View Full Version : Karl Rove is DEFINATELY on crack!
Rove's remarks spark more partisan sniping (http://www.freep.com/news/nw/rove24e_20050624.htm)
One of the better articles on the lastest war of words in Washington. What I feel this article addresses well is how this administration is making our government, and it’s people, more divided. Statements like the crack-smoker Rove made, and the subsequent back-up from the Republican controlled Congress and the White House are examples of how they themselves are the ones causing bitter divide, yet claim it is the minority who are against progress.
To summerize the situation a little, in a speech to conservatives in NY, Rove claimed that liberals wanted “to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” among other things. Some have suggested that this is his new strategy, to alienate anti-war opponents, in the face of the president’s declining popularity with the people.
I don't like it or agree with his comments.
there are different thoughts about how to have responded to 9/11, be it through force or other means, but nothing like he said. Trying to pump up the base seems to be the motivation behind it IMO.
ElanthianSiren
06-24-2005, 02:01 PM
I find several things ironic about this:
1. In light of questionable "intelligence" passed to them by Bush and his cabinet, Democrats, including John Kerry, (which was a major issue in the campaign if you'll remember), supported action against Afghanistan and Iraq very strongly.
2. I asked myself, "What does the White House stand to gain with this type of inflamatory rhetoric?" I don't think Rove is looking to divide personally; I think he is looking for a knee jerk reaction from Congress to "yessir" the current stalled agendas of a lame duck president...especially after major platform bills like social security reform just went bust.
-Melissa
edited to add: Karl Rove is a political stategist and image maker; as this is his career, I don't take anything that he says as incidental, no matter how baseless it may be.
[Edited on Fri, June th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]
Parkbandit
06-24-2005, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I find several things ironic about this:
1. In light of questionable "intelligence" passed to them by Bush and his cabinet, Democrats, including John Kerry, (which was a major issue in the campaign if you'll remember), supported action against Afghanistan and Iraq very strongly.
2. I asked myself, "What does the White House stand to gain with this type of inflamatory rhetoric?" I don't think Rove is looking to divide personally; I think he is looking for a knee jerk reaction from Congress to "yessir" the current stalled agendas of a lame duck president...especially after major platform bills like social security reform just went bust.
-Melissa
edited to add: Karl Rove is a political stategist and image maker; as this is his career, I don't take anything that he says as incidental, no matter how baseless it may be.
[Edited on Fri, June th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]
1) The questionable intelligence was under the then CIA director.. who was a Clinton appointee, not a Bush appointee.
1a) John Kerry and many other high ranking Congressmen had the same intelligence on Iraq and drew the same conclusions.
I see these latest comments from Rove no more inflamatory than the latest comments from Democrats, talking about the war in Iraq and the detainees in Cuba. It's politics and sometimes it gets dirty.
Parkbandit
06-24-2005, 03:34 PM
And I love Hillary's comment:
"Either he said something in a hasty, ill-conceived, reckless moment ... or he said it deliberately, as part of a continuing effort to divide Americans," she said.
I am so glad that the Democrats would never EVER try to divide America.
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
Eh didnt think of that PB
DEAN vs. ROVE
ElanthianSiren
06-24-2005, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
1) The questionable intelligence was under the then CIA director.. who was a Clinton appointee, not a Bush appointee.
1a) John Kerry and many other high ranking Congressmen had the same intelligence on Iraq and drew the same conclusions.
I see these latest comments from Rove no more inflamatory than the latest comments from Democrats, talking about the war in Iraq and the detainees in Cuba. It's politics and sometimes it gets dirty.
I'm not following why the appointing administration is relevent in this debate.
Also, I would think a fair-minded president should always be trusted to wage war if he finds overwhelming evidence that war is necessary and unavoidable. Congress did as well apparently. Perhaps that was the error.
I just found it ironic that these comments come as the administration is being questioned and criticized on its past work and the emerging failures therein.
Here's to hoping congressional dems don't buy into Rove's strategic knee jerk response.
-Melissa
Parkbandit
06-24-2005, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I'm not following why the appointing administration is relevent in this debate.
Also, I would think a fair-minded president should always be trusted to wage war if he finds overwhelming evidence that war is necessary and unavoidable. Congress did as well apparently. Perhaps that was the error.
I just found it ironic that these comments come as the administration is being questioned and criticized on its past work and the emerging failures therein.
Here's to hoping congressional dems don't buy into Rove's strategic knee jerk response.
-Melissa
Of course you are not following it.. because if you did, you would see that Bush isn't the evil supreme puppet master you try to make him out to be.
Who in this country would be responsible for faulty intelligence? I would pin that on the CIA Director. He has teams and teams of people going over every detail of this information and interpreting it. It's his responsibility to give this information to the President, cabinet and congress. Since this Director was a Bill Clinton appointee and not a George W Bush appointee, it undermines your case that Bush is behind the conspiracy to go to war with Iraq by lying. He saw the same exact intelligence as the high ranking congressman did.. yet you find no fault with their conclusions and completely lay the blame at Bush's feet.
ElanthianSiren
06-24-2005, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
And I love Hillary's comment:
"Either he said something in a hasty, ill-conceived, reckless moment ... or he said it deliberately, as part of a continuing effort to divide Americans," she said.
I am so glad that the Democrats would never EVER try to divide America.
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
Well, I don't see any other way it could be taken. In the face of congressional dems' voting record on the matter of Iraq and Afghanistan after 911, it was either a strategic comment or a flippant one. Do you see another way it could be taken?
Politics, as you mentioned, gets dirty sometimes.
-Melissa
ElanthianSiren
06-24-2005, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Who in this country would be responsible for faulty intelligence? I would pin that on the CIA Director. He has teams and teams of people going over every detail of this information and interpreting it. It's his responsibility to give this information to the President, cabinet and congress. Since this Director was a Bill Clinton appointee and not a George W Bush appointee, it undermines your case that Bush is behind the conspiracy to go to war with Iraq by lying. He saw the same exact intelligence as the high ranking congressman did.. yet you find no fault with their conclusions and completely lay the blame at Bush's feet.
A declaration of war cannot be enacted by the CIA.
-Melissa
Parkbandit
06-24-2005, 03:50 PM
It was definately a strategic comment.. Karl Rove doesn't make mistakes. The White House didn't really deny it and Rove certainly won't be saying he's sorry anytime soon.
My point was that his comment isn't any worse/better than the recent Democratic comments. They are both guilty of playing dirty politics.
Originally posted by Parkbandit
It was definately a strategic comment.. Karl Rove doesn't make mistakes. The White House didn't really deny it and Rove certainly won't be saying he's sorry anytime soon.
My point was that his comment isn't any worse/better than the recent Democratic comments. They are both guilty of playing dirty politics.
Whats important about Rove is he is the one who shapes the White House image and lays out the political strategy. His statements make the White House look really bad.
I really have no idea how he is going to win my confidence with Rush Limbaughesque crazy talk.
Parkbandit
06-24-2005, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Who in this country would be responsible for faulty intelligence? I would pin that on the CIA Director. He has teams and teams of people going over every detail of this information and interpreting it. It's his responsibility to give this information to the President, cabinet and congress. Since this Director was a Bill Clinton appointee and not a George W Bush appointee, it undermines your case that Bush is behind the conspiracy to go to war with Iraq by lying. He saw the same exact intelligence as the high ranking congressman did.. yet you find no fault with their conclusions and completely lay the blame at Bush's feet.
A declaration of war cannot be enacted by the CIA.
-Melissa
No.. but Congress and the President use the intelligence reports from the CIA to base it's case.
Parkbandit
06-24-2005, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Parkbandit
It was definately a strategic comment.. Karl Rove doesn't make mistakes. The White House didn't really deny it and Rove certainly won't be saying he's sorry anytime soon.
My point was that his comment isn't any worse/better than the recent Democratic comments. They are both guilty of playing dirty politics.
Whats important about Rove is he is the one who shapes the White House image and lays out the political strategy. His statements make the White House look really bad.
I really have no idea how he is going to win my confidence with Rush Limbaughesque crazy talk.
Don't give him more power than he really has. He is an advisor.. nothing more.
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Who in this country would be responsible for faulty intelligence? I would pin that on the CIA Director. He has teams and teams of people going over every detail of this information and interpreting it. It's his responsibility to give this information to the President, cabinet and congress. Since this Director was a Bill Clinton appointee and not a George W Bush appointee, it undermines your case that Bush is behind the conspiracy to go to war with Iraq by lying. He saw the same exact intelligence as the high ranking congressman did.. yet you find no fault with their conclusions and completely lay the blame at Bush's feet.
A declaration of war cannot be enacted by the CIA.
-Melissa
Nor is it up to the president. ;)
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Parkbandit
It was definately a strategic comment.. Karl Rove doesn't make mistakes. The White House didn't really deny it and Rove certainly won't be saying he's sorry anytime soon.
My point was that his comment isn't any worse/better than the recent Democratic comments. They are both guilty of playing dirty politics.
Whats important about Rove is he is the one who shapes the White House image and lays out the political strategy. His statements make the White House look really bad.
I really have no idea how he is going to win my confidence with Rush Limbaughesque crazy talk.
And then what of Dean's comments? wait, you probably agree with them don't you backlash?
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Parkbandit
It was definately a strategic comment.. Karl Rove doesn't make mistakes. The White House didn't really deny it and Rove certainly won't be saying he's sorry anytime soon.
My point was that his comment isn't any worse/better than the recent Democratic comments. They are both guilty of playing dirty politics.
Whats important about Rove is he is the one who shapes the White House image and lays out the political strategy. His statements make the White House look really bad.
I really have no idea how he is going to win my confidence with Rush Limbaughesque crazy talk.
Don't give him more power than he really has. He is an advisor.. nothing more.
LOL. You have to be kidding me right? He shapes the White House political strategy and image. Obviously, from his comments, he does not, and more importantly the White House does not, want anything to do with me, my opinion, my concerns or my support.
He says what he is allowed to say. I doubt he just wakes up in the morning and thinks, OH I feel like being mean to the Dems today!
God dont you ever watch West Wing? :)
CrystalTears
06-24-2005, 04:07 PM
God then I guess all the stuff that Dean says is peachy keen. :rolleyes:
Dumb shit is said on both sides. It's unfortunate, but if you're going to slam one, slam the other too.
Durbin is really the crack smoker lately anyway. :P
ElanthianSiren
06-24-2005, 04:11 PM
Nobody is denying that there is backbiting on both sides.
-Melissa
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Don't give him more power than he really has. He is an advisor.. nothing more. He is a very powerful man. You underestimate his persuasion.
CrystalTears
06-24-2005, 04:20 PM
We're still talking about Rove, right? Not Darth Vader? :D
Originally posted by Dave
And then what of Dean's comments? wait, you probably agree with them don't you backlash?
Well first off Dave, this isn't about Dean's comments. But since you asked, I think Dean is a crackhead too and pretty much a non-entity in the political arena.
But you cannot compare the levity of the two men's statements based soley on content. Consider their influence, and the scale tip quite drastically.
I think we all agreed before the last election that there needed to be less partisanship, and more bipartisanship in our government. That extreme lefts and rights, extreme liberals or conservatives, were hurting us all and the real road to progress was closer to center. At least thats the impression I got from all of our discussions on the election.
And here we are, 5 years later, Bush reelected, Republicans controlling Congress, and the man who had a huge hand in making all that possible is still playing politics by deriding the opposition, an opposition of barely half of the country who did not re-elect Bush.
I think the guy has lost his freaking mind.
Satira
06-24-2005, 04:24 PM
"Either he said something in a hasty, ill-conceived, reckless moment ... or he said it deliberately, as part of a continuing effort to divide Americans," she said.
I hate when people don't really want to comment on an issue, so all they do is state the obvious.
And hey, if you want to play the petty little tit-for-tat game...
Republicans demanded Dean apologize. Don't be suprised to see Dems demand Rove apologize, then show indignation when he does not.
Dean did not apologize.
Republicans demanded Durbin apologize. Don't be surprised to see Dems demand Rove apologize, then show indignation when he does not.
Durbin did apologize.
And so on and so on adinfinitum... thats why the tit-for-tat game is petty and worthless. Its not the point, at all. The point is what can we do to UNITE the people and government of our country. DUH!
CrystalTears
06-24-2005, 04:38 PM
Well Durbin kinda apologized. *ducks* "I'm sorry you misunderstood me." I wanted him to say that what he said was wrong, but either way, I was pleasantly surprised that he did make a formal statement.
Rove has tried to quit... twice... and Bush won't let him. :shrug:
Originally posted by CrystalTears
We're still talking about Rove, right? Not Darth Vader? :D That's President Rove to you, missy. And yes, he is the architect.
I think that was Rumsfeld who tried to quit twice.
[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Backlash]
CrystalTears
06-24-2005, 04:46 PM
Oooh. That's what I get for listening to the news while getting dressed. :blush:
Originally posted by CrystalTears
while getting dressed. :blush: Thanks for mental image. :)
What Durbin said when he 'apologized' for the GITMO remarks.
"I offer my apologies to those that were offended by my words."
Thats like saying, I'm sorry you were offended. But I'm not sorry for what I said.
I really dont expect apologies for any of the volleys that have been exchanged lately between the republicans and the democrats. And half hearted vague apologies are more insulting than telling me to sod off in plain words.
Its stupid that its resorted to this, and even stupider to expect no response to the GITMO remarks at all. Freedom of speech and everything. :rolleyes:
To be fair, here is the full text of his speech.
Remarks of Karl Rove at the New York Conservative Party (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400097.html)
Parkbandit
06-25-2005, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Backlash
LOL. You have to be kidding me right? He shapes the White House political strategy and image. Obviously, from his comments, he does not, and more importantly the White House does not, want anything to do with me, my opinion, my concerns or my support.
You are correct. There is nothing they can say or do to ever change your mind for you to support this President... so why would they waste their time? He could go on National TV and proclaim today as Backlash Day and give free healthcare to all the vagrants in your neighborhood and you would find something wrong with it.
Parkbandit
06-25-2005, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Don't give him more power than he really has. He is an advisor.. nothing more. He is a very powerful man. You underestimate his persuasion.
He is a very powerful individual.. among other very powerful individuals. He is not the end all be all voice of the Republican Party though. He is one of many.
Ilvane
06-25-2005, 08:43 AM
I think it's funny when the Republicans show what they are really about.
Personally between the Bolton nomination and this bit by Rove, I think they are doing well to show what they really are.;)
-A
Wezas
06-25-2005, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Don't give him more power than he really has. He is an advisor.. nothing more. He is a very powerful man. You underestimate his persuasion.
He is a very powerful individual.. among other very powerful individuals. He is not the end all be all voice of the Republican Party though. He is one of many.
How Borg-like of your party.
http://www.causapopular.com.ar/IMG/jpg/bush_borg.jpg
Parkbandit
06-25-2005, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Dave
And then what of Dean's comments? wait, you probably agree with them don't you backlash?
Well first off Dave, this isn't about Dean's comments. But since you asked, I think Dean is a crackhead too and pretty much a non-entity in the political arena.
But you cannot compare the levity of the two men's statements based soley on content. Consider their influence, and the scale tip quite drastically.
I think we all agreed before the last election that there needed to be less partisanship, and more bipartisanship in our government. That extreme lefts and rights, extreme liberals or conservatives, were hurting us all and the real road to progress was closer to center. At least thats the impression I got from all of our discussions on the election.
And here we are, 5 years later, Bush reelected, Republicans controlling Congress, and the man who had a huge hand in making all that possible is still playing politics by deriding the opposition, an opposition of barely half of the country who did not re-elect Bush.
I think the guy has lost his freaking mind.
So the man who leads the Democratic Party has less power than a political advisor now?
Parkbandit
06-25-2005, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Wezas
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Don't give him more power than he really has. He is an advisor.. nothing more. He is a very powerful man. You underestimate his persuasion.
He is a very powerful individual.. among other very powerful individuals. He is not the end all be all voice of the Republican Party though. He is one of many.
How Borg-like of your party.
http://www.causapopular.com.ar/IMG/jpg/bush_borg.jpg
LOL.. best pic response ever.
Fucker.
Parkbandit
06-25-2005, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Ilvane
I think it's funny when the Republicans show what they are really about.
Personally between the Bolton nomination and this bit by Rove, I think they are doing well to show what they really are.;)
-A
I think it's funny when the Democrats show what they are really about.
Personally between the Dean comments and this bit by Durbin, I think they are doing well to show what they really are.;)
Originally posted by Wezas
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Don't give him more power than he really has. He is an advisor.. nothing more. He is a very powerful man. You underestimate his persuasion.
He is a very powerful individual.. among other very powerful individuals. He is not the end all be all voice of the Republican Party though. He is one of many.
How Borg-like of your party.
http://www.causapopular.com.ar/IMG/jpg/bush_borg.jpg
:lol:
Outstanding picture!
Wezas is my picture response idol. Someday I want to grow up and be just like him.
Fitting reply Wezas... and uh, no DUH! PB.
Parkbandit
06-25-2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by DeV
and uh, no DUH! PB.
Was that in response to my question about how the head of the DNC has less power than a Presidential advisor?
Originally posted by Parkbandit
He is a very powerful individual.. among other very powerful individuals. He is not the end all be all voice of the Republican Party though. He is one of many. It's in response to this.
He is one of many, no doubt. However, he holds a very powerful top spot and the president listens to what he has to say, his name is in print more than the other "advisors", and he's regularly grouped with Bush and Cheney when it comes to important decisions that impact the Republican platform and the government as a whole.
It makes me sad that I had to explain this as if the original statement was that far off in the first place.
Parkbandit
06-25-2005, 10:28 AM
I'll stand by my original quoted statement.
Wezas
06-25-2005, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
I'll stand by my original quoted statement.
Similar to the band that kept playing on the Titanic.
Parkbandit
06-25-2005, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Wezas
Originally posted by Parkbandit
I'll stand by my original quoted statement.
Similar to the band that kept playing on the Titanic.
Not at all.
Since I do not presume to know who George Bush listens to, I can only go by what I DO know. He has a large cabinet of advisors and many personal advisors.. one of which is Karl Rove. I do believe he is part of Bush's inner circle.. but I do not believe that he is one that Bush derives all of his information and direction from.
ElanthianSiren
06-25-2005, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Wezas
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Don't give him more power than he really has. He is an advisor.. nothing more. He is a very powerful man. You underestimate his persuasion.
He is a very powerful individual.. among other very powerful individuals. He is not the end all be all voice of the Republican Party though. He is one of many.
How Borg-like of your party.
http://www.causapopular.com.ar/IMG/jpg/bush_borg.jpg
Heh, I just sprayed ginger ale all over my monitor.
:heart: Wezas
-Melissa
Warriorbird
06-25-2005, 05:25 PM
Joel Achenbach said it best.
"My guess is that, as part of some double-secret triple-backloop political strategy, Rove realized he needed to cause a distraction. He informed the president that the poll numbers were looking bad, or that Social Security privatization is about as likely as the resurgence of alchemy. The president said, "Karl, go out there and say something really dumb." By now you should know that nothing happens in the White House political shop except for very calculated reasons. Rove is a red herring. Keep your eye on the big fish."
Yes, because its all about being the conspiracy dont you know.
Warriorbird
06-25-2005, 05:43 PM
It won all three branches of government. Pretty decent strategy.
Delirium
06-25-2005, 05:47 PM
This is an honest question. Its 2005, the next presidential elections arnt for 3 more years. Why would a president in his 2nd term (no chance of being reelected) care what the poll numbers are at this point? I understand that he represents the party to an extent so some damage control needs to done but that isnt for a while. How does the "distraction" of a Rove comment help the republican party?
Warriorbird
06-25-2005, 05:49 PM
Congressional elections and legacy. To do really well as a President, you have to constantly be campaigning.
[Edited on 6-25-2005 by Warriorbird]
ElanthianSiren
06-25-2005, 06:22 PM
I see WB already covered it. Nevermind.
[Edited on Sat, June th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]
Make them accountable.
Whos the traitor now? (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972841)
Artha
07-03-2005, 06:25 PM
Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, now claims that at least two authoritative sources have confirmed that one name is top White House mastermind Karl Rove.
Holy crap, Rove talked to the guy about his story. This sure is awesome news!
The only reason anything's written about this is because so many on the left want to see Rove's head on a platter because of his involvement in the Bush administration.
Giving up a CIA agent’s identity is an act of treason. It happened right after her husband broke the bullshit yellowcake story.
And, Artha, you wont see this on the Broadcast nightly news. Maybe MSNBC, and a few odd media watcher websites.
[Edited on 7-3-2005 by Backlash]
Artha
07-03-2005, 06:43 PM
That doesn't mean Rove did it. All that article says is that Cooper used him as one of his sources.
ElanthianSiren
07-03-2005, 06:47 PM
Think about this though:
1. We already established in another thread that Rove is an image maker. He is very careful.
2. Consider the ramifications here for free press in that Rove did not step forward (as a man with balls would) and admit he was the source; instead, Time had to release the source.
3. Who now, in the White House will reveal wrongdoing on the part of this administration if wrongdoing exists, knowing full well that their identity WILL be compromised?
4. Even if Rove is found guilty of leaking the CIA agent, Bush still has 3 years to pardon him.
-M
Well, I would not be surprised if he did and gets off. I guess we have to wait and see where it points because sure as fuck no one will come clean on this. Sad.
Ilvane
07-03-2005, 07:20 PM
Wow, that article is pretty damning. I hope Rove gets his. At least he should.
-A
Artha
07-03-2005, 07:25 PM
Yeah, an article that says Rove is one among a few other sources and presents no real evidence other than something said by an MSNBC political analyst is so damning.
Ilvane
07-03-2005, 07:28 PM
At least two authoritative sources have confirmed that one name is top White House mastermind Karl Rove.
And:"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury. "
Sounds like a good source to me.;)
-A
Artha
07-03-2005, 07:39 PM
At least two authoritative sources have confirmed that one name is top White House mastermind Karl Rove.
"The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House,"
According to Isikoff, Luskin told Newsweek that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." ... He noted that Rove had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him.
"He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said.
Not only that, the guy who says it's Rove produced and wrote the giant liberal circle jerk/back patting session, The West Wing. Really objective guy, that one. Certainly wouldn't say anything without knowing all the facts.
Yea, I've read the CNN article posted today and it doesnt really say anything new at this point. Just alot of folks still on a witch hunt it seems.
Latrinsorm
07-03-2005, 07:58 PM
Wait, what's wrong with the West Wing? That was a fun show. :?:
Actually, I love the political games that are portrayed on the West wing... even though the message behind some of the shows really deserve the title the Left Wing... as long as I watch it for entertainment instead of political messaging I enjoy it.
I record and watch it, and think that Rob Lowe should come back as well.
Ilvane
07-03-2005, 08:48 PM
Witch hunt when it's after Rove? How about he didn't like what Wilson was saying about Bush and the administration and leaked Wilson's wife out of spite? It's not all that far fetched.
And why the hell isn't Novak getting pulled into this?
-A
Speculation = witch hunt.
Ilvane
07-03-2005, 10:38 PM
Until there is actual proof.;)
-A
Artha
07-03-2005, 10:40 PM
That's what McCarthy said.
Ilvane
07-03-2005, 10:46 PM
heh, riiighhht.
Come on, this isn't even hard to believe..why would anyone defend idiots like Rove and Novak anyway?
-A
Artha
07-03-2005, 10:51 PM
Are you now, or have you ever been, a source for Time?
[Edited on 7-4-2005 by Artha]
Ilvane
07-03-2005, 11:09 PM
Okay so this is from William Safire, and you have to be registed to read..so I'll post the whole thing. Keep in mind he's a conservative too.;)
-A
June 29, 2005
The Jailing of Judith Miller
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Washington
LEGEND has it when Henry David Thoreau went to jail to protest an unjust law, his friend, the philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson, visited him and asked, "Henry, what are you doing in here?" The great nature writer replied, "What are you doing out there?"
The Supreme Court has just flinched from its responsibility to stop the unjust jailing of two journalists - not charged with any wrongdoing - by a runaway prosecutor who will go to any lengths to use the government's contempt power to force them to betray their confidential sources.
The case was about the "outing" of an agent - supposedly covert, but working openly at C.I.A. headquarters - in Robert Novak's column two years ago by unnamed administration officials angry at her husband's prewar Iraq criticism.
To show its purity, the Bush Justice Department appointed a special counsel to find any violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That law prohibits anyone from knowingly revealing the name of a covert agent that the C.I.A. is taking "affirmative measures" to conceal. The revelation must be, like that of the 70's turncoat Philip Agee - "in the course of a pattern" intending to harm United States intelligence.
Evidently no such serious crime took place. After spending two years and thousands of F.B.I. agent-hours and millions of dollars that could better have been directed against terrorism and identity theft, the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, admits his investigation has been stalled since last October. We have seen no indictment under the identities protection act.
What evidence of serious crime does he have that makes the testimony of Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine so urgent? We don't know - eight pages of his contempt demand are secret - but some legal minds think he is falling back on the Martha Stewart Theory of Prosecution. That is: if the underlying crime has not been committed, justify the investigation by indicting a big name for giving false information.
Thus, if the reporters resist the coercion of the loss of their freedom, the prosecutor can blame them for his inability to go to trial on the "heavy" charge. But if they cave in, he can get some headlines on the ancillary charge of false statements. (I have known Judy Miller, a superb and intrepid reporter, for a generation; she'll never betray a source.)
The principle at stake here is the idea of "reportorial privilege," embraced in shield laws in 49 states and the District of Columbia, but not in federal courts. That privilege not to testify - held by lawyers, members of the clergy, spouses and others - gives assurance to whistleblowers that information confided to a reporter revealing corruption or malfeasance in government will not result in loss of job or more severe retaliation from on high. (Most of the states' attorneys general, recognizing the value of press leads in law enforcement, strongly supported the reporters in this case.)
To every privilege there are exceptions; a lawyer, for example, cannot conspire with his client in committing a crime, and a reporter's testimony may be necessary in a capital case. But this investigation has shown no national security crime at all, as defined in the identities act. Maybe an official misled an agent, or even perjured himself to save his job; is that sufficient cause to incarcerate innocent journalists and impede the entire press's traditional means of exposing official corruption?
Here's what needs to be done now:
1. The judge should resist the prosecutor's pressure for coercive, lengthy and possibly dangerous confinement. Judy won't crack and should not be made to suffer.
2. The prosecutor should submit an information bewailing his witness difficulties in fingering sources in false denial, but showing why no major national-security crime had been committed.
3. Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back.
4. The Congress should urgently hold hearings on shield bills to conform federal practice to the states' laws based on Congress's 1975 directive to the Supreme Court to apply "reason and experience" to extending privilege - which the court did in its 1996 Jaffee decision to psychotherapists.
The contempt epidemic is spreading fast. Yesterday, a federal appeals panel in the District of Columbia followed up the Supreme Court flinch by forcing a New York Times reporter and three other journalists in a different case to burn their sources or be sentenced. Along with Judy and Matt, these endangered journalists can look at plumber-prosecutors, smirking media-bashers and the wimps taking official handouts and ask:
"What are you doing out there?"
William Safire is a former Times Op-Ed columnist.
Artha
07-03-2005, 11:20 PM
Heh, reporters writing about having to reveal sources. Regardless of where they are on the political spectrum (because holy crap, there's more to life than politics!!!), I'd expect them to be more or less uniformly against it.
Warriorbird
07-04-2005, 02:13 PM
It's hilarious hearing Republicans defending anyone from spurious accusations. That's standard Republican MO. It works.
Artha
07-04-2005, 02:18 PM
:forehead:
Warriorbird
07-04-2005, 02:23 PM
Put it like this. I don't think Rowe did anything treasonous or even quasi legal. That doesn't matter though. Maybe he likes interns or LSD and it will be found out months later.
Artha
07-04-2005, 03:03 PM
Maybe he likes interns
That would actually be really funny. The right couldn't defend him and the left couldn't attack him.
Warriorbird
07-04-2005, 06:33 PM
Yes they could. Politics is about a complete lack of morals or propriety. Things that are considered long held principles flip flop completely in a couple months.
Originally posted by Warriorbird
It's hilarious hearing Republicans defending anyone from spurious accusations. That's standard Republican MO. It works. I have to agree...
Unfortunately, the Dems haven't yet begun to emulate the successful tactics of Repubs and it hurts them often in the political arena.
Rove is too fat to be on crack.
Artha
07-05-2005, 05:50 PM
Masterful bit of work, that picture.
Artha
07-06-2005, 05:22 PM
Here's another interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5122690,00.html) about the same sort of thing. One of the more interesting quotes,
Earlier, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would now cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame because his source gave him specific authority to discuss their conversation. ``I am prepared to testify. I will comply'' with the court's order, Cooper said.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.