• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

One time When the President & VP Possibly Lied to us

Deadly Sushi

The One, The Only, Sushi
SUPER Site Supporter
Ok, the guy is writing a book. He wants sales of course. I have to take that into account when reading this. But I feel what he saying is true. I also feel he said it because it will 'sell'. I could give a rats butt if the guy sells ANY books but I cant dismiss what is IN the book. I have no proof what he said is true. But to me its, at this time in history, most likely correct. :pirate: I voted for him and right now I regret it. :(


3:25 p.m. CT, Tues., Nov. 20, 2007
WASHINGTON - Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recount the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.
"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Monday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."

Bush's chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card.
The excerpt, posted on the Web site of publisher PublicAffairs, renews questions about what went on in the West Wing and how much Bush and Cheney knew about the leak. For years, it was McClellan's job to field - and often duck - those types of questions.
Now that he's spurring them, answers are equally hard to come by.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said it wasn't clear what McClellan meant in the excerpt and she had no immediate comment.
Plame maintains the White House quietly outed her to reporters. Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, said the leak was retribution for his public criticism of the Iraq war. The accusation dogged the administration and made Plame a cause celebre among many Democrats.

McClellan's book, "What Happened," isn't due out until April, and the excerpt released Monday was merely a teaser. It doesn't get into detail about how Bush and Cheney were involved or reveal what happened behind the scenes.
In the fall of 2003, after authorities began investigating the leak, McClellan told reporters that he'd personally spoken to Rove, who was Bush's top political adviser, and Libby, who was Cheney's chief of staff.
"They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved," McClellan said at the time.
Both men, however, were involved. Rove was one of the original sources for the newspaper column that identified Plame. Libby also spoke to reporters about the CIA officer and was convicted of lying about those discussions. He is the only person to be charged in the case.

Since that news conference, however, the official White House stance has shifted and it has been difficult to get a clear picture of what happened behind closed doors around the time of the leak.
McClellan's flat denials gave way to a steady drumbeat of "no comment." And Bush's original pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak became a promise to fire anyone who "committed a crime."

Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby's 30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on.
 

BigAl

Gone But Not Forgotten
SUPER Site Supporter
Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby's 30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on.

Yep ! I read it and this sentence bothers me more than anything else . He just basically says says its history and move on . The guy is a slippery snake in my opinion .
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
Sushi I don't know if you were following the Valerie Plame case as it developed.

I thought her husband's defense of his wife, back in 2005, was the first time someone said 'Bush lied' and made it stick. I think that was the turning point, the moment where people came to their senses and figured out for themselves this president isn't interested in telling the truth.

I wrote about it here. Here is my post that wrapped up that thread, in March 2007:
http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?p=84251#post84251 and you might also like to see my first post that started the thread, 10-27-2005.

Bush will be our leader until January 2009. God help us all.
 

Cityboy

Banned
Sushi I don't know if you were following the Valerie Plame case as it developed.

I thought her husband's defense of his wife, back in 2005, was the first time someone said 'Bush lied' and made it stick. I think that was the turning point, the moment where people came to their senses and figured out for themselves this president isn't interested in telling the truth.

I wrote about it here. Here is my post that wrapped up that thread, in March 2007:
http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?p=84251#post84251 and you might also like to see my first post that started the thread, 10-27-2005.

Bush will be our leader until January 2009. God help us all.

Kind of dramatic there Cali.

Let's be honest here. The Valery Plame issue is simply a non-issue. She was never in any danger, and her husband was involved in the political arena. If this is Bush's big crime, those who are supporters of the Left are SOL.

Both Clinton's were, and still are, involved in scandal after scandal, and you guys on the left, or that hate Bush for whatever reason tend to overlook this fact. Bill Clinton has been accused of rape and murder with evidence that would bear a closer look, but you guys want to parrot "Bush Lied" over and over and site the Libby pardon as if this is Earth shattering news. Clinton pardoned many more convicted criminals. Why are you guys not upset about that? Because you either hate Bush blindly, or you blindly support Democrats regardless of what they do.

If we are going to start listing political "crimes", then let's list them all, not just cherry picking select issues that suits your political beliefs.

The Left IS NOT the savior of the little man and they spend the big corporate money just like the Right.

The Right is not the keeper of morality in America and they like to bed bouncy-bottomed bimbo's just like the Left.

Why can't we knock off the partisan bullshit and see things as they are? Line up the Democrats and Republicans side-by-side and compare them honestly, and then truthfully report what you see. And what you will see in most cases, unfortunately, is a stunning lack of difference between to two.
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
Why can't we knock off the partisan bullshit and see things as they are? Line up the Democrats and Republicans side-by-side and compare them honestly, and then truthfully report what you see. And what you will see in most cases, unfortunately, is a stunning lack of difference between to two.

Very well said CB! :respect:
 

mtntopper

Back On Track
SUPER Site Supporter
The Left IS NOT the savior of the little man and they spend the big corporate money just like the Right.

The Right is not the keeper of morality in America and they like to bed bouncy-bottomed bimbo's just like the Left.

Why can't we knock off the partisan bullshit and see things as they are? Line up the Democrats and Republicans side-by-side and compare them honestly, and then truthfully report what you see. And what you will see in most cases, unfortunately, is a stunning lack of difference between to two.

Well said Cityboy. :thumb:

Most people would have to agree if they take a hard look at all of our present and past politicians along with what they have not accomplished.
 

California

Charter Member
Site Supporter
Kind of dramatic there Cali.

Let's be honest here. The Valery Plame issue is simply a non-issue. She was never in any danger, and her husband was involved in the political arena. If this is Bush's big crime, those who are supporters of the Left are SOL.

Both Clinton's were, and still are, involved in scandal after scandal,...

Why can't we knock off the partisan bullshit and see things as they are? Line up the Democrats and Republicans side-by-side ... what you will see in most cases, unfortunately, is a stunning lack of difference between to two.
Maybe I'm not speaking clearly enough. What I'm trying to point out is the country is going in the wrong direction. Preemptive war based on made-up evidence is simply wrong - no matter whether it was Dems or Republicans who took us there. Endless war in Iraq fulfills Osama's dream, to bankrupt us bogged down in endless and unresolvable conflict. We should be spending that money to pursue Osama. In my opinion, Wilson's strong blowback was the turning point where the public began to examine what direction Bush is taking us.

Whenever I post something like this, I get the reply that there are more immoral politicians on the Democratic side of the aisle. That's not on-topic, it's a debating technique. Partisanship isn't what I'm trying to emphasize and that isn't a reply to what I said. I would like to promote a discussion of alternatives in the direction that our leaders are taking us. 'Stay the course' has gone on longer than WWII without accomplishing anything. Lets discuss alternatives that a future president, Democrat, Republican, or maybe third-party, might apply to get some better results.
 

dsgsr

New member
Cityboy;11569 said:
Why can't we knock off the partisan bullshit and see things as they are? Line up the Democrats and Republicans side-by-side and


Get rid of them all and start a third party. All Politicians have become scum, there isn't One running that has the true interest of the people and the future of this Country at Heart.


David
 

RedRocker

Active member
It's always been my understanding that this war is a continuation of the first Gulf war. As I recall Saddam signed agreements that he failed to live up to after surrendering the first time around. He ignored all the resolutions, but paid no consequences for the 8 years of the previous administration. The war "with" Iraq was to finish the first one. Now we're at war "In" Iraq with Al Queada as well as others. At least now our enemies know that the US will stand up for it's self, unlike the twenty plus years before when we did nothing. You might also notice we've been free from attack since engaging our enemies. It will be interesting to see what happens in 08 if a cut and run person is elected.
 

Cityboy

Banned
Maybe I'm not speaking clearly enough. What I'm trying to point out is the country is going in the wrong direction. .

We are certainly not Utopia, but we are in no better shape with Bush than we were with Clinton. Bush spends money just like a Democrat president would. Our economy is steadily chugging along despite the cries from those on the left who try to convince us otherwise, even with Bush's outrageous spending. If you don't believe that, just go out today and spend some time at your local retail stores and watch your neighbors opening their wallets and loading up the trunks of their cars with goods. Bush is not the cause of this ecnomic ebb and flow, any more than Clinton was the cause of the rising stock market and the crash that followed his administration. We are heading in the exact same direction as we were with Clinton, except the wrong direction with Clinton would have been the route of appeasement, as opposed to the questionable route Bush is taking, and neither way is a truly good choice.


Preemptive war based on made-up evidence is simply wrong - no matter whether it was Dems or Republicans who took us there. Endless war in Iraq fulfills Osama's dream, to bankrupt us bogged down in endless and unresolvable conflict. We should be spending that money to pursue Osama. In my opinion, Wilson's strong blowback was the turning point where the public began to examine what direction Bush is taking us. .

This is an arguable point whether we should be in Iraq or not. Will we actually be bankrupted by this? No. Why do I say that? See my comments above. The war in Iraq is costing us small change compared to all the social programs and pork barrell projects that consume our tax dollars. The Iraq war is publicized by the media each and every day, brought right into our living rooms. We are not reminded of all the money we pay for the socialist agenda and pet projects of our elected legislators on a dialy basis. War and death is distasteful and is not something most people like to see, and the fact that this death and destruction is costing us money makes it even more distasteful. But lets not forget that our elected representatives would be spending the money that is currently being spent in Iraq on vote buying largess if they could, and that is why the politicians on the left are upset. I do not believe they are as concerned with the well being of our troops as much as it angers them that they cannot direct those tax dollars being spent in Iraq to their social welfare program reelection coffers.

Whenever I post something like this, I get the reply that there are more immoral politicians on the Democratic side of the aisle.

This is indeed off topic, but it is arguably true. :poke: It is sad to say, but people seem to expect and accept that Democrats tend to have a scandalous nature and be involved in all manner of shady dealings. So, I'd feature a guess that the odds are strong that this statement is true.
 
Top