digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at emptywheel.firedoglake.com

George Bush Authorized the Leak of Valerie Wilson’s Identity

emptywheel.firedoglake.com — Scottie McC doesn't know it yet. But that's basically what he revealed this morning on the Today Show. During the interview, Scottie revealed the two things that really pissed him off with the Bush Administration. First, being set up to lie by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. And second, learning that Bush had--himself--authorized the selective ..

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MadKennyP, on 05/29/2008, -20/+522Treason.

    GEORGE H.W. BUSH: “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.” [Speech at CIA, 4/26/99]
    • Sil369, on 05/30/2008, -15/+413 ppl buried this comment. whom may i ask haha
    • LenBaird, on 05/30/2008, -5/+58People get paid to digg down stories and comments critical of this administration. I am surprised it hasn't been tagged as inaccurate yet.
      • Waiting2awake, on 05/30/2008, -3/+10Give it time, the east coast is just getting into the offices now. By mid day this will be on page 15 or marked as inaccurate. That is assuming the first wave of character assignations don't work......

      • miiiindriiiis, on 05/30/2008, -34/+6No one cares about you stupid Digg *****, goddamn.

        How ironic my captcha ended with WHY.
        • Waiting2awake, on 05/30/2008, -2/+14and yet you still took the time to post. Strange isn't? I guess things you'll do for money.
      • skrowl, on 05/30/2008, -18/+7Just because Scott says it happened doesn't make it true.

        How would a white house press secretary possibly even be exposed to this information?
        • MadKennyP, on 05/30/2008, -3/+18Just because the Bush Administration says something doesn't make it a lie. Oh wait, yes it does.
        • normalkid0615, on 05/30/2008, -4/+6People get paid to digg down stories and comments critical of this administration. I am surprised it hasn't been tagged as inaccurate yet.

          Welcome!
        • compdude32, on 05/30/2008, -10/+0Exactly, and lets not forget this whole issue has all ready been solved, it was a state department lifer (not a Bush supporter) who did the outing.
        • Skywise, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1Remember, liberals don't care about facts or knowledge. Just "truthiness". Stephen Colbert is so correct...
      • compdude32, on 05/30/2008, -14/+3Um... yea.... I think your tin foil hat is a little tight there buddy.
      • tidu, on 05/30/2008, -15/+9"People get paid to digg down stories and comments critical of this administration."

        Are you ***** kidding me? Every day 5 stories make the top stories list talking about how Bush did X and lied about Y. There is no paid bury brigade by anybody. It's like sending a conservative poster to daily kos to change the tide, it's pointless.
        • nycmac247, on 05/30/2008, -2/+9"There is no paid bury brigade by anybody"
          - don't know where to start. I work in Manhattan a lot doing tech support. There are floors of people in buildings that are paid to go to social websites and write what they are paid to write. Won't go into details but it surprises me that people on Digg would not know this. For your entertainment, there are also groups of people hired to look through magazines like People and Us so that marketing companies can stay up on what's "hip;" if you can think of some crackpot thing there are probably groups of interns doing it - I've seen it all and still can't believe some of the things I see.
        • theaceoffire, on 05/30/2008, -1/+6There are lots of people paid to push one ideal or another on wikipedia, digg, etc.

          The fact that they can't do it 90% of the time shows both the number of normal people involved and the futility of trying to alter it to begin with.
        • mcnasby, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Don't be so naive.
        • TripMoon, on 05/30/2008, -1/+0You are one of those people!
      • mm911, on 05/30/2008, -4/+6Where do I apply for that job?
        • kreneskyp, on 05/30/2008, -0/+9i'd say ask poser, jimmyspaza and the couple other regulars who seem to do nothing but post on digg all day in every anti republican article.
        • thereyago, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1for real every controversial story is "inaccurate" sometimes there is a right and wrong.
      • xEn1gma, on 05/30/2008, -11/+1Get paid to Digg down stories?

        Who cares about what any of you Digg idiots think? You think the government would care about some trivial social network like Digg to the point that they would pay people to "sabotage the truth"? You, along with everyone else in this community, have no power within our government -- get over yourselves. Haha, moron.


        P.S I suggest not defending Digg on this one for the simple fact that I will not give two ***** as to what you have to say. The only reason I made this account was to make fun of you people such as yourself. Your Digg community sucks, end of story. Digg me down and lay it to me.
        • cheerio, on 05/30/2008, -0/+7You obviously dont read the news about how they've been employing bloggers and random internet trolls...
        • ZxEfR, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Your obviously a government troll...how do I know? Because nobody could possibly be so stooopid as to not know that governments are inherently evil.....except of course for people in government.
      • philipl411, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2How does someone get paid to digg up or down a story?
        • ZxEfR, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Are you looking for a job?
        • philipl411, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1nope,
        • LenBaird, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1They don't just do digg. They go all over the place on message boards, and comments on blogs and articles.
    • jeremyduffy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+14So.... so beautiful. There's nothing better to hit someone with than their own hypocrisy. Well played!
      • DangerMouse9, on 05/30/2008, -4/+0Woman: "Can you tell me if either of these two movies are any good?"
        Randall (not looking up from his magazine): "I haven't seen them."
        Woman (annoyed): "Well what about these two movies?"
        Randall (still not looking up): "Oh, those suck."
        Woman (still annoyed): "Sir, these are the same two movies."
        Randall: "I don't appreciate your ruse, ma'am."
        Woman (taken aback): "My what?"
        Randall: "Your ruse, your cunning attempt to try to trick me."
        Woman (angrily trying to reason): "I was only trying to point out that you weren't paying attention."
        Randall: "And I hope it feels good."
        Woman (angered): "You hope what feels good?"
        Randall: "I hope it feels good to point out the short comings of others."
        Woman (pissed off): "I'm never renting here again."
        Randall: "You'll be missed."
        Woman (pissed off, throwing movies as she leaves the store): "Screw you!"
        Randall (yelling out to Woman as she walks down the street): "Hey! You're not allowed to rent here anymore."
        Jay: "Yeah!"
        Randall (to self): "Screw me?"
      • BobSconce, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Uh.... Did you notice an extra initial there? The current president didn't say that (he wasn't even President in 1999). This was his father.
        • MadKennyP, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2That was part of my original point.
    • 55mph, on 05/30/2008, -3/+9Arrest the treasonous muther fuker!!

      It's time to return integrity to the Oval office.
      • philipl411, on 05/30/2008, -8/+3One, he did nothing "treasonous" if he released he ID. If the President of the US wants to leak the information, its not longer classified.
        • BoneheadFarker, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3There are better ways of releasing classified info to the public which doesn't endanger the life of an undercover operative working for your government...
        • MadKennyP, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2*****.
        • philipl411, on 05/31/2008, -1/+2She worked at a desk.
    • protium, on 05/30/2008, -3/+9Treason yes, but we have found out that Bush and his buddies are above the law. He'll get away with everything he did.
    • Arahail, on 05/30/2008, -2/+3I say we wait til he gets out of office before making further investigations. Who knows what he'll do, but probably pardon himself if we charge him now. Wait til we can put him in jail.
    • supaklaw, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliat ...

      Can always set up a commission afterwards and offer amnesty to those that testify.
    • lucian303, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2We can put him in jail and give him the death penalty for treason through impeachment. He cannot pardon himself. That's *****. I'd like to see the world's most wanted terrorist (Bush) get the fate he deserves. Impeach. Vote in the primaries for candidates that are for impeachment like Shirley Golub and others. It's not too late since there are already people in the house who are ready to impeach him. After he gets out it'll be too late.
    • ndesantis, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1stop saying impeachment. It will never happen
      1000$ says that all of these "further investigations" go nowhere and bush never goes to prison. thats just the way it is
  • katiedogg, on 05/29/2008, -17/+286If he was involved in the crime he commuted Libby of, it's an impeachable offense.

    Nancy Pelosi, is that still "off the table?" How bad does it have to get?
    • dakine01, on 05/29/2008, -4/+79I believe they would call it "Obstruction of Justice." If my memory is serving me correctly, there was a president in the early 1970s who resigned over this charge rather than face a certain Impeachment and conviction.
      • Waiting2awake, on 05/30/2008, -1/+18What party was he part of?

        Just saying.
    • eliot2000, on 05/30/2008, -3/+20how bad? Maybe if he killed and ate a baby at a press conference.
      • desuexmachina, on 05/30/2008, -3/+26Perino: I'm sorry Helen, we have already gone over your accusations that President Bush killed and ate a baby during last week's press conference. Could we please move on to more important matters?
      • mrsteveman1, on 05/30/2008, -2/+14The president would like to state for the record that his recent marinating and consumption of a child that may or may not have already been seasoned, should in no way be construed as an admission that this president finds babies to be tasty snacks.
    • manova, on 05/30/2008, -18/+6I don't get you, Bush did not lie to the investigators, Libby did. Libby was convicted of perjury, not leaking the info. Richard Armitage leaked the info, and as far as I know, he was never punished.
      • OatmealBatman2, on 05/30/2008, -7/+7Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Libby case, never brought charges against Armitage because Fitzgerald couldn't prove it in court. Was Libby's real crime that he lied to investigators? No, I think the real crime was colluding (with the president, of all people) to destroy the reputation of a covert state-protected CIA operative whose husband had criticisms on the war in Iraq. Outing Plame put an untold number of CIA operatives' lives at risk. In this way, Libby worked against US intelligence forces, and has thereby committed treason. Bush knew this, hell he authorized it, and his commutation of Libby's sentence shows exactly that.
        • sa9e, on 05/30/2008, -6/+4Who the hell cares what you 'think the real crime was'? Dugg down for being a complete dunce on legal questions.
        • OatmealBatman2, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2Oh please. If a Democrat turned out to have leaked state secrets, you'd be asking for his/her head on a pike. Yet this is exactly what members of the Bush administration have done, and you don't care.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 05/30/2008, -3/+24Pelosi and the entire congress must be impeached for their misfeasance. Their oath of office requires them to remove these criminals, yet they roll over and do what they are told.
    • draculthemad, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5Yes, because impeaching Bush and making Cheney president would be a good answer.
      Unless you want to impeach both of them, which would start meaning that people in the presidential order of succession would be ruling on the matter.

      Which would be such a bad precedent that maybe just waiting until he doesnt have the protection of the presidency and can be tried like normal a good thing by comparison.
      • skrowl, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2As soon as you impeach one, the other gets to name their own vice president. There's no way to impeach both of them at the exact same time under US Law.

        The ONLY way the speaker of the house gets to be president is if both the president and the vice president die or become otherwise unable to perform their jobs at EXACTLY the same time.
        • sodade, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Gee, I smell a new constitutional amendment coming on. Oh, that's right, I forgot that america is too dumb to actually evolve the political system the forefathers gave us...
        • gidd, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4Um.. no. That's just completely wrong.

          25th Amendment. If there's a vacancy in the office of VP, then the president shall (or can) nominate a VP, which then has to be confirmed by a majority of BOTH houses. Oh, and since the VP spot is empty, there's no VP to act as a tie-breaker in the Senate either for confirmation, if it came to that.

          So, yes, they can "name their own vice president", but without confirmation, that candidate is not part of the line of succession, so the Speaker's still next in line.

          Bush gets impeached and convicted/resigned, and Cheney becomes President. At that point, there is no VP. If Cheney then keels over or also gets convicted/resigned, then next in the line of succession (Pelosi) takes office assuming they're eligible and they accept.

          Alternatively, Cheney gets impeached and convicted/resigned, and Bush then has no VP. Pelosi is then next in line. Assuming Bush can't get a VP confirmed, then a subsequent Bush impeachment and conviction/resignation will result in Pelosi taking office.
      • mikeyeah, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Bush and Cheney should be impeached because and only because they violated US law and our constitution. I don't care if Donald Duck becomes President because we impeach them, our elected representatives are constitutionally obligated to do so.
    • Modulo, on 05/30/2008, -1/+12treason
    • DestroyFascism, on 05/30/2008, -2/+3I can only believe Pelosi is like a door bitch at some nightclub, only its the senate. And she is rejecting anything that smells, looks or can be assumed to be "different" in total defense of not just the republicans, but the white house maniacs and zealots.
      • h3lx, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2House, you mean House. And she's not a Back-door-bitch, she's a back alley whore who happens to have thing for sucking Republican *****.
    • HeroreV, on 05/30/2008, -0/+11Pelosi will probably be remembered as, "The bitch who refused to get Bush impeached".
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/30/2008, -5/+1Practically speaking, anything is an impeachable offense.
      • treehugger87, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4Actually, all high crimes and misdemeanors are impeachable offenses. Approving torture is a crime. Suppressing voters is a crime. Revealing the name of a CIA operative is a crime. Wiretapping phone lines is a crime. Lying under oath is a crime. Clinton's congress managed to get him under oath about an extramarital affair with an intern (a personal matter) and was impeached for the lie. We can't get so far as to get Bush to testify under oath and there is strong evidence that he has committed serious crimes.
      • compdude32, on 05/30/2008, -1/+0Actually no, Read the constitution.
        • treehugger87, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Article 2, section 4
          "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
        • compdude32, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Exactly, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, that is far from "anything is an impeachable offense"
    • compdude32, on 05/30/2008, -2/+3Scooter Libby wasn't convicted of outing Plame.
    • caramba420, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4***** impeachment. He's on the way out soon, anyway. Discovery, hearings, and the trial would last longer than he's going to be in office. Wait till after, then indict him in a criminal court, and send his ass to jail.
      • Kallius, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Won't happen. As soon as he's done, he'll be on a private jet to Dubai with Cheney and anyone else complicit in the crimes of this Administration. He'll live out his life laughing at the fact that he got money and power and no one could stop him. Trust me, anyone who is actually in a position to punish the wrongdoers of this Administration are either complicit themselves, or are just too damned scared to do anything.
    • principle, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Following the initial revelation in early 2006, that Scooter Libby was authorized to leak classified information to the press by both President Bush and Vice President Cheney, a media blitz was launched, asserting that Bush's authorization of the leak of classified information was legal. They claimed that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have authority under the Executive Order 13292 of March 25, 2003 to declassify national security information. However, the executive Order 13292 does not authorize the President or, the Vice President to declassify national security information without a prescribed procedure, which is listed under PART 3 of that order. Despite this fact, the talking heads on TV continued to insist that Cheney and Bush had the right to willy-nilly declassify secret information. Now we know that it was Bush who ordered outing of Valerie Plame, and in doing so outed a CIA front company Brewster Jennings & Associates where Valerie Plame was working. Outing an undercover CIA agent, much less an entire operation, is “treason” under U.S. law.

      Article. II.4 - Disqualification

      The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

      Congress and specifically Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers should be made aware that they are bound by their Oath to support the Constitution (5 USC 3331).
    • 140Suffolk, on 05/31/2008, -1/+2She was not an undercover agent. So "outing" her was not a crime.
      That's why no one was ever tried for the "crime". Cause there was no crime.
  • egregiousfdl, on 05/29/2008, -14/+145Treason. I'm sure the media will be reporting on this any day now.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 05/30/2008, -1/+7Ha, you forgot your /sarcasm tag.
      I wish I was joking.
  • TeddySanFran, on 05/29/2008, -11/+86"Yeah, I did"

    The banality of evil.
  • piniella, on 05/29/2008, -9/+157Isn't this enough to justify impeachment hearings?
    • Hangly, on 05/30/2008, -1/+19How about criminal proceedings?
    • bono4u, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3I think there are more then enough reasons and evidence for impeachment(i would even say for livelong prison or death sentence), what is missing is a strong joint will of the people to get it going.

      Why? Perhaps fear of provoking a move to dictatorship. Last hope for some people might be the elections. Well you know if you wait and do nothing you don't have to wonder if others take control. Or perhaps it is the embarrassment of the American people that they have to face, that they have chosen a complete idiot in the best way of seeing it in the worst a war profiteer with no ethical abilities at all for their president, twice.
    • ljfrench, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3If you wanted to charge him criminally, I would think you'd wait until after he was out of office. While in office, can't he just invoke his power of pardon and pardon himself? This was discussed a while back about Nixon when Bush was invoking his power to commute Libby's sentence.
      • h3lx, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2He can not pardon himself.
        • theaceoffire, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2He already has. He has given himself a future pardon for anything he does now for when he leaves office, and its already been signed.
    • compdude32, on 05/30/2008, -6/+1Ah yes a former disgruntled low level member of the administration striving for some fame and money saying something happened that he wouldn't even had been privy to if it did happen establishes grounds for impeachment?

      Please.
  • bevw, on 05/29/2008, -10/+88Where is Conyers? Impeachment time.
    • swrostmore, on 05/30/2008, -1/+24Rep. Wexler is calling for McClellan to testify before Conyers' Judicial Comittee. We can only hope Conyers listens.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 05/29/2008, -100/+18Only one problem - the congressional investigation proved Armitage leaked it
    Facts keep getting in the way - don't they lefty loonies
    Many of you lefty loonies are dumb as a box of rocks
    Does it hurt when your left wing handlers ram their hand up your arse to move your lips, lefty loony sock-puppets?
    • rationalbeats, on 05/29/2008, -17/+27Reported for hate speech.

      Lefty loonies is the same as calling someone a dumb white trash redneck.

      BTW Armitage was not the original source.

      You are just parroting right wing talking points which were disproved over a year ago.

      Thanks old man.
      • brycelb, on 05/30/2008, -28/+13Hate Speech, really? Are you really that sensitive that you would try and restrict someones freedom of speech. The left is extremely hypocritical when it comes to someone voicing an opposing opinion. Instead of simply posting a counter argument you feel the need to fire up the whhaaaaammmbulance and whine to mommy.
        • phrenzy, on 05/30/2008, -6/+9Tell me, who was it again that threatened a boycott on Dunkin Donuts and got them to pull an ad that they suggested was in support of terror?

        • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -6/+4"Tell me, who was it again that threatened a boycott on Dunkin Donuts "

          Nobody - NIT WIT

          Stop being a lefty loony parrot sock-puppet and do a little research
          MORON!

          Michelle Malkin never called for a boycott (read what she actually said asshat) you nit wit sock-puppet parrot

          "Is Ray’s blunder worth boycotting DD over? I’ll be interested to hear the company’s take. At this point, I’m going to give the management the benefit of the doubt" - Michelle Malkin
      • meuse, on 05/30/2008, -9/+8'lefty loonies' and 'dumb white trash redneck' are both fine with me, but I still dugg you both down.
      • swrostmore, on 05/30/2008, -5/+23parroting right wing talking points is what LastVisibleDog does best. He does it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
        • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -7/+4Seems maybe I should report you as a cyberstalker

          I know I am a good-looking hunk of man-musician - but sorry, I am taken
        • tehHardcorez, on 05/30/2008, -2/+2You're a ***** musician - are you having delusions of adequacy again?

        • swrostmore, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Does "man-musician" imply that you play the skin flute?
      • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -8/+2Poor baby - get your mommy to kiss your boo-boo

        Is that your conscience speaking? Are you are a dumb white trash redneck also?
      • PolishLogic, on 05/30/2008, -5/+4Report this if you'd like:

        You're a ***** baby.


        Hate speech, give me a ***** break.
      • makeitloud, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3It's not hate speech. It's just an idiot armed with an ad hominem attack because s/he's got nothing else.
    • fuse13, on 05/30/2008, -6/+8why do you hate democracy?
    • Gwennyk, on 05/30/2008, -3/+11CRY MORE??

    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -8/+3Only 64 digg-downs - golly I thought there were a lot more lefty loonies on digg

      Maybe there is hope.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -6/+2BTW: unlike lefty loonies and right-wingnuts - I don't hate anybody

      I love everybody unconditionally
      try it - it will free your mind.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2loving everybody unconditionally gets dugg down
        in the words of Monty Python 'Say no more!"
        • zombies187, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Dude, I really REALLY like your screen name, but I don't see how loving everyone unconditionally matches labeling people with derogatory slogans. People get defensive when attacked. If you really have love in your heart, try not to hurt peoples feelings. With the right choice of words you can tell people off and leave them smiling and just maybe...thinking.
        • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I don't know anybody on Digg and they don't know me.
          My comments are based on the actions (words) of others - I am talking about their positions - not them personally (because I don't know them personally and they don't know me)

          You can call somebody a lefty loony and still love them (or a Right wing-nut)
          You can call somebody a moron or a nit wit and still love them (jeepers we are all nit wits and morons from time to time)

          I am just trying to stir up the echo chamber left wing circle jerk that Digg has become - there is more them one side to an issue - I grow very tired of the hate that is spewed on Digg so I respond in kind (ok, maybe that does not make total sense). As you can see - it messes up the diggies because they have grown to believe this is a left wing echo chamber circle jerk like Democratic Underground (where all opposition is banned)

          Open your minds people - that is all I ask - and if I have to stir things up - I will when necessary

          I still love everybody unconditionally
          (BTW: the last part of your statement right-on - I do get carried away - like Sir Lancelot in The Holy Grail....lets not bicker and argue about who killed who....)
    • rconrad, on 05/30/2008, -2/+5typical right-wing vomit. Judging from the approval rating of our dear president, 75% of our country are "lefty loonies" huh?
      • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -6/+2You don't just get the title "lefty loony" handed to you - you get it the old-fashioned way, YOU EARN IT!
    • eltrev, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3who's the "loony"? Answer - you of course! You make your team look bad, they need to kick you off the island.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1Try again
        I am not on any team
        The Republicans suck and the Democrats are worse
        I choose not to drink anybodies kool-aid
        try it - it is not hard - you just have to think for yourself and do your own research
        ...open your mind and stop talking in clichés - there is more to life than parroting and reality TV shows
        • eltrev, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1LastVisibleDog -

          You leave a whooole lot of comments, but you never say much, do ya? Don't you realize that when you make assumptions (as if I even own a t.v. etc) you come off as kinda, um .. dim witted? I just read through a small part of your history, and comments based on assumption are kind of a pattern with you. Try to use some broader wisdom - just a suggestion.
        • rexblade, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Lol yes I too have landed here and second that. And for claiming to not drink any kool-aid you certainly been sipping "...open your mind and stop talking in clichés - " "golly I thought there were a lot more lefty loonies on digg" you should meet herkimer56 on here.
          leftylooney is a "clitches" is it not?
    • an0nymous, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Scooter was convicted. He is guilty.
  • eurekaspringsar, on 05/30/2008, -5/+42It's disgruntled treason! which in my book.. is much worse.
  • Dumbledorito, on 05/30/2008, -8/+99Bush and his cronies need to be prosecuted, even if nothing comes of it, if only to make future presidents actually THINK before they break the law in the name of squelching criticism.
    • bobjohnsonmilw, on 05/30/2008, -2/+0And if nothing comes of it, how exactly is that going to prevent anything?
    • jwatts07, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1As much as I would LOVE to see Bush and Co. prosecuted, sadly it will never happen, and if it were, they would get away scott free. Then it would only show future presidents (except Obama) that they would actually be able to get away with what ever they want...including cold blooded murder

      I'm just sayin...
    • PolishLogic, on 05/30/2008, -3/+1I've heard this same song and dance since the Democrats took over Congress, and there's been about as much done to "get Bush" as there was when the Republicans controlled Congress.

      Admit it, the Democrats are happier when they have something to cry about.
    • ChayD, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Didn't they try that with Nixon? Did anyone learn? Nope.
      • makeitloud, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Then maybe it should become standard practice to prosecute traitors.
  • madfrogurt, on 05/30/2008, -16/+32"The only question now is whether Bush realized he authorized the leak of Valerie's identity, in addition to a bunch of other classified documents."

    Here is why the Democrats won't bring up impeachment proceedings. While a lot of what Bush has done has been immoral and evil, it's not outright illegal. He has a team of lawyers and a lot of just-barely-legal Presidential signings to make sure that any charges brought against him would take a very long time to work out.


    Since this is not an open and shut case (like with Watergate) it's not in the interest of the Democrats to start a huge war which may cost them congressional seats or even the presidency. It's not right, but it makes political sense.
    • Sil369, on 05/30/2008, -14/+1ur post made me sad. i hate u
    • altgeeky1, on 05/30/2008, -1/+8It is illegal.

      However you're correct the dems won't do anything: 'seats' matter more than defending the Constitution against attack. Plus removal from office can NOT occur without approval of the Dept of Justice... and they report to whom?

      (Plus there's other scenarios, such as enacting martial law. All we need is another attack, or a 3rd nation to be at war with...)
    • masamunecyrus, on 05/30/2008, -6/+4The president of the United States of America (and maybe the Vice President, too?) have the power to declassify anything at any time for any reason. Unless there is another law that overrides this that I am not aware of, this is, while being egregiously immoral, 100% legal.
      • rewinn, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3First, the VP has no power under our Constitution at all, except to break tie votes in the Senate. Read our Constitution.

        Second, the issue is not the power to declassify information, but whether doing so was treason, bribery, witness tampering and a number of other crimes. You have a driver's license, but it does not authorize you to drive a getaway car.

        But it's nice to see Bush's defenders are now admitting that when Bush said anyone involved in the outing would be fired from his Administration --- he was lying. Again.
    • bono4u, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I say it would be a shame for either party reps or dems for not even trying to impeach. Well the dems under Kucinich have their attempt to do so, but seems so as there are more representatives and senators which give f*** about impeachment. Are those representatives and senators out of your region? Do you know if your representatives and senators are for or against impeachment? And do you know their reasons?
    • smotpoker1, on 05/30/2008, -2/+3it's an open and shut case to me the bass-turds need to go to jail.
  • TeddySanFran, on 05/30/2008, -5/+41Impeachment needs to start the day after election day this November; wrap it up by Christmas time. Oh -- and impeach Cheney first!
    • Hangly, on 05/30/2008, -3/+5You know impeachment only means to put him on trial, and with the right votes will only remove him from office?

      I suppose that will spare us seven days of bush presidency between Christmas and New Years.
    • Hangly, on 05/30/2008, -0/+8*ahem*
      The POINT IS if you want it to stick, wait till he's out of office and put him on trial for treason.
      • gfunk76, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Well, he isn't out of office until January '09... How would the day after election day be any different than today?
  • statstudent, on 05/30/2008, -3/+15interview on msnbc: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24870079 ...
  • p0s3r, on 05/30/2008, -15/+9Man, WTF is GWB doing listing Valerie and Joe in Who's Who without their permission!
  • chrissku, on 05/30/2008, -8/+22I wish I had a flux capacitor so I could go back to the year 2000 and warn people.
    • rationalbeats, on 05/30/2008, -1/+31we were warned, we had the debates prior to the election.

      • antipoet, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Yes, +1 for saying that. Not that anyone could have expected what we've gotten, but wasn't watching him enough to know he wasn't going to be good for this country? Will everyone promise to pay attention coming up to November this time around and ignore the sound bites the GOP is certain to throw at us?
    • siszam, on 05/30/2008, -1/+18I wish you could go back and make all the votes be counted.
      • CoMpUtErITGuY, on 05/30/2008, -8/+0Just like Florida and Michigan?
        • dustinbrewer, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Florida and Michigan aren't the same at all. They are a party run system, not a general election. Because the parties in those two states held their primaries early, breaking party rules, the delegates did not count there.

          I'm all for a new primary being held in those respective states, but if the people of those states want their votes to count next time there is a party nomination (or this one) they need to vote better delegates into their states to handle the issue.
    • bono4u, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5Go back till Prescott Bush and friends tried a coupe on America and have a close look at the reasons why they were not brought to prison for treason.
      And then think of ways to counter those nowadays, i wonder of what you would think.
    • imnojezus, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3There was plenty of warning, and it was ignored or nullified by improper voting procedures. I wouldn't beat yourself up too much about the missing time machine. Though if you get your hands on a Delorean, get it up to 88 mph just in case.
    • DalamarArgent, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4In the year 2000, in the year 2000!
    • feverjunk, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3I would go back and castrate senior.
    • aschneid, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Screw 2000...what about 2004 when the country re-elected him after the first four years! You wouldn't change anybody's mind by going back to 2000. The people who voted for him in 2004 would have still voted for him in 2K, even if they knew what he was going to do.
    • madmaggie, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0You nailed it chrissku!
  • plimpton777, on 05/30/2008, -9/+27...in other news, the sky is blue.
  • thomasnikl, on 05/30/2008, -18/+119Mother. *****. REVOLUTION. God DAMNIT.

    I'm so burnt out on this crocked ass *****. Time to bring back the mother ***** GUILLOTINE....
    • VBDon, on 05/30/2008, -22/+7Just the reason to vote for McCain. Liberals can't handle democracy.
      • nkoi, on 05/30/2008, -1/+9no, you cant handle democracy.
      • DestroyFascism, on 05/30/2008, -1/+11Democracy in America? Since when?
      • Gwennyk, on 05/30/2008, -1/+7You don't even know what democracy is. And you'll never find out with McCain!
      • skrowl, on 05/30/2008, -4/+2Liberals only like democracy when their party wins.
      • SaumZ, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1bush administration != democracy
    • JointVenture, on 05/30/2008, -15/+2Get a ***** job will ya.
    • ackermannc, on 05/30/2008, -2/+11/20/2019.
      • docbob84, on 05/30/2008, -0/+42018 isn't a presidential election year. 1/20/2021 would be better. Oh, and 1202021 is a palindrome to make it even cooler.
    • geddon, on 05/30/2008, -2/+6The marketing boys upstairs heard the cry for Revolution and crafted a candidate based on HOPE and CHANGE.
    • JohnnyHotballs, on 05/30/2008, -4/+4Ron Paul.
    • JB449, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Wont happen anytime soon. As "bad" as things are, in the U.S., we still have it REALLY good compared to many parts of the world. There aren't enough hungry people with hungry kids here to initiate a true revolution. hunger = riots. Hopefully it wont have to get that bad.
      • t3rmv3locity, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Remember remember the fifth of November.
      • geddon, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1You're looking at the wrong Revolution.

        Look at how the Internet took on the Mainstream Media with blogs and toppled the Recording Studios with mp3s and DIVx. If you look closely enough you'll see how these same attitudes took on Microsoft through Internet Advertising, and others might say it is driving force behind the Obama Internet campaign.

        While I don't believe he's the candidate to do it -- ultimately, I believe that 'We the People' will build the tools and ideas which will allow us to regain control over our government, our rights, and our world.
  • bhod, on 05/30/2008, -27/+5Now we have to ask ourselves one question: What Would Obama Do?
    I think he'd do the right thing.
    Obama '08!
    • ordig, on 05/30/2008, -1/+7ORLY? Is he calling for bush to be impeached? As president is he going to prosecute members of the bush administration? I doubt it.
      • keymanjim2, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2When would he find time to call for impeachment? He's only spent 5% of his time doing the job he was elected to do.
        He needs to give up his seat to someone that will do the job they are paying him for. That goes for anybody that is running for a position that they aren't already holding.
  • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 05/30/2008, -8/+41McClellan also restated Bush's authorization of leaking Plame's identity on Countdown later this evening. That's a handful of treason counts now.

    If there is a guy in the sky, we'll start impeachment hearings the day after the election, sweep all of those ***** in jail for treason, then send Bush,. Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, Bolton and a cadre of others to The Hague the day after Obama is inaugurated to commence war crimes tribunals.
    • VBDon, on 05/30/2008, -16/+5Your thinking is a perfect example of why no Democrat should be elected to the Presidency. If you were in charge, this country would have a thousand Gulags for everyone that didn't tote the sick political line that liberals are always spouting.
      • phrenzy, on 05/30/2008, -2/+10Nice try. Who was it that impeached Bill Clinton again?
        • compdude32, on 05/30/2008, -2/+0Who was that lied under oath?
        • why3th, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Seriously Compdude? We're going to compare War Crimes to Perjury?
        • greenroom628, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1george w. bush. who swore an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states and its laws. if he is found guilty of this accusation, he did not fulfill his oath of office.
        • compdude32, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0Warcrimes? no war crimes have been committed, if they had been the libs would have pulled out impeachment papers a long time ago.
      • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4Don't worry, we'll just release all the potheads from prison to make room for Bush's criminal supporters... real justice will kill 2 birds with one stone!
    • amightywind, on 05/30/2008, -15/+2Why is it that liberals feel the need to outsource their laws and courts to the effete Eurotrash? Most American's don't see their criminal friendly system as just. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are great men. May they retire in blessedness after the unwavering service they have given to all of us, even you scumbag subversive liberals.
      • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 05/30/2008, -1/+4buried for being digg's pre-eminent paleotard user 'amightywind'.
      • omgbanana, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3And that brings me to tonight's Word...
      • banderwocky, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3buried for delusional "thinking". Shameful.
      • greenroom628, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3this country was founded on the progression of ideas from europe or did you forget that part? we, "liberals" are trying to progress forward from these ideas, while you neocons want to go back to the way it was in the 1950's. bush and dick are some of the worst kind of people, those that only care for themselves and their own interests and time and time again have shown a blatant disregard for the welfare and protection of the american people. may they rot in the hell of their own doing.
        • amightywind, on 05/30/2008, -2/+1This country was founded on the negative examples of the barbaric European monarchies, making a mess out of a new continent. The US is the oldest democracy in the world. The Eurotrash forget that.
        • greenroom628, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2ok, and one of those ideas is that there shall be no king and that no one is above the law. if it is proven that bush and dick have broken a law, they should be prosecuted as common people. you neocons defend these guys like their ***** doesn't stink. well, i'm sorry, but it really does. just like everyone else.
        • xEn1gma, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1"The US is the oldest democracy in the world."

          Ever heard of this country called France? Dumbass.
  • ny6p01, on 05/30/2008, -42/+1oh, come on -- are you so dumb you can't see shallow opportunism when it's sitting on your private parts? Get a life, people...
  • jerrycurley, on 05/30/2008, -32/+3yeah...credible source!

    Anyne who thinks hat the internet and bloggig will take over the media from TV and print news only need ot look to firedoglake to realize how ridiculously wrong they are.
    • redxninja, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5your mom is ...credible.
    • enki25, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1A guy who worked inside the White House for years isn't a credible source on things the President has said? You're gargling kool aid.
  • proliance, on 05/30/2008, -14/+5Anyone leaking the name of a CIA operative would need permission from the president to legally do so. That means Pres. Bush is the only person in the US who could "leak" the name without repercussion.
    • Mejari, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5Still not legal just cause he does it.
    • VBDon, on 05/30/2008, -13/+7Not true. CIA personnel are protected only if they are under cover. Valerie wasn't. She willingly used her position, and her husband's, for personal political motives. She got caught and raised a stink about it by falsely claiming someone else illegaly outed her. The charge was false and she knew it. It was all a cover up to protect her.
      • compdude32, on 05/30/2008, -6/+0Exactly, glad to see not everyone on Digg is an idiot.
      • an0nymous, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Although court affidavits of the Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and exhibits pursuant to later U.S. Congressional investigations ascertain otherwise, some in the media (Jeff Gannon - White House reporter) questioned whether or not the CIA still considered Plame a covert officer — that is, the precise nature of her "classified" status or the type of "cover" that she had and whether or not it was "official" or "non-official" — at the time she was outed in the Novak column of July 14, 2003.[34] But official legal documents published in the course of the CIA leak grand jury investigation, United States v. Libby, and Congressional investigations fully establish her classified employment as a covert officer for the CIA at the time that Novak's column was published in July 2003.[33][35][36]

        You ***** bobblehead, three minutes research would have shown that you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Those emails you get from the RNC don't qualify as news.
    • mrswirl, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3False, false, false....

      So you conveniently ignore the fact that the CIA has openly admitted that Plame was a NOC - or "non-offical cover" status at the time of her outing and that this point has never been officially disputed.

      Still spouting off those GOP falsehoods, huh? I guess if you say it enough it makes it true.
  • username484767, on 05/30/2008, -9/+32Treason. HANG HIM!
    • Hangly, on 05/30/2008, -1/+11He's Texan, he should get the chair.
  • usingpond, on 05/30/2008, -13/+4Got it. Crime of the century, broken by a blog on firedoglake. Just like Watergate.
    • DalamarArgent, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1No, you mentioned that word!

      I am sure there is a team of tools working on adding the suffix "-gate" on to some aspect of this article as though it has a meaning.
  • harrisbradley, on 05/30/2008, -6/+23George you ***** RAT!!!
  • atb12688, on 05/30/2008, -15/+6The leak of Valerie Wilson's identity by the President was and still is completely legal to do. I take every opportunity I can to attack Bush, but you can't call him out for impeachment for legal action.
    • Jimbob200, on 05/30/2008, -2/+4Please explain.

    • VBDon, on 05/30/2008, -10/+7Valerie's identity wasn't protected because she didn't have undercover status and hadn't travelled out of the country for Agency business for over 5 years. It was Armitage that gave out her name, not Bush, not Cheney, not Libby. The prosecutor knew this before he even convened the grand jury and told Armitage not to tell anyone because that would keep him from being a newshound. The whole grand jury thing was to get $millions for his law firm by way of free advertising. If you ever lived in D.C. for any length of time, you would start to see how liberals really work. They're not about good government, they're about getting taxpayer dollars into their pockets.
    • mrswirl, on 05/30/2008, -0/+31.) The CIA has come out and openly admitted that Plame was a NOC or 'non-offical cover' officer at the time of her outing and that the disclosure of her status jeopardized everyone associated with the Brewster-Jennings front.

      2.) Armitage was A leaker - not THE only leaker. There was more than one, you know. Rove and Libby have been identified as leaking Plame's name in parallel to Armitage - with tacit (and probably direct) approval from Cheney. The difference is that Fitzpatrick has concluded that Armitage's disclosure was not a deliberate act while Libby intentionally leaked it then lied about it.

      3.) Fitzpatrick's record is absolutely spotless and trying to discredit him by alluding to some kind of boondoggle is disingenuous.

      It's obvious that you are nothing but a parrot spouting off GOP talking points that have been disproven months ago.
    • thesoze, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2if it was legal why doesn't he say so...and why the investigation??? idiots
  • danbuscaglia, on 05/30/2008, -12/+6I am not a Bush supporter. That said, if this treason really was the truth, and this guy was an honorable man with real intentions, wouldn't he be going to a special prosecutor and doing this behind closed scenes? That is NOT what he is doing. He is running around the media circuit promoting his book to make money.
    • altgeeky1, on 05/30/2008, -2/+9God bless him for writing a book rather than going on welfare, or keeping up the lie and becoming emplloyed at some right-wing think tank who's sole purpose is to shift the balance of power EAST.

      You know, he's about as 'employable' as an ex-scientist from Exxon or Philip-Morris. He's an awfully young man to make a stand like this. Naive maybe. I'm sure he'll regret it when he's working on something OTHER than politics...

      Scott is like the NINTH Bush staffer to come out with this. It's not like he's making this stuff UP you know. You kind of lost sight of the point, or what's significant... or maybe you ARE a Bush supporter even after all this comes out...

      • rthakidn, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Wow, everyone thinks this guy McClellan is the second coming, because he's found the "courage" to out GW. At the risk of making this a right vs. left post, most of the left would have like to string him up as well 3 years ago. What's changed? Nothing. He's a politician, right, left, center, in office or behind the scenes, it doesn't matter. Politicians will say and do anything for a buck or power. All politicians. McClellan is selling a book and what better way to sell a book than to jump on the band wagon. A book BTW published by a company with G. Soros name all over it (Perseus LLC). Is anyone surprised? Should it be question just a little?
    • Hangly, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2No, you're a sock puppet.
    • smotpoker1, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I still wouldn't buy his book he's a ass-clown republicunt.
    • mrswirl, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3All I've heard from the right is the weak attempt at discrediting McClellan based on some fantasy that he's after a pile of money and this somehow negates the merits of the subject matter.

      For anyone interested, the publisher has pointed out that McClellan's advance for his book was minimal - we're talking about around $100,000. Not exactly a forture for putting your ass on the firing line. (compared to the $1.5M advance for Rove's yet-unwritten memoirs.)

      http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/29/ ...
  • homesickalien, on 05/30/2008, -7/+56Dugg for treason.
  • rossiohead, on 05/30/2008, -6/+26Scottie doesn't know? So don't tell Scottie.
  • blacktriangle, on 05/30/2008, -5/+12This kind of announcement is usually accompanied by a bombing or false flag event.
  • Dysarthria, on 05/30/2008, -20/+7Of course, we'd all be remiss if we didn't blame her husband for blowing the cover off of the operation by writing an op-ed piece in a nationally recognized newspaper. Even the NYT has published that Wilson lied and exposed his wife more than any action by any gov. official.
  • LadyOBOF, on 05/30/2008, -4/+16Nothing comes as a surprise with the Bush administration. Everyone knows he voted himself in. I think we should send his ass over to Iraq with Cheney in tow. Who's paying for this Bush crap ? the American people.. and who's going to clean up the Bush *****? Get Ur shovels out..The American people.
  • melfster, on 05/30/2008, -5/+10Personally we really need to purge our government starting with elected officials that have been in washington the longest. That means Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, much of Republican leader ship and veterans should be out. There is no way McCain can be president because he does have judgment to do the right thing. He really does flip flop and stays wrong on the on really important issues for long time. He's not maverick. He' s stubborn s.o.b. and Frankly he's been government too long.
    • thedarkwolf, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Honestly, despite being a democrat myself, I have always had a lot of respect for McCain. He does flip-flop, and he is stubborn, but he tends to fight for things that he believes in, which I can respect.

      Now, I will not be voting for McCain and I am very upset that he ran to the right during the republican primaries, but he strikes me as one of the more honest republicans in congress (note: thats not exactly a huge complement, but it is something)
  • VBDon, on 05/30/2008, -19/+7Doesn't anybody read anymore? It was Armitage that leaked Plame's name. Her identity wasn't protected, which is why he was never prosecuted!!! The whole issue was a left-wing witchhunt from the beginning. Liberals never let facts get in the way of their b.s.
    • hockeyplayer66, on 05/30/2008, -0/+6...and conservatives never let ethics get in the way of their political aspirations.
    • dakine01, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5Gee for some reason the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) disagrees with your contention that her identity was not protected. I think I'll take his word for it if you don't mind.
    • mrswirl, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5And cons such as yourself just make up facts that don't exist.
    • enki25, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3If nothing sinister was involved, then why did Libby obstruct justice? Her husband revealed the yellow cake claims were bogus. This was retribution. If Clinton had done anything close to this you'd have sold your trailer so you could go to DC and burn crosses on the White House lawn.
  • LadyOBOF, on 05/30/2008, -7/+4Nothing should surprise us with the crooks in the Bush administration. Everyone knows he voted himself in. I think we should send his ass over to Iraq with Cheney in tow. Who's paying for this Bush crap? The American people.. and who's going to clean up the Bush *****? Get Ur shovels out....American people.
  • redxninja, on 05/30/2008, -5/+28Bush and Cheney are planning their get away to Dubai.
    • roho76, on 05/30/2008, -0/+13Well then we'll finally have a reason to invade the middle east.
  • Rhodamine, on 05/30/2008, -4/+5Let's get this roller coaster movin!! I want to see the indictments roll down!!!!
  • birdmanrush, on 05/30/2008, -16/+6Please stop being sheeple of the lib media. Her id was already known; it was never leaked by anyone. This is not a reason to impeach Bush. And Rove is not responsible either. Why don't you all decide who is the worst between Obama and Clinton and go from there.
    • greenm1981, on 05/30/2008, -2/+6Please stop using the term "sheeple."
    • Rhodamine, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3Please do not use Faux News as your sole source of information.
      Oh, and stop using the term "sheeple" you unoriginal putz.
    • ftx437, on 05/30/2008, -3/+3She wasn't undercover and hadn't been in at least (if not more then) 5 years...there was no crime!
      • licnyc, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3So how does that still make it a good idea to out a CIA operative regardless if her ID was known? On what planet is it acceptable to broadcast a CIA agent's identity on the media and jeopardize any operation she may have been involved in even if it was 5 years? Why are you making incredibly stupid excuses for these people?
      • Fubeman, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Really? So what about all the other operatives that were and still are associated with her? What about them smarty pants? What happens to them? Do some ***** research and thinking next time. Seriously. For example, Valerie is a secret operative who is associated with lets say, 10 other operatives. She introduces these associates to either other enemy operatives or associates who are not trusted. Then she gets "outed." So what do you think happens to the operatives that she is associated with or ones that she introduced to enemy ops as a "trusted" source? What do you think happens to them?
    • MikeFallopian, on 05/30/2008, -1/+0Her id may have been known, but her ego was still under wraps.
    • enki25, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1If her ID was already known then why did the CIA request an inquiry after Novak's column? You don't know what the ***** you are talking about.
  • budser, on 05/30/2008, -4/+3video that works: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/05 ...
  • greenm1981, on 05/30/2008, -7/+14Treason is a capitol crime. I'm just saying.
  • mrogi, on 05/30/2008, -16/+15The leak of Valerie Plame's name was not a crime. If it was a crime Richard Armitage would have been prosecuted. Armitage publicly admitted that he was the source of the leak. Pat Fitzgerald's investigation was bogus from top to bottom. If the investigation was legit the first two people subpoenaed would have been Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. They convicted a sardine named Scooter Libby while the giant tunas swam away free and clear.
    • statstudent, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1true. but it is still depressing this administration puts politics ahead of national security.
    • rewinn, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4First, it's nice to see Bush's defenders are admitting that when Bush said anyone involved in the outing would be fired from his Administration --- he was lying. Again.

      Second, references to Armitage are silly distractions. Bush ordered other people to do the leak, according to McClellan, and there was testimony that other reporters were, in fact, leaked the information; they just had too much patriotism to publish it--- unlike the traitor Novak. Whether Armitage in addition leaded by accident doesn't matter; the other leaks were treasonous.

      And of course Libby perjured himself on purpose. Why?
    • mrswirl, on 05/30/2008, -0/+41.) The CIA has come out and openly admitted that Plame was a NOC or 'non-offical cover' officer at the time of her outing and that the disclosure of her status jeopardized everyone associated with the Brewster-Jennings front. So yes, revealing her identity was a crime. This point is undisputed - look it up.

      2.) Armitage was A leaker - not THE only leaker. There was more than one, you know. Rove and Libby have been identified as leaking Plame's name in parallel to Armitage - with tacit (and probably direct) approval from Cheney. The difference is that Fitzpatrick has concluded that Armitage's disclosure was not a deliberate act while Libby intentionally leaked it then lied about it. Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction because of this point. Rove was able to dodge charges because he squirmed out of it during his testimony to the grand jury by admitting he leaked it too but there wasn't enough evidence to prove intent.

      Rove and Libby's intent was to disclose her identity as retribution for Wilson's op-ed. Evidence points to the fact that this was personally directed by Cheney. Armitage was merely a pawn in this game - I'm not saying he's not culpable; just that the real puppet masters were Rove and Cheney.

      BTW - Rove and Cheney were subpoenaed and did testify before the grand jury. Again, there was not enough hard evidence to prove deliberate intent and conspiracy even though there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to it. Libby was the fall guy.

    • enki25, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3AM radio, drudge and little green fagballs. That's where you get your information you brainwashed hick.
  • iChuckles, on 05/30/2008, -13/+7The reporter who also spilled the beans, along with the editor of the paper who printed it, should both be charged as well. Everyone seems to be hung up on Bush because Bush bashing is the cool thing to do. However, in this case, there are a few more people responsible as well.
    • thedarkwolf, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1but not the reporter. Reporters need to be able to publish material they get from these sources (thats how we end up getting information about all the illegal things the administration does). now, this particular reporter got used to further the Bush Administration's goals and should be ashamed for publishing such a story, but not punished.

      The right to free press must be protected for our sakes, even if the press sometimes sucks.
      • iChuckles, on 05/30/2008, -1/+0So you are saying it is ok for reporters to break laws because that is what happened. That is stupid. All conspiracies aside, national secrets (or CIA agency ones) are secret for a reason. While spilling the beans here doesn't appear to do harm, what about the next time.

        As well all know, everyone must obey the law except the President :-)
  • cadmiumpaint, on 05/30/2008, -4/+4I wonder if it would be more prudent to go after Bush and his cronies after they are out of office? A long drawn out finger pointing congressional investigation won't really help people get enthusiastic about voting a dem into office.
  • Borgcube636, on 05/30/2008, -8/+1What?...There's no words on it!
  • dracostimpy, on 05/30/2008, -8/+35So what's the big deal with that? I mean sheesh, it's not like he wore a scarf that looks kinda muslimish in a Dunkin Donuts ad! Get your priorities straight, people!
  • johnreyn, on 05/30/2008, -15/+5I love it - this shows how this story has been a whole lot about nothing. Since the president (who is authorized to do so) De-Classified the information, it was not a leak of classified information. Hence fourth... no crime.

    It was not a very nice thing to do, but not illegal. Hopefully this will put this controversy (about nothing) to bed.
    • phrenzy, on 05/30/2008, -1/+6Hopefully this will put the entire Republican party "to bed". For at least eight years, while grown ups try to clean up their mess.
    • normalkid0615, on 05/30/2008, -2/+5ok little baby, let me explain why it is wrong. he outed a CIA operative. simple. Bush has a hard time determining what is wrong and what is illegal, this is illegal.
    • enki25, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2This is hilarious. You're claiming the President did reveal her identity, but it's ok because he can do anything he wants with our nation's intel. Wow. Imagine for a second your reaction if President Obama does this a year from now. You've got to hold your own leaders to reasonable standards, it just makes you look retarded otherwise.
  • Drogoganor, on 05/30/2008, -5/+15The Bush Administration leaked her identity in political retribution for undermining the (false) yellowcake claims used as a rationale for war. Anyone who doesn't believe it is an idiot, quite frankly. Learn how governments work.
    • Banelos, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1It was her husband who undermined the yellowcake claim, who they then retaliated against by outing his wife. I agree with you that it's a pretty simple case, sad that so few people have put the pieces together or made accountable for it.
  • londubh, on 05/30/2008, -5/+13Did that little toady McClellan just sink Bush? We'll just have to wait and see. I'd prefer him to sink Cheney first. Well, let's see. Cheney resigns (like Agnew) then McCain is made Vice President. Bush resigns (like Nixon). McCain waits until November 5 and pardons Bush. Bush flies to his ranch in Paraguay along with a Blackwater contingent.
  • JoeHague, on 05/30/2008, -7/+8I know I could get about 100 Diggs for jumping on the band wagon and saying -Impeach Bush- or something to that nature. But I don't care. I don't care if this comment goes to 1000 minuses. Because I know that no Digger can respond logically to the following argument. Everyone hates Bush (at least 70% of people)- "Scottie" knows this. Scottie is promoting a book. Scottie will probably make money selling his book from these comments. Scottie is probably lying.
    Yeah I know, I'm going there. It's not the first time. I have a certain stance when it come to public opinion- The masses are usually wrong.
    So go ahead bury this comment, but know in your heart of hearts that as much as you want it to be true this story is probably false and at the very least the words of "Scottie" are ~unsubstantiated~
    • Hangly, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3That's the dumbest thing I've read in this thread.
    • radiopayola, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Strange that the administration hasn't bothered to deny these allegations... In fact, most of what they've said has only served to make "Scottie's" allegations more credible.
    • nolocontendre, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Add to that that all Scottie has done is CORROBORATE what Empty Wheel had long ago established -- that BOTH Bush and Cheney effectively ordered the outing of Valerie Plame -- a covert CIA Asset, at the time.

      Here is the logic -- sure Scottie is going to make money by selling his story, Joe Hague -- but that doesn't make all that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald PROVED in US v. Libby, in any manner untrue.

      In fact, that Scottie's corroborates his chain of evidence, simply means Mr. Fitzgerald may not have aimed quite "high enough" when he prosecuted Mr. Libby for obstruction of justice and related crimes.

      To be fair to Mr. Fitzgerald's estimable prowess as a prosecutor, though, without LOTS of corroborating witnesses -- like Scottie -- where the Fcuk was he, then?! -- there was simply no way a jury would convict the sitting vice president, and his simpering president/chimperor of a Class X Felony. So he did the prudent thing and charged the case he knew he could prove -- hoping a conviction of Libby would lead Libby to flip, and dime out Cheney/Bush.

      But the fix was in from the go -- Bush pardoned Libby the day his conviction became a certainty for jail-time -- BEFORE Libby even asked for a pardon! That has never happened in the history of this Republic.

      Explain to me, again, why none of THAT actually happened, Joe Hague. Yep -- Scottie is a small fry. But he confirms the larger narrative. He is a coward for not standing when it mattered -- I just hope no one tries to paint him as some later day John Dean. He is no John Dean. But he has proved to be a rather useful idiot this week.
      • JoeHague, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0I'm not saying that none of that ever happened- I'm saying Scott Mcclellan is unreliable as a witness. Guess what? There are reasons too- for instance he was basically fired and made to look like a fool. He's trying to cash in on the negative atmosphere of this administration. Although he had plenty of time and chances he never spoke up before. He was just a press secretary - he probably wouldn't be involved in something like this. The way he inserts himself in this situation is idiotic. If President Bush really did make those comments to him then he probably wouldn't have turned around and fired him and embarrassed him in front of the entire political community.
        There are two schools of though on this issue nolocontendrenolocontendre. Yours- the thought process that believes that President Bush is the sole reason for every single one of the entire earths problems. That any negative attention he gets is just and that every bad thing that any person says about him is true.
        Mine- He's a *****, but that doesn't automatically make him guilty of any crime. And before I'm going to accuse the President of the United States of America of treason I'm gonna have to see some concrete evidence. Not some "small fry" jerk off who is trying to get even and trying to get rich(er) at the same time.

  • chkdg8, on 05/30/2008, -2/+6We can probably expect a "suicide" note in a month or so. Hey, they sold the country on the D.C. Madam right?
  • masterm1nd, on 05/30/2008, -4/+1McC? WTF is that
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 129 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.