<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Who Is a &#8220;White House Official&#8221;?</title>
	<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2005/10/30/who-is-a-white-house-official/</link>
	<description>Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:23:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Donna</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2005/10/30/who-is-a-white-house-official/#comment-102</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:13:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2005/10/30/who-is-a-white-house-official/#comment-102</guid>
					<description>This is tangential to the specific post above, but I would like to offer this comment on the Plame matter:   What so struck me after I watched Fitzgerald's press conference on Friday was the really palpable difference between Fitzgerald's professionalism, maturity, and clear-cut reliance on provable facts in making his case for indictment and the Bushies'  bullying-play-to-fear fact-twisting hype in making their case for war in Iraq.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>This is tangential to the specific post above, but I would like to offer this comment on the Plame matter:   What so struck me after I watched Fitzgerald&#8217;s press conference on Friday was the really palpable difference between Fitzgerald&#8217;s professionalism, maturity, and clear-cut reliance on provable facts in making his case for indictment and the Bushies&#8217;  bullying-play-to-fear fact-twisting hype in making their case for war in Iraq.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: maha</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2005/10/30/who-is-a-white-house-official/#comment-101</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:57:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2005/10/30/who-is-a-white-house-official/#comment-101</guid>
					<description>CNN announced Scooter's resignation just after 1 pm, which was after the indictment had been filed with the court and made public.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>CNN announced Scooter&#8217;s resignation just after 1 pm, which was after the indictment had been filed with the court and made public.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tim F</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2005/10/30/who-is-a-white-house-official/#comment-100</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2005/10/30/who-is-a-white-house-official/#comment-100</guid>
					<description>Didn't Scooter resign in the AM?  Anyhow, Fitz isn't done yet. Plenty of fun yet to be had by all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Didn&#8217;t Scooter resign in the AM?  Anyhow, Fitz isn&#8217;t done yet. Plenty of fun yet to be had by all.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: maha</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2005/10/30/who-is-a-white-house-official/#comment-99</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:19:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2005/10/30/who-is-a-white-house-official/#comment-99</guid>
					<description>Copymark--apparently that's the distinction, yes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Copymark&#8211;apparently that&#8217;s the distinction, yes.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: copymark</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2005/10/30/who-is-a-white-house-official/#comment-98</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2005/10/30/who-is-a-white-house-official/#comment-98</guid>
					<description>Thank you, I get the distinction now. I was wondering about all those clowns from the Watergate and Iran-Contra eras as well but I read now how those guys resigned before they were indicted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5377092,00.html

So &quot;Scooter&quot; Libby is the first White House &lt;i&gt;staff member&lt;/i&gt; to be indicted &lt;b&gt;while in office&lt;/b&gt; since Grant's administration.

Could that be considered an &lt;i&gt;official&lt;/i&gt; interpretation of the record?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Thank you, I get the distinction now. I was wondering about all those clowns from the Watergate and Iran-Contra eras as well but I read now how those guys resigned before they were indicted.</p>
	<p><a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5377092,00.html' rel='nofollow'>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5377092,00.html</a></p>
	<p>So &#8220;Scooter&#8221; Libby is the first White House <i>staff member</i> to be indicted <b>while in office</b> since Grant&#8217;s administration.</p>
	<p>Could that be considered an <i>official</i> interpretation of the record?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
