A third leaker? Card? Bolton?WASHINGTON, July 26 - In the same week in July 2003 in which Bush administration officials told a syndicated columnist and a Time magazine reporter that a C.I.A. officer had initiated her husband's mission to Niger, an administration official provided a Washington Post reporter with a similar account.
The first two episodes, involving the columnist Robert D. Novak and the reporter Matthew Cooper, have become the subjects of intense scrutiny in recent weeks. But little attention has been paid to what The Post reporter, Walter Pincus, has recently described as a separate exchange on July 12, 2003.
In that exchange, Mr. Pincus says, "an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention" to the trip to Niger by Joseph C. Wilson IV "because it was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, an analyst with the agency who was working on weapons of mass destruction."
Mr. Wilson traveled to Niger in 2002 at the request of the C.I.A. to look into reports about Iraqi efforts to buy nuclear materials. He later accused the administration of twisting intelligence about the nuclear ambitions of Iraq, prompting an angry response from the White House.
Mr. Pincus did not write about the exchange with the administration official until October 2003, and The Washington Post itself has since reported little about it. The newspaper's most recent story was a 737-word account last Sept. 16, in which the newspaper reported that Mr. Pincus had testified the previous day about the matter, but only after his confidential source had first "revealed his or her identity" to Mr. Fitzgerald, the special counsel conducting the C.I.A. leak inquiry.
Mr. Pincus has not identified his source to the public. But a review of Mr. Pincus's own accounts and those of other people with detailed knowledge of the case strongly suggest that his source was neither Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, nor I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and was in fact a third administration official whose identity has not yet been publicly disclosed.
Mr. Pincus's most recent account, in the current issue of Nieman Reports, a journal of the Nieman Foundation, makes clear that his source had volunteered the information to him, something that people close to both Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said they did not do in their conversations with reporters.
Mr. Pincus has said he will not identify his source until the source does so. But his account and those provided by other reporters sought out by Mr. Fitzgerald in connection with the case provide a fresh window into the cast of individuals other than Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby who discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters.
In addition to Mr. Pincus, the reporters known to have been pursued by the special prosecutor include Mr. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, was the first to identify Ms. Wilson, by her maiden name, Valerie Plame; Mr. Cooper, who testified before a grand jury on the matter earlier this month; Tim Russert, the Washington bureau chief of NBC News, and who was interviewed by the prosecutor last year; Glenn Kessler, a diplomatic reporter for The Post, who was also interviewed last year, and Judith Miller of The New York Times, who is now in jail for refusing to testify about the matter. It is not known whether Mr. Novak has testified or been interviewed on the matter.
Both Mr. Pincus, who covers intelligence matters for The Post, and Mr. Russert have continued to report on the investigation after being interviewed by Mr. Fitzgerald about their conversations with government officials.
Mr. Pincus wrote in the Nieman Reports article that he had agreed to answer questions from Mr. Fitzgerald last fall about his July 12, 2003, conversation only after "it turned out that my source, whom I still cannot identify publicly, had in fact disclosed to the prosecutor that he was my source, and he talked to the prosecutor about our conversation."
In identifying Ms. Wilson and her role, Mr. Novak attributed that account to two senior Bush administration officials. One of those officials was Mr. Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff, according to people close to Mr. Rove, who have said he merely confirmed information that Mr. Novak already had.
But the identity of Mr. Novak's original source, whom he has described as "no partisan gunslinger," remains unknown.
Mr. Cooper of Time magazine, who wrote about the matter several days after Mr. Novak's column appeared, has written and said publicly that he told a grand jury that Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove were among his sources. But Mr. Cooper has also said that there may have been others.
Ms. Miller never wrote a story about the matter. She has refused to testify in response to a court order directing her to testify in response to a subpoena from Mr. Fitzgerald seeking her testimony about a conversation with a specified government official between June 6, 2003, and June 13, 2003.
During that period, Ms. Miller was working primarily from the Washington bureau of The Times, reporting to Jill Abramson, who was the Washington bureau chief at the time, and was assigned to report for an article published July 20, 2003, about Iraq and the hunt for unconventional weapons, according to Ms. Abramson, who is now managing editor of The Times.
In e-mail messages this week, Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, and George Freeman, an assistant general counsel of the newspaper, declined to address written questions about whether Ms. Miller was assigned to report about Mr. Wilson's trip, whether she tried to write a story about it, or whether she ever told editors or colleagues at the newspaper that she had obtained information about the role played by Ms. Wilson.
The four reporters known to have been interviewed by Mr. Fitzgerald or to have appeared before the grand jury have said that they did so after receiving explicit permission from their sources, most notably Mr. Libby, who was the subject of the interviews involving Mr. Russert, Mr. Kessler, Mr. Pincus and Mr. Cooper. They have declined to elaborate on their statements, citing Mr. Fitzgerald's request that they and others not speak publicly about the matter.
Mr. Russert, Mr. Kessler and Mr. Pincus have indicated in statements released by their news organizations that their conversations with Mr. Libby were not about Ms. Wilson.
In his article in the Summer 2005 issue of Nieman Reports, Mr. Pincus wrote that he did not write about Ms. Wilson when he first heard the account "because I did not believe it true that she had arranged" Mr. Wilson's trip.
Mr. Pincus first disclosed the July 12, 2003, conversation with an administration official in an Oct. 12, 2003, article in The Washington Post, but did not mention in that article that he himself had been the recipient of the information. He wrote in Nieman Reports that he did not believe the person who spoke to him was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get him to write about Mr. Wilson.
Originally posted by: conjur
Case of C.I.A. Officer's Leaked Identity Takes New Turn
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/polit...iA6bBeNkAeTLIw1j2twDA&pagewanted=printA third leaker? Card? Bolton?*snip*
The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President Dick Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
Originally posted by: shurato
Zendari, people like you are the reason I frequent this place less. Your so caught up in partisanship that you probably will never think objectively on politics. And before you harp on...I need not mention names but I hold similar opinions of some on the left at times. You will hopefully one day realize its not about one political side winning or losing. As cheesy as this sounds, you have to accept there are people will always have differing opinions. The country will never all follow one party so get over yourself already and learn to accept people will have different views than you. There has to be a balance. You continue to lump and stereotype people... btw why do you assume all people who dislike Bush are automatic Clinton lovers? BTW, also the last I saw, it was your man that was elected TWICE now. The but Clinton argument was cute in Bush's first term in office but now it's just getting plain stale and lame.
People who bring up Clinton obviously are sorely lacking in material to defend their positions. Should we go back and say but Reagan? But Nixon...? Seriously man...open your eyes and grow up. I actually care about this country, I will speak up whether the man in the whitehouse is Democrat or Republican if his actions are not in the best interest of this country. You on the other hand care only about YOUR party winning it seems. It's kind of sad actually... it's something I'd expect from a grade schooler.
Btw, your an obvious troll. Are you enjoying yourself here?
Originally posted by: Gaard
You think W's dad will be inviting Karl over for dinner anytime soon?
Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.
So what did Bolton lie about, specifically? Biden's letter seems to omit that minor little detail.Originally posted by: conjur
Bolton LIED to the Senate?? The hell you say!
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Biden_acc...te_on_interviews_over_Niger__0728.html
tsk tsk tsk
Isn't that what got the Republicans all in a fit about Clinton? Watch them run to defend and apologize for this asshat, Bolton.
Oh man! You're one to talk with your right-wing bloggers who have been compared to Rush Limbaugh (his quote) and anonymous sources slamming Air America. Damn you're the biggest hypocrite to walk the earth.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, It doesn't exactly look like non-partisan information when you're relying on websites that have 'punch the president' pop-ups.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So what did Bolton lie about, specifically? Biden's letter seems to omit that minor little detail.
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON ?
John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, mistakenly told Congress he had not been interviewed or testified in any investigation over the past five years, the State Department said Thursday.
Bolton was interviewed by the State Department inspector general in 2003 as part of a joint investigation with the Central Intelligence Agency into prewar Iraqi attempts to buy nuclear materials from Niger, State Department spokesman Noel Clay said.
The admission came hours after another State Department official said Bolton had correctly answered a Senate questionnaire when he wrote that he has not testified to a grand jury or been interviewed by investigators in any inquiry over the past five years.
The reversal followed persistent Democratic attempts to question Bolton's veracity just days before Bush may use his authority to make him United Nations ambassador after Congress adjourns for its summer recess. For months, Democrats have prevented the Senate from confirming the fiery conservative to the post.
"It seems unusual that Mr. Bolton would not remember his involvement in such a serious matter," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "In my mind, this raises more questions that need to be answered. I hope President Bush will not make the mistake of recess appointing Mr. Bolton."
The new information does not change the Bush administration's commitment to Bolton's nomination, said a senior State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the subject.
When Bolton filled out a Senate questionnaire in March in connection with his nomination, "he didn't recall being interviewed by the State Department's inspector general. Therefore, his form, as submitted, was inaccurate," Clay said. "He will correct it."
Clay said Bolton, formerly undersecretary for arms control and international security, had no role in a separate criminal investigation into the leak of an undercover CIA official's identity.
The response came after Biden wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asserting Bolton had been interviewed and suggesting he had not been truthful in his questionnaire.
Biden learned about the interview by asking the inspector general's office, according to a Democratic committee aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the aide was not authorized to be identified in news reports.
Democrats have tried to turn up the pressure on Bolton, hoping to persuade Bush not to appoint him on a temporary basis while Congress is on its summer recess.
Rice and other officials refused to rule out a recess appointment for Bolton. "What we can't be is without leadership at the United Nations," Rice said on the PBS' "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer."
While the State Department and criminal investigations are independent, they spring from the same source _ intelligence that Iraq was trying to buy materials in Africa to produce nuclear weapons.
In the criminal probe, a federal grand jury is investigating who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the news media. Biden had earlier asked Rice about a report that Bolton was among State undersecretaries who "gave testimony" about a classified memo that has become an important piece of evidence in the leak investigation.
Plame is the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was sent by the CIA in 2002 to check out the intelligence about Iraqi nuclear intentions. Wilson could not verify it and his public criticism of Bush's Iraq policy in July 2003 set in motion a chain of events that led to an ongoing criminal investigation and the jailing of a New York Times reporter who refused to cooperate with it.
Syndicated columnist Robert Novak, citing unidentified Bush administration officials, was the first to disclose in July 2003 that Plame worked for the CIA and suggested her husband for the Niger trip. Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper wrote a subsequent story and included her name.
It can be illegal to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official. Wilson has accused the White House of trying to discredit him because he accused the White House of twisting intelligence to justify an Iraq invasion.
It is unknown whether Novak has cooperated with investigators, but prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has said in court papers that his investigation was complete as far back as October 2004, except for the testimony of two reporters _ Cooper and the Times' Judith Miller.
Cooper has since testified before the grand jury. Miller has been in jail since July 6 for refusing to cooperate with Fitzgerald.
Bush political aide Karl Rove and vice presidential chief of staff Lewis "Scotter" Libby were among Cooper's sources, he reported following his grand jury appearance. They are among several high-ranking administration officials who have given grand jury testimony.
While Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency, he has insisted through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name.
Among the many mysteries in this case is that there was apparently at least one other government official who disclosed to a reporter that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Walter Pincus, a Washington Post reporter, wrote in the summer edition of the Nieman Foundation publication Nieman Reports that the official talked to him two days before Novak published his column.
Pincus did not disclose his source. But he said he has cooperated with prosecutors and that his source also has been interviewed.
___
Associated Press reporters Anne Gearan, George Gedda and Liz Sidoti contributed to this report.
Let me guess, you don't give a damn about Bolton. You're sole purpose with this post is to counter the loony left. Is that right, my fellow liberal?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So what did Bolton lie about, specifically? Biden's letter seems to omit that minor little detail.Originally posted by: conjur
Bolton LIED to the Senate?? The hell you say!
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Biden_acc...te_on_interviews_over_Niger__0728.html
tsk tsk tsk
Isn't that what got the Republicans all in a fit about Clinton? Watch them run to defend and apologize for this asshat, Bolton.
btw, It doesn't exactly look like non-partisan information when you're relying on websites that have 'punch the president' pop-ups.
YOU calling someone "asshat?"Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So what did Bolton lie about, specifically? Biden's letter seems to omit that minor little detail.
Here asshat, let me spell it out for you...
heeey we got a new rip, dodges the argument just as well as rip didOriginally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
YOU calling someone "asshat?"Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So what did Bolton lie about, specifically? Biden's letter seems to omit that minor little detail.
Here asshat, let me spell it out for you...
Talk about irony overdose. :roll:
Bwahahaha. Still smarting over that thread, eh? Those righteous and kind fruit loopers from Air America ripping off the poor kids and old people of New York. Shame on them.Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Oh man! You're one to talk with your right-wing bloggers who have been compared to Rush Limbaugh (his quote) and anonymous sources slamming Air America. Damn you're the biggest hypocrite to walk the earth.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, It doesn't exactly look like non-partisan information when you're relying on websites that have 'punch the president' pop-ups.
:roll: I don't think I can roll my eyes hard enough.
He made no argument. The response he got was already far more than he deserved.Originally posted by: Czar
heeey we got a new rip, dodges the argument just as well as rip didOriginally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
YOU calling someone "asshat?"Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So what did Bolton lie about, specifically? Biden's letter seems to omit that minor little detail.
Here asshat, let me spell it out for you...
Talk about irony overdose. :roll:
Ayup. TLC is doing a great job playing the "avoid the topic" troll. Questioning RawStory but loving fringe blogs? Even when the RawStory article contained a copy of Biden's actual letter. And then dismissing an AP article?Originally posted by: Czar
heeey we got a new rip, dodges the argument just as well as rip didOriginally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
YOU calling someone "asshat?"Originally posted by: BBond
Here asshat, let me spell it out for you...Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So what did Bolton lie about, specifically? Biden's letter seems to omit that minor little detail.
Talk about irony overdose. :roll:
Raw Story is the left's version of Newsmax.Originally posted by: conjur
Ayup. TLC is doing a great job playing the "avoid the topic" troll. Questioning RawStory but loving fringe blogs? Even when the RawStory article contained a copy of Biden's actual letter. And then dismissing an AP article?Originally posted by: Czar
heeey we got a new rip, dodges the argument just as well as rip didOriginally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
YOU calling someone "asshat?"Originally posted by: BBond
Here asshat, let me spell it out for you...Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So what did Bolton lie about, specifically? Biden's letter seems to omit that minor little detail.
Talk about irony overdose. :roll:
TLC has lost any modicum of respect up here. He's become worthless to engage in debate.
Speaking of Sir Chicken avoiding the topic ...Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Huff and puff all you want. It doesn't change the FACT that you are merely "ASSuming" Wilson signed an NDA. As I said in the first place, even though an NDA may be a normal requirement for even an "operational" security clearance, there is simply no evidence Wilson actually signed one, for whatever reason. Maybe he did, maybe someone screwed up, or maybe you aren't as infallible as you think and there are realities outside your own limited personal experience. We do know the Senate SCI report says Wilson did NOT sign an NDA, and while it is possible that statement was meant to narrowly address a specific issue, the actual wording does not impose such qualifications. Those are the facts; your angry bluster is speculation, period.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
An "operational" clearance is no different from a formal clearance. It's merely a temporary or provisional clearance provided for a specific operation when such a clearance is deemed necessary by the appropriate sanctioning authorities. It doesn't have any different provisions to it than any formal clearance. There are only 3 specific, basic levels of clearance and they are the same for everyone. Wilson doesn't get a pass to disseminate information from a classified document because his clearance was deemed "operational."Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yawn. More misdirection and speculation. As you yourself mention, Wilson was not given a formal security clearance, he was given an "operational" one. No matter what you think you know from your one, anecdotal experience, you do not know what, if anything Wilson had to sign. That is a real fact. Re. "ridiculous", I find it ridiculous that you attack everyone in sight for ignoring reals facts and asserting their personal speculation as fact when you are consistently the worst offender.
But if you know differently, since you obviously so well versed on security clearances and the CIA :roll: why don't you actually prove something for once instead of just being blustery?
I'll even give you a head start:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/
The difference is you assert your speculation as fact, while I label mine with words like "perhaps".Yes. Dear. That's why I said it's speculation. You whine about speculation constantly and yet indulge in it yourself.Yes dear. That's why I started the sentence with "perhaps". Unlike some, I try to differentiate between speculation and fact.
First, you've again asserted speculation as fact: "clandestime" mission, "once classified". All we know as fact is that the CIA wrote a classified report which included information from Wilson's trip and may have included any amount of other, unpublicized information, analysis, etc. You've provided no evidence that any of Wilson's findings, let alone all of them, are classified in and of themselves. Second, "Your insistence that Wilson divulged classified information because some of the things he said were also in a classified report is a non sequitur, plain and simple."Foreign government information of the type Wilson collected on a clandestine mission is, once classified, considered classified until it's declassified, as defined by a governing Executive Order. I'm not going to tell you which one, because you need to do some homework since you obviously just don't know and I'm not going to do your homework for you.More misdirection, not to mention denial of the blatantly obvious. Not everything in a classified document is, in and of itself, classified. To continue to suggest otherwise is patently dishonest. If a classified report mentions the name of a city, for example, does the name of the city become classified? Obviously not. If a classified report mentions the sun rising in the east, does that simple scientific fact become classified? No. The simple, obvious point is that much of the material in classified reports is not, in and of itself, classified. Your insistence that Wilson divulged classified information because some of the things he said were also in a classified report is a non sequitur, plain and simple.
Once we dispense with that fallacy, we are left with your speculation about how much Wilson was allowed to discuss his trip. You have not yet offered any valid evidence Wilson divulged any classified information. Perhaps he did, but your continued assertions as fact are unsupported by any evidence you're provided. That no one else is is making the same claim, especially the Bush administration given their other strident attacks on Wilson, reinforces the belief you're just crying wolf.
Look it up. I already provided a link above.
Bottom line, this is your Bigfoot story. Until you produce real, factual evidence supporting it, I'm going to continue to assume it's as meaningless as me claiming George is Karl's love slave. Your conjecture and speculation is an inadequate substitute for fact, especially since you seem to be the only one who believes it.
Again, it's your claim. You bear the burden of proof. If you have nothing to support your claims, withdraw them.I'm sure the CIA would be very eager and excited to open up an investigation on its own practices and procedures and why they allowed Wilson to leak classified information to the press.Perhaps, though they were willing to open it for the White House leak. In any case, I'm asking a question, not making an assertion. Do you have any links or not?
If you want links, use google. I'm tired of providing links for somone who doens't respond in kind.
Let's put your quote back in, the part you conveniently deleted before attacking my comment below:
Nice try. It is "highly dishonest" for you to ask me to produce evidence from a document no one has released, and no one but you even claims exists.iow, you just don't know of what you speak.I think you addressed this quite well: "Asking for the unattainable as proof, when you know damn well it's unattainable, is a highly dishonest tactic."[Chicken:] As far as the NDA, can you show me where it permitted Wilson to speak of anything else besides his relationship with the CIA?
Can you show me where the bondage pledge George wrote to Karl permits George to speak of anything besides their relationship? No? Ah ha! That proves George is Karl's love slave ... using Chicken illogic. "Asking for the unattainable as proof, when you know damn well it's unattainable, is a highly dishonest tactic." What's good for the goose is good for the Chicken.
Yawn. The Senate SCI report does not indicate Wilson signed any NDAs. It does explicitly state he did not sign one. It's there in black and white. That you try to infer a qualification that the document does not provide is telling; to insist that your inference is fact is absurd. Once again, here is the quote from the report:Actually, I've addressed that. Your refusal to acknowledge the context of the statement and that it refers solely to his 'relationship with the CIA' is telling. It's there in black and white. That's my proof. So prove me wrong. You likely won't though. You'll probably just return with more unsubstantiated bluster.According to the SSCI report, Wilson was not asked to sign an NDA. You've offered nothing factual to refute that.Flap and squawk all you want. It does not suggest what you want it to suggest. Do you have any factual evidence Wilson did, in fact, contrary to the plain words of the SSCI report, sign an NDA or not? If not, you're just speculating. Acknowledge your speculation and move on.
- "DO officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with the CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement.
and again.. swissshhhh... masterfully doneOriginally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Raw Story is the left's version of Newsmax.Originally posted by: conjur
Ayup. TLC is doing a great job playing the "avoid the topic" troll. Questioning RawStory but loving fringe blogs? Even when the RawStory article contained a copy of Biden's actual letter. And then dismissing an AP article?Originally posted by: Czar
heeey we got a new rip, dodges the argument just as well as rip didOriginally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
YOU calling someone "asshat?"Originally posted by: BBond
Here asshat, let me spell it out for you...Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So what did Bolton lie about, specifically? Biden's letter seems to omit that minor little detail.
Talk about irony overdose. :roll:
TLC has lost any modicum of respect up here. He's become worthless to engage in debate.
And I'd be happy to use a lefty blog to cite for the Air America story. But yo know what? Not a single one of them have said "boo" about it. Now I wonder why that is? Can you figure it out?
And respect? Like I give a flying fvck what you think, the guy who has to rely on doctored Leno videos to slander Bush. Talk about partisan hacks with no respect. You take the cake.
And some of conjur's little toadies chime in. How funny.Originally posted by: Czar
and again.. swissshhhh... masterfully doneOriginally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Raw Story is the left's version of Newsmax.Originally posted by: conjur
Ayup. TLC is doing a great job playing the "avoid the topic" troll. Questioning RawStory but loving fringe blogs? Even when the RawStory article contained a copy of Biden's actual letter. And then dismissing an AP article?Originally posted by: Czar
heeey we got a new rip, dodges the argument just as well as rip didOriginally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
YOU calling someone "asshat?"Originally posted by: BBond
Here asshat, let me spell it out for you...Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So what did Bolton lie about, specifically? Biden's letter seems to omit that minor little detail.
Talk about irony overdose. :roll:
TLC has lost any modicum of respect up here. He's become worthless to engage in debate.
And I'd be happy to use a lefty blog to cite for the Air America story. But yo know what? Not a single one of them have said "boo" about it. Now I wonder why that is? Can you figure it out?
And respect? Like I give a flying fvck what you think, the guy who has to rely on doctored Leno videos to slander Bush. Talk about partisan hacks with no respect. You take the cake.