Scott Mclellan: Bush authorized CIA Valerie Plame Leak

11/15/08 Scott McClellan 2008 Miami Book Fair C-SPAN Book TV Scott McClellan author of "What Happened"

The War On Iraq
www.apfn.org...
LEAK-GATE: The White House Scandal
www.apfn.org...

Speaks for it self I think. This at least proves one of Kucinich's articles of impeachment. Would't this be considered treason? Outting a CIA agent that is.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by djpaec]

No. Remember, when lying under oath it's only a crime if you aren't lying about some thing that's not a crime. At least that was Karl Rove's explanation about it. Of course he failed to mention exposing an undercover CIA agent is a crime while getting some from an intern isn't. But like with Mark Foley, Dick Cheney, Ted Stevens, it's not a crime as long as you're a Republican. So you rape little kids, sell out America to your former company, or accept bribes, not that big a deal, right?

Pffft.

By definition (according to them anyway) any thing they do is not a crime.

Just look at the last piece of legislation pardoning them all en masse of any war-crimes. And the house passed it without so much as a hiccup of dissent.

They'll all just pardon each other before anyone gets a chance to prosecute anyway. Still, I'm sure Bush is getting his ranch in South America warmed up and redecorated just in case, it will probably be too risky for him to live in the USA after he leaves office.

reply to post by Maxmars


You mean the one passed before the 2006 elections?
www.commondreams.org...
When Republicans were still in power?
I still can't find if this was gutted out of that Bill or what.
And even if the 109th congress did pass such a bill, the 111th could strike it down. Great thing about congress they can go back on what they say. But not only that anybody that wanting to sue for that act of congress, the Judicial branch of Government could strike it down as being not constitutional. Since the the President is the only one with Pardoning power.

I'm pretty sure outing a CIA agent, then engagering all of her contacts and shell companies(CIA would never tell anyone how many people were put in danger, died because of Plames outing). Just because her husband, who was investigating the whole yellow cake statement, wrote an OP-ED saying it was patently false. Thus making it not only an attack on the truth of why we were being lead to war, but making it political as well. Goes against this country and makes it treason.

GullyChief: It wouldn't be any less dangerous for him to live outside of the U.S.? He's not exactly popular worldwide, and most war crimes have been prosecuted by an international court.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by djpaec]

baaaaaaah. Scott McLellen can't be trusted to tell the truth.

He's sour grapes and he's pushing a book.

His insinuations in the book can't be verified - even by him.

He claimed FOX news worked off White House talking points.
When asked why he said this - McLellen said - it just seems so.

His book is useless. So is he.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
baaaaaaah. Scott McLellen can't be trusted to tell the truth.

He's sour grapes and he's pushing a book.

His insinuations in the book can't be verified - even by him.

He claimed FOX news worked off White House talking points.
When asked why he said this - McLellen said - it just seems so.

His book is useless. So is he.

He is the most credible. Since he was a defender of the admin for so long and for good reasons. He thought Bush was bringing a different form of gov to the office.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Well I don't know who's working off what talking points. But for the last 8 years, every Republican, pundit, politician, commentator, editor and the Fox News channel. Re-iterated the same 'talking points' day in and day out for the last 8 years. It happened so much I thought I was stuck in a continual deja vu loop in the Matrix.

Oh yes of course the White house didn't have anything to do with the Plame leak, that's why Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury and Bush pardoned him right away. Because he wasn't lying for Chenney and the White house.

Ooo wait.

Libby was charged with lying to FBI agents and to the grand jury about two conversations with reporters, Tim Russert of NBC News and Matt Cooper of Time magazine. According to the Indictment, the obstruction of justice count alleges that while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24, 2004, Libby knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the grand jury’s investigation by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, he acquired, and subsequently disclosed to the media, information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by djpaec]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

He is the most credible. Since he was a defender of the admin for so long and for good reasons. He thought Bush was bringing a different form of gov to the office.

The most credible? Not by a long shot. This is the guy that served on the Bush administration for 7 years, didn't say a word to anyone to let them know that he was disillusioned with any of the goings on and after he quit he writes this book filled with venom and accusations - out of the blue.

How is a guy credible when he says nothing to anyone about his concerns in the many years that he works there, then cashes in by writing a book with all of the notes he's taken? That's the equivalency to spying. The man also had friends that he never confided his concerns in, either, so his motivations for writing this book are highly suspect. I wouldn't give this guy any credibility at all.


[Mod Edit- removed unnecessary quote]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 19/11/2008 by Sauron]

reply to post by sos37


Ah yes. Some one who actually works for Bush doesn't know what happened... Right, makes lots of sense, not. You, like the rest of the Republicans, hate Scott because he exposed Bush. Sorry Bush had an undercover agent exposed for political BS but he did and Scott confirms it. You know, a guy who was there and worked for these people.

Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by sos37

 

Ah yes. Some one who actually works for Bush doesn't know what happened... Right, makes lots of sense, not. You, like the rest of the Republicans, hate Scott because he exposed Bush. Sorry Bush had an undercover agent exposed for political BS but he did and Scott confirms it. You know, a guy who was there and worked for these people.

Exactly GamerGal.... funny how the talking points of "He never said anything while he was in the admin!" come out.

The reality is that he still hoped beyond hope in his dream of Bush bringing change to Washington. He had his hopes dashed.

Sorry, but Scott is probably the most credible witness ever, especially given the level of loyalty he displayed during his tenure as Press Sec.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by HunkaHunkaExactly GamerGal.... funny how the talking points of "He never said anything while he was in the admin!" come out.

The reality is that he still hoped beyond hope in his dream of Bush bringing change to Washington. He had his hopes dashed.

Sorry, but Scott is probably the most credible witness ever, especially given the level of loyalty he displayed during his tenure as Press Sec.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by HunkaHunka]

The ONLY reason you say he's "the most credible witness ever" is because he supports your agenda, which is nothing more than outright hate for the Bush administration. The facts be damned as far as your concerned.

Ignorance at it's finest.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19/11/2008 by Sauron]

reply to post by sos37


The only reason you say he isn't is because he doesn't work for Fox News. Amazing how almost every Bush Admin now works for Fox. Except one, who decided the truth was more important then a job with the NAZI Propaganda Channel.

Originally posted by sos37The ONLY reason you say he's "the most credible witness ever" is because he supports your agenda, which is nothing more than outright hate for the Bush administration. The facts be damned as far as your concerned.

Ignorance at it's finest.

Nope, I have lots of reasons. For one, when he was the Press Sec, even though I couldn't stand his constant slipperyness when it came to defending decisions by the Administration, he always came off as someone who believed in his cause in a very patriotic manner. It was easy for me to dislike Cheney, Bush, Rove, and Rice, but Scott was different. He really stood out as someone who wasn't trying to oversimplify or hoodwink the American People.

So Scott has always had credibility in my book, even when what he stood for, I didn't believe in.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 19/11/2008 by Sauron]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Nope, I have lots of reasons. For one, when he was the Press Sec, even though I couldn't stand his constant slipperyness when it came to defending decisions by the Administration, he always came off as someone who believed in his cause in a very patriotic manner. It was easy for me to dislike Cheney, Bush, Rove, and Rice, but Scott was different. He really stood out as someone who wasn't trying to oversimplify or hoodwink the American People.

So Scott has always had credibility in my book, even when what he stood for, I didn't believe in.

Yeah - even your reply doesn't make sense. You admit:

"For one, when he was the Press Sec, even though I couldn't stand his constant slipperyness when it came to defending decisions by the Administration"

That he constantly defended the decisions made by the administration. During his time, he let no one know that he was in actuality, bothered by what he saw going on (or so he claims). Then when he left, his defense of those positions suddenly disappeared and did a complete 180 which manifested itself into a book for sale at the local bookstore, bashing the very administration he constantly defended.

If you regard him as a credible witness then I'd say it says a lot about your personal standards and where you draw the line on acceptability. For that reason, I stand by my conclusion that you support the man because he's saying what you want to hear.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 19/11/2008 by Sauron]

Please can we keep quotes down to the parts that pertain to your reply, if you are commenting on a post in general just use the reply to tab.
I am not trying to be heavy handed it just makes reading and understanding who said what


Thank you
Sauron, Mod staff.

reply to post by sos37


I can see where you are coming from on this. I too believe that most people will do whatever it takes to sell a book. However, your continued insinuation that this man DID NOT question the actions of the president or his administration is completely FALSE. It ultimately is WHY he resigned. He kept butting heads with Karl Rove who seemed to have Bush on a rope. Everything Rove would insist on Scott would try to say it was a bad move. Bush would continue to go with the spin king and thus Scott left.

So, for you to keep saying that he is NOT credible because he never spoke out before (and NONE of his friends, most of whom are very closely knit into the Bush circle who WOULD NEVER speak out against this regime, claimed he ever said anything) is plain wrong. You see, I have seen Rice say that she never knew why he left and never complained. Then, as is usual with this administration, would come out and say something else about how he was not happy with decisions (of course after someone like Dick would say it then it became the talking piece for the week and EVERYONE in the administration would say it knowing that the psychological effect is that a lie told enough will become fact that is used often in politics).

You see, this topic gets me going only because I understand a few things about why people do things. Now, granted, he admits that some of his claims are speculation, but he also has made statements that would bring libel suits against him if they were false. As far as I know I haven't seen anything. Why? Because the administration knows that they would have to release any document related thus outing them.

That is what you have to start asking yourself. Why haven't they fought back with the courts? If you come to the same conclusion I have then you will know that they are simply going to let him have his day and hope for him to fade away quickly.

reply to post by sos37


The thing is, there is all different kinds of stupid.


Bush's kind was the Anti-Intellectualism kind of stupid. Which is why I can't stand him.


Cheney's kind was the hubris kind of stupid. "I know better than you, yer just a panzy, ranr, all Democrats are evil, ranr, I am above the law", which is why I can't stand him.


Scott on the other hand wasn't stupid in my eyes, just defending his Administration, which is his job. He never came off as anti-intellectual to me, nor did he come off as full of hubris. He appeared to me simply as a man who really believed in his cause and someone who would love to sit down to a nice dinner and attempt to explain it to me, even though we didn't see eye to eye on situations.


You see, one of the things Conservatives do which really irritates me is that they stick up for their own until they say something which detracts from their cause, at that point they are persona non grata.

I on the other hand don't think it's that black and white. I try to understand the reasons as to why someone is saying something. And those reasons are typically not partisan.

Scott was in washington because he wanted Change. He honestly believed that W was the man to bring it to Washington. You can't fault him for that... and in the end, he became disallusioned, and I'm sure he's also had his feelings hurt because he thought W was better than that.

Anyway, he's a thoughtul person, and always has been.

Maybe that is why he endorsed Obama?

McClellan shouldn't have taken the job if he didn't want to be the mouthpiece for the Bush admin. He did his job and now he's trying to cash in on it by selling his book. I'm sure Condi will write a book some day too. There's really nothing to see here. Bush is above the law anyway.


I think we should at least spell the poor guy's name right, haha.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by MetatronCubensis]

[edit on 19-11-2008 by MetatronCubensis]

Originally posted by MetatronCubensis
McClellan shouldn't have taken the job if he didn't want to be the mouthpiece for the Bush admin. He did his job and now he's trying to cash in on it by selling his book. I'm sure Condi will write a book some day too. There's really nothing to see here. Bush is above the law anyway.


I think we should at least spell the poor guy's name wrong.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by MetatronCubensis]

What you forget is that he did take the job beause he did want to be the mouthpiece, but things went south when W stopped standing up for what he really believed in politically.