Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (387091)	5/28/2008 11:41:04 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572644

"He "was" loyal? " He was loyal. "Loyalty is or it isn't." Loyalty doesn't have to be for life. If you get screwed over enough, and for Scott the breaking point appears to be Plame, you can switch. "Every day for the last 30 years, I have been (and probably you, too) trusted with a ton of information from clients under the condition that it is not for public consumption." Yup. But I have never done the equivalent of going to my clients and asking if they had anything to do with the outing of Plame, and they told me "who, me? No way!". Then, after committing myself to that, it turns out that they were telling a grand jury something different to save their own asses. I have to guess that Rove was the deal breaker for him. Libby went to the wall. Rove squirmed. To be honest, I still probably wouldn't say anything. I am, deep in my heart, an idealist. My wife and I go around and around about this all the time. I suspect that if Rove had been honest with him, he would not have written this book. Scott went into that press conference with the assurance that no one was telling a different story than he was presenting. That proved to be wrong. I haven't read the book. I don't really know. But if I were to guess the key event was that press gaggle when he marched out there and stated he had talked to Rove and Scooter and they said they had no involvement. Whether or not he actually believed that was true or not isn't really relevant. Rove was already singing a different tune to the grand jury. Scooter was sticking with his story. Rove hung him out to dry.

To: i-node who wrote (387091)	5/28/2008 11:50:15 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1572644

Government employees are OUR employees. They should be loyal to US. WE pay their salaries. McLellan is just validating what we've been telling you wingnuts for YEARS. The Bushies will trash the messenger, like always, but who believes THEM now?

To: i-node who wrote (387091)	5/28/2008 11:56:35 PM
From: Proud Deplorable	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572644

Excuse me but if you were watching CNN on this story today you would have plainly heard journalists say that they twist the truth and that this was done frequently to muster support for the Iraq genocide that Bush and his oil friends perpetrated to steal Iraqs oil. EVERYONE knows this so what's wrong with you?

To: i-node who wrote (387091)	5/29/2008 7:46:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572644

Here's your 'brilliant" Condi clueless as ever. Clueless Condi Rides Again by sarabeth at 6:00 am on May 29th, 2008 in Bush Man Date, Iraq War, Rice Our Condi is in Stockholm doing whatever it is that Secretaries of State do when they’re not achieving world peace, but she wasn’t going to let that stop her from joining in wholeheartedly in the “stomp McClellan” loyalty ritual. However, it is virtually impossible for Condi Rice, Ph.D., to do anything right. So here’s one of the things she proclaimed: “It was not the United States of America alone that believed that he had weapons of mass destruction that he was hiding,” Rice said, dismissing suggestions that the administration knew the intelligence was incorrect. “The story is there for everyone to see, you can’t now transplant yourself into the present and say we should have know what we in fact did not know in 2001 and 2002,” she said. “The record on weapons of mass destruction was one that appeared to be very clear.” Those who were skeptical should have spoken up at the time and argued against U.N. sanctions such as the oil-for-food program, she said. Someone please sit her down and explain to her that the oil-for-food program wasn’t a U.N. sanction, it was a humanitarian exception to the U.N. sanctions. And it wasn’t just a one-time slip of the tongue. She really thinks the oil-for-food program was an economic burden imposed on the Iraqi people: “You can agree or disagree about the decision to liberate Iraq in 2003, but I would really ask that if you … believe he was not a threat to the international community, then why in the world were you allowing the Iraqi people to suffer under the terms of oil-for-food.” Not knowing the difference between an economic sanction and an exception to economic sanctions wasn’t the only bizarre aspect of her statement. What on earth could the oil-for-food program possibly have to do with weapons of mass destruction and the Bush administration’s case for war? The oil-for-food program “was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton’s administration in 1995, as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War.” Condi clearly believes that the oil-for-food program was introduced during the lead-up to the Iraq war, when the U.N. was trying to use sanctions as a means to get Saddam to come clean about WMDs. Surely by now, as she nears the end of her glorious tenure as Secretary of State, our Condi should have learned to get at least the most basic things right?