Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I love the sound of helicopters in the morning. Sounds like . . . victory.
Why this anti-Bush hack got selected to make an anti-Bush whitewash out of lies and more lies is important. He lied about virtually everything, and it appears that this quasi-undercover agent wife (who had been publicly listed as far back as 2001 as being in the CIA) who had a virulently anti-Bush agenda, used her influence to get him selected. Was that a proper use of authority and power for someone who supposedly worked for Bush - to work even harder to undermine him? Seems to me that, in making such an effort, in using her work powers, she puts herself out there. I don't think you can use your "undercover" status as a sword. I think she tried, and it didn't work. Poor babe.
Like NotBob says, the whitewash is just . . . stoopid. It shoulda been cleared up a while ago. But the underlying saga primarily exists so that some people can redirect attention away from the guy who was their hero, but who turned out to be a lying goat. Proof of their effectiveness can be found in the number of people who can remember the original yellowcake stories, but don't remember that Wilson's stories turned out to be all lies.
|
I don't remember the original yellowcake stories all that clearly, and I don't remeber any clear evidence that Wilson lied either. But I do distinctly remember McClellan stating categorically that Rove was not the leak. I also remember Rove stating that he was not the leak.
So, if Wilson did lie, and if those lies justify trying to smear not only him, but his wife, then what is appropriate with respect to the lies that Rove and McClelllan told?
Alternatively, there is a possibility that McClellan wasn't lying, that he was merely relying on people who were lying to him. But, then, what should be done about the ones who lied to him?
