Punching Bag Resigns - Book Deal Pending ?

“Looks like Tenet is the lastest to go.


Don't let the door hit ya in the ass.”

“personal reasons.... interesting.”

“Ex-cia director? Book deal? Not happening.”

“Bush Consults Lawyer for CIA Leak Case

Thursday, June 03, 2004

WASHINGTON — President Bush (search) has consulted an outside lawyer about possibly representing him in the grand jury investigation of who leaked the name of a covert CIA (search) operative last year, White House officials said Wednesday night.

There was no indication that Bush was a target of the leak investigation, but the president's move suggested he anticipates being questioned about what he knows.

A federal grand jury has questioned numerous White House and administration officials to learn who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame (search), wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson (search), to the news media. Wilson has charged that officials made the disclosure in an effort to discredit him.

"The president has made it very clear he wants everyone to cooperate fully with the investigation and that would include himself," White House press secretary Scott McClellan (search) said.

He confirmed that Bush had contacted Washington attorney Jim Sharp. "In the event the president needs his advice, I expect he probably would retain him," McClellan said.

A number of journalists have received federal subpoenas to face questioning about the leak, and FBI officials have visited the White House to interview officials. There was no indication Bush had been questioned yet.

Bush has been an outspoken critics of leaks, saying they can be very damaging, but he has expressed doubts that the government's investigation will pinpoint who was responsible. While Bush has said he welcomed the investigation, it has been an awkward development for a president who promised to bring integrity and leadership to the White House after years of Republican criticism and investigations of the Clinton administration.

Even though he has a White House counsel, Bush is dependent on outside lawyers for private matters. A memo distributed to the staff last year reminded officials that the counsel's office works solely for the president in his official capacity and is not a private attorney for anyone.

Democrats seized on the news to criticize the president.

"It speaks for itself that the president initially claimed he wanted to get to the bottom of this, but now he's suddenly retained a lawyer," said Jano Cabrera, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee. "Bush shouldn't drag the country through grand juries and legal maneuvering. President Bush should come forward with what he knows and come clean with the American people."

Plame was first identified by syndicated columnist and TV commentator Robert Novak in a column last July. Novak said his information came from administration sources.

Wilson has said he believes his wife's name was leaked because of his criticism of Bush administration claims that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Niger, which Wilson investigated for the CIA and found to be untrue.

Disclosure of an undercover officer's identity can be a federal crime. The grand jury has heard from witnesses and combed through thousands of pages of documents turned over by the White House, but returned no indictments.

The probe is being handled by Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, appointed after Attorney General John Ashcroft stepped aside from case because of his political ties to the White House.

Absent a breakthrough from the documents or a cooperating witness, prosecutors may be forced to try to identify the leaker through Novak or other reporters. However, journalists pressed by the prosecution could assert a First Amendment privilege to protect their sources.

Wilson has suggested in a book that the leaker was Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. But Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth," give no conclusive evidence for the claim.

The White House denies the claim and accuses Wilson of seeking to bolster the campaign of Democrat John Kerry, for whom he has acted as a foreign policy adviser.

Wilson also said it's possible the leak came from Elliott Abrams, a figure in the Reagan administration Iran-Contra affair and now a member of Bush's National Security Council. And Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, may have circulated information about Wilson and Plame "in administration and neoconservative circles" even if Rove was not himself the leaker, Wilson writes.

Another possibility is that two lower-level officials in Cheney's office — John Hannah or David Wurmser — leaked Plame's identity at the behest of higher-ups "to keep their fingerprints off the crime," Wilson speculates.

Bush expressed doubt last year that the leaker would be found.

"You tell me: how many sources have you had that's leaked information, that you've exposed or had been exposed? Probably none," Bush said last October.

"I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official," Bush said then. "I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth."

But Bush said, "This is a large administration and there's a lot of senior officials."






Looks like we'll get another lecture on "that depends on what "is", is...."


You elect this bozo, we'll be knee deep in court for years. Everyone and there mother is gettin` ready fer the gang bang.


Fluffers! Take your MARK!”

“Phaed - I know, I just threw that in there.

How long do we wait until we call him a Commie, Pinko, Rat, Democrap bassturd?”

“Seriously, I doubt this guy will speak much.”

“How did he last this long? It took quite a while for things to cool down.”

“the shist is about to hit the fan. Man is it gonna stink.”

“I wonder if Tenet will accidently have a haert attack in the next few days.”

“There won't be any #&%!$ hitting the fan, Tenet will quitely fade away and you'll never hear from him again. I think he was kept around specifically because he wasn't overly political, I see no reason why he'd suddenly become political.”

“"become political"???

You mean tell the truth?”

“The only question I have is why Tenet covered for the neocons lies about proof of WMD.

No WMD -- No threat -- No reason for war.”

“No MarkO I mean start saying other people lied when they didn't, or start taking intelligence findings way outside of their context.”

“start taking intelligence findings way outside of their context."
Bison
10:49:40 AM
06/03/04

Uhhh.... That was the Bush administration's job.”

“Scooter, Doug and the Office Of Special Plans.....”

“No that would be the people who think that because a few people came up with one intelligence assessment when the vast majority of others came up with a different, that means that although it appears that the few were right, that national security decisions should have been based on their assessments and that those who took into account the majority assessment were somehow liars. Ridiculous.”

“Tilt, I guess he's a "team player".

Phaedrus, uh huh.”

“Liars, Bison?

We like to call them "spinners".”

“Wouldn't a war based on lies qualify as mass murder?”

“Yes Tilt, and so would supplying WMD to Saddam in the '80s so he could kill Kruds and Iranians.”

“Bison, without getting too deep into this (again), I think we've seen that majority assessment was not in Bush's favor in the case of WMD, saddam-al qaeda connection and compelling danger to the US.”

“....or Kurds and Uraniums.”

“If it were based on lies it might. But when you have 10 analysts and nine of them tell you that the guy in the house down the street still has some of the guns in his house that he's already tried to kill one of your neighbors with before hand, and he probably wants to use them on you now. When you convey that assessment to the other members of your household in order to gain support to take action, there is no lying going on. Just because one of your people came to a different assessment, even if their assessment was right, doesn't mean you lied when referring to the assessment of the other nine. God forbid you listened to that person and the other nine were right, and you were attacked, the members of your household would wonder why the hell you didn't listen to the assessment of the nine analysts who felt that the person was a threat.”

“Pfft. I sincerely doubt that your nine-out-of-ten assertion is anywhere close to the case on any one of the issue at hand. Call it stretching the truth to support a pre-planned political agenda of war if you object to the term "lying". It's still just as morally repugnant.”

“I second your "pffffftttt".......with extra f's and t's.”

“
Fairy tales
Can come true
It can happen to you
If you're young at heart


Intelligence should indicate the course of action, not the other way 'round. They thought they could cherrypick the data and get away with it. Now they've made the United States look like a thug.”

“This sort of lying got us into another war.......long ago and far away.”

“"I sincerely doubt that your nine-out-of-ten assertion"

You're right Phaedrus it was more like 99 out of 100.”

“Is this the new "faith-based polling" program?”

“The "guy down the street" story sounds like a lame pretext for seizing the dude's property for fun and profit.

Hey, that's what Operation Iraq Liberation is all about!”

“I'm sure if we had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11 you would have said the same thing.”

“Huh?

Dubya and Friends had no prior desire to invade Afganistan as they did with Iraq.

There was no oil in Afganistan........no prior plan to take over.”

“"I'm sure if we had invaded Afghanistan prior to 9/11 you would have said the same thing."
Bison
11:36:03 AM
06/03/04

You're right! There wasn't enough evidence to justify invading Afghanistan before 9/11. Many have said so during the 9/11 committee hearings.”

“"no prior plan to take over."

hmmmm. You sure about that MarkO. Of course there was a prior plan. Libs like to make it seem that because a contingency was drawn up to take over Iraq that that means everyone had made up their minds to do it. NOT! We have contingency plans to take over pretty much every other country, and they are just what they say they are...Contingencies.”

“OK, let's take over Botswana......ya wanna?”

“Argh, If you aren't deliberately taking THAT out of context, you need to reread.”

“So Phaed, you are the President of the United States, you're country has been attacked. Your analysts come and say to you, Hey buddy we've been saying this was a threat for years, but no one felt it was enough of a threat to take direct action on (Probably true, it would have been hard to get the American people to back a war in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, even if Clinton or Bush had wanted to, although they didn't). So What do you do next... You ask them, what other threats are out there? What rises to the level of the threat that existed in Afghanistan? And they come back and say to you Saddam is a much bigger threat, he has tried to attack our interest, he has provided monetary support to terrorist causes, he has never accounted for what happened to the WMD's which by the way there is no doubt that he had, becuase he used them, and he has actively thwarted the inspection regime, and anyways he's in violation of our treaty ending the first gulf war (which alone is grounds for war). What are you gonna do Phaedrus... You know that if you are attacked again you will be blamed, not only by the people, but your own personal sense of responsibility will be a crushing wieght on you for the rest of your life. The evidence isn't perfect we don't know for certain that Saddams still has the WMD's (and the President never said so.) But the evidence is there that he may still have them and intend to use them. What are you gonna do? What happens if you do nothing?”

“That's a fine tale there, Bison.

"....we don't know for certain that Saddams still has the WMD's (and the President never said so.)"

He misled the American people into believing that.
That's as good as a lie.”

“The UN weapons inspections were a great place to begin. They cost us little politically, did not increase the threat of global terror, lose the lives of our soldiers or bankrupt our government.

Next, having Saddam Hussein indicted in absentia for human right abuses would have weakened his support from other countries.

From there, you really have to reevaluate the progress and the overall mission.

In other words, you use military action as a last resort, and if you DO need military action, you build a rock-solid case for it.”

“"if you DO need military action, you build a rock-solid case for it."

That's a nice thought, until people start hijacking planes and ramming them into your buildings.”

“Bottom line........

Dubya lied

His ass is toast in November.”

“I get a suspicion that a couple of you are NOT Bush supporters? Just a hunch.”

“Don't get me wrong now, I like a good bush like most guys.......but, yeah.”

“That's a nice thought, until people start hijacking planes and ramming them into your buildings."
Bison
12:13:27 PM
06/03/04

Well, that can be prevented by tightening up security at airports. It won't happen again, obviously. Really, if the information that this might happen had been widely disseminated to the public, those hijackers would have had a much harder time accomplishing their goals, wouldn't you say?

Anyway, you asked what I would do, and I told you. What I woudln't do is dictate a course of action that put my country in a position that mandates we bear the cost of this whole endeavor to change the middle east.

What I wouldn't do is shout down everyone who disagrees with me, a la Richard Clark, Paul O'Neill, Scott Ritter et al.

Ideologues have a hard time coming to consensus, which makes them bad leaders of free people.”

“I'm glad we're able to condense some of the other threads here!

=%^0”

“How could the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud when there was not a shred of evidence the Saddam had a chance of gaining nuclear capability? The Bush Administration is populated with fearmongers and warmongers.


Speaking of war criminals... I see that Perle has risen to Chalabi's defense. Won't it be a great day when they're both indicted for espionage.”

“The evidence isn't perfect we don't know for certain that Saddams still has the WMD's (and the President never said so.) But the evidence is there that he may still have them and intend to use them. What are you gonna do? What happens if you do nothing?"
Bison
12:00:34 PM
06/03/04


Come on Bison, you can't be serious! I can understand conservative folks defending conservative policies, and debating the merits of such, but your aforementioned quote is factually and absolutely wrong in every sense. Once again, here is the evidence:

Let's follow the logic ball:

1. GWB is president of the United States.

2. The president of the USA is responsible for the actions of his cabinet members and senior staff in relation to thier actions and words on policy.

3. Prior to US invasion of Iraq, GWB and his admin were making a case to go to war with Iraq to; congress, the UN, the American People, and Iraqi's.

4. GWB and his admin were making thier case in several different arenas, including, but not limited to; UN meetings, press breifings, talk show interviews, speeches.

5. In order for the United States to go to war with another nation, it has to be approved by congress, or declared by the president with backing from congress in the form of money and support, and, ultimately, the backing of the people of the US.

The Logic...... The president and his ranking staff had to make a case for war against Iraq, in order to legitimatize the war. Congress did not vote to go to war with Iraq, so the president needed the fiscal and moral support of congress and the US to do so. In the days leading up to the war, Bush and his staffers made many strong statements to build up this needed support for the war. The premise of the motivation for war, at that time was, essentially, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and poses an imminent threat to the US by either using the weapons against us, or giving the weapons to terrorists. Let's break this justification of war down:

Saddam has weapons of mass destruction..


* "Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

-Colin Powell 5/31/03

* "We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that."

- Don Rumsfeld answering a question as to where the WMD's were from ABC's Tim Russert on ABC's This Week, 3/31/03

* "There is no doubt in my mind that they have chemical and biological weapons."

- Rumsfeld Press Conference

* "The Iraqi regime possess biological and chemical weapons."

- GWB Speech

* "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

- Ari Flescher, WH Press Breifing

* "We found weapons of mass destruction, we found biological laboritories."

- GW Bush, interview

* "Everybody knows that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

- Colin Powell, interview

* "No question we have said that Saddam possesses biological and chemical weapons."

- Ari Flesher, WH Press Briefing

* "I believe that we will find evidence of chemical and biological weapons."

- Paul Bremer, interview with Meet the Press

* "We will in fact find weapons or evidence of weapons programs that are conclusive."

- Rumsfeld, Press Conference

* "And we believe, in fact, that he has reconstituted nuclear weapons."

- Dick Cheney, Meet the Press Interview

* "I believe that we will find the truth, and the truth is that he was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction."

- GW Bush, press conference

...and poses an imminent threat to the US by either using the weapons against us...

* "'Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent-- that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."

- Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

* "Delay in decision and inaction could lead to a massive and sudden horror."

- GW Bush, WH Press Conference

* "If someone is waiting for a so called smoking gun, it's certain that we will have waited for too long."

- Rumsfeld before congress.

* "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

- Rice, interview with CNN

* "We can not wait for the final proof of a smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

- GW Bush, speech

.....or giving the weapons to terrorists.

* "There are Al-Queda in Iraq."

- Rumsfeld



So, now that we have facts that purport the theory that GWB's admin was pushing for a war because Iraq had WMD's that posed an imminent threat to the US by using them intself, or giving them to terrorists, and, in the absence of any other reason, we have to logically conclude that this was the reason the president acted to go to war.

Since the war has begun against Iraq, there is no proof of:

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction
2. Chemical or biological weapons
3. A reconstituted nuclear program.
4. Evidence of any chemical or biological weapons programs.
5. In the absence of the above, any threat or imminent threat to the United States.
6. Any evidence of links or ties from the Saddam regime to Al Queda.
7. Any evidence that Saddam planned any terrorist attacks on the United States with his own terrorist factions.

So, if we take the fact that we went to war with Iraq, as a pre-emptive action to deter WMD's from finding thier way onto US soil and creating a "mushroom cloud", and match them with the facts of what was found in Iraq, up until today (nothing), you can logically conclude that the reasons we went to war with Iraq do not exist, and never did. Therefore, the admin was; a.) lying, b.) misleading, c.) misinformed. In a case of war, misinformation BETTER not ever be an excuse, and if so, shows their incompetance, and they should be removed from office, if the admin was misleading or lying, they should be removed from office. And, most importantly, we should not be aat war with Iraq.

In conclusion, Bison, I have provided evidence and facts that are irrefutable, that totally and completely defy the quote that started this post. I'd more than welcome any facts you may have to back your statement up, but I doubt you have any.”

“HMTL lessons for BB!

;)”