Hey NBC your double-standards are showing! On last night's Hardball, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams was in awe of the Clinton spin machine as he called them "pros" and "good leakers" but MSNBC correspondent David Shuster labeled Dick Cheney's behavior in the Scooter Libby leak case as "ruthless," and "obsessed."
First up Hardball host, Chris Matthews, asked Williams for his take on Hillary Clinton's rapid defense in her David Geffen-fueled spat with Barack Obama. Williams, seemed to admire the Clinton machine's prowess in both past and current crises, as he admitted: "They were pros politically. They were good leakers. They were good attackers, and they were good defenders. Hillary Rodham Clinton has some pros working for her. We've had some experience with them, all of us in this business have."
In contrast, Shuster reported the Lewis Libby leak trial revealed sinister behavior on Cheney's part: "The Vice President was rather ruthless in how he handled classified information, essentially releasing it to punish an opponent." Shuster then went on to depict an administration obsessed with Joe Wilson and yes, even, Chris Matthews himself: "Chris, I mean, clearly, as the evidence has come out, they were obsessed by this. They were obsessed over your reporting. They were obsessed over what Joe Wilson was saying. They were obsessed about somehow trying to undercut him. And, as Fitzgerald argued, they used Valerie Wilson as an argument. Why did they go into overdrive? Why were they so obsessed?"
The following are the full quotes from Williams and Shuster, respectively, as they occurred on the February 22 edition of Hardball:
First, the exchange between Matthews and Williams:
Chris Matthews: "Brian, I was amazed at the morning newspapers, especially the tabs up in New York, where you are. And I am looking at them. Here's the New York Post, often bombastic, but look at it this week: ‘The Big Chill,' with a picture of Hillary Clinton on the left, called ‘The Wronged Woman,' David Geffen, the record mogul, called ‘The Double-Crosser.' And there is Barack Obama, ‘The New Kid on the Block.' This fight is hot, and it's early. What do you make of it?"
Brian Williams: "It is hot and it is early, Chris, but I harbor this theory that about a dozen Democrats, all of them already in politics, really care about this fight. My theory goes further. As you know, I don't do opinions, but I read a whole lot of people's opinions every day on both sides. One of them I consumed today is that Hillary Clinton was so hurt at not being the cool kid at Malibu High School, in effect, that they could not believe -- put another way, a funny thing happened on their way to the presumptive Democratic nomination. Here comes Barack Obama, who, for set of reasons and a set of new beliefs about Hillary Rodham Clinton and her electability, comes in and sweeps in. And these stars, who they could always count on, fell head over heels in love with him. And this is what we are watching happen. You combine that with the pros working for this Clinton campaign, and this is what we are looking at on page one of the tabloids."
Matthews: "Were you surprised at the swift reaction from Howard Wolfson for Hillary Clinton, to come out on this show last night and basically accuse the other candidate, Barack Obama, himself, of putting Geffen up to this attack on Hillary and her husband?"
Williams: "It was out of The Godfather: ‘Michael, do you renounce Satan?' I am not surprised, Chris, only because the Clinton team, say what you will, and people will anyway, politically about them in the White House, in the prime of their years, what did we know about them? They were pros politically. They were good leakers. They were good attackers, and they were good defenders. Hillary Rodham Clinton has some pros working for her. We've had some experience with them, all of us in this business have. And, so, I was not surprised. They are going to try to give rapid reaction an entirely new name."
...
Then later in the hour Shuster delivered the following report from the Libby trial:
Matthews: "Welcome back to Hardball. Washington and the country is anxiously awaiting a verdict in the Scooter Libby trial. Hardball correspondent David Shuster is at the courthouse right now. David, this is the first full day of deliberations."
David Shuster: "Yeah, Chris, that's right. They went seven hours today and, of course, did not return a verdict. They will come back tomorrow; 11-and-a-half hours, they've been deliberating Scooter Libby's fate so far. There have been two notes that the jury has sent to the judge. There was one asking for masking tape, post-it notes, and a flip chart. And there was another note asking for photos of the witnesses. The idea, of course, is that, perhaps, they are trying to go back and place what the witnesses said about the timeline, and map it out. There is a schoolteacher, a retired math teacher, that is on this jury. There is also an MIT economist. So, it sounds like they are essentially sort of going in a linear fashion. But who really knows? But this has given us an opportunity, Chris, to go back and check a couple of things that have come up in this trial, chief among them the testimony about who really sent Joe Wilson. And we've gone back through all the witnesses and the evidence, and we've found that it was never in dispute. There was never an argument that, even by Joe Wilson himself, that Vice President Cheney said, ‘You, Joe Wilson, go to Niger.' But there was plenty of testimony, Chris, we counted from three different witnesses, one from the State Department, two from the CIA, who all testified that, because of an inquiry by Vice President Cheney in 2002 about a piece of raw intelligence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, because of that inquiry, that got the CIA thinking about it. And because of questions also coming to them from the State Department and the Department of Defense, the CIA then decided the go ahead and send Joe Wilson to investigate. And Wilson, of course, came back and said there was no basis to the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. The other part about this, Chris, that we have been able to do today is, we went back and looked at the number of times that Vice President Cheney was mentioned in the closing days of this trial. We found the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, in his closing argument, the last 20 minutes, mentioned Vice President Cheney repeatedly. He talked about the cloud that had been cast over the Vice President. And Fitzgerald made reference to the Vice President cutting out Joe Wilson's column, writing on that column, having meetings with Scooter Libby, dispatching Libby to meet with a reporter, where it's alleged that Libby leaked information about Joe Wilson. And the prosecutor said, ‘The cloud remains over the Vice President, because Libby obstructed justice and lied about what happened that week,' the week before Valerie Wilson was outed. So, clearly, implications have been made about the Vice President. That was one of the last things the jury heard before they got the instructions and then went into deliberate. And, again, that has added to the intrigue and added to sort of the mystery, the idea that the Vice President was rather ruthless in how he handled classified information, essentially releasing it to punish an opponent. And that also gives an insight, Chris, into perhaps how the Vice President handled intelligence before the war, when they were trying to sell the war to the American people, Chris."
Matthews: "Well, David, Fitzgerald, in closing up, said, ‘What was all the hullabaloo about? The question of who sent Wilson was hugely important. And they wanted everybody to know it wasn't the Vice President.' Why did the Vice President and Scooter try so hard to separate the Vice President from the reason for that trip to Africa?"
Shuster: "And that is the big mystery, Chris. I mean, clearly, as the evidence has come out, they were obsessed by this. They were obsessed over your reporting. They were obsessed over what Joe Wilson was saying,. They were obsessed about somehow trying to undercut him. And, as Fitzgerald argued, they used Valerie Wilson as an argument. Why did they go into overdrive? Why were they so obsessed? That is one of the things that the prosecutors, perhaps, don't even know, in part because Scooter Libby, when he testified to the grand jury, kept saying he could not recall crucial conversations with Vice President Cheney during this crucial time period. And those unanswered questions are one of the reasons why prosecutors are so eager to convict Libby and see if that somehow refreshes his memory about what really happened during those crucial weeks, Chris."
Matthews: "Well, journalistically, I still want to know the answer to that. What was the Vice President's role in that trip? And if he had a role, why didn't he get a report? And if he got a report, why didn't he warn the President there was no African deal to buy uranium? Anyway, thank you very much, David Shuster."
—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
I watched this disgusting, hy
February 23, 2007 - 16:56 ET by bigtimerI watched this disgusting, hypocritical, sickening, typical tripe...
Nothing surprising is there?
msnbc (NBC and Williams)....what a joke...all of them.
I stopped taking Matthews ser
February 23, 2007 - 17:05 ET by Al CzervikI stopped taking Matthews seriously a long time ago. He's more a of a source of humor for me now.
I'm not a regular viewer of Hardball, but has he ever addressed the proven fact that Joe Wilson is a big fat liar? It seems to me that that MSNCB keeps refering to this Niger business, but hasn't mentioned what a big fat liar Mr. Wilson really is. Maybe I missed that segment.
Also, these guys still insist
February 23, 2007 - 17:45 ET by gfrrmanAlso, these guys still insist that Valerie Plame was "undercover CIA". Joe Wilson was a proven liar AND Valerie Plame was NOT an undercover/covert CIA. These idiots have no standards, just BDS!! Btw, Schuster is just pissed that he's been wrong so many times and that Karl Rove isn't under the jail somewhere.
Joe Wilson was a proven lia
February 23, 2007 - 19:16 ET by SomerTeethJoe Wilson was a proven liar AND Valerie Plame was NOT an undercover/covert CIA.
Let's see some sources on that, gfrrman. It doesn't appear that you know what you're talking about.
Special Counsel Fitzgerald during his October 28, 2005 press conference:
"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie
Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified,
but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie
Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had
another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known,
for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a
CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for
the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was
blown in July 2003.
The first sign of that cover being blown was when
Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."
The obsessed
February 23, 2007 - 19:51 ET by SportPoliticsYou're as obsessed as Brian Williams and Chrissy Matthews. We already know Fitzgerald is full of it. His little nervous initial indictment announcement 2 years late from dismissal proved he was full of it, as Libby was not the first to spread the name Plame outside of government.
The obsessed liars are clearly the left, who instead of reporting how much and how often Wilson lied, have concocted a conspiracy of their own.
It's flatly ridiculous. Novak's column was in print for 6 months before the press started going out of their minds over it's content. That should have told you something then.
You people can forever deceive yourselves, but I for one am happy that you no longer decieve me.
Check the thread here just yesterday or the day before where the LA Times exposed CIA rendition agents in their paper, with descriptions of their vehicles and residences,plenty to have a common joe like myself find them in 24hrs or less.
Not a peep from you insane goofballs. It's all about lying and lynching for you types. I think you're a disgrace.
The sad thing is even the 16 words the libs refer to in the President's speech don't mean what the libs claim they say. You even lie about something you spun into a lie, at the basest level.
Yeah, you people are worse than a disgrace, you're a danger to sanity for the masses.
You people can forever dece
February 24, 2007 - 08:14 ET by SomerTeethYou people can forever deceive yourselves, but I for one am happy that you no longer decieve me.
Not a peep from you insane goofballs. It's all about lying and lynching for you types. I think you're a disgrace.
Yeah, you people are worse than a disgrace, you're a danger to sanity for the masses.
Hmmm. And people wonder why it's hard to have an educated, civil debate with conservatives.
You make some pretty strong assertions and allegations, but could you please back them up with some facts? Can you prove "Libby was not the first to spread the name Plame outside of government."? Just one example of who shared this classified information before Libby would be nice.
ST
--
"<Insert lame cliche' quote>"
Somerteeth - are you serious?
February 24, 2007 - 08:33 ET by acaiguanaSomerteeth - are you serious?
Hmmm. And people wonder why it's hard to have an educated, civil debate with conservatives.
The reason you get slammed on this site is because you ask really ignorant questions like this:
Can you prove "Libby was not the first to spread the name Plame outside of government."? Just one example of who shared this classified information before Libby would be nice.
First of all it is more than common knowledge, but officially accepted knowledge that Richard Armitage was the source for Plame being brought into the discussion about Richard Wilson's so-called 'Presidential' trip to Niger.
If you cannot figure that little bit of information out; the conservative whom you are disussing issues with gets a bit frustrated because they are then put into a position of defining 'gravity' to you when talking about mass. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.
Then you use the 'throw-away' canard of 'classified information' when discussing Plame.
There are a number of problems with this 'label' of Plame's status.
1. It wasn't classified.
2. Bringing her name up was no violation of any law.
Those two basic points are the foundation of conservative outrage over the MSM presentation of the entire Plame case to the public. The distortion of these facts does everyone a disservice. And obviously you are misinformed about the fundamental facts of this case as well. That makes talking to you frustrating and difficult even for the most 'compassionate' conservative.
Have you really researched the facts of this case? Or are you just parroting what you read in the MSM and hear on Liberal Blogs? Because if you really look into this case you will see that Novak and Armitage are both saying the same things I just typed.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
aca -- clearly there ain't
February 24, 2007 - 09:22 ET by Jack Baueraca -- clearly there ain't no cure for the somerteeth blues.
You gotta laugh. is this buffoon just trying to act dumb. Or is he really an illeducated lout who doesn't even read the lib***l press?
As you point out, yes it is accepted by Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that Richard Armitage first mentioned Plame. A fact he discovered on Day 1. And a fact also confirmed by...
RICHARD ARMITAGE.
The problem with the Fitzgerald quote he cites is ...
February 24, 2007 - 09:37 ET by acaiguanaThe problem with the Fitzgerald quote he cites is that it was an incorrect statement and even Fitzgerald has had to admit that no laws were broken.
But even if Fitzgerald kept insisting that the silly broad's 'cover' was classified he'd have a hard time against the fact that he couldn't figure out how to charge Armitage with the 'crime'.
So any rational human on the planet would have to agree that there was no 'crime'.
Which makes the Libby prosecution even more obnoxious.
I think Fitzgerald might be facing some 'prosecutorial' misconduct charges if he loses this case. And even if he wins this case; he should be denounced by a House Resolution disapproving his 'mission'.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
The problem with the Fitzge
February 24, 2007 - 18:42 ET by SomerTeethThe problem with the Fitzgerald quote he cites is that it was an
incorrect statement and even Fitzgerald has had to admit that no laws
were broken.
So any rational human on the planet would have to agree that there was no 'crime'.
Actually, you're wrong. Fitzgerald never "admitted" that no laws had been broken (but please share the sources of your misinformation). You're simply distorting his words. He said he was unable to draw a conclusion about whether a crime was in fact committed because the investigation had been impeded by Libby. The analogy he used was that it's like an umpire trying to make a call, and getting sand thrown in his face to obstruct his view. He simply said he can't yet make the call.
ST
--
"<Insert lame cliche' quote here>"
Fitzgerald's investigation is done.
February 24, 2007 - 19:20 ET by acaiguanaFitzgerald's investigation is done. He's charged no one with a crime over the Plame BS. He's charged Libby with purjury that hasn't been decided as I write this, but will probably be decided early next week. So, Libby is still innocent as I write this.
Libby's crime was that of a 'process' during the investigation. To stretch this to believe that it was obstruction of justice, well, where's that charge? It isn't there.
So, if it was like 'an umpire getting sand thrown in his face...' where's the charge for obstruction of justice?
Fitzgerald has no case over the Plame crap. He's done.
There are so many people calling for his head right now, people are confused over whether his name is Nifong or Fitzgerald.
You didn't do what I suggested and that was to learn the 'facts' of this case.
When Fitzgerald refused to indict Rove or anybody else for that matter, he admitted no law had been broken. He knows quite well who 'outed' Plame, that was Richard Armitage. No doubt about it. He knew that from the first day. Richard Armitage above the law?
I don't think so. Hell, he hasn't even been deposed.
So, when you come here to call me wrong, you need to put your facts in order. You were the one making out of date and unfactual assertions. Find a source no earlier than Janurary 2007 to butruss your silly ideas.
Here from one of your favorite magazines, Mother Jones, who even can see the facts better than you. I disagree with some of their points, but at least they have the facts right.
"Perhaps it is, if you base your facts on the Plame leak case on the same, well worn set of conservative talking points used over and over to portray Libby as a victim of liberal activism. As the argument goes, since the charges against Libby derive from Fitzgerald's investigation of a question he was ultimately unable to settle – whether the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity as a covert CIA operative constituted a breach of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act – they should never have been filed in the first place. As Investor's Business Daily put it, "Like District Attorney Michael Nifong in the Duke case, Fitzgerald knew early that he had no real crime and no real criminal. But he had to come up with something. So he charged with lying someone who in his job got hundreds of phone calls every day and talked to dozens of reporters because his memory of earlier conversations differed with those reporters' notes." (It's worth noting that Libby’s defense attorneys are likely to make a similar argument.) For those who adhere to this view, the revelation last fall that former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, known as a critic of the Iraq war, was Robert Novak’s initial source for his column outing Plame, was icing on the cake, providing further evidence that the leak of her covert status was not the act of political retribution administration critics claimed it to be. Case closed."
Now this article goes on to argue that 'lying to a Federal Grand Jury is a crime...blah blah blah'; and in effect convicts Libby before his trial of being just a really bad guy; but that doesn't change the facts.
If you want to come here and argue some Liberal point that Libby, out of scores of people in the tangled web of idiocy that was the Plame Investigation, was an indication of how bad the Bush Administration was in handling the thing, that's one thing.
But to come here and garble the facts themselves, that's another thing.
I'm done with you.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ACA...It does seem odd that m
February 24, 2007 - 19:24 ET by Clear thinkerACA...
It does seem odd that millions of people already knew the facts as they were being reported, yet somerteeth comes up with his own versions. Liberals...silly people!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
When Fitzgerald refused to
February 25, 2007 - 08:45 ET by SomerTeethWhen Fitzgerald refused to indict Rove or anybody else for that matter,
he admitted no law had been broken. He knows quite well who 'outed'
Plame, that was Richard Armitage. No doubt about it. He knew that
from the first day. Richard Armitage above the law?
Now this article goes on to argue that 'lying to a Federal Grand Jury
is a crime...blah blah blah'; and in effect convicts Libby before his
trial of being just a really bad guy; but that doesn't change the facts.
---
I know reading comprehension is a challenge for you, but let me help you out. First of all, the snippet of the Mother Jones article you "cut n' pasted" doesn't actually represent the premise of the article (but cherry picking info is a very good skill of the conservatives). Did you happen to overlook the subheading of the article? ("As the Scooter Libby trial begins in D.C., conservatives in the media are trying to undercut the credibility of the prosecution's case by
comparing Patrick Fitzgerald to embattled Duke case prosecutor Mike Nifong.")
That section of the article (the one you saw fit to pull out of context) was describing the arguments that conservatives (more specifically, Investor's Business Daily) are trying to make in an effort to discredit the Fitzgerald investigation. His point in that section of the article was to explain the conservative position, and why they're trying to claim "case closed", not Fitzgerald. If you would have read the opening sentence of the paragraph that precedes the one you lifted, it states, "In lumping Fitzgerald with Nifong, whose case against the Duke lacrosse players appears at best deeply flawed and potentially politically motivated, Investor's Business Daily is only the latest to deploy this disingenuous bait and switch."
Or, if you read the final paragraph of the article, "As far as the Fitzgerald-Nifong comparisons go, that's just the latest
salvo in a partisan mud-slinging campaign that has been part of the Plame case since the beginning. But none of that matters at this point. The only question now is whether Fitzgerald has a case against Libby --
and that's in the hands of a jury to decide."
Again, you accuse me of not presenting facts, yet you haven't presented any facts yourself. You've cut n' pasted an opinion piece about how the conservative media is trying to discredit the prosecutor and the case using weak comparisons to Nifong. The funny thing about it is, you actually posted an article that contradicts the very argument you've been trying to make.
Nice work. Stick to economics.
ST
--
"<Insert lame cliche' quote here>"
You gotta laugh. is this bu
February 24, 2007 - 19:01 ET by SomerTeethYou gotta laugh. is this buffoon just trying to act dumb. Or is he
really an illeducated lout who doesn't even read the lib***l press?
"illeducated"? Nice word. Good thing I have you to teach me, huh?
As you point out, yes it is accepted by Federal Prosecutor Patrick
Fitzgerald that Richard Armitage first mentioned Plame. A fact he
discovered on Day 1. And a fact also confirmed by...
Yes, it was in fact determined that Armitage was the source who leaked the identity to Novak. However, it also came out in the trial that Libby leaked Plame's name to Judith Miller on 2 separate occasions, both prior to the Novak column being published. Both Libby and Armitage leaked the name prior to the identity being published in Novak's column, but they leaked it to 2 different reporters.
You are a hell of a guy somerteeth.
February 24, 2007 - 19:30 ET by acaiguanaYou are a hell of a guy somerteeth.
Listen to you. "...it came out in the trail..."
No, it was alleged in the trail by the Prosecution; still not proven and until a verdict on that issue is passed, you are gleefully hanging a man you don't even know.
Whether the jury finds Libby guilty at this point isn't even the issue. The issue is that there was no original crime. What kind of hammer does it take to pound that fact into your brain?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
aca,...Sledge.......and that'
February 24, 2007 - 19:33 ET by bigtimeraca,
...Sledge....
...and that's a maybe.
I love this crap. Fitzgerald says he couldn't prove...
February 24, 2007 - 19:43 ET by acaiguanaI love this crap. Fitzgerald says he couldn't determine whether Plame was subject to the particular law covering covert agents. Well, what the hell was he doing with all my money?
That was the only reason he existed.
So, when he says he can't figure it out; then he should have shut it down. Because if a Prosecutor of his stature can't figure out if Plame was 'outed' or not 'outed', classified or not, leaked or not; then comes up with a 'purjury' charge against a guy, not for anything associated with the actual 'crime' but for contridicting himself and others.
So, purjury is basically, "he said, she said, I said" as a crime and there has to be malice aforethought involved by the purjurer.
Sorta like when Bill Clinton did it.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
It should of been shut down i
February 24, 2007 - 19:52 ET by bigtimerIt should of been shut down immediately after he found out about Armitage, in fact it seems kike he knew about this a week beforehand...
On another topic, I was watching the four counts and two or three are about whether Russert is telling the truth with the time line or Libby, can you believe it? I think there is a weeks difference in the time line.
I also heard one of the people on the jury are a next door neighbor to Russert.
aca,
This is all so unbelievable it is past sickening....and the leftist msm went beserk, still do about Clinton and his lies calling it his private life....blah blah blah...
Joe and Valerie Wilson along with some others should be on trial or frag-marched behind bars...and Fitzgerald should be disbarred...the over-grown boy-scout, wanting to be the next AG or a SC Judge...
The whole thing is despicable.
The big picture story not reported about Valarie Plame.
February 24, 2007 - 20:06 ET by acaiguanaThe big picture story not reported about Valarie Plame.
Each President leaves some remnant of loyal followers in every agency when they depart office. The State Department and the CIA are very political creatures as Agencies.
There are people in State who hate Bush because he insisted that State be subordinate to the President's foreign policy. Remember the several people who left and made a small living lecturing about, "why have a State Department if we can't make the policy."?
The CIA is the same way and the incestious nature of the two agencies (include Agency for International Development and World Bank here) all have people married to each other working among these agenices. Further, a lot of these people come directly from the 'elitist' University system that fees their agencies; maintain a culture of nepotistic lineage; and moreover trace their ties primarily to Liberal backgrounds.
Now, we get Bush.
So, while I don't buy the whole theory that there was a collusion at the CIA to put Wilson (who as far as I can see had no background in Nukes at all) on a plane to Nigeria in order to come back and smear Bush with 16 words; it is probably more that these folks are opportunists.
I don't think Wilson thought he'd be caught up with his wife in this. I believe this slimeball thought he could lecture; write a book; and pander to the anti-Bush crowd for a coupla to five million and then retire to New Mexico.
Well, he's in New Mexico.
I bet he and John Dean do cocktails nightly.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
...and he was working for Joh
February 24, 2007 - 20:13 ET by bigtimer...and he was working for John Kerry and his campaign in some way, now I wished I had saved that link...but he left after this info. came out.
I will always think there was factions of some in the State and CIA working in conjunction, who knows about some of the Clintonistas in the Justice Dept, I was glad to see six or seven of them fired or let go the other week...nevertheless, this whole thing should of been dropped.
I agree with one thing, Joe and Val may be sorry this whole thing mushroomed into what it did, because I do not believe it is over with their involvement when it may come down to civil suits later....time will tell, it will be interesting.
I know one thing I do feel, if Libby is convicted, he better be pardoned.
Illeducated "lout"
February 24, 2007 - 20:30 ET by Jack BauerIlleducated "lout" is the phrase I used. So what? It's true.
Please don't pretend you haven't been accurately described like that before.
That would make as much sense as the shite you continue to write about non-'covert' non-'agent' Valeria Plame.
Not that you give a flying fart about the CIA anyway.
And dude, you flatter me way too much. I have no interest in trying to teach a jerk like you anything. Please, feel free to continue clanking through life as the empty vessel you are.
It matters neither a jot nor a whit to me.
Illeducated "lout"
February 25, 2007 - 09:17 ET by SomerTeethIlleducated "lout" is the phrase I used. So what? It's true.
Listen Jack Bauer, I've read your posts using the same whitty "phrase" to describe other people. You're so very creative.
But I guess it's not totally your fault, as I'm sure it's a struggle to come up with more original insults with your extensive 20 word vocabulary.
By the way, aren't you a little old to be pretending to be your hero from TV? Maybe we can get together with Spiderman and have a real debate.
ST
--
"<Insert lame cliche' here>"
I think you mean "witt
February 25, 2007 - 09:40 ET by Jack BauerI think you mean "witty."
Thus proving my thesis that you are, indeed, illeducated. But at least you had heard of the word which lifts you up from the "uneducated."
And you are correct about me being "creative."
I was, in fact, a Creative Director for a number of years.
And, as a matter of fact, I only ever use the term "illeducated" where it is deserved. As in your sad, pathetic case.
And you are correct about m
February 27, 2007 - 08:20 ET by SomerTeethAnd you are correct about me being "creative."
I was, in fact, a Creative Director for a number of years.
-----
It's amazing that Chuck E' Cheese has survived without you.
ST
----
"Insert lame cliche here"
Yeah, SomerTeeth, and its amazing the lies you post here.
February 27, 2007 - 08:38 ET by acaiguanaYeah, SomerTeeth, and its amazing the lies you post here.
They don't even touch creative.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Well as ad meister
February 27, 2007 - 08:42 ET by Jack BauerWell I think it was the late ad meister and innovative c-writer David Ogilvy who said.. and I paraphrase...
"Fifty percent of all advertising revenue is wasted. The trick is working out which fifty percent."
And hey, I never said I was proud of working in a disposable industry.. Just creative.
i never watch matthews. i l
February 23, 2007 - 17:35 ET by buddyci never watch matthews. i like to get my information from informed people. how much are matthews and shuster paid? they spent 30 minutes asking questions that the entire world knows the answers to. why don't they prepare. is the news media now so strapped for cash they can't do any reading or research.
.
if you just read the select committee on intelligence's report it answers the question they pretend to agonize over. it found that the cia sent wilson on his wife's recommendation or referral or whatever phrase you want to use. it found that wilson did not prepare a report so cheney could never have seen something that was not prepared. the cia said in the committee's report that it NEVER told the vp that wilson found there was "not basis" for the niger intelligence. in fact the committee/commision found that wilson's oral briefing increased the cia's concern over iraqi contacts with niger NOT decreased them.
shuster says, "And Wilson, of course, came back and said there was no basis to the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger." my god man, the select committee on intellegence said that was NOT true. read the report shuster you "f"ing retard. can shuster even read??? we know matthews can't or won't. i would be embarassed to go on national televions and be that poorly prepared. i will bet you dollars that neither shuster nor matthews EVER read the report.
Double Standards Abound
February 23, 2007 - 21:06 ET by emjem24Chrissy Sissy's double standards abound once again. It's amazing in the same breath this man says what wonderful "leakers" the Clintons were while he blames the leak of Valerie Plame as "ruthless." What a zig zag bunch of logic that is. I'm glad Mr. Double Standards Matthews was there to interpret how leaks should be reported. Okay for Democrats to leak, not so good if it's done by Republicans. I don't care who's doing the leaking it's always wrong. So I guess, the Clintons meant no harm with their leaks whereas the big, bad Republican Cheney is "obsessed" and "ruthless." What a joke.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.