Bush Knew About Leak of CIA Operative's Name

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...ter_4629.shtml

Witnesses told a federal grand jury President George W. Bush knew about, and took no action to stop, the release of a covert CIA operative's name to a journalist in an attempt to discredit her husband, a critic of administration policy in Iraq.

Their damning testimony has prompted Bush to contact an outside lawyer for legal advice because evidence increasingly points to his involvement in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...ter_4636.shtml

President George W. Bush's increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader's state of mind.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as "enemies of the state."

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

"It reminds me of the Nixon days," says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. "Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That's the mood over there."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush and Cheney have both hired or consulted private criminal defense attorneys in anticipation of possible indictments of them and/or their top assistants in the Plame investigation. On June 3, just hours before Tenet suddenly resigned, President Bush consulted with and may have retained a criminal defense attorney to represent him in the Plame case.

According to various press reports Bush has either retained or consulted with powerhouse attorney Jim Sharp, who represented Iran-contra figure retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord; Enron's Ken Lay; and Watergate co-conspirator Jeb Stuart Magruder. All three were facing criminal rather than civil charges. Either way, a clear signal has been sent that Bush expects to be either called to testify (which was a precursor in Watergate to a criminal indictment of Richard Nixon) or be named as a defendant. Either way, the President's men are falling faster than their counterparts fell in Watergate, and the initial targets are much higher up the food chain.

So, if you're planning to vote for Oil Boy--don't bother.

Even if he "wins" another term, he'll more than likely be impeached anyway.

[Rascal]

I was about to click on the links till I noticed the sites name. No need to go any further.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I was about to click on the links till I noticed the sites name. No need to go any further.

Which only exposes your ignorance.

The site belongs to a newspaper which is published for members of congress.

But don't let such trifling details get in the way of blindly defending your favorite Oil Puppet.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How funny/ironic is it that AWOL Boy has hired the same criminal defense lawyer who defended Daddy's fellow Iran/Contra crooks?

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

[Rascal]

I was going to look at the articles, but alas I can't even access them because they are forbidden. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I was going to look at the articles, but alas I can't even access them because they are forbidden.

That's funny--I just tried both links and they both work just fine for me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Point is, you were ready to dismiss/discredit a source you knew nothing about--just because it presented information/facts that were unflattering to bush.

This "tells me all I need to know."

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Point is, you were ready to dismiss/discredit a source you knew nothing about--just because it presented information/facts that were unflattering to bush.

This "tells me all I need to know."

Hey hypocrite! Tell me again how Mrs. Heinz didn't say those remarks. Oh, that's right you did dismiss/discredit a report you knew nothing about--just because it presented information/facts that were unflattering to Kerry.

!!!

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

I was going to look at the articles, but alas I can't even access them because they are forbidden.

That's funny--I just tried both links and they both work just fine for me.

Possibly Rascal's at work? Some workplaces filter which websites their company computers can and cannot access...

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

Possibly Rascal's at work? Some workplaces filter which websites their company computers can and cannot access...

DING DING DING...AND the winnder is BLUEFLAME in the blue trunks!!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hey hypocrite! Tell me again how Mrs. Heinz didn't say those remarks.

Wrong again. I didn't deny that she made the remarks.

You must really be getting desperate.

Possibly Rascal's at work? Some workplaces filter which websites their company computers can and cannot access...

I can grant him this.

However, the point here is that he "saw the name" of the website, and, without knowing anything about it, dismissed it as incredible.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

IMO, what's really a hoot here is that Rascal is denying the veracity of the whole story, i.e., that Smirk has retained a criminal defense lawyer because of potentially damaging testimony against AWOL Boy before the US grand jury hearing the Plame matter.

Talk about cherry-picking the facts and the news of the day to fit your preconceptions!

[Blueflame]

Good point... would a sitting president go to the trouble of retaining a private attorney.... reportedly Ken Lay's attorney... if he were totally unconcerned about the facts that may come out of the investigation?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

would a sitting president go to the trouble of retaining a private attorney.... reportedly Ken Lay's attorney... if he were totally unconcerned about the facts that may come out of the investigation?

And not just any attorney--a criminal defense attorney (the same attorney, BTW, who defended Poppy's Iran/Contra buddies.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And let's not forget another pertinent fact presented by the article:

Witnesses have testified before a federal grand jury that Gigglekill knew who outed Valerie Plame and refused to do anything about it.

Either these witnesses are lying under oath, or monkey boy is in a heap o' trouble.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

And let's not forget another pertinent fact presented by the article:

Witnesses have testified before a federal grand jury that Gigglekill knew who outed Valerie Plame and refused to do anything about it.

Either these witnesses are lying under oath, or monkey boy is in a heap o' trouble.

... which leaves Americans to weigh the question of which one is more likely to lie... the witnesses who say he knew or Bush, who has a longstanding history of lying for political expedience.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

... which leaves Americans to weigh the question of which one is more likely to lie... the witnesses who say he knew or Bush, who has a longstanding history of lying for political expedience.

...or the likelihood of multiple witnesses lying under oath whilst testifying that Oil Boy knew who outed Plame and refused to act.

This could make Watergate look like a jaywalking ticket by comparison.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Two possibilities:

1) Smirk loses the election and then pardons everyone (ala Poppy and Iran/Contra.)

2) Smirk wins the election and is subsequently impeached.

Another fun fact:

Now that Tennet has resigned as acting CIA director, he can testify against Oil Boy.

Should be fun to watch.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"I'm the commander--see, I don't have to explain--I don't need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

--George W. Bush, Washington Post, 11-19-2002

[mosca]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

And let's not forget another pertinent fact presented by the article:

Witnesses have testified before a federal grand jury that Gigglekill knew who outed Valerie Plame and refused to do anything about it.

Either these witnesses are lying under oath, or monkey boy is in a heap o' trouble.

this has already been discussed on another thread. leave it to LABF to start a new one with almost the same exact cut 'n paste.

great unbiased source for your pertinent 'fact' which still mysteriously has not been reported anywhere else. newspaper published for members of congress? ah, i guess that validates your source. just as fair and balanced as fox news, huh?

from the site itself:
"Capitol Hill Blue is a not-for-profit, non-commercial experiment in on-line journalism published by The Save America Foundation purely for the enjoyment of our readers. "

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

great unbiased source for your pertinent 'fact' which still mysteriously has not been reported anywhere else.

Strike one.

The story was covered by most of the major networks (which also covered the WH response to the story.) Not surprisingly, the story (just like the Plame scandal as a whole) didn't have a very long shelf life. (After all, it has nothing to do with Clinton's c*ck.)

newspaper published for members of congress? ah, i guess that validates your source. just as fair and balanced as fox news, huh?

Strike two.

You're implying that the article contains some sort of liberal bias w/o providing any proof. Also, you avoid naming any specific facts reported in the story which are (according to you) erroneous.

from the site itself:
"Capitol Hill Blue is a not-for-profit, non-commercial experiment in on-line journalism published by The Save America Foundation purely for the enjoyment of our readers. "

Strike three.

Nowhere in this description is there any evidence of liberal ties.

Thanks for playing.

Have fun trying to prop up your naive "both major parties are the same" doctrine.

[mosca]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The story was covered by most of the major networks (which also covered the WH response to the story.)

nice diversion, but it's not gonna slip by. the plame story was covered by actual news outlets and continues to be. but not your aforementioned 'fact' that witness(es) have testified that bush had prior knowledge of the plame leak. that was reported on capitolhillblue.com only. any web search will show this.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You're implying that the article contains some sort of liberal bias w/o providing any proof. Also, you avoid naming any specific facts reported in the story which are (according to you) erroneous.

more lies. i never stated that facts in the article are erroneous. i do maintain that some of them are unsubstantiated.

as for liberal bias (gasp! whoda thunk? it still exists? it didn't end in the 1800s?), simply check out some of the stuff from their 'bush leagues' section - 'baptists pissed over bush campaign ploy', 'new information shows bush indecisive, paranoid, delusional', 'the bush cheney big-lie strategy', 'dubya turns air force one into political tool'. those are just the titles... anyone with the literacy of a 5th grader can see more from the tone of the content of some of these articles. ah yes, smart choice of news sources we have here. whatever...

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

from the site itself:
"Capitol Hill Blue is a not-for-profit, non-commercial experiment in on-line journalism published by The Save America Foundation purely for the enjoyment of our readers. "

Strike three.
Nowhere in this description is there any evidence of liberal ties.

did i ever say there were? this was a response to you trying to prop up your source's legitimacy with the assertion that it's a newspaper published for members of congress. ha... this is a website published for people like you.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Have fun trying to prop up your naive "both major parties are the same" doctrine.

i've never mentioned this either. nice stereotyping there. don't we all love being compartmentalized into our own little boxes by geniuses such as LABF. swing 'n a whiffa!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

nice diversion, but it's not gonna slip by.

No diversion here. You claimed that the story had only been covered by capitolhillblue.com

I proved you wrong on that account.

as for liberal bias (gasp! whoda thunk? it still exists?

Were talking about capitolhillblue.com specifially.

You suggested the paper had a liberal bias.

The burden of proof is on you.

You have yet to step up to the plate.

this was a response to you trying to prop up your source's legitimacy

And mine was a response to your failure to show any specific claims made by the article to be erroneous (which, BTW, you still have not done.)

i've never mentioned this either

But do you deny it? (Subscribing to the "no difference between the two major parties" doctrine?

"Atta boy, mosca! Keep up the good work, and we'll make you an honorary Republican! (And don't worry--you won't actually have to register")

[mosca]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

No diversion here. You claimed that the story had only been covered by capitolhillblue.com

I proved you wrong on that account.

if you're talking about the 'story' that witness(es) at a grand jury have testified that bush knew about the plame leak beforehand, you have proved nothing. that has been reported by capitolhillblue.com and no one else, check it with a simple google search.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Were talking about capitolhillblue.com specifially.
You suggested the paper had a liberal bias.
The burden of proof is on you.
You have yet to step up to the plate.

no doubt we're talking about capitolhillblue.com... you're starting to understand now. as for its liberal bias, i provided examples of this in my last post which you conveniently ignore in this response. if you still deny that there is obvious bias in some of this site's content and then claim (as you have elsewhere) that fox news is in fact biased, then you lose all credibility.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

And mine was a response to your failure to show any specific claims made by the article to be erroneous (which, BTW, you still have not done.)

as i said before, i never said that the article was erroneous, but i that it makes unsubstantiated claims. maybe you don't know the difference... if so, i feel sorry for ya. and as i stated on another thread, since this article is the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on it anyway. if you want to believe it regardless, that's your prerogative... says a lot about what you believe.

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

i've never mentioned this either

But do you deny it? (Subscribing to the "no difference between the two major parties" doctrine?

i will say that both parties have lost their focus on doing what's best for the common man of america, and that both are far more beholden to the corporate lobby than they should. if you want to construe that as "no difference between the two major parties", then spin away, my friend.