already been established as fact? If she was not covert, wouldn't people be aware of her existence, and, as such, she wouldn't have had any 'cover' to be blown?

No, because if the answer was yes, Libby could have been charged with much more.

The real questions are if she was a "covert agent" and if Libby knew that.  (It actually seems that Rove didn't and didn't have direct knowledge of her.)

According to the CIA she was a Covert agent.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I have long suspected Cheney was at the center of this and this excerpt would seem to imply that, After all, The government functions on a need-to-know basis.  Rove and Libby didn't have reason to know that Joe Wilson's wife was an undercover agent, or even a CIA agent.  So who told them.  Even if we assume Rove didn't know, someone had to have told Libby this information.  Cheney would certainly've been in a position to find out, but this raises the question of how he knew (I suspect someone in the CIA leadership, though I have no evidence to support this theory).

I think you are asking the impeachable question.

It's not Bush (who probably could disclose that information legally), but Cheney.

Yes, I am taking a hard stand on this.

I don't fault Bush for the fact that this happened, I don't even think he was involved.  But I do fault him for two other things relating to this issue.  First, Bush hasn't (willingly) made an effort to find out what happened and hold those involved responsible.  Secondly, Bush appointed Patrick Fitzgerald special prosecuter.  Fitzgerald, contrarey to press reports, has been relativly timid and non-aggressive, personally I think thats why he was picked.   Bush is acting (in my view) like someone who was uninvolved, but does not want to know what really happened out of fear of who was involved and the potential implications.