NOYB and a few others will be spinning so much, people will think
they're Whirling Dervishes!

Sources Say Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal

In September 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan had this to
say about the CIA leak scandal: "The President has set high standards,
the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it
very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to
adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this
administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this
administration." (McClellan added, "[T]here's been nothing, absolutely
nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House
involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office.") Since
July, we've known that top administration officials -- including Karl
Rove and Scooter Libby -- were involved, speaking to reporters about
Joe Wilson's wife and her role at the CIA. Over the weekend, startling
new evidence emerged that suggested direct involvement in the scandal
by Vice President Cheney and President Bush.

SOURCE -- BUSH DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LEAK SCANDAL: On ABC's This Week,
George Stephanopolous said the leak scandal could become unmanageable
for the White House if "as a source close to this told me this week,
President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some
of these discussions." This would help explain why Bush spent more than
an hour answering questions about the leak with special prosecutor
Patrick Fitzgerald. But it would also explode the notion, carefully
maintained by the White House, that Bush is merely a bystander who
wants to "get to the bottom" of what happened.

SOURCE -- CHENEY DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LEAK SCANDAL: The New York Times
reported Saturday that "a lawyer who knows Mr. Libby's account said
the administration efforts to limit the damage from Mr. Wilson's
criticism extended as high as Mr. Cheney." Specifically, on July 12,
2003, "Mr. Libby consulted with Mr. Cheney about how to handle
inquiries from journalists about the vice president's role in sending
Mr. Wilson to Africa in early 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq was
trying to acquire nuclear material there for its weapons program." The
leaking of Cheney's role by a source who appears sympathetic to the
White House may be an effort to manage the story. Similarly, the first
details about Karl Rove's role were released by his own lawyer.

TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MAY BE INDICTED FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:
The public defense of both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby in the CIA leak
scandal have focused on the specific claim they they didn't know
Valerie Plame's name. But even if Patrick Fitzgerald is unable to
prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Rove,
Libby and others could still be charged with perjury if they lied to
investigators. The Washington Post reports another possibility:
"Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal
conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration
officials." Significantly, "To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions
need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal
purpose."

What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that
there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. So,
instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be
considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy.

At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of
whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from.




wrote in message
ups.com...
NOYB and a few others will be spinning so much, people will think
they're Whirling Dervishes!

Sources Say Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal

In September 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan had this to
say about the CIA leak scandal: "The President has set high standards,
the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it
very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to
adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this
administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this
administration." (McClellan added, "[T]here's been nothing, absolutely
nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House
involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office.") Since
July, we've known that top administration officials -- including Karl
Rove and Scooter Libby -- were involved, speaking to reporters about
Joe Wilson's wife and her role at the CIA. Over the weekend, startling
new evidence emerged that suggested direct involvement in the scandal
by Vice President Cheney and President Bush.

SOURCE -- BUSH DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LEAK SCANDAL: On ABC's This Week,
George Stephanopolous said the leak scandal could become unmanageable
for the White House if "as a source close to this told me this week,
President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some
of these discussions." This would help explain why Bush spent more than
an hour answering questions about the leak with special prosecutor
Patrick Fitzgerald. But it would also explode the notion, carefully
maintained by the White House, that Bush is merely a bystander who
wants to "get to the bottom" of what happened.

SOURCE -- CHENEY DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LEAK SCANDAL: The New York Times
reported Saturday that "a lawyer who knows Mr. Libby's account said
the administration efforts to limit the damage from Mr. Wilson's
criticism extended as high as Mr. Cheney." Specifically, on July 12,
2003, "Mr. Libby consulted with Mr. Cheney about how to handle
inquiries from journalists about the vice president's role in sending
Mr. Wilson to Africa in early 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq was
trying to acquire nuclear material there for its weapons program." The
leaking of Cheney's role by a source who appears sympathetic to the
White House may be an effort to manage the story. Similarly, the first
details about Karl Rove's role were released by his own lawyer.

TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MAY BE INDICTED FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:
The public defense of both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby in the CIA leak
scandal have focused on the specific claim they they didn't know
Valerie Plame's name. But even if Patrick Fitzgerald is unable to
prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Rove,
Libby and others could still be charged with perjury if they lied to
investigators. The Washington Post reports another possibility:
"Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal
conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration
officials." Significantly, "To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions
need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal
purpose."

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that
there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
So,
instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be
considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy.

At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of
whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from.

Yeah.....WAPO, NYT, and Boy George..........there are three dependable news
sources......LMAO






wrote in message
ups.com...
NOYB and a few others will be spinning so much, people will think
they're Whirling Dervishes!

Sources Say Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal

In September 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan had this to
say about the CIA leak scandal: "The President has set high standards,
the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it
very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to
adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this
administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this
administration." (McClellan added, "[T]here's been nothing, absolutely
nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House
involvement, and that includes the Vice President's office.") Since
July, we've known that top administration officials -- including Karl
Rove and Scooter Libby -- were involved, speaking to reporters about
Joe Wilson's wife and her role at the CIA. Over the weekend, startling
new evidence emerged that suggested direct involvement in the scandal
by Vice President Cheney and President Bush.

SOURCE -- BUSH DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LEAK SCANDAL: On ABC's This Week,
George Stephanopolous said the leak scandal could become unmanageable
for the White House if "as a source close to this told me this week,
President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some
of these discussions." This would help explain why Bush spent more than
an hour answering questions about the leak with special prosecutor
Patrick Fitzgerald. But it would also explode the notion, carefully
maintained by the White House, that Bush is merely a bystander who
wants to "get to the bottom" of what happened.

SOURCE -- CHENEY DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN LEAK SCANDAL: The New York Times
reported Saturday that "a lawyer who knows Mr. Libby's account said
the administration efforts to limit the damage from Mr. Wilson's
criticism extended as high as Mr. Cheney." Specifically, on July 12,
2003, "Mr. Libby consulted with Mr. Cheney about how to handle
inquiries from journalists about the vice president's role in sending
Mr. Wilson to Africa in early 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq was
trying to acquire nuclear material there for its weapons program." The
leaking of Cheney's role by a source who appears sympathetic to the
White House may be an effort to manage the story. Similarly, the first
details about Karl Rove's role were released by his own lawyer.

TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MAY BE INDICTED FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:
The public defense of both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby in the CIA leak
scandal have focused on the specific claim they they didn't know
Valerie Plame's name. But even if Patrick Fitzgerald is unable to
prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Rove,
Libby and others could still be charged with perjury if they lied to
investigators. The Washington Post reports another possibility:
"Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal
conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration
officials." Significantly, "To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions
need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal
purpose."

P Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that
there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
So,
instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be
considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy.

At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of
whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from.

Yeah.....WAPO, NYT, and Boy George..........there are three dependable news
sources......LMAO

Proves what you know.......NOTHING. You are dead wrong.

NOYB wrote:

At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of
whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from.


hehe!! Thank you for making my point, spinboy!

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:30:32 +0000, NOYB wrote:

What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that
there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
So, instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be
considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy.

At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of
whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from.

I don't know if any charges will come from the Plame investigation, but I
will point out, it wasn't the Watergate burglary that brought Nixon down,
it was the cover-up. If anyone in the Bush administration is charged, it
will be another nail in this lame duck's coffin. Bush is already wounded,
additional bleeding will put his numbers in the Carter area. Can you say
failed Presidency?

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/...l_approval.htm

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:30:32 +0000, NOYB wrote:

What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that
there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
So, instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be
considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy.

At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of
whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from.

I don't know if any charges will come from the Plame investigation, but I
will point out, it wasn't the Watergate burglary that brought Nixon down,
it was the cover-up.

Shoot. You could very well be talking about Able Danger now.


If anyone in the Bush administration is charged, it
will be another nail in this lame duck's coffin. Bush is already wounded,
additional bleeding will put his numbers in the Carter area. Can you say
failed Presidency?

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/...l_approval.htm

Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record
gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane
that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels.

There's hardly a similarity to Carter or Nixon, who finished 12 approval
points, and 22 approval points, respectively, behind where Bush is right
now.

When you're fighting a war like we're fighting in Iraq, 2 1/2 years isn't
enough time to decide how things are going to turn out. Talk to me in 3
years if his numbers have dipped to below 40% by then. I'd bet not.


Let's see...
Almost 2 1/2 years after the US entered WWII, our forces got obliterated by
Rommel at Kasserine Pass. What do you suppose FDR's approval rating would
have been if CNN/Gallup was around back then taking weekly approval ratings?

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels.

Damn, NOYB, a realistic assessment. That doesn't sound like the Bush
cheerleader we all know. ;-)

There's hardly a similarity to Carter or Nixon, who finished 12 approval
points, and 22 approval points, respectively, behind where Bush is right
now.

The blood bleeds slowly, NOYB. Remember, Nixon actually did win
reelection by a landslide, over 60% of the vote and all but one state. I
doubt that Bush will reach Nixon's lows, without Bush himself being
indicted (I don't expect that he will be). His core support is larger
than that, but Carter? He could easily reach Carter's lows.


When you're fighting a war like we're fighting in Iraq, 2 1/2 years isn't
enough time to decide how things are going to turn out. Talk to me in 3
years if his numbers have dipped to below 40% by then. I'd bet not.


Let's see...
Almost 2 1/2 years after the US entered WWII, our forces got obliterated
by Rommel at Kasserine Pass. What do you suppose FDR's approval rating
would have been if CNN/Gallup was around back then taking weekly approval
ratings?

Probably quite high. The country was overwhelmingly in support of that
war. Remember, there were very, very, few protesting our invasion of
Afghanistan. Our country was fully in support Bush going after bin Laden.
Iraq is Bush's downfall and the news from there, isn't looking like it
will improve. To me, it's looking like a Civil War is a very real
possibility.

The Sunnis have always been problematic, but now the Kurds are also
unhappy with the Shias. Jaafari in all probability is an Iranian agent.
Between Chalabi and Jaafari it's looking like the Iranians have played
Bush for a chump, and we are holding the dirty end of the stick. It's a
real mess.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels.

Damn, NOYB, a realistic assessment. That doesn't sound like the Bush
cheerleader we all know. ;-)

There's hardly a similarity to Carter or Nixon, who finished 12 approval
points, and 22 approval points, respectively, behind where Bush is right
now.

The blood bleeds slowly, NOYB. Remember, Nixon actually did win
reelection by a landslide, over 60% of the vote and all but one state. I
doubt that Bush will reach Nixon's lows, without Bush himself being
indicted (I don't expect that he will be). His core support is larger
than that, but Carter? He could easily reach Carter's lows.


When you're fighting a war like we're fighting in Iraq, 2 1/2 years isn't
enough time to decide how things are going to turn out. Talk to me in 3
years if his numbers have dipped to below 40% by then. I'd bet not.


Let's see...
Almost 2 1/2 years after the US entered WWII, our forces got obliterated
by Rommel at Kasserine Pass. What do you suppose FDR's approval rating
would have been if CNN/Gallup was around back then taking weekly approval
ratings?

Probably quite high. The country was overwhelmingly in support of that
war.

The country overwhelmingly supported war with Japan because of Pearl Harbor.
But there were plenty of doves who opposed sending our guys to die in
Northern Africa and Europe to fight "Europe's war". After Kasserine Pass,
you can bet that there were a lot of American's questioning whether we
should be there at all.





Remember, there were very, very, few protesting our invasion of
Afghanistan. Our country was fully in support Bush going after bin Laden.
Iraq is Bush's downfall and the news from there, isn't looking like it
will improve.

Most Americans supported going into Iraq as well.
But Americans are fickle and impatient. A little bad news goes a long way
in shaking the resolve of a good portion of our country.



To me, it's looking like a Civil War is a very real
possibility.

The Sunnis have always been problematic, but now the Kurds are also
unhappy with the Shias. Jaafari in all probability is an Iranian agent.
Between Chalabi and Jaafari it's looking like the Iranians have played
Bush for a chump, and we are holding the dirty end of the stick. It's a
real mess.

A perpetual civil war might not be such a bad thing for American security.
Continuous internal conflict makes them very little threat to other nations.

Sources Say Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal

"Sources"?

Wow, Guzzi-boy! ! You finally made the big times!