host

More grist for the mill. Absurd, incoherent, double standard from the president's spokesman, Scott McClellan. This thread was prescient...if you compare the two quoted reports in the opening post, with this E&P article that was published a few hours after this thread was posted, in reaction to McClellan's attempt on thursday to mislead the press, and by extension, the American people.

The following report seems to indicate that Scott McClellan is a liar. The facts are that there is no difference between the status of the Plame CIA Leak investigation and the related indictment of "Scooter Libby" vs. the Earle investigation and indictment of Tom Delay in Texas.

Charges have been brought in both instances, and both investigations are ongoing. If the white house hides behind the excuse that it is improper to respond to questions about Fitzgerald's CIA leak investigation and Libby's indictment, it is a contradiction of an oft stated policy for Bush to comment on Delay's "innocence". Bush's comments seem akin to jury tampering. They are intended to influence potential Delay jurors, spoken as they were from the POTUS's "bully" pulpit. Bush has betrayed the public trust, by proclaiming Delay's innocence in the face of a Texas judge's order that approves prosecution of a Delay in a Texas court on charges that Bush has now opined that Delay is "innocent" of.

Bush's statements are all the more shocking because he is a recent Texas governor; now using the power of the presidency to undermine a Texas judge and prosecutor. Bush's behavior seems to parallel his inconsistancy in statments that he made concerning his intent to "get to the bottom" of the Plame CIA leak, and to "fire" anyone on his staff who was involved. Rove has admitted involvement, and it is a matter of record that he misled Scott McClellan about his involvement. Scott took Rove at his word, in summer, 2003, and then mislead the press. Now, Bush and Rove have gagged McClellan by making him blurt out, so.....many....times....that the white house policy is clear....they do not comment on ongoing investigations !
And....more signs that Earle's investigation of Delay is as "ongoing" as Fitzgerald's investigation of Libby, Rove, et al.
Lebell, I want to remind you that you have not responded to my reply to your long post on the Cunningham thread here at TFP Politics. I showed you the courtesy, to respond to you.

Believe it or not, the "fuckpoints' that I post do have a small following of readers, who are among the most informed participants on this forum.
You have criticized me for "omitting" sections of articles that I post that do not inclued points that refute my arguments. When I post entire articles, I receive criticism for posting "too much" information.

In Elphaba's "DOD" thread, you took it upon yourself to remove the majority of the content of my last post because you decided that it was not relevant.
The lack of respect that you exhibit towards me is of great concern.

Consider that you removed material contained in my "DOD" thread post that some readers would have been interested in, and could see relevance asscociated with Elphaba's "CIFA" post. Tom Delay prosecutor Earle has subpoenaed Mr. Wilkes, one of two defense contractors who Randy Cunningham admitted to receiving bribes intended to influence his ability to steer defense contracts to their companies. The articles that you deleted in my DOD thread post included an interview with the reporter who "broke open" the sale of Cunningham's house to the other "briber", Mr. Wade of MZM, Inc.

Another deleted article was a report by WaPo's Walter Pincus that stated that <b>CIFA contracted MZM, Inc.</b> to facilitate it's intelligence gathering. Was this contract influenced by bribes Cunningham received from Mr. Wade of MZM, Inc? You also deleted the Nov. 2004, Pincus report that I posted, which covered the appointment of a new #3 at CIA, an undercover
operative nicknamed "Dusty".

That report set the context for two recent articles that you also deleted, which stated that "Dusty Foggo" was the new #3 at CIA, and he was best friends with <b>Mr. Wilkes</b>, the Cunningham briber!

You have admitted that you don't follow these events, which also include the activities of Jack Abramoff, to the extent that I do. I'm sure that Elphaba did not request that you delete material from my post, on the "DOD" thread that she initiated, so I have to wonder if you considered that you were making a choice to eliminate research that is of interest to the few readers who follow what I post, and who do "get it", before you decided what was "relevant". I'm getting the "message" here, Lebell, and you should consider that the "fuckpoints" that I post, are as detailed as they sometimes are because no referenced argument, no matter how well documented or "airtight" it might be, is ever "enough". Your continued defense of Victoria Toensing as a credible or reasonable authority, in our discussion on the Randy Cunningham thread, is a textbook example of the conditions that influence me to post in so much detail. My hope is to persuade any interested third party who comes along to read our exchanges, that Victoria Toensing, beyond a doubt, is not credible. I have no idea whether that "other" reader is moved towards your opinion of Toensing, but I'm not taking any chances, hence the "fuckpoints".