As I look back on the Bush Presidency, I have begun to see Bush as a victim (for lack of a better word) of really bad advice. IMO, he was mislead and manipulated by early advisors thrust upon him by political cronies. From day one, he appeared to lack the intellect and critical thinking ability to really evaluate information and opinions and then make the kind of decisions that President needs to make. He relied heavily on his advisors to tell him what to do--often, in the first term, relying on Cheney to make the call.
However, in the beginning of his second term, he declared himself the 'decider' and decided he was really going to have a go at being President. To co-president Cheney, this must have been infuriating.
I'm more interested in the tell-all book from Bush than I am from Cheney. Of course, if Cheney's book comes out first, this might inspire Bush to get more honest.
Every time something new is revealed about what really went on behind-the-scenes at the Bush White House, I'm never surprised.
Cheney comes off in some ways as the Jack Nicholson character in A Few Good Men -- he wants so bad to tell people what he did and why he did it. I'm hoping his editor and advisors don't hold him back. Let the chips fall where they may.
You mean, he'll admit that his office intentionally outed Valerie Plame?
That he knew there were no WMDs when he alleged they existed?
Geez... Here we are five years after the fact, and there are people who either still clueless, or incapable of being honest.
Richard Armitage was the one who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak, which wasn't even a crime in the first place.
Wrong again. Funny you should use the word clueless, as I suspect you have read no accounting as to how intelligence was gathered prior to the war. Not every credible intelligence agency had this conclusion. In fact some were quite aware that we were making asses of ourselves with some of the claims.Nobody knew that there weren't stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. Every credible intelligence agency in the world believed he had them.
I guess lying is just part of being a far left liberal.
.
Geez... Here we are five years after the fact, and there are people who either still clueless, or incapable of being honest.
Richard Armitage was the one who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak, which wasn't even a crime in the first place.
Nobody knew that there weren't stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. Every credible intelligence agency in the world believed he had them.
I guess lying is just part of being a far left liberal.
.
the source for the plame leak was revealed to be richard armitage who told it to his friend bob novak (who has disappeared completely from public view, i pray he is well)
the plame/joe wilson story died determinately, decisively, when armitage was outed precisely because both he and novak are the exact opposites of neo cons
they are genghis cons, traditional isolationist conservatives
both outward and ardent opponents of w's war
the entire motivation underlying wilson was blown apart
novak was curious---who the heck is this guy who wrote the ny times op ed making all these grandiose claims concerning his proximity to the veep?
it was what it was
empahsis---was
cliff
Geez... Here we are five years after the fact, and there are people who either still clueless, or incapable of being honest.
Richard Armitage was the one who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak, which wasn't even a crime in the first place.
Nobody knew that there weren't stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. Every credible intelligence agency in the world believed he had them.
I guess lying is just part of being a far left liberal.
.
Then why is Scooter Libby still serving a sentence of supervised release for two years and paying a $250,000 fine? If he is innocent and it was Armitage, Libby should be off the hook, right?
Are you implying that Cheney is going to tell the truth in his book? :shock: You mean, he'll admit that his office intentionally outed Valerie Plame? That he knew there were no WMDs when he alleged they existed? That he had no remorse when he shot his friend?
I think the problem with George W. Bush was that he was, to quote Bob Woodward, "Intellectually lazy" and lacking in any curiosity. This article is not really anything new, but rather an extenuation of what appears to be a battle between the two camps over their legacy. Cheney was definitely marginalized in the second half, and certainly ignored post 2006. I think we would have seen a whole different world had there been a VP with more intelligent pragmatism instead of rigid ideology.
Cheney was much more swept up with the Neo-Con movement than anything, and I did not see Bush as having that great of a world outlook, he was always much more focused in regards to his domestic agenda. As it plays out now, I think Cheney will go down in history as the villain, which may explain why he is still in the D.C. area fighting mad about his reputation. Funny thing is, it is Cheney fighting Bush, or aides of each camp. I think as Cheney continues to ratchet up more former Bush aides are going to go on or off the record with even more tantalizing tales painting Cheney in a much more negative light. Last spring we had the faux headline that there was Cheney vs. Obama debate about national security. I say faux, because it was really Cheney vs. Bush post 2006.
Richard Armitage made an innocent off hand remark to Novak that at the time he thought nothing off, same for Novak. Since you are so knowledgeable, I guess you simply forget the ethics that journalists are suppose to always find a second source? It was that second source that is at the heart of the controversy. Go read Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.
Wrong again. Funny you should use the word clueless, as I suspect you have read no accounting as to how intelligence was gathered prior to the war. Not every credible intelligence agency had this conclusion. In fact some were quite aware that we were making asses of ourselves with some of the claims.
It sure as hell had NOTHING to do with the outting of Plame; unless of course you desperately want to spin this some more? :spin:
Yes, and why did all these Dems (who were wrong) say this? Can you answer me that?
Could it be that they were told of fake yellowcake purchase that was instigated by a known Italian fraudster? Could it be they were not told the truth, what actual scientists had to say about aluminum tubes? Could it be they were not told the truth about Curveball's allegations?
What was it for then? It seems lying to the FBI, and what, four other criminal charges?
Yes, and why did all these Dems (who were wrong) say this? Can you answer me that?
Could it be that they were told of fake yellowcake purchase that was instigated by a known Italian fraudster? Could it be they were not told the truth, what actual scientists had to say about aluminum tubes? Could it be they were not told the truth about Curveball's allegations?
Then why is Scooter Libby still serving a sentence of supervised release for two years and paying a $250,000 fine? If he is innocent and it was Armitage, Libby should be off the hook, right?
It sure as hell had NOTHING to do with the outting of Plame; unless of course you desperately want to spin this some more?
Libby resigned all three government positions immediately after he was indicted on federal charges of obstruction and perjury resulting from the grand jury investigation into the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame. In his trial for his role in the Plame affair, United States v. Libby, the jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment: one count of obstruction of justice; two counts of perjury; and one count of making false statements to federal investigators.
Truth Detector -- the most ironic user name ever.
LINK.
TD: Did you really not know this or were you just bull****ting for the hell of it?
The facts be stubborn things, my unintentionally humorous friend.
He was convicted of perjury, because he made contradictory statements to investigators. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear, that he was not guilty of outing a covert CIA agent.
.
Richard Armitage made an innocent off hand remark to Novak that at the time he thought nothing off, same for Novak. Since you are so knowledgeable, I guess you simply forget the ethics that journalists are suppose to always find a second source?
Richard Armitage made an innocent off hand remark to Novak that at the time he thought nothing off, same for Novak. Since you are so knowledgeable, I guess you simply forget the ethics that journalists are suppose to always find a second source?[/I].
Wrong again. Funny you should use the word clueless, as I suspect you have read no accounting as to how intelligence was gathered prior to the war. Not every credible intelligence agency had this conclusion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?