Pick Which WH Press Secretary Is Lying

Sometime between now and when the Rules and Bylaws Committee starts tomorrow, I hope to argue that Scottie McC is still, um, shading the truth in his presentation of the facts about the Plame outing.

But for now, I’ll let you guys weigh in whether you think the former White House Press Secretary or the current one is lying.

Here’s what Scottie McC said in a book chat posted at 12:00 PM:

Washington: Did you inform the White House at any time about your intention to write the memoir? If so, what was the reaction then?

Scott McClellan: The White House reviewed the final manuscript for classification and privilege issues. After the review I met with some members of the White House counsel’s office at their request to discuss the review. As I expected, there were no issues relating to classified information. They did bring up some issues relating to what they might consider executive privilege, including presidential conversations and conversations between senior advisers to the president. [my emphasis]

And here’s what Dana "Pig Missile" said in a press briefing time stamped at 12:42 PM:

MS. PERINO: We’ve been out on the road; I’ve missed the podium greatly. But as I said all along, that the President expressed disappointment and sadness at the situation, surprise by the charges that he has read about that are in the book.

And we’ve known for a while that this is what the tone of the book would be. Of course last November we knew because of the excerpt that came out, and then more recently, as with all manuscripts, the White House Counsel’s Office has an opportunity to look at manuscripts for any possible classified information or any means for executive privilege to be asserted. None of them were in this case. So we’ve known for a little bit of time that this was coming. [my emphasis]

So which was it? Did the White House invoke executive privilege about "presidential conversations and conversations between senior advisors to the president," or didn’t it?

Of course, there’s always option "C," none of the above. It’s possible (crazy, I know) that neither is lying. It’s possible the White House tried to say Scottie McC couldn’t publish … say … a conversation he had with the President about authorizing the Plame leak and … say … a conversation between senior advisors Turdblossom and Scooter. It’s possible the White House tried to say those things were protected by executive privilege and Scottie McC’s lawyers simply said, "you’re joking, right?"

Update: The plot thickens! I didn’t see the asterisk in the press briefing:

* Scott McClellan submitted a copy of his book to the White House for a review in keeping with his obligations as an official holding a security clearance. Mr. McClellan met with legal staff from the National Security Council and White House Counsel’s Office on May 2. The outcome of the review was discussed with the same kind of specificity that is the norm for this kind of material and subject matter. No edits or changes were requested and to the extent that he made any changes after the meeting it was his option and choice as the author.

Update: And then there’s this from Scottie McC’s chat:

Manchester, Conn.: Scoot, earlier you mentioned White House review of "privilege" issues. Were any subjects omitted because of those concerns? If so, what were those subjects?

Scott McClellan: No. They can only prevent me from printing classified national security information. I listened to what they had to say about issues of executive privilege and made the decision to keep things the way I had written them.

172 replies
  1. JimWhite says:

    I like C. Notice that Scotty said that they ”brought up issues” relating to ”executive privilege” but Pig Missile said the WHC office was looking for ”means for executive privilege to be asserted”. I think you just described what happened: the White House tried to assert executive privilege and Scotty managed to get it knocked down. I think that would explain why Pig Missile also said they are considering invoking privilege if Scotty is subpoenaed but haven’t decided yet whether to invoke it. They could be facing the earlier loss now coupled with most of the information now being published.

  2. SparklestheIguana says:

    Not sure there’s a lie there. Scottie did say ”bring up”, he didn’t say privilege was ”asserted”.

    If the White House counsel wanted to be heavy handed they could’ve taken out the cocaine reference, no?

  3. AZ Matt says:

    Perino will lie no doubt about it. Can Scottie afford to lie at this point and time, I don’t think so. He is under a stereo-microscope and the wingers have their disecting needles and blades out.

  4. Citizen92 says:

    Again, I ask, is “executive privilege” enforceable? Can there be successfully sanctions made/enforced and penalties levied against McClellan if he refuses to respect an assertion of “executive privilege?”

    I mean, he did say this (from your quote above):

    “some issues relating to what they might consider executive privilege”

    And on the Olbermann program last night he described how former “Counselor” Dan Bartlett kept disqualifying things:

    One, some of the people that are making those comments are almost trying to judge the content of the book, judge me and my motivations for writing the book, and they haven’t even read the book. And the second, which you bring up, is that I haven’t seen people refuting specific parts within the book. Dan Bartlett earlier today, when he was doing an interview right after me or in between segments with me, said, well, we need to set the leak episode to the side. And the other day, he said, well, I’m not going to talk about the Katrina part, because that’s internal deliberations. So I did find that very interesting.

    “Executive privilege” seems great when you’ve got a united team ready to stonewall, but when a horse is out of the barn… well…

  5. perris says:

    I want to point out again, the longer this book is top ten the better the chances this adminstration is brought to the bar of justice

    no matter what scott’s motive, I think we should support this book

    • dosido says:

      Ya know, Scottie’d be in the running for some kind of John Dean award, if only he had testified and brought some kind of justice forward. oh well. That’s so seventies.

  6. dosido says:

    If he “wasn’t in the loop” then executive privilege doesn’t apply.

    In your face, Rove!

    Oh, which PS is lying? Both?

  7. perris says:

    Again, I ask, is “executive privilege” enforceable? Can there be successfully sanctions made/enforced and penalties levied against McClellan if he refuses to respect an assertion of “executive privilege?”

    this is a no brainer

    the answer is “yes”

    and the answer is “no”

    the president can indeed claim national security and have him arrested, this is without doubt

    congress can call bullshit anytime they want on anything the president does

    so there is pixie dust and yes he can

    and there isn’t pixie dust if congress says there isn’t

    they would say there isn’t pixie dust by impeaching his ass

  8. cbl2 says:

    ya know Ms EW, when I saw the blurb in our newsbox about Chimpigula saying he was gonna ’work on forgiving’ Scotty -something in my gut told me the WH lawyers told him no dice on Exec Priv. as a legal impediment to testifying –

    the murderous imbecile has to have the last word doncha know

    • Hmmm says:

      Scotty’s book may help prevent the bombing of Iran.

      Then now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their country.

    • Fern says:

      Scotty’s book may help prevent the bombing of Iran.

      And it has occurred to me that this may be one of his motivations.

  9. perris says:

    If he “wasn’t in the loop” then executive privilege doesn’t apply.

    scott calls rove a liar and says he was indeed already taking responsibility and standing in and he was indeed in the loop

    • dosido says:

      Great. I was just poking holes in Rove’s logic.

      My comment went EPU but the WH and cabal are going apeshit about stuff we knew already. Why are they so threatened? Because he dissects the Koolaid Propaganda Machine or because of the leak-ish story? If he testified, wouldn’t it be a case of he said/he said?

      What’s the big deal? Scream holy murder so other rats don’t jump ship?

      • Citizen92 says:

        Exactly. If McClellan has an, ahem, “conscience” then so do others.

        If he gets to tell his tales then somethings bound to cause the house of cards to fall.

        Major tactical error on BushCo’s part. McClellan was “out of the loop” and therefore doesn’t need a pardon to continue after this Administration leaves.

        They totally misread him.

        • dosido says:

          therefore doesn’t need a pardon to continue after this Administration leaves.

          Ahhh! (lightbulb goes on) thanks!

  10. JimWhite says:

    OT–Cool. Joe Wilson just posted a comment on the Nukes & Spooks blog at McClatchy’s DC site (see Glenn’s post today for a link). The blog post at N&S is on how Knight Ridder got it right in the run-up to the war, and lots of people in comments are thanking them for their hard work.

  11. looseheadprop says:

    I bought a copy of the book last night. I have been hopping around in it based on things in the index. Going to settle down and read it front to back maybe tonight or early tomorrow.

    From what I’ve scanned so far, there appear to be many lucious little nuggets tucked away here and there.

    This may FINALLY bust the whole thing open. It needs to stay page 1, for a tleast a couple more weeks. And we need to shame the MSM into finally doing their damn jobs!

  12. phred says:

    My money is on Pig Missile, but that raises the question about whether she lied when she told Jon Stewart that she would never knowingly tell a lie. It’s like one of those contradictory logic problems they used in Star Trek to fry a bunch of androids. Although, one must leave open the possibility that Pig Missile was sincere with Stewart, maybe she let the cat out of the bag about her Pig/Missile confusion just to let the world know that her ”knowing” is pretty minimal.

  13. perris says:

    and they are still trying to call scott a snitch and I have to keep hamering this point;

    it is derilction of duty and country to NOT report this depravity against our country

    check this out from think progress

    BAIER: A senior white house official reacting to the AP saying that McClellan got $75,000 in advance for this book said and a quote here, “ironically in today’s dollars that amount is worth exactly 30 pieces of silver.” that of course is a biblical reference to the 30 pieces of silver Judas got for selling out Jesus.

    I want prgressives to ATTACK the patriotism of ANYONE that insinuates this is some kind of loyalty problem

  14. perris says:

    What’s the big deal? Scream holy murder so other rats don’t jump ship?

    but this time it is backfiring, the more they complain the better for the book and the more exposed their behavior

    this time the trick fails

    • greenbird4751 says:

      over and over and over and over.
      and over some more.
      both wilsons.
      civil is pending, no?
      (smiles, with tears.)

      • bmaz says:

        The civil suit is dismissed; however that dismissal is being appealed. I would caution against expending very much hope in it being reinstated, the chances are pretty remote and the standard for reversal very unfavorable.

  15. perris says:

    can we now restate what an incredible hero Joe Wilson was?

    he had the fortitude and integrity to do this while bush was most popular

    what an incredible hero, what a patriot, what an honor to have conversed on the same page with the ambassador when he gave us some blog time at the lake

    • RevDeb says:

      If he would only get on the bus for the election rather than continue to be a cheerleader for the candidate who is in deep denial.

  16. phred says:

    dosido — i mentioned on a thread last night that part of the panic at the WH might be due to the fact that the Dems could impeach BushCo over this, without any risk to themselves. No Dem participated in the Plame leak, whereas members of the Dem leadership received briefings about the spying and torture regimes. This makes Plame a safe avenue for impeachment. Now if Wexler can just light a fire under Conyers and Pelosi to do it…

    • dosido says:

      Thanks Phred. I had missed that discussion.


      and yes, anyone who could have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to this undemocratic steamroller of destruction called the bush administration like Joe Wilson is a hero!!

  17. perris says:

    hey, I have a great rhetorical question that should have been asked during that whole wislon thingy but never was;

    “does anyone think for one minute cheney or the president would have denied “sending him to africa” if he came back with proof of the uranium buy?”

    of course not

  18. LS says:

    I think Bush is lying. I don’t think he ever authorized or declassified anything prior to the leak. I think Cheney covertly ”leaked” all the leaks and then went cryin’ to Bush to bail him out, so they changed the declassification rules to cover his butt and Bush said, yeah I authorized it. Maybe Scottie is still actually ”giving his all” to Bush….remember, he blames the lead up to the war on everybody but W in a way. That is why they let the book get published. Anybody see what I mean? Kinda laying out the story now through him, so they can have cover in case of war crimes later on. The only one’s he’s really throwing under the bus are Rove, Libby, and Cheney. He still gushes over W. They are still conspiring. JMHO

  19. WilliamOckham says:

    How lame is the Bush White House? They are so lame that, given a month to prepare pushback on this book, the best they can come up with is “sad and puzzled”. They apparently didn’t even have one factual error to point to. Let’s face it. Every book like this has a few factual errors.

  20. hwmnbn says:

    Is there an FDL book salon chat in Scotty McClellan’s future?

    Given all the magnificent minds here, it would be a compelling blog-interview with an administration ex-insider.

    EW could cut to the chase and eliminate the superfluous bullshit and go straight to the jugular. That has pay-per-view potential!

  21. SparklestheIguana says:


    ”24 Former U.S. Attorneys Say Congress Can Subpoena White House”

  22. LS says:

    The WH is feigning ”puzzlement” in my opinion…they are hitting him with a wet noodle. He’s actually covering their ass. there is no there there unless he coughs up something substantial that we don’t already know….I hope I’m wrong, and I probably am. He may actually really be in the loop even to this day…

  23. Lindy says:

    Page formatting for me is all messed up. all the graphics and many of the links are at the bottom of the page and there’s no banner.

  24. bobschacht says:

    I saw on TeeVee where our expert talking heads opined that the WH strategy was not to get into an argument over silly old facts, because that would just extend the debate into more news cycles. Better to just kill the messenger.

    I saw it on teevee, so it must be true, right?

    Bob in HI

    PS what’s with the layout today? The usual editor tools on the menu bar of the comment box are all overlapping labels rather than symbols on my screen.

  25. selise says:

    lindy – see my comment @159 in earlier fdl thread:
    Peggy Noonan On McClellan: Americans Hate A Snitch


    if that link doesn’t work, try this one:

    basically what i think this means (not a techie so this is just a guess), is that not only are the images missing and the formating fracked, but also there are no javascript functions. so to see new comments one must reload the whole page.

  26. PJEvans says:

    The script is dead (long live the script)?
    It’s done this before, but not usually for this long.

    I think Scotty is being thrown under the golf cart by the WH. Their bus has no ’Wheels’, after all, and they can’t get much traction on this.

  27. Frank33 says:

    I cannot even get through ThinkProgress. Scottie is hurting the Military families and he is a Benedict Arnold, traitor. He also profited from his government position with a $75,000 book advance-that is a lot of money! Compare it to Darth Cheney’s Halliburton income. It is the same as 30 pieces of silver to Judas to betray Jesus, like Bill Richardson. Scottie was also a terrible at Public Relations. He is responsible for the loss of support of the Irak Occupation. Of course, Scottie blames the librul press for believing Scottie then instead of questioning. I am puzzled.

  28. selise says:

    mary @ 47 –

    i’ve tested safari and firefox (mac) and IE7 and IE6 (XP). all are equally fracked and if you see my comment upthread you will see that we seem to be missing all fdl images, css, and javascript (ads are still ok). but the index file is loading, so we still have content (front page posts and comments).

  29. selise says:

    if you have a working page, i THINK that means that your browser has cached the css, images and javascript. if that is so, then you DON’T want to empty your cache (as i was suggesting previously – sorry about that!) until everything is sorted out.

    again… just guesses on my part. maybe tw3k can weigh in on what is up.

  30. bobschacht says:

    Hey, as someone on TV remarked yesterday(?), it is interesting that McClellan’s book came out just before the Rockefeller committee (Senate Intelligence Committee?) whitewash of pre-War Intelligence fiasco was due.

    That’s an interesting combo. Will Scottie’s book force a re-write of the SSCI’s whitewash, giving it more teeth? Or not.

    Bob in HI

    PS Preview should be my friend, but its not working. My ”Sparkles @34” in comment #49 should have been ”Sparkles @32”

  31. maryo2 says:

    “as with all manuscripts, the White House Counsel’s Office has an opportunity to look at manuscripts for any possible classified information or any means for executive privilege to be asserted. None of them were in this case.”

    These two sentences by Perino do not make sense. What does “none of them” refer to in the second sentence? I think she says that they found no means by which they could declare executive privilege. If so, then is that what they sought to do? On what parts did they hope to find a means to sound sane when declaring executive privilege?

    One would think that the White House Counsel’s Office would be looking to be sure that there was no classified information or privileged information in it — as opposed to looking “for” grounds to claim executive privilege.

    Dana let the cat out of the bag about how this book was approached by WH Counsel.

  32. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Wow. If LHP thinks this might have potential to bust things open, I’m buying a copy.

    At CNN, Jamal Simmons points out that McKlellan would know better than anyone what he’s going up against — the Bush Machine — so what is it that he feels about so strongly that he has to tell this story **now**? Seems like maybe more people ought to ask that question.

      • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

        Quite possible.
        But I hope that his book serves as a springboard not only for the Plame Leak, but for the quality of the press and its reporting, as well.

        Bmaz put up a great link to McClatchy’s ‘Nukes & Spooks’ blogpost “Memo to Scott McClellan: Here’s What Happened” http://washingtonbureau.typepa…..pened.html

        Well worth a read!

  33. maryo2 says:

    Scottie should be subpoenaed by the Senate Intelligence Committee just as a test to to see how the White House responds. How they respond about Scottie could highlight how weak their reasoning is for Miers and Bolten without risking the White House taking it to the Supreme Court (that fear is preventing the Senate from acting, right?).

  34. maryo2 says:

    I was surprised that Scottie’s brother, Mark, is not defending Scottie. I thought the timing of the book was because one of the two brothers is planning to run for Mayor of Austin, and they wanted to distance themselves from most things Bush. I assumed it was Mark that was going to run for Mayor, but if he and Scottie aren’t on good terms right now, then the timing of the book is interesting.

  35. Hmmm says:

    One thing for sure: The R’s would not be pushing back so hard if it was only the reputation of W or his Administration at stake, because that’s already toast and even they know it. Scotty’s Tales must be dancing perilously close to some provable criminal liability the exposure of which could take down an entire ring of R colluders. I mean that even their legendary psychotic loyalty-fever doesn’t explain what we’re seeing — unless, of course, at the center of some inner circle lies some terrible — and, critically to what we’re seeing, provable — secret.

    Now, the puzzling part is that nothing Scotty’s said yet seems to rise to that level. So: What are we not seeing here? What’s the trick, what’s the missing angle? Is there a next step, another person with another confession, coming?

    • Hmmm says:

      My guess on the ‘Why Now?’ is Iran. All the signs have been saying W and DIck are actively planning to strike by August.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Well, FWIW, after a Friday afternoon cursory review of the week — I doubt that Scott McClellan or publisher foresaw the amount of attention he’d receive.

      It sure almost looks as if the WH had a few missiles in their PR arsenal, thought they’d shoot him down in under 48 hours, and move on to the next thing. But it’s looking like Scott McClellan has ‘legs’ and that must be a surprise to McClellan, to his publisher, and to the WH.

  36. maryo2 says:

    @64 – The first squeal I heard came from Dan Bartlett. The second was from Ari Fletcher.

    I think they are in jeopardy.

    • Hmmm says:

      Hmmm. Spokespeople like Scotty. I can imagine Scotty could prove they lied, but how far up would that go?

      • maryo2 says:

        But what if Bartlett knew Plame was covert CIA. He isn’t just spokesperson, he is a strategic communication planner (according to the WH web site):

        “Dan Bartlett serves President George W. Bush as Counselor to the President. In this capacity, Bartlett is responsible for all aspects of President Bush’s strategic communications planning and the formulation of policy and implementation of the President’s agenda. “

        Libby told Fleischer and then “Later that day , Fleischer was scheduled to leave with President Bush on a trip to Africa. On the flight over, Fleischer testified that he was sitting near White House communications director Dan Bartlett.” when Fleischer spoke outloud about Mrs. Plame.

        The timing and the fact that Bartlett works for GW (Libby works for Cheney) implies that Bartlett got the okay from GW to leak.

        • Hmmm says:

          OK, I follow, but I guess the question is: What does Scotty know about that?

          I’m still curious about propaganda penalties too.

  37. maryo2 says:

    IANAL – I couldn’t even spell subpeona before Bush II. Now I know committee names, committee members names, the order of succession, what a grand jury is, which appellate courts have jurisdiction where, …

    I had rather I didn’t need to know all this.

  38. marymccurnin says:

    I am torn between feeling Scotty is laying down a defense of sorts for George or he is finally telling what truth he can. He certainly knows what kind of jeopardy he is in. The WH reactions seems rather muffled for people that read the book a month ago.

  39. ezdidit says:

    WHAT A CROCK! Scott is still carrying the boss’s water with his memoir/expose.

    All this does is air out the dirty Bush laundry so McCain can run against it & distance himself from it.

    And the truth of McCain’s elitist, lobbying grafters is just more garbage too outrageous to print next to the McClellan flap.

    The real issue is the oil/food crisis, the economic failure of the republican party, HR 5660 (Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that has generated the hyperinflation we have now. That is the greater rip-off.

  40. Hmmm says:

    Interesting, according to the text of the draft ‘Stop Government Propaganda Act’:

    Since 1951, the following prohibition on the use of
    appropriated funds for propaganda purposes has been enacted
    annually: “No part of any appropriation contained in this or
    any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda
    purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized
    by Congress.”.

    So if no appropriation, propaganda not illegal…? That’s downright weird. Must be another statue somewhere on this. Haven’t found the penalties yet.

  41. hackworth says:

    Scotty was a very effective WH Press Secretary for Bush. He stone-walled, deflected, and refused to comment on an ongoing investigation(S). Listening to his constant lying was maddening.

    Now all the pundits say that Scotty was a lousy Press Sec. In fact, Scotty did a fine job protecting Bushco and sheilding the press and the public from any pertinent information. He was a good toady. You can’t take that away from him.

    • perris says:

      when I saw scotty speak it was clear he was struggling with what he had to say, it was brutally clear, you could see the wheels spinning and the brain saying;

      “how do I get myself out of this”

      in my opinion he was bad at lying because he didn’t want to do it

      you see snow and the blond very happy to lie, they have absolutely no problem saying what they are saying, they are on a mission to “defend and save the legasy” of the war monguer in chief

      scotty was a good press secretary when he believed what they had to say but I saw his heart get broken when he had to deny comment about his statement defending karl rove in the plame case

      he looked betrayed and he was, he thought rove told him the truth and he found out he was lied to

      I am liking scotty right now

  42. PetePierce says:

    Better late than never. 24 “former US Attorneys” filed an amicus brief in the civil suit arguing Congress’ right to subpoena White House officials and here is the list:

    The prosecutors who signed on to the document are: Steve Sachs, who was appointed by President Johnson; George Beall, an appointee of President Nixon; Roxanne Conlin, James K. Robinson, Atlee W. Wampler III and Edward G. Warin, appointees of President Carter; Leon Kellner, Dan K. Webb and J. Alan Johnson, who were appointed by President Reagan; William Braniff, an appointee of the first President Bush; Zach Carter, Edward L. Dowd, B. Todd Jones, Doug Jones, Donald K. Stern, Sheldon Whitehouse and Alan Bersin, who were appointed by President Clinton; Bush appointees Iglesias and Matthew D. Orwig, and Richard Rossman, who was appointed by the court in 1980.

    Four watchdog groups filed their own court papers Thursday also siding with Congress. Conservative groups Judicial Watch and the Rutherford Institute joined the Brennan Center for Justice and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, both liberal groups.

  43. FrankProbst says:

    Of course, there’s always option “C,” none of the above. It’s possible (crazy, I know) that neither is lying. It’s possible the White House tried to say Scottie McC couldn’t publish … say … a conversation he had with the President about authorizing the Plame leak and … say … a conversation between senior advisors Turdblossom and Scooter. It’s possible the White House tried to say those things were protected by executive privilege and Scottie McC’s lawyers simply said, “you’re joking, right?”

    Disagree–there’s no option “C” here. Read her quote again: “…the White House Counsel’s Office has an opportunity to look at manuscripts for any possible classified information or any means for executive privilege to be asserted. None of them were in this case.” Perino didn’t just say that the White House didn’t invoke executive privilege. She says that they DIDN’T EVEN TRY.

  44. perris says:

    I just got this from think progress and it is very nice to see;

    McClellan apologizes to Richard Clarke for smearing him as press secretary.
    Scott McClellan is currently the subject of a White House smear campaign because of his new book. But as press secretary, McClellan helped smear Richard Clarke after Clarke revealed that the White House “ignored terrorism for months” and sought to tie 9/11 to Iraq immediately. According to Clarke, McClellan apologized to him last night, stating, “I should have known how personal it would get when they went after me, well, I mean, after what I said about you.” On MSNBC today, Clarke said the apology was “genuine.” Watch it:

    • strider7 says:

      remember when you were young and naive,idealogical and loyal and beleived what you were told,weather it be historical,religous,moral or political?
      With these beleifs,you knew without a doubt that the people that who were making the decisions that affected your life had yours and the countrys’ best intrests in mind and that somethings needed to be secret to protect the national security of the US.They have to lie to us because either they are privy to more info than we are or that they are smarter or something.You see alot of this in ww1 and ww2 propaganda.Then they are exposed for being liars and theives and murderers that will do anything to aquire power and wealth.So you question everything and force them to validate everything they do. So they’re forced to lie even more.That’s propaganda.They have to lie.They can’t tell the truth because it would jeopardize national security.Bushco has a liscense to lie.All the info that is allowed is mostly designed to distract,confuse or disorient you because the enemy is watching and we don’t want them to know what we’re doing.So we become the enemy.We receive the same info as the enemy.That’s Mcs’ job. Why is he apologizing?

      • perris says:

        Why is he apologizing?

        he’s opologizing to try to earn redemption, he believes he committed some pretty bad things and he thinks he can do some good, that’s why

        all men are NOT the same, SOME people have the BEST intentions in mind, only to find out they’ve failed and then they do what they can to make amends

        *crosses fingers*

        • strider7 says:

          I’m not that forgiving ie
          “Why would I want to take your life?
          You only murdered my father and raped his wife
          Tatooed my babies with a poison pen
          You mocked my god and you humilliated my friends
          I need a shot of love”

            • bobschacht says:

              I don’t think you’re qualified to make that statement.
              There are people who have done worse (i.e., things as bad or worse to more people.) But while we can make our own judgments, we cannot make them for others.

              Bob in HI

              • strider7 says:

                By the way Bob, I didn’t mean that comment about Jesus literally.I meant it as a way to define the ability to forgive. As a comparison.
                And as far as better or worse goes, as far as I’m concerned there is a fine line between those that have sold the policy and those who make the policy

  45. Hmmm says:

    I am now feeling Scotty may well be sincere, however barring further revelations I am not necessarily finding he and his book as practically useful as they at first seemed. Where’s the damned beef?

    • bmaz says:

      There, from what I can discern, is not that much really new in McClellen’s book; however, having an insider put so much in writing and be willing to stand behind it is pretty darn valuable. But there has to be a vehicle for the value to be realized and that, as always, remains the problem. Pelosi, Hoyer and Rahmbo still won’t even discuss meaningful action and impeachment is the vehicle specifically designed for this situation. To be honest, although it could be used, the criminal justice system, despite the fervent desires of so many, is not really designed to handle this mess, even if it were available, which it currently certainly is not.

      • Hmmm says:

        I’m with ya, but “valuable” how, exactly? I would think that anyone who could possibly be affronted by what was done already knows all about it — so who exactly is likely to have their position significantly changed by hearing Scotty’s Tales? (This is just a question, not a challenge.)

        • phred says:

          I’m sure bmaz will jump in to correct me on this if I am mistaken (and by the way, I agree the media is focusing on Scottie’s remarks about the WH in order to NOT talk about his remarks about the media), but I think there are potentially multiple angles that may be putting the WH into a tizzy:

          1) exposing the routine quality of the propaganda operation complicates the Iran game plan, and it appears there are those in the administration who still ardently desire to go to war with Iran

          2) again in exposing the propaganda campaign (which pretty much included all R’s in Congress) opens the floodgates for endless video clips and sound bites of McCain (the so-called maverick) parrotting Bush, not good for what already appears to be a grim election season

          3) impeachment:
          it is possible that Pelosi took impeachment off the table, strictly in the interest of election prospects for Democrats in 2008. If that is true she is even more craven that I thought for putting her party’s interests ahead of the country’s interests.

          However, I have long thought that she took it off the table to protect herself and/or other Dem leaders who either implicitly or explicitly agreed to policies such as spying on citizens without a warrant or torturing prisoners. If that is true, and if impeachment is off the table because Dem politicians are exposed to either political or criminal liability, then impeachment for those things will never happen, no matter who spills what beans from the administration.

          Where Scottie’s revelations get interesting is if Bush in fact gave the go ahead to blow Plame’s cover, in spite of statements made to the public that he wanted to get the leakers and had told everyone in the WH to cooperate with Fitz’s investigation. And further, he did it through Cheney, and ultimately he commuted Libby’s sentence — preserving Libby’s right to remain silent… then we find ourselves in a clear cut case of obstruction of justice. See Kagro’s excellent post over at DKos about what Madison had to say about that way back when. Now then, what makes this different than all the other crimes BushCo have committed, is outing a spy was strictly a WH smear job, no Dem participation required. That means, if Pelosi is not as craven as noted above (willing to sacrifice the country on the altar of the Democratic Party’s electoral fortunres), then she is free to impeach on these grounds alone without risking taking any Dems down with Bush & Cheney. And as noted in Kagro’s post, with them both implicated in the crime and obstruction of justice, they can both be suspended at the same time.

          If that happened, not only would we get rid of those two, but there go all the hopes and dreams within the administration to attack Iran, and there goes any shred of a hope of salvaging some kind of electoral victory in the fall. Choice number 3 is really, all of the above, and I believe that is what makes Scottie’s remarks such a threat. He was an insider, with inside information with the potential to cause massive headaches on multiple fronts for BushCo.

          • Hmmm says:

            Yes, the three are definitely related. Re. your 2), over at the main Lake some folks showed me that between Retired-General-Gate and Scotty-Gate what Teams W and Dick now have on their hands is a practically perfect storm for their propaganda capabilities. That means their ability to catapult the propaganda that a successful run at your 1) would require, is now at a nadir. (Thank gawd.) Now, on your 3), however, I am not so convinced that just because there was no direct D participation in the VPW affair, that necessarily means an impeachment move wouldn’t expose D’s to attack. I assume the R’s have tons of other, wholly unrelated, awful dope on the D’s and would not hesitate to use it if an impeachment attempt is mounted — I mean, just look how fast they went ad hominem on their own formerly dear Scotty. That may well prevent an impeachment. And I hope I’m just as wrong as can be about that.

            • phred says:

              Oh I agree, that it still seems a remote possibility that Pelosi would pursue impeachment, even now (so yes, I do think she is that craven). However, there is a big difference between the right wing smear machine (which would be inevitable) and a Bush/Cheney defense lawyer producing evidence during an impeachment proceeding that showed Democrats agreed to the conduct that Bush/Cheney would be on trial for. That is the distinction I was trying to make.

              Pete, my understanding is the Speaker of the House controls what comes to the floor for action. I think she does have the authority to prevent impeachment if she chooses (she does not have the ability to ensure such articles would be approved). As for the public, I disagree, I think impeachment hearings would be devastating to the Republicans. The public disapproved of the Clinton impeachment because it was a witchhunt and everyone knew it, even though the press insisted on covering it from the nattering nancy perspective of “whatever will we tell the children?”. I think the public is perfectly capable of distiguishing the difference between undesirable personal behavior and criminal behavior related to one’s official duties.

              • Hmmm says:

                Sure, but I don’t think it’d necessarily have to come out in the impeachment proceeding, any garden variety leak would do the trick just fine. I’m thinking that before or during impeachment proceedings, convincing evidence (even well-fabricated false evidence) of D complicity in any of the following might well destroy in the public eye the perceived moral superiority of the D’s: warrantless domestic surveillance; warrantless detention/rendition/torture of US citizens anywhere; continuity of government. (My gawd, what a depressing list that is.)

                • phred says:

                  You do have a point there. So perhaps my bright idea of a narrowly focused impeachment isn’t so good after all ; ) I suppose if Bush and Cheney really thought they were going to go down, they would make damn sure to take as many Dems as they could with them…

              • PetePierce says:

                Constitutionally sure, of course the Speaker can control what comes to the floor of the House although we all know there is always an equaiton of pressure, but I meant the support to actually run impeachment would have to be broad based and the Senate would have to be on board or should be. They didn’t get it done last time, and compared to the gamut of crimes that are lined up now, what they tried Clinton for pales exponentially of course.

                • bmaz says:

                  But, in reference to my @132, I think a whole lot of bad could have been prevented just by the imposition of the process even without conviction. It would have seriously put them under the microscope of scrutiny and gummed up their well oiled crap machine; that alone could have and would have saved a whole lot of long term grief. Heck, we might not even have Alito….

              • bobschacht says:

                Yes, the speaker has the power to prevent a resolution of impeachment from coming to the floor– But Conyers could still initiate hearings by his HJC, conducted with the expansive rules of impeachment, and that would be a healthy thing! Why don’t they understand that?!!!

                Bob in HI

          • PetePierce says:

            3) impeachment:
            it is possible that Pelosi took impeachment off the table, strictly in the interest of election prospects for Democrats in 2008. If that is true she is even more craven that I thought for putting her party’s interests ahead of the country’s interests.

            However, I have long thought that she took it off the table to protect herself and/or other Dem leaders who either implicitly or explicitly agreed to policies such as spying on citizens without a warrant or torturing prisoners. If that is true, and if impeachment is off the table because Dem politicians are exposed to either political or criminal liability, then impeachment for those things will never happen, no matter who spills what beans from the administration.

            I don’t think Pelosi would ever be able to control impeachment alone Phred, and there is certainly complicity of Democrats in ways that would make your stomach turn in blocking investigations into all these issues. Two pragmatic reason in this election dynamic that impeachment is probably not being entertained is that the Dems are going to need all their focus and attention in the few short months left for this general election. The other is that the Clinton impeachment left a bad tast in half the country’s mouth and any impeachment even of Bush as horrible as he and Cheney and all of this adminstration is would be viewed as counterproductive by the public.

            • bobschacht says:

              But can our country really afford to let the Republicans kill impeachment forever? That is just hateful to contemplate. Cowardice to the Nth degree. Craven cowardice. Impeachment is in the Constitution for a reason! And those who view impeachment as a quaint old-fashioned method have just stuck the shiv in the side of our Constitutional democracy and twisted it.

              Am I angry? Yes.

              Bob in HI

          • bmaz says:

            Phred, I have personally always thought it was a combination of your two points in item 3 that have caused Pelosi, Hoyer, Emmanuel et al’s intransigence on impeachment. I cannot remember where, but I recently saw a direct statement by someone connected closely (a representative, top aide? can’t remember; but someone that was credible for the statement) that said it was flat out stated by Pelosi to be about election concerns and increasing her majorities. I still believe there is some of the other factor too, but that still boils down to political/election concerns doesn’t it? It is craven and unconscionable.

            • Hmmm says:

              I’m a constituent of hers and no fan, but it is kind of a dilemma, since you need the numbers before you can get the impeachment/conviction.

              I seem to remember years ago Harry Shearer had this idea that we could get a solidly D Congress in Nov 2008, and then in Jan ‘09 in the few days between the seating of the new Congress and the Presidential inauguration, THAT would be the opportune moment to impeach.

              • phred says:

                I see your point about needing the numbers for impeachment to result in conviction in the Senate. However, we already have the numbers in the House (if the Dem whip is any good at their job) to get impeachment proceedings started in the Senate. It bears repeating that it was Republicans who went to Nixon and told him the gig was up. With the full bore coverage that impeachment would produce, public pressure would almost certainly turn enough R votes to prevail in the end.

                  • phred says:

                    There’s a wistful smile for that on this end too ; ) Certainty is too strong a word, but yes, I retain an enormous amount of faith in the citizens of this country when they are properly informed. But that’s the catch, the MSM won’t properly inform anyone without being dragged kicking and screaming to do it. And that’s why I have longed for impeachment, because then the majority of Americans would come to know what those of us here know.

              • bobschacht says:

                “I’m a constituent of hers and no fan, but it is kind of a dilemma, since you need the numbers before you can get the impeachment/conviction.”

                I hate this argument. The Democrats have the numbers to initiate impeachment hearings in the HJC! Then they have enhanced power to dig up dirt.

                Another good consequence of doing this is to so discredit Cheney & Bush in the public mind that any thought they might have of provoking a crisis to perpetuate their power will become impossible.

                Bob in HI

                • Hmmm says:

                  OK, but the party’s not united on it, the D’s say they don’t have the votes in either case… so what are you proposing they do, hold a vote now and only get 15%?

                  • bmaz says:

                    In the first place, I think there would be a lot higher percentage than that. Secondly, you bet your ass that is what I am saying. It is the right thing to do constitutionally and morally; it is literally what is required to honor their oath to office. I want to know who has the honor and gumption to do their duty and who is derelict in their duty. And the American people are so entitled to know, win, lose or draw. Then once they have voted, however that is, constituents can have their say in the next election. That is how the founding fathers designed and contemplated the system working, and that is what should have been done and still should be done.

                    • strider7 says:

                      mark Twain has a compilation of writings that were published after he died called “A pen warmed up in hell” and in them there is an essay called the War Prayer that is really worth reading if you haven’t already

                    • strider7 says:

                      You just asking everyone to take a stand right? Give em a chance to make a statement,in public,and vote on it.

                    • Hmmm says:

                      Understood and almost completely agreed. I’m mainly concerned about the operational success. The country has been hijacked and it looks like there is only one chance to fix it. So any impeachment effort must be done in a way most likely to succeed. Else all is lost, likely permanently. So I guess I don’t agree that trying and failing is a better outcome than waiting until the right moment. In the long view a successful impeachment, even if after 1/20/2009 without removal from office, seems a better outcome than the House bringing an impeachment vote while W is still in office and failing to pass it.

                    • bmaz says:

                      How in the world can you determine that it can’t succeed until there has been an opportunity to marshall the evidence and present it as a coherent whole? This literally just slays me. Should we not investigate any criminal we are not certain we can convict before the investigation is formally done? How about we do the right thing and the leaders actually do their damn job and give the weak and indecisive the facts and cover to also do the right thing? You can’t get there if you are too damn timid to start. To me, far more is lost if you don’t have the respect for the Constitution, it’s principles and edicts, and the Americans that have lived, fought and died to protect them since the founding of this country when the time is ripe as opposed to the time it is convenient and easy.

                    • Hmmm says:

                      With great respect: That would be great if the members of the House would be as impartial an audience for the evidence as a trial jury would be. But I just don’t think they would.

                    • Hmmm says:

                      Also I guess I should have been clearer that the HJC should go full steam ahead, I never said not to investigate, marshal evidence, build a case.

                    • Hmmm says:

                      I trust we can find accord that those three are loathsome lickspittles, every single one. None speak for me.

                    • bmaz says:

                      And the respect is returned fully. But, to me at least, the greater failure is to not try. when you blithely block even the investigation, you are dishonoring every thing the Constitution stands for. Why have the thing if you aren’t going to muster the courage to stand up for it and protect it? To do less is to truly degrade it into “just a damn piece of paper”.

                    • Hmmm says:

                      Sorry, I must have been unclear, I do not advocate doing nothing. I advocate acting at the opportune moment, when fullest force can be mustered.

                    • phred says:

                      Great debate last night folks — I clearly turned in for the night much too soon ; )

                      Hmmm, you said a couple of things above that I just wanted to follow up on briefly, first that Congress won’t be impartial, and second that we need to wait for the opportune moment.

                      We don’t need, and with the current crop of legislators, can’t expect Congress to be impartial. In my view, impeachment is for the benefit of the public. The public will be watching and evaluating the proceedings. Impeachment is for our benefit, to inform us. It is why I am so convinced that with hearings the public will pressure members of Congress to do the right thing. So waiting for an impartial Congress will never get us where we need to be. And besides, members of Congress are in dire need of a reminder they work for us, having the public closely scrutinize the actions of each member during hearings would certainly help in that effort.

                      Second, I do believe this is the opportune moment. Just as the R’s set the bar for impeachment too low with Clinton, the D’s are setting it too high for Bush. If we fail to impeach Bush now, then what will be sufficient grounds for any succeeding President? And much worse, if Congress essentially lets all of the BushCo criminal conduct slide with no consequences of any kind, then how do we put a stop to the criminal conduct itself? To me, it is much more worrying that all of this just slides into the next Presidency, then all subsequent holders of that office will inherit what appear to be monarchical powers, pixie dust and all.

                    • Hmmm says:

                      Hi phred. Thanks for reading closely. Actually I didn’t mean to imply that impeachment needed to wait for an impartial Congress to appear, in fact I was arguing the opposite, that Congress will never ever be impartial. In the impeachment context this is primarily due to party loyalties, so as a result, the bigger the D majority at the time of the actual impeachment vote, the better chance it will have. Put that in the context of the fall elections where a major increase in the D majorities is all but guaranteed, and it looks pretty clear that chances for a successful impeachment vote will be significantly better after the new Congress is seated. Of course seeing that logic should in no way minimize the fact that the longer the waiting, the more dead. And it doesn’t mean HJC shouldn’t get busy immediately if not sooner, obviously they should. The actual impeachment vote in the full House is the thing that most needs the opportune moment, because we only get one chance, and if it fails, then there will never be any rolling back of the precedents Bush years.

                    • strider7 says:

                      Great point. Do you think a soldier has the opportunity to negotiate with his enemy for political reasons weather or not it’s the right decision to shoot.

                  • bobschacht says:

                    No, dammit, I’m proposing to hold the HEARINGS by the House Judiciary Committee, which is under Conyers’ control, not Pelosi’s. Formulate ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. You can’t tell me that with all the high crimes and misdemeanors the Bush and Cheney gang have committed, you don’t think that the HJC can compile enough evidence to pass even one article of impeachment out of the HJC? With a Democratic majority on the committee??

                    What is it with you people? Too much kool-aid???

                    Bob in HI

                    • Hmmm says:

                      Didn’t mean to make you mad, Bob. I’ve been talking about what happens after that, the vote in the full House. Of course HJC has to get out in front first, and Go Conyers!, but that all happens before actual impeachment. Sorry for being vague.

            • phred says:

              Yep, craven, unconscionable, and sickening. Not at all what the framers had in mind, eh? By the way, I forgot to actually state the thing that you might correct me on… I’m easily distracted when I get long winded ; ) At any rate, my understanding is that it is still a crime to blow a spy’s cover — even if you are the President. Am I right about that or have we already crossed the threshold where everything is legal if the President does it?

              And Hmmm, I sure wish we had some politicians like that — the kind who put the country first. What can I say, I’m a dreamer ; )

              • bmaz says:

                Ah, here it is. I got it in an email from Rep. Wexler. Here it is on his website:

                Unfortunately, to date, these arguments have not been enough to convince even a majority of the liberal and progressive Members of Congress to support impeachment hearings. In addition, the leadership of the Democratic Party in Congress genuinely feels that pursuing impeachment will jeopardize our congressional agenda and threaten gains in the November elections. Although I genuinely disagree with this view, to date I have been unable to convince them to change this policy.

              • bmaz says:

                I think that is a very tough question. Theoretically, yes it would still be a crime; the problem lies in EW’s pixie dust. As President he could declassify her identity I suppose; it then gets down to whether or not he did it legally etc. However, for purposes of of impeachment, it is a high crime or misdemeanor if Congress says it is; so no problemo.

                And demanding the “numbers” to convict before you have accumulated the evidence by a full investigation, with the extra powers attendant to an impeachment investigation, is silly. Why would you demand votes for a conviction from jurors before you have accumulated and presented the evidence to them? That is a specious argument. The mere act of engaging in the process brings some sanity and regularity to the process, irrespective of the verdict.

                • phred says:

                  Thanks bmaz. I wonder what Nancy would define as a high crime and misdemeanor? Just for fun, I like to imagine what would be so heinous in Nancy’s world that she would be forced to impeach (aside from the tried and true live boy/dead girl, but hey, even then, one never knows with her).

                  • bmaz says:

                    That has long been my question. What would be enough? Crikey, we got dead people by the hundreds of thousands all over the globe from these asswipes. How many would be alive today if Bush and Cheney had been impeached even one year ago? Two years ago? Three years ago? What about the economic damage that might have been partially lessened? What about the reputation of the US that might not have been squandered in the meantime? The costs are simply incalculable. Pelosi, Hoyer, et al. have a whole lot of blood and destruction on their hands. Seriously.

                    • phred says:

                      Lets just hope they don’t find themselves adding Iran to their fine list of accomplishments.

                      How do any of these people sleep at night? I caught Bill Moyer’s Journal tonight and he featured a new documentary called Body of War. One clip in particular was painful to watch. They showed a paralyzed vet (Tomas Young I think his name is) in his wheelchair at home watching the WH Correspondents Dinner where W and Laura were yucking it up about not finding the missing WMD and being a Desperate Housewife.

                      I would like to think Scottie has turned over a new leaf, but I suppose it was asking too much for him to actually say he was sorry to the American public when Wolf Blitzer gave him the opportunity to do so. I hope McClellan watches that documentary someday and contemplates what his conspiracy with the media wrought.

                    • strider7 says:

                      I really try to put myself in the Iraqis shoes and imagine what it must be like.You could create an analogy for it here in the US too.We attacked Saddam because he’s a dirty rotten no good son of a bitch blah blah and we have to save the Iraqi people blah blah.What if China decided that Bush was a global terrorist blah blah and attacked us.I mean nuked us or something horrible and people were slaughtered and tortured and took over the country .No water,no shelter no elect blah blah.I can tell you for sure that most people would go to their deaths to get even with them .Generation after generation would find ways to fight them.This is what we’ve done to the Iraqis and like us they will never give up

                    • PetePierce says:

                      I don’t know if you saw Richard Clark on KO last night; you had commented lately that you were disenchanted with KO’s calling fraud where he saw it, and he continues to do just that.

                      Richard Clark was on and giving his reaction to the recent book where Scott McClelland was a coward before he mustered up a little bravery. Gale Collins in this morning’s NYT points out that the lemmings rushing forward to denounce Scotty McC are not questioning the substance of his claims that Bush and Cheney kept lying to a press and a public who continue to facilitate and tolerate them right this minute.

                      What George Forgot

                      So having put up with this, and facing a Congress who for the most part continues to put up with all of the killing that you so correctly say could have been avoided, it would seem that this year we have the chance for some pre-emption and I’m not talking about the Supremacy concept that you studied in Constitutional Law and watch rear its head in pre-emption cases throught the federal circuit panels and the S. Ct.

                      I’m talking about the pre-emp[tion that doesn’t lose the election to this arrogant prick “Mah Friends” (you’ve heard that a few thousand times haven’t you) from Arizona with his arrogant shallow sugar momma and her Anheuser Busch fortune from daddy of Cindy.

                      Your pointing up an excellent reason we can all get out a lot more vote this time. Kerry lost narrowly in ways thatwe absolutely cannot repeat or we’re going to get a lot more of the killing you reference. It is painful to say we don’t know how accurate the vote in Ohio was because of the fucking voting machines that we have in place for this coming election and the primaries and caucusus we have just experienced. Welcome to the USA.

                      In an election where about 120 million votes were cast, Bush won 51 percent of the returns and 274 votes in the Electoral College. Kerry won 252 electoral votes. But Kerry’s numbers were bolstered by huge numbers of blacks who went to the polls – who made up 11 percent of the total votes cast.

                      Kerry loss prompts call for closer look at Black Democratic role

                      Why John Kerry Lost the 2004 Election

                      Myths in Ohio 2004: Reconsidering the Results

                    • PetePierce says:

                      And then there’s this old phrase: “Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” or “Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.” (George Bernard Shaw)

                      Complicet Americans who know nothing about Iraq and everything about “Sex and the City” are responsible for this killing in spades.

                      Nation as a whole guilty of self-deception at war’s outset

            • bobschacht says:

              If this is true, then the Democrats are guilty of politics as craven as anything the Republicans have done, and are violating their oath of office. It is exactly this sort of thing that I am hopeful that Obama can change. It will require vision and determination to clean this mess up, and it will NOT be cleaned up by practicing the kind of perpetual political campaign that McClellan fingers as the key to what is wrong in Washington today.

              Bob in HI

          • readerOfTeaLeaves says:


            First, putting this in a partisan context clouds the real issues involving national security. Further, they cloud the issues about what a so-called “Commander in Chief” OWES those in uniform, which is to cover their asses and in all deeds and actions conduct affairs in ways that honor their work. Frankly, if any Dem were in on outing Plame, my attitude is that they ought to damn well be impeached right along with any Republicans who conspired.

            • phred says:

              rOTL, I’m not entirely following you, but I think we’re in agreement. I was just trying to thread the needle and find a way that Pelosi might pursue impeachment. However, I entirely concur that any politician who has had a hand in the myriad lawbreaking of these last years all ought to be impeached. The catch is that only politicians can conduct impeachment, which is why the rest of us continue to sit here waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and…

              • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

                I was just trying to thread the needle and find a way that Pelosi might pursue impeachment.

                Okay, got it — my earlier reading of your comment seemed very out of character for you,. Apologies if I misunderstood.

                It is so difficult to watch Congress be ignored, stonewalled, and lied to. But Pelosi’s “You don’t know the half of it” suggests that at least someone(s) other than the bloggers are trying to connect the dots. Here’s hoping…

    • kspena says:

      I listened/watched several MSM conversations about Scottie’s book today and in general what seems to make this book important is that it is taken as ‘fact’ by MSM types, as coming from someone close to bush. For whatever reason, it can’t be dismissed or demonized as easily as was O’Neill’s, Clarke’s or others. I heard one presidential historian say it is very important, the stuff that presidential biographies are made of.

      Also, to perris, Scottie describes his meeting and apology to Richard Clarke on CNN in a conversation with Wolf Blitzer today.

      • bmaz says:

        Hmmm – Kspena’s got it about right here. The media, at least many of them, are flinching and covering their own butts, but they are not doing it by challenging or denying the truth of McClellen’s statements; nor, significantly, is the White House. That is important for setting as fact what we have been saying all along, and I see substantial value in that. Sometimes the corroboration is as important as the asserted fact; to me that is the value here. I also have to say, I am more and more becoming convinced he is truly genuine in his contrition and desire to make some good out of it. Time will tell.

        • kspena says:

          Richard Wolf, on Keith’s show tonight, said that Scottie had oval office walk-in privileges…which none of the other communications people had or have. No one can say he couldn’t have known or say what he did know.

  46. FrankProbst says:

    They’ve had McClellan’s book for a month, and the best they’ve been able to come up with is “snitch”. They all realize that they can’t call him a “liar”, because then they would have to find something that’s his said that is, at a minimum, factually untrue.

  47. kspena says:

    Keith said that his show from last night, interviewing Scottie, will repeat at 11pm tonight (if is heard correctly).

  48. yonodeler says:

    I doubt if Bush is worried about anything that McClellan might say proving that he authorized lawbreaking to strike back at Joe Wilson by outing his wife Valerie Plame. Bush’s defenders could suggest that Bush would have been within his rights to order staff to release information believed by him to be credible and enlightening; they could maintain that the President himself doesn’t have the list of covert agents memorized and couldn’t be expected to know that Plame was covert. Hearings with sworn testimony should nonetheless look into the matter and several others; who knows what the findings might be.

  49. FrankProbst says:

    I doubt if Bush is worried about anything that McClellan might say proving that he authorized lawbreaking to strike back at Joe Wilson by outing his wife Valerie Plame. Bush’s defenders could suggest that Bush would have been within his rights to order staff to release information believed by him to be credible and enlightening; they could maintain that the President himself doesn’t have the list of covert agents memorized and couldn’t be expected to know that Plame was covert.
    Disagree. If Bush was in any way involved in the betrayal of Valerie Plame–even if everything he did was legal–he’s STILL got a big problem. He commuted Scooter Libby’s prison sentence, thereby removing any incentive for Libby to cooperate with prosecutors. That’s obstruction of justice. Congress should have impeached him for it, but they didn’t. They treated it as just another sleazy pardon. But if you’ve got someone out there saying that Bush was involved in the whole thing from the beginning, that changes the game. The Founding Fathers themselves are on the record saying that things like that are what impeachment is for.

    • yonodeler says:

      I personally believe that Bush knew exactly what he was doing and that his conduct in the Plame matter, and in several other matters, warrants impeachment proceedings. But I sadly feel a need to think as his team might think so as to have a hope of knowing what to expect.

      Reagan set a standard of perceived success for Republicans by ostensibly upholding his principles while flaunting his disdain for being a detail man, and I believe that GWBush wants to play that approach as far as it will take him, which to date has been pretty far.

  50. Hmmm says:

    Maybe what we need are some Congressional D’s willing to martyr themselves on their own dirt for the good of the country. Kinda like what Scotty did, but harder.

  51. yonodeler says:

    Well, sparing the country impeachment proceedings did not keep the economy hunky-dory. Something in the prevailing anti-impeachment theorizing must be amiss.

  52. randiego says:

    Greetings kids! Bmaz, I said I’d try check in from Indonesia, and here I am, although it’s 2:30 am where you are – 4:30 saturday afternoon here.

    I’m in Padang, on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia. It’s near where they had a very large earthquake last september… and 1000 miles south of the big one that made the tsunami.

    Really beautiful here… an amazing place. we got in last night after 28 hours of flying out of LAX. Headed out for 2 week on a boat cruising the Mentawai Islands tonight.

    What interesting thing will happen while I’m gone?? No toobz out where I’m headed!

    Hoping to have a Dem candidate by the time I’m back. Cheers – here’s tipping a Bintang to you all!

  53. BayStateLibrul says:

    It’s pretty simple:

    Article I — Obstruction of Justice — Bushie commutes Libby’s sentence
    Article II — Obstruction of Justice — Bushie attempts to block
    McClellan from testifying.

    Let Impeachment proceeding begin.

    We need a comment from Fitzy…

    • PetePierce says:

      We need Fitzy to get off his ass and finish his job or else close the office and to quit hiding like a cowardly nebish. Any fucking US Attorney can take down people like Tony Rezko all day and all night long. And so what. They take down corruption in Illionis. It doesn’t put a scintilla of a dent in the killing that Bmaz bemoaned a few threads up @ 132. Burying Tony Rezko does not a fucking thing to address the large problems of these murduring pigs.

      In contrast if Fitz weren’t a cowardly nebish, he could get off his fucking reticent ass and indict Rove and Cheney and go after Bush.

      You want a comment–you’re getting no comment from Fitz how’s that–the guy he leaned on and almost sent to jail asked him for one and he said No Comment the other day. Jane Hamsher called his Special Counsel Office in April and they told her no comment. Yet we are still paying for that Special Counsel Office to be open. Can Marcy Wheeler tell me what the hell Fitz is doing and why he didn’t indict Rove and Cheney? Can Marcy tell me why that Special Counsel Office is still open if it’s going to continue to nebish on and do not a damn thing?

  54. freepatriot says:

    I pick option C

    and I suggest that we now decide which lying press secretary deserves the Ron Ziegler award for distinguished lying

    I do wish for the day when a presnit had to physically push these guys out on stage to tell the lies

    the jump right out there now

Comments are closed.