The Karl Rove Thread :)

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Ganalon
As for my efforts, I wont apologize for my attempt at keeping the debate legitimate and at the same time intellectual.

You mean the posts that basically boiled down to 'ha ha, I can't wait to throw people's words back in their face and scream PWNED! and I've got the screencaps to make sure they don't edit what they've said'?

I wasn't aware that fell under 'legitimate and intellectual'. Nor 'mature decorum'. Learn something new every day.

Raven

[Edited on 7-18-2005 by Ravenstorm]

You say this like you've already seen what I was going to post. Interesting enough since I have not even typed it out myself. Your conjecture on this matches some of the statements about Rove's guilt even before the matter has been decided. Thanks for illustrating my previous points though.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Ganalon
You say this like you've already seen what I was going to post.

Like this perhaps?


Originally posted by Ganalon
Dont think there wont be some humble pie served in this thread once the truth is finally confirmed... especially if it indeed isnt Rove as its trending now.

Now watch some posts mysteriously get deleted or edited... (thats ok, I've already got the quotes ready for review).


Originally posted by Ganalon
We can win the PC?!?

I'm just patiently waiting for the ruling to come out. Then I'm going to remind some folks of what they posted in the beginning. I seek nothing but an enhancement of the amusement I already get from spending time with all my friends on the PC.

How quickly they forget.

Raven

[Gan]

And what about those posts makes my points that you've described earlier not the same?

Nothing has been forgotten. Perhaps you're just thinking I will respond as you would, not as I would.

Thanks for your thoughts though.

[Ravenstorm]

When you say you're going to react a certain way, a way that is clearly not with 'mature decorum', don't be surprised when you get called on it when you claim otherwise. End of lesson.

Raven

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
The sad thing is that even though I support Bush and what he and the party stand for; I feel that either directly or indirectly he's made some choices that could have been better made and definately better broadcasted. I'm afraid that all of the positive things his administration have attempted will be largely overshadowed by the mistakes. He's expended almost all of his political capital, not that he needs it for re-election. However, if it keeps going then it will backlash onto the Republican party and that would be unfortunate foundation for the 2006 congressional elections and the 2008 presidential elections.

Yeah, the lonely little loonies have had their time in the sun. God help us. Lets hope we can get back on track to a better world. 2006, 2008.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
When you say you're going to react a certain way, a way that is clearly not with 'mature decorum', don't be surprised when you get called on it when you claim otherwise. End of lesson.

Raven

I hate to burst your bubble but there was no lesson given by you.

One can find amusement and also stick to maturity and decorum at the same time, at least in my neck of the woods. I dont know about yours though.

The remark you quoted me on (Winning the PC) was a sarcastic reply to Backlash's attempt to draw the attention away from the fact that I started calling folks on their rabid bandwagoning of Rove's supposed guilt. [see the post by Backlash: posted on 7-15-2005 at 14:45 Post ID: 402001]. Thanks for taking it out of context though - it was very artistic to twist it to your frame of mind.

The other statement, well to be honest I dont understand why you included it in your post unless you were just looking for something to add. You've obviously got a complex and needed something to fit it in.

Yea lesson learned indeed. :rolleyes:



Originally posted by Backlash
Yeah, the lonely little loonies have had their time in the sun. God help us. Lets hope we can get back on track to a better world. 2006, 2008.

The 'lonely little loonies' will just be holding the door open for more of the same in 2006 and 2008 if we follow your perscription. Lets see if the Democrats can field something that even presents a better showing than their previous failed 2 attempts. Somehow I doubt that even with all of George's misgivings, the Democrats will have anyone worthy of electing to the White House in 2008. Guess we'll just have to wait in see wont we?

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Ganalon]

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Backlash
Yeah, the lonely little loonies have had their time in the sun. God help us. Lets hope we can get back on track to a better world. 2006, 2008.

This brought le tear to my eye. May God, in his or her infinite wisdom, help us.

PS Buy some Democracy bonds if you can afford em on democrats.org.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I have been and will always be an advocate for mature decorumIt kind of makes me sad that when I read that all I heard in my head was "YEEEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWW!!!" Don't mess with Texas! :heart:

Also, God helps those who helps themselves. Instead of invoking a deity that y'all may or may not believe in, I reckon doing something about the smug superiority complex prevalent amongst Democrats (namely, getting rid of it) would be the best course of action.

Wrong:
We lost the election because the Republicans cheated!!!!

Right:
We lost the election because we said things like the Republicans cheated!!!!

Not that the Democrats' chances and failings have much to do with the genesis of this thread. Some of the reactions just typify (I'm pretty sure that's a word) the problem.

[Sean]

It amazes me when someone who just applied their religious beliefs to someone whose god/beliefs may not even be the same as their own ... questions the superiority complex of someone.

[Latrinsorm]

Did I say "if you don't take Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you're an idiot"? No. Have people on this very forum said "if you voted for George Bush, you're an idiot"? Yes. :shrug:

[Skirmisher]

Called anyone who voted for the mumbling hucksteran an idiot?

No.

I've called him an idiot though.

And one with evidently more flexible ethics than he campaigned on with his recent shift from simply having to had leaked confidential information to have had broken any laws. Funny how those can shift as it becomes more and more clear that your close advisors played fast and loose with the rules.
:clap:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Ganalon
I have been and will always be an advocate for mature decorumIt kind of makes me sad that when I read that all I heard in my head was "YEEEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWW!!!" Don't mess with Texas! :heart:

Also, God helps those who helps themselves. Instead of invoking a deity that y'all may or may not believe in, I reckon doing something about the smug superiority complex prevalent amongst Democrats (namely, getting rid of it) would be the best course of action.

Wrong:
We lost the election because the Republicans cheated!!!!

Right:
We lost the election because we said things like the Republicans cheated!!!!

Not that the Democrats' chances and failings have much to do with the genesis of this thread. Some of the reactions just typify (I'm pretty sure that's a word) the problem. Mature decorum has never been a strong point in political threads for many reasons, but it definitely something we can ALL strive for. Democrats, Republicans, and those in between. I say, if you can dish it, you darn well better be prepared to take it. I learned that from PB himself, who was reknowed for dishing it like it was a second job. God bless his soul. :heart:

This shit just sounds funny as hell coming from Ganalon considering the "maturity" he's shown in past political threads. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Called anyone who voted for the mumbling hucksteran an idiot?

No.

I've called him an idiot though.

And one with evidently more flexible ethics than he campaigned on with his recent shift from simply having to had leaked confidential information to have had broken any laws. Funny how those can shift as it becomes more and more clear that your close advisors played fast and loose with the rules.
:clap:

Skirm, you're missing the part where it has to be knowingly classified information to the person talking about it for it to be a crime.

It is also kind of odd that the PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE LAW are saying that no crime was committed... maybe that could tell you something. But no, your dead set on Mr. Rove being guilty of a heinous crime committed out of spite. I see more spite and hatred out of the liberal establishment, and those that jump on the current bandwagon to get Bush than this administration. I wonder what it will next month? Perhaps it is time to start looking at yourself.

I'm sick of all this foaming at the mouth "WE GOT ONE WE GOT ONE!!!111" bullshit. It got old a long time ago.


[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Dave]

[xtc]

If Rove has done what it is claimed he did then he has violated The Espionage Act.

"1) possession of (2) information (3) relating to the national defense (4) which the person possessing it has reason to believe could be used to damage the United States or aid a foreign nation and (5) wilful communication of that information to (6) a person not entitled to receive it."

Since we are at war the maximum punishment for violating The Espionage Act is 30 years in jail or death.

[Skirmisher]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at myself for Dave.

And keep using the bandwagon defense mode.

When he did it, I'm not sure what good it does you, but knock yourself out trying.

[Gan]

Originally posted by DeV
This shit just sounds funny as hell coming from Ganalon considering the "maturity" he's shown in past political threads. :rolleyes:

Yes, because its widely known that I'm a hothead and like to foam at the mouth with nothing but explicitives, blanket statements, and explosive vernacular when I'm trying to defend a topic or point of view. :rolleyes:

Try again...

[Artha]

If Rove has done what it is claimed he did then he has violated The Espionage Act.
Assuming that her job was related to the defense of the nation. Also assuming that, since she was working a desk job, she's covered by the Espionage Act.

[Back]

He has definately violated his security clearance agreement.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Yes, because its widely known that I'm a hothead and like to foam at the mouth with nothing but explicitives, blanket statements, and explosive vernacular when I'm trying to defend a topic or point of view. :rolleyes:

Try again... Your words, not mine. Then again, that is not what I had in mind at all. The political banter of the PC has come a very long way from the heated political threads of past in my opinion.

I think a person can post in an immature manner and none of the characteristics described above be used.

[Gan]

I guess the meaning of sarcasm is lost on you then. Even with the visual aids... --> :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Backlash
He has definately violated his security clearance agreement.
Security Clearance agreement?... Backlash, you've got no idea what you're talking about.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I guess the meaning of sarcasm is lost on you then. Even with the visual aids... --> :rolleyes: Nope, it was a pretty accurate description of how things USED to be though, so it was kinda fitting in any case.

I got the :rolleye: smiley as I've been using it fairly often as of late too, so a resounding no, to answer your question that is. :yes:

[Back]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Backlash
He has definately violated his security clearance agreement.
Security Clearance agreement?... Backlash, you've got no idea what you're talking about.

Sorry, its called the “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement.” Its an agreement you need to make when you want access to classified information. Cooper has testified that Rove was the first person to tell him Wilson’s wife was a CIA operative. He confirmed it with Novak. This was not declassified information. Thus, he has broken the pledge he made when he was given access to classified information.

The information has to be known as classified to the individual for it to be a security violation.

I know exactly what it is, and dont have to google it to find out. (singed that as well as a few other things)

[Warriorbird]

Dave = International man of mystery.

:insert mission impossible theme song:

[Gan]

Can I be Basil?

Yes you can be Basil.

[Warriorbird]

The Coming Out thread is over in the Social Forum... if y'all need to.

[Gan]

Yay!

HN can be Frau Farbissina. "RELEASE THE GLOBE!!!"

Warriorbird can be Dr. Evil

Backlash can be Mini-Me

Xcalibur can be GoldMember

I need help with Scotty Evil and Fat Bastard though.

The PC version of Austin Powers! Now I cant get that theme song out of my head...

[ElanthianSiren]

As long as I get to be Felicity.

-M

[xtc]

Originally posted by Artha
Assuming that her job was related to the defense of the nation.

She is a CIA Officer/Operative, her responsibilities encompass national defence.


Also assuming that, since she was working a desk job, she's covered by the Espionage Act.

Huh, the Espionage Act covers every citizen. The fact she works a "desk job" at the CIA doesn't exclude her, if anything the information she has in some cases would exceed what a field agent knows.

If a Democrat had done what Rove did then Republicans would be calling him a traitor, guilty of treason, and would want his head on a platter.

[4a6c1]

:lol:

Alota.

Alota Fagina.

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Artha
Assuming that her job was related to the defense of the nation.

She is a CIA Officer/Operative, her responsibilities encompass national defence.


Also assuming that, since she was working a desk job, she's covered by the Espionage Act.

Huh, the Espionage Act covers every citizen. The fact she works a "desk job" at the CIA doesn't exclude her, if anything the information she has in some cases would exceed what a field agent knows.

If a Democrat had done what Rove did then Republicans would be calling him a traitor, guilty of treason, and would want his head on a platter.
It does exclude her, espionage act is for covert agents.

[Back]

Well, Dave, you better go tell the prosecutor he is wasting his time and our tax dollars.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Artha
Assuming that her job was related to the defense of the nation.

She is a CIA Officer/Operative, her responsibilities encompass national defence.


Also assuming that, since she was working a desk job, she's covered by the Espionage Act.

Huh, the Espionage Act covers every citizen. The fact she works a "desk job" at the CIA doesn't exclude her, if anything the information she has in some cases would exceed what a field agent knows.

If a Democrat had done what Rove did then Republicans would be calling him a traitor, guilty of treason, and would want his head on a platter.
It does exclude her, espionage act is for covert agents.

Funny I read the entire act and I didn't see what you claim.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
If a Democrat had done what Rove did then Republicans would be calling him a traitor, guilty of treason, and would want his head on a platter.I reckon I would have said the same thing I did about Rove; namely, people are punished AFTER they are convicted, not before.

[Warriorbird]

I doubt it.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Skirmisher]

Things only take this long when they are getting dragged out.

if i heare the White House press secretary or bush himself for that matter say once more time we don't have all the facts i'm going to vomit.

Is someone going to tell me that GW couldn't have just called him in and asked him what's up?

Unless of course he wanted to maintain plausible deniability and let him serve out as much of his term as possible. Then it makes perfect sense not to. :whistle:

[Gan]

Perhaps you should apply to the White House special council or special investigator's office since you think you can run an investigation faster and much more efficient.

Please... let it run its course, let them dot their I's and cross their T's and publish their findings. I'm sure we'll hear what happened before the statute of limitations runs out on this issue, assuming a crime was even comitted for a statute of limitations to be applied.

[Skirmisher]

How long has this been going on now?

Please.

Be non partisan for a moment and ask yourself if it could POSSIBLY take this long to find out who said what?

But sure, delay, cajole....say we need to wait for all the facts......thats an ongoing investigation.... long enough and hopefully it will slip onto the back burner....sadly that is a strategy that has worked far too long already.

[Gan]

Now you're sounding like its turning into a conspiracy. :lol:

Patiance grasshopper, things will transpire in due time, and not before then no matter how ADD or impatient the drama craving public feel otherwise.

[Artha]

On the other hand...

Please.

Be non partisan for a moment and ask yourself if it could POSSIBLY take this long to find actual proof?

But sure, rush, cajole....say we have enough information already.....tha it's already as good as done....fast enough and hopefully public opinion will still be negative from the witch hunt....sadly that is a strategy that has worked far too long already.

[Ravenstorm]

We know one thing for certain: they lied. Who's they? Either:

1) Karl Rove lied to the administration when he told them he wasn't involved.

2) The administration lied to America when they said Rove wasn't involved.

There can be no argument about that. None. An official pressing briefing said point blank 'Karl Rove was not involved.' Period. No ifs, ands or buts. It was a lie on someone's part and that's why even the majority of Republicans in that poll said they think the White House is being uncooperative and trying to block things.

So, anyone want to start arguing what 'involved' means? We can add it to the list of ambiguous terms such as 'oral sex'.

Raven

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by Ravenstorm]

[Artha]

We can add it to the list of amiguous terms such as 'oral sex'.
I think you mean 'is'.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Artha
On the other hand...

Please.

Be non partisan for a moment and ask yourself if it could POSSIBLY take this long to find actual proof?

But sure, rush, cajole....say we have enough information already.....tha it's already as good as done....fast enough and hopefully public opinion will still be negative from the witch hunt....sadly that is a strategy that has worked far too long already.

:lol: God forbid that momentum is lost. What ever will moveon.org do?

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Artha

We can add it to the list of amiguous terms such as 'oral sex'.
I think you mean 'is'.

That one too. There was, if I recall right, a lot of attempts at justification as to whether oral sex counts as 'sexual relations'. Did anyone ever argue whether penetration with cigars counted?

Raven

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Artha
On the other hand...

...


....sadly that is a strategy that has worked far too long already.

Worked how? He's still there doing his job, security clearance intact?

What's worked exactly?

[Artha]

Trent Lott.

[Skirmisher]

Jeez...what havn't the Republicans won over like the last eight years?

If Trent Lott's spanking is the worst the opposition has been able to do, I think you have to admit you've been doing pretty well.

:(

[Artha]

Just the first thing that popped into my mind.

[Back]

This investigation has been going on since the scandal in 2003. I agree, patience is needed. They’ve come this far and now its starting to come to some conclusions.

We live in strange times there is no doubt. Such a divided nation, government in a battle with a press thats become corporatized and more right than ever... more terrorist bombings... its an ugly time.

[Ilvane]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8635385/

:oops:

Interesting article.

-A

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I doubt it.Of course you do, after all, you have a wealth of quotes of me laying into a Democrat without provocation.

Well, maybe not a wealth, but at least a couple, right?

Or none.

Ever.

But I guess some people see a glass half full and some people see an armadillo with a chainsaw and fire shooting out its ears.
Originally posted by Ravenstorm
So, anyone want to start arguing what 'involved' means?There's no need to argue. To wit:
Q: They were not involved in what?

A: The leaking of classified information.If Mr. Rove had been involved (in the criminal leaking of classified information), he would be targetted in the investigation, wouldn't he? Yet that is not the case. Why wouldn't Scott McLellan simply reiterate what he has already said? He's answered that as well; ongoing criminal investigation.

Finally, oops indeed. "Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when "people in the special prosecutor's office" showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney." Also, it's a bit depressing to see that a CLASSIFIED MEMO has become available to the public at a time like this.

[Gan]

Interesting indeed.


"The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

So according to this article, 3 key questions.

1. Who knew about Plame's CIA role in the administration.

2. Did everyone who knew Plame's CIA role know that the CIA was designating her identity as secret. [I would the question of was her secret status still in effect at the time of the leak if they have a time expiration on it]

3. And who leaked Plame's identity to the media.

The answers to those questions [and others I imagine] are what the special investigators are looking into.

Who knew Plame was a CIA agent? Obviously those who read about her status in any memos - the paper trail should not be too hard to find. What about that which was passed along by word of mouth? A little harder to prove I would think. Was it common knowledge and if so why?

Did someone knowingly reveal Plame's identity as a CIA agent? According to Rove, it was Novak. According to Cooper, it was Rove. What about Mitchell's notes? How do you prove who is telling the truth and who is not? Should the press be given greater consideration over a political figure, vice versa? Or are their words equally meritous?

Who leaked Plame's affiliation with the CIA to the media. According to Cooper, it was Rove. According to Rove the press already knew (Novak). Why havent we seen Novak's notes? Where did he get his information from if Rove's story is even being considered? Mitchell's notes will also provide more areas to investigate should we ever see them.

Very interesting indeed.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

I respect Patrick Fitzgerald tremendously...especially after what I hear from my grandfather about some of the things he did in Chicago. He has no visible political agenda, either, so he won't slant this investigation one way or another. If it is the press's fault, I'm sure he'll nail them to the wall. If someone in the adminstration is involved (my guess, though I don't believe it is Rove), he'll nail them to the wall. If there's nothing, he'll leave it alone. This man's convicted extremely violent mafioso and terrorists before. He ain't scared or buyable.

On a further note. conservatives have been "convicting" Democrats before investigations are over for a long time, Latrin. You may claim superiority, but I don't buy it. If not you, others. Democrats are the exact same way.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
If not you, others.You might as say I support genocide while you're at it. After all, some Germans did once, obviously all those of Germanic heritage must!!!

[Back]

A story from the Washington Post on Patrick Fitzgerald (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55560-2005Feb1.html).

Very impressive.

[Warriorbird]

Eh. Emo conservatives always like going "I'm above that." until something actually happens.

[Gan]

Emo conservatives. :lol:

Do you have a book or something with all these cute little names in it?

[Latrinsorm]

I am resoundingly emo, in character if not in dress. I maintain that I am more liberal than conservative, though. WB's been using the emo conservative tag for awhile. He didn't use to flat out call people liars, from what I remember.

[Gan]

emo conservative

neo conservative

orweillian conservative

natzi conservative

[enter selection here] conservative

whatever...

I prefer to refer to myself as a moderate conservative. Or a moderate republican to be more specific. Sticks and stones I suppose if the names were used to elicit a reaction. Primarily I'm an American and a human being. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

[Warriorbird]

I made "emo conservative" up myself, actually, Ganalon. It's to counteract all the "liberal" abuse by the Republicans. I think they're far too whiney for controlling all three branches of government.

Latrin... it's sort've like that whole "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck" notion. I don't think I've ever seen you ever take a viewpoint other than the "Bush-tested, family-approved" one.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Warriorbird]

He should be shot as an example. Also, WB your sig is lame.

[Warriorbird]

Pff.

http://www.overheardinnewyork.com is awesome.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I don't think I've ever seen you ever take a viewpoint other than the "Bush-tested, family-approved" one. What you choose to remember and what occurred in reality are two extremely different things.

[Warriorbird]

Oh goody. Republican time!

Examples? Lots of them?

[Latrinsorm]

Marriage.
Most (but not all) of the presidential debates.
Death penalty.
Africa.
Religion.

I have the day off tomorrow, so I can do some searching at home. My memory gets a bit hazy sometimes, so I'm not entirely sure what I've posted here.

[Warriorbird]

Err... you don't seem to want gay marriage.
The presidential debates are about all these other issues you support them on.
Being anti death penalty does count (though I'm for it)
Bush took part in G8.
Religion is the core of why you come across AS conservative.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Err... you don't seem to want gay marriage.That's not the part I disagree with him on.
Being anti death penalty does countSweet.
Bush took part in G8.He sure did. He's still not up to snuff in my book, though.
Religion is the core of why you come across AS conservative. And if you had said "Latrinsorm, you come across as conservative", I would have agreed with you. That, however, is not what you said.

[Skirmisher]

Reporter Miller Enters Fifth Week in Jail <---Click for link to story (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050802/ap/d8bnr9u00.html)

Yet Rove still is roaming the streets.

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Reporter Miller Enters Fifth Week in Jail <---Click for link to story (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050802/ap/d8bnr9u00.html)

Yet Rove still is roaming the streets.
Maybe because Rove didnt break any laws.
Did you notice how this kinda disappeared from the news?
Dead story for a reason, so give it up already

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave
Maybe because Rove didnt break any laws.
Did you notice how this kinda disappeared from the news?
Dead story for a reason, so give it up already

No.

Originally posted by Skirmisher


No. [/quote]
Yes.

[Warriorbird]

I think if Fitzgerald was going after Rove, he'd have him now.

[Ilvane]

Nah, it was just hid back in the news because of the Supreme Court nomination. I'm sure we'll here more eventually.

-A

[Latrinsorm]

That last post reminds me of the SNL thing I heard about where they'd say "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead."

"Karl Rove is still not being charged with anything."

[DeV]

It's still news to me. I'm sure there are others who would still like to know who said what, considering all the accusations that have been thrown around.

Of course If I were Rove, I'd want the investigation to continue so the rumor mill will cease and the Democrats can be pwned once again.

[Back]

More testimony (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03leak.html?ex=1123646400&en=d316dd51ec8931fa&ei=5 070&emc=eta1). The case isn’t over and the prosecutor is definitely focusing on illegal actions.

[Ilvane]

Some news on the story:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove3aug03,1,6456237.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

In the headlines at the top of the hour, Laurie Dhue reported that Karl Rove has the complete confidence of the president, "despite a firestorm of controversey surrounding the White House adviser."

Bush "made the comments to a group of reporters. Rove has been under fire for his alleged role in leaking a CIA operative's identity. The president says he would fire Rove or anyone else who is convicted in connection with the leak."

Thats a new story? Wow I have not heard those same damn quotes over and over and over and over and over...

[Warriorbird]

I don't think Rove is the target. I'm not saying he isn't involved somewhere, but if there's one thing I know about Karl Rove and Karl Rove style political operators, is that they have someone else do their dirty work. If someone else did it, Rove isn't going to be charged with anything.

[Artha]

Or maybe he just wasn't involved. Wait, no, that's impossible. My bad.

[Warriorbird]

It's possible. I doubt we'll ever know one way or another.

[Back]

Well, someone was involved, obviously.

I’m fascinated by Judith Miller’s role in all of this. A hack/pro-administration reporter accepted jail time to cover her source. Thus my connecting her with Joan of Arc, a woman who heard things but could not verify them.

Her source, who claims to have cleared her of naming him long before, seems to be Cheney’s aide “Scooter” Libby.

Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, isn’t it really important we figure this shit out? I mean, outting an operative is serious. American lives are at stake.

An article to keep abreast...

Miller's Big Secret (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/09/30/BL2005093000669_pf.html) from The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/).

[Warriorbird]

I trust Fitzgerald to do his job. Several friends of my family have suggested he's absolutely brilliant and fearless.

[Back]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I trust Fitzgerald to do his job. Several friends of my family have suggested he's absolutely brilliant and fearless.

This profile of Patrick J. Fitzgerald (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55560-2005Feb1.html) (again from the Washington Post) suggests the same.

[Nakiro]

Oh man its not the responsiblity of Karl Rove?

Too bad, I think the democrats were really looking forward to their stake burning!

[Gan]

Well, I'm still waiting to see the final report from the grand jury; however, I bet its very different from the witch hunt that this thread started out as...

:whistle:

[Back]

I don’t think the OP intended it to be.

It did turn into one.

And why shouldn’t it have? Isn’t putting Americans in danger a bad thing? Or do you just want to tow the party line and say “No big deal”?

[Gan]

She was behind a desk. She was in no danger. Thought we already covered this... or are you just going to tow the alarmist line? The sky really isnt falling by the way.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
She was behind a desk. She was in no danger. Thought we already covered this... or are you just going to tow the alarmist line? The sky really isnt falling by the way.

Hey, fuck me if I think our operatives safety is important.

By the way, the sky is crashing. You can keep saying “everything’s fine” as long as you want. That doesn't make it so.

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Backlash]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
Karl Rove is a scumbag. You would think that would be obvious no matter what side, or middle, of the political fence you were on.

Actually, I think you care more about blaming Rove than the safety of our 'operatives'...

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash
Karl Rove is a scumbag. You would think that would be obvious no matter what side, or middle, of the political fence you were on.

Actually, I think you care more about blaming Rove than the safety of our 'operatives'...

Yeah? Why?

Because we lost the election?

You are wrong, as you are so good at being.

But lets get back to the real issue.

An american CIA operative’s identity was outted. That jeopardizes not only the operative’s life, but that operative’s family. You don’t think thats serious treason?

[Back]

Why was that American operative’s identity leaked?

We all know why. Because the “yellow cake” reports went against the evidence to go to war with Iraq.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
Yeah? Why?
Because we lost the election?
You are wrong, as you are so good at being.
But lets get back to the real issue.
An american CIA operative’s identity was outted. That jeopardizes not only the operative’s life, but that operative’s family. You don’t think thats serious treason?

If and only if said operative was in the field, in eminent danger (in harms way). When she decided to make a play into the body politik of washington then she exposed herself. And yet she's still breathing and her family is snug as a bug in a rug still today... imagine that. :rolleyes:

She was neither, thus her life was not in danger. Quit trying to take an isolated incident and making it a blanket crisis. Your actions all throughout this thread have been politically motivated. Trying to take the high road does you no good. You screamed for Rove's head from the beginning denouncing him as the the guilty party, and now when it looks like you're dead wrong, you're trying to be globally alarmist and say that this act put every CIA operative in-country at risk!!!! Give me a break, someone should read your ideas back to you so you can realize how retarded they sound.

At least I recognize and admit when I'm wrong. You could learn from that.

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by Ganalon]

[Back]

Well, you have made up your mind that its no big deal.

The case is not over. I agree we will wait and see what comes of the case.


I say treason. Surprised you dont too.

[Gan]

If there's a guilty party, then jail time for breaking a law. Treason? No, I dont think so.

This is the same thing I said in my very first post in this thread, and it is what I say now. My stance has not changed, unlike yours.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
If there's a guilty party, then jail time for breaking a law. Treason? No, I dont think so.

This is the same thing I said in my very first post in this thread, and it is what I say now. My stance has not changed, unlike yours.

My stance has changed?? You are making shit up again.

Just listen to yourself.

If you don’t want to take an American’s family’s safety seriously... because you think she is a woman who sits behind a desk... you know man, thats your call.

I call it treason. And I think treasoners used to be hanged.

[Gan]

Extremist bandwagoning statement #1


Originally posted by Backlash
Karl Rove is a scumbag. You would think that would be obvious no matter what side, or middle, of the political fence you were on.

Here’s you taking your first stance…


Originally posted by Backlash
You know, while I am glad this investigation is finally getting somewhere it still overshadows the entire point of this affair. The administration “cooking” facts to show Iraq as an imminent threat for their case for war.

Further evidence that you’re goal in this thread was partisan, and off base and yet necessary by you to justify your opinions when the investigation was losing its focus on Rove.


Originally posted by Backlash
Yeah, the lonely little loonies have had their time in the sun. God help us. Lets hope we can get back on track to a better world. 2006, 2008.

And finally you land here.


Originally posted by Backlash
Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, isn’t it really important we figure this shit out? I mean, outting an operative is serious. American lives are at stake.


I really do not have to say anymore, you’ve made yourself very clear in this thread as to what your motives and goals are for this topic. Its like I’m hearing “Flight of the Bumblebee” every time I read one of your conspiracy theories now.

Just, well... I mean... wow. Its amazing that you get any sleep at night.

:lol:

[Gan]

Treason as defined by Article 3 of the US Constitution.

The Constitution defines treason as "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."

Section Three also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same "overt" act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. In Cramer v. United States, the Court ruled that "every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses". In Haupt v. United States, however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are only required to prove that the overt act actually occurred.

Furthermore, Section Three permits Congress to determine the punishment for treason. However, this punishment may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. In other words, the descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" (i.e., their blood could not be corrupted) by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, the clause permits Congress to confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

SOURCE - WIKIPEDIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Why was that American operative’s identity leaked?

We all know why. Because the “yellow cake” reports went against the evidence to go to war with Iraq.

We all "know" why? Listen Chicken Little.. let's not go hatching another one of your now famous conspiracy theories. YOU THINK that's the sole reason. You WANT to believe that's the reason.. but when it comes right down to it.. you know shit. It's just fun to link things together because they seem to fit in your head.

[xtc]

It still astounds me that Repubs are defending this guy. If a Democrat had leaked the name of a CIA operative to the press, Bill O'Reilly and crew would be calling for that Democrat to be hanged and many Repubs would follow suit. G Gordon Liddy would be saying that national security was at risk. Neil Boortz would be on the attack. Limbaugh would be up in arms and CNN's Novak would be calling for the man's resignation and prosecution (if Novak wasn't the reporter in question).


.......and Ann Coulter would be blathering something nonsensical as usual

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by xtc]

[Back]

Originally posted by xtc
.......and Ann Coulter would be blathering something nonsensical as usual

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by xtc]

I actually enjoy her commentary. Because she is a hot strong blonde? Maybe. Do I have a twisted sense of humor? Absolutely.

Ok, treason might have been a strong word but this is serious shit! I’m very concerned as a citizen over this issue. When the administration fucks up they start throwing people under the trainwreck. I don’t sit for that in my daily life with my friends and coworkers, why should I for this administration? Why should anyone feel different?

I just hope this ”misunderstanding” between Libby and Miller doesn't get the case thrown out because someone leaked an American operatives name, an American in service of the people of America, to the wolves. And thats just not right.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc
It still astounds me that Repubs are defending this guy. If a Democrat had leaked the name of a CIA operative to the press, Bill O'Reilly and crew would be calling for that Democrat to be hanged and many Repubs would follow suit. G Gordon Liddy would be saying that national security was at risk. Neil Boortz would be on the attack. Limbaugh would be up in arms and CNN's Novak would be calling for the man's resignation and prosecution (if Novak wasn't the reporter in question).


.......and Ann Coulter would be blathering something nonsensical as usual

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by xtc]

"This guy" meaning who? Rove? Hasn't it been shown that he wasn't the one that leaked the information?

Maybe that's why those horrible Republicans are still defending 'that guy'.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by xtc
It still astounds me that Repubs are defending this guy. If a Democrat had leaked the name of a CIA operative to the press, Bill O'Reilly and crew would be calling for that Democrat to be hanged and many Repubs would follow suit. G Gordon Liddy would be saying that national security was at risk. Neil Boortz would be on the attack. Limbaugh would be up in arms and CNN's Novak would be calling for the man's resignation and prosecution (if Novak wasn't the reporter in question).


.......and Ann Coulter would be blathering something nonsensical as usual

[Edited on 10-2-2005 by xtc]

"This guy" meaning who? Rove? Hasn't it been shown that he wasn't the one that leaked the information?

Maybe that's why those horrible Republicans are still defending 'that guy'.

So Judith Miller named Libby as her source but Matthew Cooper of Time said SOME Administration officials told him that Plame was with the CIA. Some being more than one.

Times article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1806465,00.html)

Also this Washington Post article seems to suggest that Rove was involved.

"By July 12, however, both Rove and Libby and perhaps other senior White House officials knew about Wilson's wife's position at the CIA and, according to lawyers familiar with testimony in the probe, used that information with reporters to undermine the significance of Wilson's trip."

Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100101317.html)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc
Also this Washington Post article seems to suggest that Rove was involved.


WELL IF THE WASHINGTON POST WROTE IT, IT MUST BE RIGHT!

KILL THE FUCKER! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by xtc
Also this Washington Post article seems to suggest that Rove was involved.


WELL IF THE WASHINGTON POST WROTE IT, IT MUST BE RIGHT!

KILL THE FUCKER! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!

Not at all, but let's not all rush to his defence either. Rove is the master of dirty tricks. Like I said if this was a Democratic Government that did this, Repubs would be out for blood.

[Edited on 10-4-2005 by xtc]

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by xtc
Also this Washington Post article seems to suggest that Rove was involved.


WELL IF THE WASHINGTON POST WROTE IT, IT MUST BE RIGHT!

KILL THE FUCKER! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!

Sweet PB. Nice to see you finally woke up. Welcome to the blue pill side.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

But wait... didn't the blue pill lead back into the Matrix, as opposed to towards freedom?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
But wait... didn't the blue pill lead back into the Matrix, as opposed to towards freedom?

Morpheus: This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

[Edited on 10-4-05 by Parkbandit]

[DeV]

She's obvously colorblind. :yes:

[ElanthianSiren]

Nah, I just hate movies and saw that one once. Oops. Oh well. The responses put forth show people know where I was going with it anyway.

-M

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV
She's obvously colorblind. :yes:

I think it's a Freudian slip. She wants us all to just stay in the Matrix.. oblivious to the truth.

Fucking liberals!

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Nah, I just hate movies and saw that one once. Oops. Oh well. The responses put forth show people know where I was going with it anyway.

-M

Yes.. yes we do:

[ElanthianSiren]

I disagree PB. An ostrich would do something like blindly stick his or her head in the sand and defend their "guys" when they've already admitted their own wrong-doing. So how does Florida granite taste?

-M

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DeV
She's obvously colorblind. :yes:

I think it's a Freudian slip. She wants us all to just stay in the Matrix.. oblivious to the truth.

Fucking liberals! How very conservative of you. The "oracle", the truth... nothing more than a program that was taken over by Smith (representing the red pill) in the end anyway.

I can't believe I'm philosophizing this shit. :?:

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DeV
She's obvously colorblind. :yes:

I think it's a Freudian slip. She wants us all to just stay in the Matrix.. oblivious to the truth.

Fucking liberals! How very conservative of you. The "oracle", the truth... nothing more than a program that was taken over by Smith (representing the red pill) in the end anyway.

I can't believe I'm philosophizing this shit. :?:

Nor can I...

I am disappointed in you!! :nono:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DeV
nothing more than a program that was taken over by Smith (representing the red pill) in the end anyway. It's hard to tell which pill Smith would represent. Based on the first movie, he's definitely blue pill. But then his motivations seem to change from ending the war to killing Neo. I think the red pill interpretation only works if he's a force for chaos.

Oh and also, a person can't be red-blue colorblind. It has to do with the nature of the neurons (or nerves or something) in that red-green and blue-yellow are the only color choices available.

You might think this has nothing to do with Karl Rove. Ha ha! You would be absolutely right. :(

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I disagree PB. An ostrich would do something like blindly stick his or her head in the sand and defend their "guys" when they've already admitted their own wrong-doing. So how does Florida granite taste?

-M

See.. and I saw it as you simply following the liberal spin and blindly lashing out at Bush at every bad thing that happens.

Perspective is a bitch.. ain't it!

[ElanthianSiren]

Except that the two in question have admitted to what even a large slice of conservatives consider a large wrong. Nice try. How about another pitch?

-M

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by DeV
nothing more than a program that was taken over by Smith (representing the red pill) in the end anyway. It's hard to tell which pill Smith would represent. Based on the first movie, he's definitely blue pill. But then his motivations seem to change from ending the war to killing Neo. I think the red pill interpretation only works if he's a force for chaos.

Oh and also, a person can't be red-blue colorblind. It has to do with the nature of the neurons (or nerves or something) in that red-green and blue-yellow are the only color choices available.

You might think this has nothing to do with Karl Rove. Ha ha! You would be absolutely right. :( As hard as this is to do I will reply with a big fat... no comment. None. Nada. Zip and zilch. In fact, I'm going to pretend I never read this. lalalalalalalalalala

:!:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Except that the two in question have admitted to what even a large slice of conservatives consider a large wrong. Nice try. How about another pitch?

-M

What has Karl Rove admitting to doing?

I think you lost me.

[DeV]

I think she meant the 2 reporters. Could be wrong.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/06/cia.leak.probe/index.html

I think Libby is hosed.

[Back]

Yes I’m digging this up again because its not over. Since the last post two more reporters have come clean, and much to the benefit of Rove. Fitzgerald is daunted. What happened to the media busting the guilty? Thats why Mike Wallace is a rock star.

[Skirmisher]

This was an interesting thread to reread taking into account what has come to light.

[Warriorbird]

Yep!

[Gan]

Thought this deserved an update:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House senior adviser Karl Rove has been told by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that he will not be charged in the CIA leak case, according to Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer.
"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said in a written statement Tuesday. "We believe that the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/13/rove.cia/index.html
__________________________________-


Fancy that...

[Latrinsorm]

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DeV]

^ A 9 month long conspiracy at that. I love how CNN kept calling him the happiest man in America during most of their coverage yesterday.

[Gan]

Well, since none of my counterparts on the left side of the body politik has bothered to mention it. I think I shall.

This is the perfect closure for this thread.

Humble Pie anyone???
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh, and per Harmnone. Neener, Neener, Neener. kthx.

__________________________________________________ _________

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the source who revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in 2003, touching off a federal investigation, two sources familiar with Armitage's role tell CNN.
The sources said Armitage revealed Plame's role at the CIA almost inadvertently in a casual conversation with Novak, and it is not clear if he knew her identity was classified at the time.
Armitage was not indicted by the federal grand jury that investigated the disclosure of Plame's name to Novak and other journalists. Deliberately revealing the identify of a CIA operative can be a crime.
The revelation that Armitage was the source of Novak's column is somewhat anticlimactic for Bush administration critics who had used the story as a weapon in Washington's partisan battles.
During the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003, Armitage was viewed as one of the more skeptical voices in the administration about the need to depose Saddam Hussein by force.
In a July 14, 2003, column, Novak noted that Plame was a CIA operative, citing two senior administration officials. The column was primarily about Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, a former career diplomat and critic of the intelligence underlying the invasion of Iraq.
Wilson and some Democrats contend Plame's identity was released by the White House to retaliate against her husband for writing a July 2003 column in The New York Times that questioned the administration's use of prewar intelligence on Iraq. (Full story (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/14/cialeak.lawsuit/index.html))
Last month, Plame and Wilson filed a civil lawsuit alleging a conspiracy that "was motivated by an invidiously discriminatory animus towards those who had publicly criticized the administration's stated justifications for going to war with Iraq"and culminated with the disclosure that Plame worked at the CIA. This revelation destroyed Plame's career with the agency, according to the suit.
The scenario described by the sources familiar with Armitage's role, however, appears to contradict those arguments.
But the Wilsons' attorney, Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the revelation that Armitage was the original source for the leak did not undercut the charge that Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and White House adviser Karl Rove acted to retaliate against Wilson by engaging in a "whispering campaign" about his wife.
The couple plans to proceed with the lawsuit, Sloan said.
"Mr. Armitage's conduct does not change the facts of what Libby, Cheney and Rove did," Sloan told CNN. "The case is about the abuse of government power."
Novak has never revealed the original source of the information about Plame. However, he has said that Rove confirmed the information and was the second source cited in the column.
Novak has said he would not reveal the identity of the original source unless the source came forward. However, he said the special counsel in the CIA leak investigation, Patrick Fitzgerald, learned who the source was independently.
Fitzgerald has said he does not plan to bring any charges against Novak's original source.
Calls to Armitage for comment were not returned Tuesday.
The Armitage connection to the Novak column is also outlined in a new book titled "Hubris" by Michael Isikoff and David Korn.
In the book, Armitage is quoted as telling former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford that "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing."
Calls to Ford for comment also were not returned Tuesday.
In September 2003, Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Illinois, was appointed as a special counsel to investigate whether any laws were broken with the disclosure.
No one has been indicted for leaking Plame's identity, but Libby has been charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators for allegedly giving false information about his discussions with journalists about Plame.
Libby has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.
Fitzgerald notified Rove that he wouldn't be charged in the case, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said in June.
As part of his investigation, Fitzgerald subpoenaed then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and then-Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. In 2005, Miller spent nearly 12 weeks in jail after she refused to testify to identify her source to Fitzgerald. (View a timeline of the CIA leak case (http://javascript<b></b>:CNN_openPopup('/interactive/law/0507/timeline.plame.case/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,locat ion=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollb ars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430');))
Miller was released after her source, Libby, called her and personally waived their confidentially agreement.
Armitage, 65, was No. 2 at the State Department under former Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2001 to 2005.
He left his post after Powell resigned at the beginning of Bush's second term.
CNN's John King and Brian Todd contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/leak.armitage/index.html

[Back]

The sad thing is that even though I support Bush and what he and the party stand for; I feel that either directly or indirectly he's made some choices that could have been better made and definately better broadcasted. I'm afraid that all of the positive things his administration have attempted will be largely overshadowed by the mistakes. He's expended almost all of his political capital, not that he needs it for re-election. However, if it keeps going then it will backlash onto the Republican party and that would be unfortunate foundation for the 2006 congressional elections and the 2008 presidential elections.

As for my efforts, I wont apologize for my attempt at keeping the debate legitimate and at the same time intellectual. I have developed a lot of respect for the views and opinions of those who partake in the more serious discussions here on the PC, and it saddens me to see the PC stoop to the level of idiotic name calling or childish blanket statements. I have been and will always be an advocate for mature decorum, which I hope my support has helped strengthen the resolve of the PC staff to help maintain a higher quality discussion environment. With this same mindset will I endeavor to keep at least some of the discussions that I've been a participant on at the same level - only I realize that I'm only a small voice among so many. :(

Wow, look at this quote from waaaay back in the day.

[HarmNone]

That post of Ganalon's was very well written, in my opinion, and what it had to say was, and is, pertinent. Would that it could be thus ...

[Gan]

Wow, look at this quote from waaaay back in the day.

Congratulations, you figured out how to use the search feature. :clap:

Here's some quotes for you since you like throwing them out instead of discussing your famous ERRONEOUS bandwagon against Rove in this thread.

Its ok to admit you were/are wrong. Really, its the first step to recovery.

:lol:



Extremist bandwagoning statement #1


Originally posted by Backlash
Karl Rove is a scumbag. You would think that would be obvious no matter what side, or middle, of the political fence you were on.

Here’s you taking your first stance…


Originally posted by Backlash
You know, while I am glad this investigation is finally getting somewhere it still overshadows the entire point of this affair. The administration “cooking” facts to show Iraq as an imminent threat for their case for war.

Further evidence that you’re goal in this thread was partisan, and off base and yet necessary by you to justify your opinions when the investigation was losing its focus on Rove.


Originally posted by Backlash
Yeah, the lonely little loonies have had their time in the sun. God help us. Lets hope we can get back on track to a better world. 2006, 2008.

And finally you land here.


Originally posted by Backlash
Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, isn’t it really important we figure this shit out? I mean, outting an operative is serious. American lives are at stake.


I really do not have to say anymore, you’ve made yourself very clear in this thread as to what your motives and goals are for this topic. Its like I’m hearing “Flight of the Bumblebee” every time I read one of your conspiracy theories now.

Just, well... I mean... wow. Its amazing that you get any sleep at night.

:lol:

[Back]

Its a couple of pages back in this thread. No search necessary.

I stand by everything you quoted me as saying. That the administration cooked the info to invade Iraq I thought was generally accepted as fact these days.

About Rove, well, I still think he is a divisive scumbag. I don’t think I ever claimed he was guilty but certainly felt he was involved as the case went along.

[Gan]

Just browsed through the thread since my connection is too unstable this morning to hunt OTF. I pulled a few more quotes out of the different posts that were submitted over the timeline of the investigation. I must say it was quite an entertaining skim through all 39 pages.

Here's some additional ones of note, for me at least, that are in addition to the Backlash compilation above.

Good times, good times. :lol:



It appears that the media did set him up, but the point is, he did it. [Edited on 7-12-2005 by Yswithe]

Karl Rove's ass is toast, if the President actually holds to his word.

Interesting how some conservatives are all for the intelligence community in the country until it's politiclaly convenient to backstab those actual officers who do the work . I don't wnt him fired. I want him in jail.

Karl Rove is the devil.

heh, so Rove gets away with it..big surprise. Oddly back when we didn't know it was Rove Bush was quite ready to fire the person involved in this leak...

It'd be awesome if Bush had Rove shot.

Its kinda funny watching them foam at the mouth. Jumping around screaming "We got him, We finally got him"!!!. Just to see them slump their shoulders in defeat after all is over. Prohpetic.

When I saw what the prosecutor had released so far, it changed my mind quite a lot on this case. Heard some quality commentary too. Props to WB for not falling victim to the media's erroneous reporting and obvious bias. Props to Dev for being immune to the media frenzy as well.

I'm just patiently waiting for the ruling to come out. Then I'm going to remind some folks of what they posted in the beginning.

Well, guess it looks like I might be wrong. Naturally, have to wait until the end of the investigation, but no harm no foul. Looks like I finally got caught up in bullshit I try to avoid. :lol: Considering the amount of frenzied bloviation you puked out in the first half of this thread, you were one of many fish caught on the hook. At least you admit it.

Honestly, I don't think he will be convicted, but also, I think he did it. -M

We aren't getting paid for this shit. We are going by what is written in the press, viewed on television, or read off the internet. Including YOU. How much is Rove paying you, by the way... You illustrate my point about the media concicely.

Okay, then, so do those people a favour and not remind them that they're "wrong" until they're proven "wrong". Then they will give you the big daddy backbiting award :D-M

Poll: Many Doubt White House Cooperation in CIA Leak Probe (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=949950&amp;CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312) Gan, you’ve got your work cut out for you, man. You illustrate my point about opinion polls as well.

If a Democrat had done what Rove did then Republicans would be calling him a traitor, guilty of treason, and would want his head on a platter.

On the other hand... Please. Be non partisan for a moment and ask yourself if it could POSSIBLY take this long to find actual proof? But sure, rush, cajole....say we have enough information already.....tha it's already as good as done....fast enough and hopefully public opinion will still be negative from the witch hunt....sadly that is a strategy that has worked far too long already. Hilariously accurate.

We know one thing for certain: they lied. Who's they? Either:
1) Karl Rove lied to the administration when he told them he wasn't involved.
2) The administration lied to America when they said Rove wasn't involved.
There can be no argument about that. None. An official pressing briefing said point blank 'Karl Rove was not involved.' Period. No ifs, ands or buts. It was a lie on someone's part and that's why even the majority of Republicans in that poll said they think the White House is being uncooperative and trying to block things. So, anyone want to start arguing what 'involved' means? We can add it to the list of ambiguous terms such as 'oral sex'.Raven

Also this Washington Post article seems to suggest that Rove was involved.Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100101317.html) Big suprise there.

[sst]

Originally Posted by (blank) Was this Dave?
Its kinda funny watching them foam at the mouth. Jumping around screaming "We got him, We finally got him"!!!. Just to see them slump their shoulders in defeat after all is over.

yeah i think it was me

[Gan]

Good call. I'd say thats a shot in the 10 ring.

[sst]

Eh, news is news, after being where I am and seeing how things really are I've decided that the media is shit and not deserving for an ounce of the credibility the American people give them. If people want to fall into the traps that are set from whatever bias side the reporter is coming from, let them, its not like there is anything that can be done to change their minds with how polarized their views are.

[Back]

Eh, news is news, after being where I am and seeing how things really are I've decided that the media is shit and not deserving for an ounce of the credibility the American people give them. If people want to fall into the traps that are set from whatever bias side the reporter is coming from, let them, its not like there is anything that can be done to change their minds with how polarized their views are.

Lo and behold. How ya been?

So, are we trying to blame everything but our administration for the polarization in this country?

[Wezas]

Well, since none of my counterparts on the left side of the body politik has bothered to mention it. I think I shall.


Dude, it was posted on CNN less than 5 hours before you posted it.

Maybe people weren't "bothered to mention it" because they didn't know yet.

[sst]

Im not blaming anyone, people make their own decisions on what they desire and want Backlash, hardcore conservatives go their way hardcore liberals go theirs. Its not like the polarization hasn't always been there, the strongest supporters are going to be the most vocal after all, those in the middle dont really have much to say. So i guess you could say its Bush's fault, as well as it is (Bushs current arch enemy on the left)'s fault There is bias on both sides backlash, and neither one is always 100% right, that includes me, you and everyone walking and breathing, those that are not, and those yet to.

[Gan]

Dude, it was posted on CNN less than 5 hours before you posted it.

Maybe people weren't "bothered to mention it" because they didn't know yet.

You folks need to get with it then! Shit man.

I actually heard about it on the radio the day before I posted it on the PC. I was pissed that I could not find anything on the internet to try and read into it further.

[DeV]

I think the care factor decreased significantly ever since CNN proclaimed Rove "the happiest man in America".

[Gan]

So, are we trying to blame everything but our administration for the polarization in this country?

I actually blame folks like you who constantly scream incessantly about corruption, conspiracy, and the like, with little or no factual basis. You should be real intimate with the idea of polarization, just go back and review some of your posts, especially in this thread alone.

Polarization, :rofl: you make me laugh.

[Gan]

I think the care factor decreased significantly ever since CNN proclaimed Rove "the happiest man in America".

Considering he knew he was not the leak, and yet he just let the media and the radical left wing run rampant with the idea that he might possibly be guilty. Yea, I'd say he's been grinning like the cheshire cat about the whole affair. He knew who the joke was really on. (And Backlash please dont say the joke was on the American people or Valerie Plame) We've heard it all before.

[Tromp]

Who is the joke on? Nobody f'in cares.

[Back]

I actually blame folks like you who constantly scream incessantly about corruption, conspiracy, and the like, with little or no factual basis. You should be real intimate with the idea of polarization, just go back and review some of your posts, especially in this thread alone.

Polarization, :rofl: you make me laugh.

Little or no factual basis? Please. You accept that from this administration, why not everyone else?

Facts. No link between 9/11 and Iraq. No WMDs. Just for starters.

When people point out these facts they get labeled any number of things from terrorist sympathizer to tin-foil hat conspiracist. What do you expect?

Back to Rove, I can’t say this on any factual basis, but knowing that people know how to work around our legal system it does not surprise me he was not indicted, or anyone other than Libby for that matter.

As for Armitage, I saw Novak talking about how Armitage called him just recently highly aggravated about something Novak had said about his source on some show. So after all this time Armitage finally comes clean? It doesn’t seem to make much sense when this thing has been going on for 2 years.

[Skirmisher]

The system got worked over like a heavy bag in this case.

All the appropriate little nobodies fell on their swords and the big fish swam away clean.

[DeV]

And whatever happened to being forthcoming about information fed to the public from top government officials, especially with the way the media runs with shit these days. Yes, they played the media, the left-wing and some on the right I'm sure, misled investigators and the grand jury in the case of Scooter Libby, and you are asking who is eating humble pie after all of this comes to such a simple conclusion. One that could have been arrived at a long time ago.

Riiiight.

No one is eating humble, seriously.

[Gan]

Oh I get it.

Rove is still guilty. (wow)

Let me adjust the RF modulator antennae on my foil hat...

And someone tell Bush to please adjust the global atmospheric thermostat in his office. Oh and, please speak into the lamp when you say that.

:lol2:

[DeV]

Thought this deserved an update:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House senior adviser Karl Rove has been told by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that he will not be charged in the CIA leak case, according to Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer.
"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said in a written statement Tuesday. "We believe that the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/13/rove.cia/index.html
__________________________________-


Fancy that...That was posted in June.

I honestly think people stopped caring as much at that point. I could be wrong.

[Gan]

And yet you still post.

[DeV]

The horror.

[Gan]

Indeed.

[DeV]

Touche.

(this is fun)

[Gan]

hahaha

Yes, the brevity is enjoyable as I'm pontificating my noontime respite.

[Skirmisher]

Oh and, please speak into the lamp when you say that.


Got that much right.