[QUOTE=elucidator]
He may very well be entirely innocent of the conspiracy, since I don’t think Karl and “Big Dick” tell him any more than they have to. You got skullduggery afoot, a delicate conspiracy, you’d tell George about it? Like hell you would.
[/QUOTE] He’d probably blurt it out during one of his extemporaneous moments.
“It ain’t just our freedom they’re after. See, it’s like this… [yuck yuck tee-hee] …when Karl and Dick was tellin’ me ‘bout that gal in the ICA… got me t’ thinkin’ 'bout girls, y’know… [tee hee] …with breastesses and all. We gotta protect our wimmen from Muslim extremists 'cause they want our wimmen.”
[QUOTE=Liberal] He’d probably blurt it out during one of his extemporaneous moments.
“It ain’t just our freedom they’re after. See, it’s like this… [yuck yuck tee-hee] …when Karl and Dick was tellin’ me ‘bout that gal in the ICA… got me t’ thinkin’ 'bout girls, y’know… [tee hee] …with breastesses and all. We gotta protect our wimmen from Muslim extremists 'cause they want our wimmen.”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=elucidator]
He may very well be entirely innocent of the conspiracy, since I don’t think Karl and “Big Dick” tell him any more than they have to. You got skullduggery afoot, a delicate conspiracy, you’d tell George about it? Like hell you would.
Except for that part where he said he would deal pretty sternly with any miscreants. Of course, you gotta remember: he may not have been making a promise so much as a prediction, you know, based on probabilities, the facts on the ground. Its like predicting the weather in a way, and you can’t be that pissed off if he guesses wrong, now can you? If I don’t know what he’s going to do next, can I really blame him if he doesn’t?
[/QUOTE]
See posts 53 and 54. He took care of Libby, just as he said he would.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I assume that the OP now takes the position that McClellan’s word is NOT absolute proof, since now he’s saying that Bush didn’t lie.
[/QUOTE]
Really? So now we are taking the publisher’s word for it? That is convenient, considering back in post #38, you concurred that one guy speaking for another did not constitute proof.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
How does one guy saying another guy lied constitute “proof”? Was he wearing a wire?
[/QUOTE]
I echo this question.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently, your standards of proof blow with the wind.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Really? So now we are taking the publisher’s word for it? That is convenient, considering back in post #38, you concurred that one guy speaking for another did not constitute proof. Apparently, your standards of proof blow with the wind.
[/QUOTE]
Good lord, I’m not claiming any “proof” has been adduced by any story offered thus far. I maintain the same standards I have always used.
You, on the other hand, have I suspect drastically changed what you consider “proof,” since (I assume) you now do not contend that there’s any proof involved in this story either.
Look, let’s not apply a double standard here. If McClellan was telling the truth when he said Bush was lying, then we should also believe him when he says he wasn’t.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
You, on the other hand, have I suspect drastically changed what you consider “proof,” since (I assume) you now do not contend that there’s any proof involved in this story either.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. When a loyal White House insider throws his former boss under the bus, it carries a great deal more weight than when a publisher with no inside knowledge tries to disavow his author’s claims.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Look, let’s not apply a double standard here. If McClellan was telling the truth when he said Bush was lying, then we should also believe him when he says he wasn’t.
[/QUOTE]
McClellan has not retracted his statement. His publisher claims to speak for him. There is a huge difference there, since the publisher was never in a position to know anything about who lied, and who didn’t.
True enough, for that matter, but what faith could we have that a press secretary would be granted any ultra-inside information? Who would have told him? Sure, they stuffed his ears with bullshit in the first place, but did anyone come around and say “Sorry we screwed you, Scotty, but the President said so.”?
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Not at all. When a loyal White House insider throws his former boss under the bus, it carries a great deal more weight than when a publisher with no inside knowledge tries to disavow his author’s claims. McClellan has not retracted his statement. His publisher claims to speak for him. There is a huge difference there, since the publisher was never in a position to know anything about who lied, and who didn’t.
[/QUOTE]
OK.
When the book is out, and we can read McClellan’s words for ourselves, does that then constitute proof - no matter what he says?
Or is it only “proof” if he attacks Bush, but not if he defends him?
When the book is out, and we can read McClellan’s words for ourselves, does that then constitute proof - no matter what he says?
Or is it only “proof” if he attacks Bush, but not if he defends him?
[/QUOTE]
If he attacks Bush, then does a 180 and defends him, that looks a lot like coercion. You would have to be very naive to accept such a reversal at face value.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
McClellan has not retracted his statement. His publisher claims to speak for him. There is a huge difference there, since the publisher was never in a position to know anything about who lied, and who didn’t.
[/QUOTE]
Problem with that is, the publisher is the one who released the original statement anyway. Has McClellan spoken officially about this? Or are we working from two contradictory statements that the publisher, and only the publisher, has released? According to the linked article in the OP, at the very end of the article, the last time McClellan spoke publically about this he exonerated the president.
It truly does smell like publicity to me, but I guess we really will have to wait for the book to come out…which is just what they expect us to do…!
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
If he attacks Bush, then does a 180 and defends him, that looks a lot like coercion. You would have to be very naive to accept such a reversal at face value.
[/QUOTE]
Except that, as I understand it, the pages in question have already been written. So if what he’s written defends Bush, and did so before the publisher’s statement became public, then does it constitute “proof?”
[QUOTE=The Librarian]
Ich bin ein Berliner
[/QUOTE]
Kennedy was lying on SO many levels with that one. To expand on post #52 above: Unlike in English, in German you never use an indefinite article when saying where you’re from. To be grammatically correct, he would have said, “Ich bin Berliner.” However, a Berliner is also the name of a type of pastry, and you WOULD use an indefinite article when describing that, so Kennedy was actually saying, “I am a type of pastry.”
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
Kennedy was lying on SO many levels with that one. To expand on post #52 above: Unlike in English, in German you never use an indefinite article when saying where you’re from.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but Kennedy wasn’t trying to say he’s literally from Berlin.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
If he attacks Bush, then does a 180 and defends him, that looks a lot like coercion. You would have to be very naive to accept such a reversal at face value.
[/QUOTE]
Hello, hello. Is this thing on? Are you planning on just blithely ignoring the fact that McLellan’s weasel words don’t necessarily mean anything at all, and that nothing his publisher has said subsequently contradicts what he said in the first place? In other words, just exactly how gullible are you?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Except that, as I understand it, the pages in question have already been written.
[/QUOTE]
But they have not been published. From what i understand, the book is not even finished yet. It is entirely possible, judging from the publisher’s disavowal, that the comment in question may never even make it into the final book. That is the kind of prior restraint I am talking about, as a result of pressure from the White House.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Firstly, unless you want to get riddled with bullets from the Secret Service I’d highly advise you not try to lynch the President of the United States.
Second, while I think Bush handled the Plame affair in a very partisan manner, I really couldn’t give a shit. Do I wish we lived in a perfect world? Yup. If we lived in a perfect world the President wouldn’t behave in such a partisan manner over something like that, but we don’t live in a perfect world and he acted how I think any President would have acted in his shoes.
Presidents lie, it’s part of their job. Ideally it wouldn’t be..
[/QUOTE]
Well, the world would probably be a lot MORE perfect world if the American people didn’t tolerate treason from its leadership. Much MORE perfect. Maybe not a PERFECT world, but that’s an unattainable ideal, and I KNOW you are’t the kind of sleazy rhetorician who’d try to give the impression that only in a perfect world would treason be prosecutable.
He’d probably blurt it out during one of his extemporaneous moments.