Hume & Wallace tag-team: ~Plame lied under oath~

(courtesy of CrooksAndLiars.com...)

Ok, Wingbags, it took nary a few minutes to find the video clip in question.

Chris Wallace was NOT defending Plame in ANY way, shape or form. If anything, Wallace wasn't well-informed enough to participate in the argument beyond the insertion of the talking point that Plame had lied under oath. (via the backdoor of phrasing it as a question; good journalism there, eh)

WALLACE: So she was lying under oath?
HUME: I think that there is reason to question her credibility on that point.
WALLACE: (silence)

Hume at least had the spine to fight for his lies the whole way through, and even Bill Kristol occasionally chimed-in with some select (and equally ludicrous) talking points... but Wallace sat there like some child waiting for the merry-go-round to slow down enough so he could jump on.

And so there you have him, a journalistic hero of the Right.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• msnbc
• olbermann
• wallace
• hume
• worst
• person
• world
• liars
• talk
• radio

[cardsguy76]

Joe Wilson said more than once that his goal in 2003 was "to bring down the neocons and this regime" so what were Libby and others supposed to do? just sit around and let it happen?

[plooger]

Please provide reference links. I don't dispute that Joe Wilson may have said what you "quote," but his having done so wouldn't change the facts of what occurred in the run-up to the (now demonstrably illegal) invasion of Iraq or the arguably illegal actions of members of the Bush Administration in outing a covert CIA operative (to punish a whistleblower and to set an example for other potential critics).

[plooger]

(continuing) Rather than spouting the random, puerile talking-point nonsense of the 28%ers, get acquainted with the facts in evidence and muster the courage to face the now obvious: the Bush Administration is the most corrupt administration since U.S. Grant, having lied the country into an unnecessary, unproductive, ill-advised & illegal war, and we've long since passed a reasonable threshold for impeachment -- let alone the absurdly low "Clinton threshold" set just a decade ago.

[plooger]

Posted as rebuttal to the following video: xmIHHCQKUSY

[ishmaiden]

The poster of this video didn't prove shit. I viewed it repeatedly, and Wallace hardly said a thing. When he did speak, it was with a sarcastic tone.  I've had some issues with FNC in recent years, but I have to say that there is no nothing there. I actually think he was countering Hume a bit, but didn't go overboard.

[rlsdenker28]

@ishmaiden Obviously you missed the obvious-Richard Armitage leaked the classified information, but never faced prosecution! I will repeat, Richard Armitage leaked the classified information but never faced prosecution! Again, Richard Armitage leaked the classified information but never faced prosecution!!! This obviously DOES prove shit but you're just too stupid to realize it!!!!

[mugwump666]

Not talking about spying, I am talking about Ambassadors and how they should behave. I understand about spying, shesh!

You seem to be purposefully trying to misdirect the question each time. I guess your behavior will have to be answer enough.

[wittumy]

mug...where are you trying to go with this?

Spying is never ethical but it's a necessary evil.

[mugwump666]

You seem to be the one confused. I am talking about ethics. I never said that the ambassador was a spy. I asked if YOU think that it is ethical for an ambassador's spouse (or an ambassador) to be a spy. You refuse to answer even the simplest question. I am only asking hypothetical questions about ethics.

I was just always under the impression that Ambassador's were supposed to be trusted by BOTH sides. That is why they are allowed to send unchecked diplomatic pouches through customs.

[wittumy]

mug....you're confused...Plame was the spy. I believe he was on a fact finding mission, openly asking questions.

[mugwump666]

wittumy,

Whether it is appropriate or inappropriate is a subjective question, not an objective one. I am asking YOU if YOU think that it is appropriate. If so, then take it one step farther. Do you think that it is appropriate for the Ambassador to be a spy?

You are right about no one else talking about this. I have not heard anyone say it either. I actually think original thoughts. Just because I am a minority of 1 does not mean that I am wrong.

[wittumy]

During the entire matter I've never heard anyone say it's inappropriate either. Where is it said it would be?

[mugwump666]

I said "not appropriate", not "illegal".

Do you we that it is appropriate to send an Ambassador to a country and have his wife spying on that country at the same time? Do you have a copy of the oath that Ambassadors must take? I do not, but would like to see it.

[wittumy]

delta..the fact that you are calling her a bitch exposes you as hardly without agenda. The head of the CIA wasn't found to be lying now was he? Your comment that she was a bad agent sinks your agenda even farther down the toilet. Shame on you for putting your party above country.

[wittumy]

mugwump.....where's the rules or law that back up what you say?