Posted on 09/13/2006 12:00:39 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy
armitage is a scumbag of the highest degree........sorry for the foul language, but I cannot think of anything else that describes him, at least not without 4 letter words
Agree 100%, Fitzgerald must be called to explain all, and he needs to not only refund the taxpayer but likely needs to investigated and put on trial if what appears to be true is so!
Well, Well. Very interesting.
>>>This will further confuse Chris Matthews.
No, it won't confuse little Chrissy, because he will not read it, much less talk about it on PMSNBC.
Hey Fitz...here's your real perp. Time to make good on your grandstand performance last year on all the news outlets. You said you will get to the bottom of it and you promised the severity of the crime will be punished. Someone has to go to jail.
Come on Fitz...there's no cameras but you are a man of character.
I wonder if Armitage was ever brought before the grand jury and, if so, if his public version matches what he said under oath? Was Novak was ever called before the grand jury and, if so, was Armitage's testimony inconsistent with Novak's?
Isn't the whole basis for the prosecution of Libby that what he told the grand jury about conversations he had with reporters didn't match what the reporters told the grand jury?
"...and I (Novak?) long had opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me (Novak?) improbably into the president’s lapdog."
Is Novak against sending forces into Iraq? Then why is he a "lapdog" of Bush?
Novak provides some fascinating new details, at last!
Golly gee, so a leading "inside" opponent (Armitage) of the Iraq War policy, who just happens to be Colin Powell's right-hand man, sets up a very conscious leak of the Valerie Pflame info to Novak, and then both Powell and Armitage sit silently for FIVE months (and then nearly 3 more years) after Novak's July 2003 column..... never telling the Bush WH that they were the source of the leak, while the media clamor grows for a legal jihad against the WH and then Fitz-head is appointed at end of Dec. 2003. Armitage had ample opportunities to straighten out the mess before it got worse, but he and Powell preferred to sit back and watch the heat be turned up on the WH....not merely disloyal but grossly unethical, and in TIME OF WAR, when the WH has countless more important things to do than deal with the aftermath of a STATE DEPARTMENT leak..... and even now, Armitage releases what Novak reports is very deceptive info about the whole sordid affair.
Armitage's Oprah-esque apology-with-tears wipes the slate clean as far as the MSM-DNC are concerned.............
That's his point. Dems tried to make it seem like he's a partisan reporter who "outed" Valerie Plame and then refused to name Rove as the leaker. His point is that he's not partisan- he's even against the war.
This whole thing is a fiasco for the MSM, the dimorats, and for Fitzy-baby. The biggest loser (other than Chris Matthews) is Sen. Chucky Schumwer (D-NY) as he really pushed it hard. Don'tyou just love it when the shi* hits the fan and only hits the dimwits?
Foggy Bottom needs to be Filled in, plowed under, disked, harrowed and re-planted with new employees with real brains........
I believe he meant he was not a republican partisan. The MSM was out there on a witch hunt looking for a conspiracy among top Bush administration officials and so Novak said that his source was not a partisan gunslinger because he knew Armitage was not a Bush supporter.
It seems now Armitage was a democrat partisan and that is why Novak is out explaining the truth as he recalls it.
So, what was Armitage's motive for talking to Novak and bringing up Plame?
My goodness IF Novak would have said the source was a well placed PARTISAN GUNSLINGER would there be any DOUBT that he was referring to ROVE??
Novak, never having had contact with Armitage believed him to be a truthful NON partisan so he described him that way TO PURPOSELY deflect the DBM obsession that the source was ROVE or CHENEY.
Novak may have a reputation for not supporting the President and the GOP down the line, but I believe his recounting of the Armitage leak.
He maintained the confidentiality of his source from the public at some expense to his reputation, so his revlations now carry weight.
Armitage needs to be fired in a very public way.
The President can say that he is keeping his word about holding the individual responsible for the leak.
That should be the case, but it isn't. The majority of the sheeple will never hear anyting other than the story that was pushed by Schumer and the MSM. Now that it has been completely discredited, you will hear very little about it ever again on the MSM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.