Rove Spoke To Time Reporter Before CIA Agent's Name Leaked

[blueturk]

Rove spoke to Time but didn't name CIA agent, lawyer says
Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times

Sunday, July 3, 2005

Washington -- Karl Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisers, spoke with a Time magazine reporter days before the name of a CIA operative surfaced in the media, but did not leak the confidential information, a lawyer for Rove said Saturday in a new admission in the case.

Rove spoke to Time reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003, during the week before published reports revealed the identity of operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. envoy Joseph Wilson.

Cooper is one of two reporters who have been held in contempt of court for not cooperating with a federal investigation into who revealed Plame's identity. Although Wilson once said he suspected Rove played a role in destroying his wife's CIA cover, the White House has dismissed questions about Rove's actions as "totally ridiculous."

In confirming the conversation between Rove and Cooper, Rove attorney Robert Luskin stressed that the presidential adviser did not reveal any secrets.

But the disclosure raised new questions about Rove and the precise role of the White House in the apparent national security breach as Cooper and another reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times, face imminent jail terms.

Time Inc., under pressure from a federal judge and over Cooper's objections, turned over e-mail records and other internal documents to a special prosecutor Friday, identifying sources Cooper used to report and write on the politically charged case. A Time spokeswoman on Saturday declined to say whether Rove was among the sources that were revealed.

Cooper and Miller could be jailed as soon as Wednesday for refusing to cooperate in the investigation. Time, which was separately held in contempt in the case, has said that it hopes its cooperation will mean Cooper will not be incarcerated. Miller and the New York Times have refused to disclose her sources; she conducted interviews, but never wrote a story on the Plame matter.

Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff and longtime political strategist, has testified before a grand jury investigating the Plame case on three occasions. His latest appearance was in October 2004, which is about the same time the prosecutor investigating the case has said his investigation was complete with the exception of the testimony of Cooper and Miller.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating the alleged outing of Plame by syndicated columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Some suspect that the White House leaked her name in retaliation for a July 6, 2003, article in the New York Times written by Wilson, her husband, accusing the administration of using bogus intelligence to justify the war in Iraq.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/03/MNGMRDILJH1.DTL

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by blueturk




In confirming the conversation between Rove and Cooper, Rove attorney Robert Luskin stressed that the presidential adviser did not reveal any secrets.

[/URL]

What would you expect his attorney to say. ???

"Yeah, KKKarl did it, but so what "

Plausible Deniability. They are now interviewing sacrificial lambs to hang this on. IT WAS ROVE

:cool:

[blueturk]

Look for Dubya to defend Rove, in a speech written by Rove.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by blueturk
Look for Dubya to defend Rove, in a speech written by Rove.

probably written a year ago ;)

:cool:

[ODShowtime]

I CAN'T believe they can actually trace the leak straight to Rove! :D

At the same time, what would resigning do? He can still communicate with gw... unless he's in jail.

Once this is all confirmed, there will be some crow to eat up in here! Whew!

[LoungeMachine]

Democrat Calls on Rove to Make Statement on Probe (Update1)
July 3 (Bloomberg) -- A Senate Democrat called on Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, to make a public statement denying any role in the 2003 leak of an undercover intelligence agent's identity.

Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said that while there is no evidence that Rove leaked the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame to reporters, Rove should address the matter himself instead of issuing denials through his attorney.

``I think the American people would feel a whole lot better if Karl Rove himself got up and made a statement that he did not leak the information, nor did he order anybody else to leak the information,'' Schumer said on ABC's ``This Week.'' ``That would totally clear his name.''

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said Sunday that Rove spoke with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper for a story about a CIA- sponsored trip to Africa that diplomat Joseph Wilson made to learn more about Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium there. Columnist Robert Novak got the story out first, which stated that Wilson was sent at the suggestion of his wife, Plame.

Luskin said in an interview that Rove ``did nothing wrong, did not disclose Plame's identity, and did not reveal any confidential information.''

Luskin said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's office asked that any matters related to the investigation not be discussed, and Luskin is ``trying to respect that request while still asserting as vigorously as possible that Karl did nothing wrong, and has been assured repeatedly by Fitzgerald's office that he is not a target of the investigation.''

Defending Rove

Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, defended Rove on ``This Week.''

``Mr. Rove has cooperated with the investigation, he's done what he should do, and there's nothing that I've seen or that anyone has pointed out that indicates he did anything other than conduct himself appropriately,'' Cornyn said.

Computer files Time turned over to prosecutors as part of a U.S. investigation show Cooper interviewed Rove three or four days before Novak's story ran, Newsweek reported Saturday.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller face possible jail sentences for refusing to divulge the sources they used while reporting on the issue. A federal judge plans to consider penalties on July 6. Time Inc., seeking to keep its reporter out of jail and avoid fines, said last week that it will hand over subpoenaed records.

Classified

Plame was a classified agent monitoring the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction for the CIA. It's a crime to knowingly identify an undercover CIA official. The White House on Sunday said Bush is still committed to finding out the truth from the investigation.

``The president's instructions from the beginning were to fully cooperate with the investigation,'' White House spokesman Taylor Gross said. ``As part of cooperating, we are not going to comment on any matters that come up during the investigative process.''

Wilson has charged that the leak was orchestrated by the White House to intimidate anyone who might challenge the Bush administration's rationale for going to war against Iraq. He charged that Rove leaked the information, then backed off the accusation. White House spokesman Scott McClellan has denied that Rove was a source of the leak.

Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney from Chicago, was appointed in 2003 by Bush to investigate who leaked Plame's identity.

[ODShowtime]

Get your Rove crap now before it all sells out:

http://www.cafepress.com/ilovekarlrove

[FORD]

Rove should make a statement. But only under oath.

[DLR'sCock]

WOW, I am totally shocked!

[ODShowtime]

By Ted Rall Mon Jul 4, 7:00 PM ET

NEW YORK--In war collaborators are more dangerous than enemy forces, for they betray with intimate knowledge in painful detail and demoralize by their cynical example. This explains why, at the end of occupations, the newly liberated exact vengeance upon their treasonous countrymen even they allow foreign troops to conduct an orderly withdrawal.

If, as state-controlled media insists, there is such a creature as a Global War on Terrorism, our enemies are underground Islamist organizations allied with or ideologically similar to those that attacked us on 9/11. But who are the collaborators?

The right points to critics like Michael Moore, yours truly, and Ward Churchill, the Colorado professor who points out the gaping chasm between America's high-falooting rhetoric and its historical record. But these bête noires are guilty only of the all-American actions of criticism and dissent, not to mention speaking uncomfortable truths to liars and deniers. As far as we know, no one on what passes for the "left" (which would be the center-right anywhere else) has betrayed the United States in the GWOT. No anti-Bush progressive has made common cause with Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or any other officially designated "terrorist" group. No American liberal has handed over classified information or worked to undermine the
CIA.

But it now appears that Karl Rove, GOP golden boy, has done exactly that.

Last week Time magazine turned over its reporter's notes to a special prosecutor assigned to learn who told Republican columnist Bob Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. The revelation, which effectively ended Plame's CIA career and may have endangered her life, followed her husband Joe Wilson's publication of a New York Times op-ed piece that embarrassed the Bush Administration by debunking its claims that
Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger. Time's cowardly decision to break its promise to a confidential source has had one beneficial side effect: according to Newsweek, it indicates that Karl Rove himself made the call to Novak.

One might have expected Rove, the master White House political strategist who engineered Bush's 2000 coup d'état and post-9/11 permanent war public relations campaign, to have ordered a flunky underling to carry out this act of high treason. But as the Arab saying goes, arrogance diminishes wisdom.

Rove, whose gaping maw recently vomited forth that Democrats didn't care about 9/11, is atypically silent. He did talk to the Time reporter but "never knowingly disclosed classified information," claims his attorney. But there's circumstantial evidence to go along with Time's leaked notes.
Ari Fleischer abruptly resigned as Bush's press secretary on May 16, 2003, about the same time the White House became aware of Ambassador Wilson's plans to go public. (Wilson's article appeared July 6.) Did Fleischer quit because he didn't want to act as spokesman for Rove's plan to betray CIA agent Plame? Another interesting coincidence: Novak published his Plame column on July 14, Fleischer's last day on the job.

If Newsweek's report is accurate, Karl Rove is more morally repugnant and more anti-American than
Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, after all, has no affiliation with, and therefore no presumed loyalty to, the United States. Rove, on the other hand, is a U.S. citizen and, as deputy White House chief of staff, a high-ranking official of the U.S. government sworn to uphold and defend our nation, its laws and its interests. Yet he sold out America just to get even with Joe Wilson.

Osama bin Laden, conversely, is loyal to his cause. He has never exposed an Al Qaeda agent's identity to the media.

"[Knowingly revealing Plame's name and undercover status to the media]...is a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and is punishable by as much as ten years in prison," notes the Washington Post. Unmasking an intelligent agent during a time of war, however, surely rises to giving aid and comfort to America's enemies--treason. Treason is punishable by execution under the United States Code.

How far up the White House food chain does the rot of treason go? "Bush has always known how to keep Rove in his place," wrote Time in 2002 about a "symbiotic relationship" that dates to 1973. This isn't some rogue "plumbers" operation. Rove would never go it alone on a high-stakes action like Valerie Plame. It's a safe bet that other, higher-ranking figures in the Bush cabal--almost certainly
Dick Cheney and possibly Bush himself--signed off before Rove called Novak. For the sake of national security, those involved should be removed from office at once.

Rove and his collaborators should quickly resign and face prosecution for betraying their country, but given their sense of personal entitlement impeachment is probably the best we can hope for. Congress, and all Americans, should place patriotism ahead of party loyalty.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050704/cm_ucru/karlroveworsethanosamabinladen;_ylt=Ammzv.8AP5d1uo yt7OdZ6Tn9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUC Ul

[Guitar Shark]

While I am giddy at the prospect of seeing Rove squirming in the hot seat, I can't see it happening here.

The Chimp will support him even if he was the leak.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
While I am giddy at the prospect of seeing Rove squirming in the hot seat, I can't see it happening here.

The Chimp will support him even if he was the leak.

Let us all join hands and pray for a Grand Jury indictment...

So say he amen.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
While I am giddy at the prospect of seeing Rove squirming in the hot seat, I can't see it happening here.

The Chimp will support him even if he was the leak.

You mean Rove will support himself, since he's the Chimp's brain?

[DLR'sCock]

Rove 'Knowingly' Refusing Interviews on Plame Leak
Editor & Publisher

Monday 04 July 2005

New York - Two days after his lawyer confirmed that his name turned up as a source in Matthew Cooper's notes on the Valerie Plame/CIA case, top White House adviser Karl Rove refused to answer questions about the development today.

Rove traveled with President Bush when he spoke at a July 4 event in West Virginia today, but refused all requests for interviews about his role in the controversy that threatens to send Cooper, of Time magazine, and Judith Miller of The New York Times to jail this week for refusing to reveal sources.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had called on Rove to clear the air on Sunday. "We've heard it from his lawyer, but it would be nice to hear it directly from Mr. Rove that he didn't leak the identity of Valerie Plame, and that he didn't direct anyone else to do such a dastardly thing," said Schumer.

Outside the presidential rally in Morgantown, one protester made reference to the case, holding a sign that read: "Jail Karl Rove," according to a New York Times dispatch.

Rove's lawyer has asserted that while he was interviewed by Cooper he was not the key source who revealed Plame's identity as a CIA agent. Rove's critics, however, suggest that he could be charged with perjury if he did not tell the truth about this to a grand jury.

Several dozen other protesters demonstrated against the war in Iraq, the paper said, chanting, "Please support our troops, not the president!" But a large turnout for the president more than countered that.

Meanwhile, Lawrence O'Donnell, the MSNBC analyst who first broke the Rove/Cooper link on Friday, wrote on the Huffington Post blog today, that Rove's lawyer had "launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client 'never knowingly disclosed classified information.' Knowingly.

"Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute (U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent 'knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States.'"




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to Original

Private Spy and Public Spouse Live at Center of Leak Case
By Scott Shane
The New York Times

Tuesday 05 July 2005

Washington - For nearly two years, the investigation into the leak of a covert C.I.A. officer's name has unfolded clamorously in the nation's capital, with partisan brawling on talk shows, prosecutors interviewing President Bush and top White House officials, and the imminent prospect that reporters could go to jail for contempt of court.

But the woman at the center of it all, Valerie E. Wilson, has kept her silence, showing the discipline and discretion that colleagues say made her a good spy. As her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, has become a highly visible critic of the administration and promoted his memoirs, Ms. Wilson has ferried their 5-year-old twins to doctors' appointments, looked after their hilltop house in the upscale Palisades neighborhood of Washington and counseled women with postpartum depression.

On June 1, after a year's unpaid leave, Ms. Wilson, now known to the country by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, returned to a new job at the Central Intelligence Agency, determined to get her career back on track, her husband said. Neither the agency nor Mr. Wilson would describe her position, except to make what might seem an obvious point: she will no longer be working under cover, as she did successfully for almost 20 years.

"Before this whole affair, no one would ever have thought of her as an undercover agent," said David Tillotson, a next-door neighbor for seven years who got to know the Wilsons well over back-fence chats, shared dinners and play dates for their grandchildren with the Wilsons' children, Trevor and Samantha.

"She wasn't mysterious," Mr. Tillotson said. "She was sort of a working soccer mom."

He recalled his incredulity on July 14, 2003, when his wife, Victoria, spotted in The Washington Post, in a syndicated column by Robert Novak, a line identifying their neighbor by her maiden name and calling her an "agency operative." Ms. Tillotson kept calling out: "This can't be! This can't be!"

The Wilsons' neighbor on the other side, Christopher Wolf, was similarly aghast. As he sat on his deck staring at the Novak column, Mr. Wilson came out his back door.

"I said: 'This is amazing! I had no idea,' " Mr. Wolf recalled. "He sort of motioned to me to keep my voice down."

A Jaguar-driving, cigar-smoking, silver-haired former ambassador, Mr. Wilson, 55, interpreted the leak of his wife's C.I.A. connection as an act of vengeance from White House officials for his public accusations of deceit in building a case for the Iraq war. Days before the leak, he had gone public in a New York Times Op-Ed article and television appearances to charge that the administration had covered up his own debunking of reports that Iraq had bought uranium in Africa.

What he calls a "smear campaign" against the couple has catalyzed his transformation from nonpartisan diplomat - he worked closely with the first President Bush and his top aides during the first gulf war - to anti-Bush activist.

On Wednesday, a federal judge is expected to decide whether two reporters, Judith Miller of The Times and Matt Cooper of Time magazine, will go to jail for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigation into the leak. That the leaker appears willing to permit journalists to be incarcerated rather than taking public responsibility for his actions simply shows the leaker's "cravenness and cowardice," Mr. Wilson said.

It is not known what information, if any, Mr. Novak supplied to prosecutors, but he is not facing jail time.

Meanwhile, Ms. Wilson, 42, whose husband said she has used her married name both at work and in her personal life since their 1998 marriage, declined to speak for this article. She has guarded her privacy, with rare exceptions. She posed with her husband for a Vanity Fair photographer, wearing sunglasses and with a scarf over her blond hair. She drafted an op-ed article to correct what she felt were distortions of her and her husband's actions, but the C.I.A. would not authorize its publication, saying it would "affect the agency's ability to perform its mission."

Former C.I.A. officers differ on the impact of Mr. Novak's identification of Ms. Wilson, who had been working against weapons proliferation in Europe and elsewhere while posing as an analyst for a shell company in Boston, Brewster Jennings & Associates, set up by the agency.

Clandestine service officers working under such "nonofficial cover" - rather than the traditional guise of diplomat - are considered to hold the most sensitive and vulnerable jobs in intelligence, lacking the protection of diplomatic immunity if they are unmasked overseas. Disclosing the C.I.A. employment of officers under cover can endanger the officers, their operations and their agents, as well as violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the law that prompted the current leak investigation.

"This situation has been very hard on her, professionally and personally," said Melissa Boyle Mahle, a former C.I.A. case officer and a friend of Ms. Wilson. "Not only have you removed from the playing field a very knowledgeable counterproliferation officer at a time when we really need her services. But before this she was on a fast track as a candidate for senior management at the agency. With something like this, her career will never recover."

But other former C.I.A. officers say that by 2003 Ms. Wilson's cover was already thin. Any serious inquiry would have revealed that Brewster Jennings was little more than a mailbox. Though she traveled regularly, Ms. Wilson, who speaks French, German and Greek, had been working for some time at agency headquarters in Langley, Va. And her marriage to a senior American diplomat, Mr. Wilson, ended any pretense of having no government ties.

"At that point, she looks, walks and quacks like an overt agency employee," said Fred Rustmann, a C.I.A. officer from 1966 to 1990, who supervised Ms. Wilson early in her career and calls her "one of the best, an excellent officer."

Yet outside the spy world, word of her real employment came as a shock. To have such a carefully nurtured identity shattered in a single stroke was traumatic, Mr. Wilson said. "Your whole network of personal relationships over 20 years are compromised," he said.

Ms. Wilson had to explain to friends and relatives that she had never leveled with them since joining the agency shortly after graduating from Pennsylvania State University with a degree in journalism in 1984.

"My sister-in-law turned to my brother," Mr. Wilson recalled, "and said, 'Do you think Joe knew?' "

Joe knew. As their relationship grew serious after they met at a 1997 reception at the Turkish ambassador's residence, Valerie Plame revealed her real job to Mr. Wilson, who had a top secret clearance. Three months after they married, he retired from the State Department after a 23-year career that included an ambassadorship to two countries, Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe. Now he consults on business projects in Africa as J. C. Wilson International Ventures.

Their marriage was her second and his third; he is also the father of 26-year-old twins from his first marriage. Friends say that after the birth of their twins in 2000, Ms. Wilson suffered postpartum depression, which prompted her to become active in helping other mothers.

The Wilsons have had a low-key social life, friends say. Mr. Wilson said they had attended only one "A-list Washington party," given by Ben Bradlee, the retired Washington Post editor. Before July 2003, some neighbors knew them from the playground only as "Trevor and Samantha's mom and dad."

Their turn in the limelight changed that temporarily, as liberal celebrities embraced them; they were honored in late 2003 at a dinner at the guesthouse of the television producer Norman Lear, with guest list that included Warren Beatty.

The couple's actions in 2002 have become, in the polarized politics of the Iraq war, subject to divergent interpretation. All agree that Mr. Wilson traveled to Niger in February 2002 at the C.I.A.'s request to assess reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium there. There the agreement ends.

In the version of his Republican critics, laid out in part by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee last year, Mr. Wilson's trip was a junket orchestrated by his wife. Further, the critics say, Mr. Wilson's findings on the uranium question were equivocal. But as a partisan Democrat, they say, he exploited his minor involvement to attack the president, asserting that Mr. Bush misled the American people by citing the questionable uranium claim in his 2003 State of the Union address.

Mr. Wilson has laid out his own account in interviews and in his memoir, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies That Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's C.I.A. Identity." The 514-page book, which features on the back cover photographs of Mr. Wilson with the first President Bush, President Bill Clinton and Saddam Hussein, has sold 60,000 copies in hardcover, according to the publisher, Carroll & Graf. The just-published paperback includes an 11,000-word essay by Russ Hoyle, an investigative reporter recruited by Carroll & Graf to examine factual disputes raised by the case.

Mr. Wilson said that though his wife wrote a memorandum describing his expertise at the request of a C.I.A. superior, she did not propose him for the Niger trip. He scoffs at the notion that a trip to one of the poorest countries on earth, for which he was paid only his expenses, was some kind of prize.

He has acknowledged he may have misspoken about a few details, like the date he became aware of forged documents purporting to show a uranium sale. But conservatives' attacks on his credibility, he said, are merely an effort to distract Americans from a far graver fact: that the United States went to war on the basis of flimsy, distorted evidence.

"I'm deeply saddened that the debate before the war did not adequately take into consideration issues that a number of us had raised," Mr. Wilson said.

While his wife has shunned publicity, he has become an always-available news media voice, lending the weight of international experience and insider status to criticism of Mr. Bush's conduct of the war.

Despite conservatives' efforts to portray him as a left-wing extremist, he insisted he remained a centrist at heart. But after his tangle with the current administration, he admits "it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a Republican, even for dog catcher."

Mr. Wilson ended a long interview in a downtown hotel when he realized he was late to pick up the twins. As the first gulf war loomed, and Mr. Wilson was the last American official to meet with Saddam Hussein, his older twins, Joe and Sabrina, were 12 years old, and worried that their father might not make it out of Baghdad to join them in the United States, he said.

During this war with Iraq, the gravest danger to him has been political vilification. He and his wife, Mr. Wilson said, have tried to insulate their children from the hubbub that followed the leak of her name.

It has not always been easy. Once, when Trevor was 3, he recognized his father on yet another show.

"He banged on the TV," Mr. Wilson recalled, "and said, 'Dad, get out of the box!' "

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
No American liberal has handed over classified information or worked to undermine the
CIA.



No, just eight years of massive under-funding from a liberal administration in the 1990's. Not to mention out-of-control reduction in defense spending that has led to our boys being ill-equipped in this current engagement. A typical DOD procurement cylce is 2-4 years. Figure it out your self. :mad:

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
No, just eight years of massive under-funding from a liberal administration in the 1990's. Not to mention out-of-control reduction in defense spending that has led to our boys being ill-equipped in this current engagement. A typical DOD procurement cylce is 2-4 years. Figure it out your self. :mad:

:gulp:

Leaving CLINTON aside for a moment..........

Simple Question:

IF Rove did indeed leak the name of a covert CIA operative, which is a FELONY, should he have to AT LEAST step down???

Yes or NO Bri.......

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Leaving CLINTON aside for a moment..........

Simple Question:

IF Rove did indeed leak the name of a covert CIA operative, which is a FELONY, should he have to AT LEAST step down???

Yes or NO Bri.......

Goddamn right he should.

:gulp:

[Scout]

Can't let one slip up make us forget about all the good the mans done, can we?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Scout
Can't let one slip up make us forget about all the good the mans done, can we?

Holy Shit. :rolleyes:

A newbie or an alias. Only time will tell.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Goddamn right he should.

:gulp:

Excellent.

Thanks.

:cool:

[Scout]

Just my opinion bro.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Holy Shit. :rolleyes:

A newbie or an alias. Only time will tell.

:gulp:

I call Joe Thunder Alias

Look at the hobbies:rolleyes:

[Scout]

I just feel people are too quick to condemn that's all. I would like to see about becoming a mod as well.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Scout
I just feel people are too quick to condemn that's all. I would like to see about becoming a mod as well.

wonderful.

If you last over 2,000 posts without getting banned, we'll put your name on the list:rolleyes:

[Scout]

why would i be banned, because I disagree. Freedom of speech is what makes this country great.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
No, just eight years of massive under-funding from a liberal administration in the 1990's. Not to mention out-of-control reduction in defense spending that has led to our boys being ill-equipped in this current engagement. A typical DOD procurement cylce is 2-4 years. Figure it out your self. :mad:

:gulp:

Decent point, but gw has also done a great job scaring away tons of experienced field officers with old hack n' slash Goss. Pretty much everyone who didn't march in complete lockstep with gw&friend's crazy world. Which means most of the sane people!

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I call Joe Thunder Alias

Look at the hobbies:rolleyes:

Eatin' pussy and beatin' off.

Just lovely. :rolleyes:

[Scout]

He must be doing something right, his approval ratings at a new all time high dickhead. Fuck this site.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Scout
He must be doing something right, his approval ratings at a new all time high dickhead. Fuck this site.

Jeesus H Christ:rolleyes:

Who's doing your polling?

FAUX ?

RASH ?

Yes, fuck this site indeed.

You sure showed us some serious MOD potential. [ what did you make it to before bailing??......9 posts? ]

Here, Scout, c'mon boy. fetch the stick. fetch the stick.

:cool:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
No, just eight years of massive under-funding from a liberal administration in the 1990's. Not to mention out-of-control reduction in defense spending that has led to our boys being ill-equipped in this current engagement. A typical DOD procurement cylce is 2-4 years. Figure it out your self. :mad:

:gulp:

" 8 years of massive under-funding" did NOT produce this war plan that never took into consideration an insurgency.

Nor did it produce Abu Grahib, pourous borders, unchecked munitition caches, and a host of other major league FUCK UPS.

This was Rummy's debacle from the get go. And his head should roll.

Nevermind the Chalabi/Curveball fiasco, Halliburton/KBR rip offs, and every other clusterfuck that has happened on his watch.





whew.

I feel better now:cool:

BRING 'EM HOME ALIVE AND WELL, PLEASE

[LoungeMachine]

Updated: 05:39 PM EDT
White House Mum on Karl Rove Revelation
Bush Said Previously the Leaker of a CIA Agent's Name Would Be Fired
By PETE YOST, AP


WASHINGTON (July 11) - For the better part of two years, the word coming out of the Bush White House was that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a female CIA officer's identity and that whoever did would be fired.

But Bush spokesman Scott McClellan wouldn't repeat those claims Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledging the political operative spoke to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, one of the reporters who disclosed Valerie Plame's name.

McLellan repeatedly said he couldn't comment because the matter is under investigation. When it was pointed out he had commented previously even though the investigation was ongoing, he responded: ''I've really said all I'm going to say on it.''

Democrats jumped on the issue, calling for the administration to fire Rove, or at least to yank his security clearance. One Democrat pushed for Republicans to hold a congressional hearing in which Rove would testify.

''The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration,'' said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ''I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security.''

The investigation into the 2003 leak had largely faded into the background until last week, when New York Times reporter Judith Miller went to jail rather than reveal who in the administration talked to her about Plame.

Cooper also had planned to go to jail rather than reveal his source but at the last minute agreed to cooperate with investigators when a source, Rove, gave him permission to do so. Cooper's employer, Time Inc., also turned over Cooper's e-mail and notes.


One of the e-mails was a note from Cooper to his boss in which he said he had spoken to Rove, who described the wife of former U.S. Ambassador and Bush administration critic Joe Wilson as someone who ''apparently works'' at the CIA, Newsweek magazine reported.

Within days of the July 11, 2003, e-mail, Cooper's byline was on a Time article identifying Wilson's wife by name - Valerie Plame. Her identity was first disclosed by columnist Robert Novak.

The e-mail did not say Rove had disclosed the name. but it made clear that Rove had discussed the issue.

That ran counter to what McClellan has been saying. For example, in September and October 2003, McClellan's comments about Rove included the following: ''The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved,'' ''It was a ridiculous suggestion,'' and, ''It's not true.''

Reporters seized on the subject Monday, pressing McClellan to either repeat the denials or explain why he can't now.

''I have said for quite some time that this is an ongoing investigation and we're not going to get into discussing it,'' McClellan replied.

Asked whether Rove committed a crime, McClellan said, ''This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation.''

Rove declined to comment Monday and referred questions to his attorney. Last year, he said, ''I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name.''

The Rove disclosure was an embarrassment for a White House that prides itself on not leaking to reporters and has insisted that Rove was not involved in exposing Plame's identity.

The disclosure also left in doubt whether Bush would carry out his promise to fire anyone found to have leaked the CIA operative's identity. Rove is one of the president's closest confidants - the man Bush has described as the architect of his re-election, and currently deputy White House chief of staff.

Rove's conversation with Cooper took place five days after Plame's husband suggested in a New York Times op-ed piece that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq. Wilson has since suggested his wife's name was leaked as retaliation.

The e-mail that Cooper wrote to his bureau chief said Wilson's wife authorized a trip by Wilson to Africa. The purpose was to check out reports that Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake uranium for use in nuclear weapons. Wilson's subsequent public criticism of the administration was based on his findings during the trip that cast serious doubt on the allegation that Iraq had tried to obtain the material.

Luskin, Rove's lawyer, said his client did not disclose Plame's name. Luskin declined to say how Rove found out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and refused to say how Rove came across the information that it was Wilson's wife who authorized his trip to Africa.

Rove's lawyer says his client has done nothing wrong.

''In the conversation, Karl is warning Cooper not to get too far out in front of the story,'' Luskin said. ''There were false allegations out there that Vice President Cheney sent Wilson to Niger and that Wilson had reported back to Cheney about his trip to Niger. Neither was true.''

''A fair-minded reading of Cooper's e-mail is that Rove was trying to discourage Time magazine from circulating false allegations about Cheney, not trying to encourage them by saying anything about Wilson or his wife.''

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and a private group, Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, called on Bush to suspend Roves security clearances, shutting him out of classified meetings.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., asked the Republican chairman of the House Government Reform Committee to hold a hearing where Rove would testify.

Rove should resign or the president should fire him, said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the liberal advocacy group, MoveOn PAC.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., asked Rove to detail any conversations he had about Plame before her name surfaced publicly in Novak's column.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine



McLellan repeatedly said he couldn't comment because the matter is under investigation. When it was pointed out he had commented previously even though the investigation was ongoing, he responded: ''I've really said all I'm going to say on it.''



JUST ADMIT YOU LIED, AND THAT YOU HAVE NO CRED WITH THE WH PRESS CORP ANY LONGER SCOTTY, YOU LITTLE GANNON SUCKING FAGGOT

[Nickdfresh]

John Kerry:
To Who It May Concern,

Less than two weeks ago, you signed a petition joining members of the johnkerry.com community in calling for Karl Rove to be fired for his deliberate attempt to, once again, use the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks to divide America. Now Karl Rove is embroiled in another controversy concerning the leaked identity of a covert CIA agent, which Bush Administration senior officials said was done to punish her husband, a man who had the courage to tell the truth about manipulated intelligence in Iraq.

Karl Rove is the President's top advisor in the White House and what he has admitted doing has deep and troubling consequences for our national security.

Just today the President spoke at Quantico praising our soldiers and the employees of the FBI, CIA, and DEA for their work rooting out terrorism.

He told them, "Your work is difficult. It is dangerous. I want you to know how much your country appreciates you, and so do I."

But at the same time the President was saying these words, it was becoming clear that his top advisor was involved in exposing a CIA agent in the name of politics by telling reporters about her work - making her already dangerous job that much more dangerous.

In order to do what the President called on us to do today - "continue to take the fight to the enemy" - the White House and Karl Rove must stop taking it to their so-called political enemies here at home.

It's perfectly clear that Rove - the person at the center of the slash and burn, smear and divide tactics that have come to characterize the Bush Administration - has to go.

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php

The problem is that, instead of protecting the American people from real threats to our security, this Administration spends its time protecting Karl Rove. That's not leadership.

They're doing their best to brush off this new Rove controversy as just another political story, but this time they are having a harder time getting away with it. That's why, if we raise our voices now, we can really make a difference. Please ask all your friends to sign our "Fire Rove" petition today:

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php

Despite carefully worded denials, it is now apparent that Karl Rove discussed the identity of an undercover CIA agent with a reporter. His clear aim was to discredit that agent's husband who had dared to challenge the Administration in the buildup to the war.

There appears to be no limit to the lengths to which Rove - and this Administration - will go. But, there is a limit to the patience of the American people - and we have reached it. President Bush has a choice to make: Spend the months ahead focused on protecting Karl Rove's job security or spend them focused on protecting America's national security.

We are asking the President and the White House to do what they promised. When the scandal first broke, here's what the President's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said:

"If anyone in this Administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this Administration." (9/29/03, White House press briefing). Now we will find out if the Administration is good to its word. Call on President Bush to keep his word and fire Rove now:

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php

It's as simple as this: We need President Bush and his White House staff to focus on finally taking action necessary to avoid a quagmire in Iraq. The American people can't afford to wait while the White House spends its time and energy defending a top presidential aide's dangerous political shenanigans.

What the President does in the days ahead will speak volumes. He'll either make good on his promise to hold accountable those who shared the identity of a secret soldier in the war on terror - or he'll prove that promise hollow.

We now know that Karl Rove "was involved" in a breach of national security. Decency - and the interests of the American people - demand an end to Karl Rove's days in the White House. It's time for you to demand it as well.

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php

I urge you to take action right now.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

[Big Train]

Yes he must step down and yes he must be prosecuted. This would be in addition of course to the other real criminals here, the reporters and the editor of the paper who DID publish it, regardless of who said.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Big Train
Yes he must step down and yes he must be prosecuted. This would be in addition of course to the other real criminals here, the reporters and the editor of the paper who DID publish it, regardless of who said.


You know it's big and bad when BT steps across the party line to say it like it is.

Thanks for letting your politics be more about principles than a person, BT.

[blueturk]

This is about the entire Bush administration, not just Rove.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5133924,00.html

Leak Quotes

Monday July 11, 2005 10:31 PM


By The Associated Press

Some of the denials, other comments, at media briefings by White House spokesman Scott McClellan when asked by reporters whether President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was involved in the leak of a CIA officer's identity:

^Sept. 29, 2003

Q: You said this morning, quote, ``The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved.'' How does he know that?

A: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. ... I've said that it's not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

Q: It doesn't take much for the president to ask a senior official working for him, to just lay the question out for a few people and end this controversy today.

A: Do you have specific information to bring to our attention? ... Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that.''

Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, ``Did you ever have this information?''

A: I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

^---

^Oct. 7, 2003

Q: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff), Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams (National Security Council official) to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

A: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

^---

^Oct. 10, 2003

Q: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

Q: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Q: They were not involved in what?

A: The leaking of classified information.

^---

July 11, 2005:

Q: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose?

A: I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved.

A: You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: I'm saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved?

A: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to be commenting on it nor is ... .

Q: Any remorse?

A: Nor is the White House, because the president wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what we're doing.


Advertiser links
Refinance Rates Hit Record Lows
Get $150,000 loan for $720 per month. Refinance while rates...

[Cathedral]

Bush knows that if he doesn't keep his word the roof will fall in on him.
But his comments, "They will be dealt with", already seems like posturing to backstep away from that promise.

I'd like the entire Administration investigated from top to bottom, just for my own peace of mind.

Rove isn't the only one i would like to see sent packing either.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by academic punk
You know it's big and bad when BT steps across the party line to say it like it is.

Thanks for letting your politics be more about principles than a person, BT.

THat is the way it is everyday Punk, but thanks for noticing.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
Yes he must step down and yes he must be prosecuted. This would be in addition of course to the other real criminals here, the reporters and the editor of the paper who DID publish it, regardless of who said.

I don't know who you are, bub, or what the FUCK you think you're doing, but we are NOT going to stand by and let you hack into BT's CP and use his screen name, regardless of how much sense you're making.

We know the real BT, and you're just looking for trouble posting as him.

I'm calling Sarge:cool:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Big Train
Yes he must step down and yes he must be prosecuted. This would be in addition of course to the other real criminals here, the reporters and the editor of the paper who DID publish it, regardless of who said.

It's pretty much black and white now isn't it?

Funny about the timing of those bombs in London. That sure is an attention grabber!

[Guitar Shark]

If I'm understanding this issue correctly, Rove is denying that he disclosed "Plame's name." In an email Rove sent to Cooper, he said that "Wilson's wife" "apparently works" at the CIA.

This is his defense? That instead of saying "Plame" he said "Wilson's wife"?

Am I missing something?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Yes he must step down and yes he must be prosecuted. This would be in addition of course to the other real criminals here, the reporters and the editor of the paper who DID publish it, regardless of who said.

Geezus, I hate it when you rise above petty partisanship and stand-up for what is right and what is true. Bastard!:mad:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
If I'm understanding this issue correctly, Rove is denying that he disclosed "Plame's name." In an email Rove sent to Cooper, he said that "Wilson's wife" "apparently works" at the CIA.

This is his defense? That instead of saying "Plame" he said "Wilson's wife"?

Am I missing something?

I saw some former prosecutor turned commentator on CNN saying that ROVE has already been told he will not be investigated further? WTF?! A journalist that never wrote a word about this is rotting in jail! Rove effectively committed perjury, as well as a felony by revealing a CIA agents name. Are they that fucking blatantly arrogant and politicized?:confused: :mad:

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
If I'm understanding this issue correctly, Rove is denying that he disclosed "Plame's name." In an email Rove sent to Cooper, he said that "Wilson's wife" "apparently works" at the CIA.

This is his defense? That instead of saying "Plame" he said "Wilson's wife"?

Am I missing something?

Al Franken on Air America this morning pointed out that, using Google or any other common search engine, you could get the name "Valerie Plame" from "Wilson's Wife" in less than 6 minutes, presumably by locating a bio of Joe Wilson which would mention his wife's name. It wouldn't have to mention her occupation, since that would have been already known by the searcher.

So unless Joe Wilson is a Mormon and has more than one wife (and he isn't), Rove "outed" Plame whether he mentioned her by name or not.


"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."

~George H. W. Bush 26 April 1999

[Guitar Shark]

This is eerily reminiscent of Clinton's "depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Of course, the national security interest is more prominent here. I just don't see how Bush can keep Rove in his administration, after promising to fire anyone responsible for the leak. I'm sure he'll find a way, though.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
This is eerily reminiscent of Clinton's "depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Of course, the national security interest is more prominent here. I just don't see how Bush can keep Rove in his administration, after promising to fire anyone responsible for the leak. I'm sure he'll find a way, though.

Too easy.....

Rove "resigns" from his official White House position, but continues to be the Chimp's brain via telephone/teleconferencing/closed circuit whatever from Texas.

As much as I'd love to see him dragged away in handcuffs and ankle bracelets, I doubt he'll ever do one day behind bars :(

[academic punk]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Media_Watch

[Guitar Shark]

Maybe, although I have a hard time envisioning him resigning. The arrogance of these people is mind-blowing. Resignation would be a sign of weakness and my bet is that they find a way to keep him in office.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Maybe, although I have a hard time envisioning him resigning. The arrogance of these people is mind-blowing. Resignation would be a sign of weakness and my bet is that they find a way to keep him in office.


I agree.

These are the people who ran on "restoring integrity to the White House". No way do they ever show any hint of their corruption.

[Guitar Shark]

http://www.borowitzreport.com/Default.asp

UNNAMED WHITE HOUSE SOURCE DENIES LEAK

White House Denies Leaking Denial

An unnamed White House source last night vigorously denied leaking classified information about a CIA operative, sending the White House scrambling to identify the source of the leaked denial.

The unnamed source, who identified himself only as “Rarl Kove,” leaked a strongly worded denial of the previous leak in phone conversations with over two hundred newspaper columnists across the country.

“We are not in the business of leaking information,” the unnamed source said.

Ben Trimble, a political columnist for the Canton (OH) Star-Ledger, attempted to STAR-69 the call in order to identify the source of the leaked denial, but to no avail.

“It wouldn’t disclose the phone number or the location,” Mr. Trimble said. “That kind of made me think it was Cheney.”

White House Scott McClellan said that the Administration would launch a “full investigation” into the leaked denials.

“If someone is out there denying leaks, that is very serious business,” Mr. McClellan said. “Denying leaks is my job.”

But moments after Mr. McClellan spoke, columnists received a new round of anonymous phone calls, this time denying that the White House had been the source of the earlier denials.

As the number of anonymous leaks from the White House mounts to a dozen or more a day, newspaper columnists are increasingly signing up for the Federal “do not call” list to keep unnamed White House sources from bothering them at home.

“The first couple of leaks I didn’t mind,” said the Star-Ledger’s Trimble. “But these guys keep calling me at dinnertime.”

Elsewhere, filmmaker Oliver Stone announced that he would direct a movie about 9/11 in which the attacks are masterminded by former president Richard M. Nixon.

[Warham]

I have no comment at this time.

[academic punk]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Media_Watch

This story ain't gonna go away.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Warham
I have no comment at this time.

I do.

On Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich said Karl Rove is innocent.

:D

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I do.

On Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich said Karl Rove is innocent.

:D

:gulp:

Well shit then.

It's over.

Take that to the bank :rolleyes:

OReilly, Gingrich, and Rove.

3 names that come to mind when I think "credible" :D


Nice to know someone still watches O'Really:cool:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by academic punk
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Media_Watch

This story ain't gonna go away.

Look for Scotty to step down before August :cool:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I do.

On Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich said Karl Rove is innocent.

:D

:gulp:

So he should be executed for treason, you're saying?;)

[thome]

In all fairness shouldn't the one to blame be the one who
released roves comments? If were as Americans so concerned
with National Security?

[Serling]

Wouldn't "Poppy" Bush be incensed over this, seeing his C.I.A. connections?

Very interesting...................

[academic punk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I do.

On Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich said Karl Rove is innocent.

:D

:gulp:

Didn't McClellan tell us that 18 months ago?

Even if what Rove did is technically still within the bounds of "legality", it's undeniably sleazy.

It's the equivalent of someone shouting in the middle of a Bush Town hall appearance "I am going to kill the President!!", and then attempting a defense of "How do you know I meant the President of the United States? How do you know I wasn't talking about the President of the local glee club?"

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by academic punk


"I am going to kill the President!!",


That knock on your door will be the Secret Service

Can I have your turtle collection? :cool:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
That knock on your door will be the Secret Service

Can I have your turtle collection? :cool:

I knew someone would attempt to take that statement out of context and create their own FIX News style soundbite.

I just figured it'd be Guitar Shark, since he too is a card carrying member of National Association of Men and Turtle Lovers of America and would attempt to steal Timmy and Sheila out from under me...

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Resignation would be a sign of weakness and my bet is that they find a way to keep him in office.

Resignation would also be admitting that a mistake was made, or that someone in the Bush administration was wrong about something. These people are so arrogant that they don't even realize their own ineptitude, or else they simply refuse to.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

[academic punk]

Originally posted by blueturk
Resignation would also be admitting that a mistake was made

But no mistake was made. Don't ever think that what happened here was a mistake.

This is an example of their corruption that finally stuck. Period.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by academic punk
But no mistake was made. Don't ever think that what happened here was a mistake.

This is an example of their corruption that finally stuck. Period.

Good point. I was taking their corruption for granted.

"[W]e've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them, and I want to know who the leakers are." —George W. Bush, Chicago, Sept. 30, 2003

[Warham]

Finally, the Bush administration has committed an unethical gaff. A few more, and they'll catch up to the previous administration.

[Serling]

President Bush senior branned this type of particular "gaff" treason in the 1970's. Is that anything to make light of?

[thome]

In all fairness shouldn't the one to blame be the one who
released roves comments? If were as Americans so concerned
with National Security?


[Post #57]
Originally posted by thome
In all fairness shouldn't the one to blame be the one who
released roves comments? If were as Americans so concerned
with National Security?

quick quote

"we are" in there you know

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Finally, the Bush administration has committed an unethical gaff. A few more, and they'll catch up to the previous administration.


wow...an admission. an acknowledgement. a back-handed one, but, whaddya know, there it is.

[Serling]

Originally posted by thome
In all fairness shouldn't the one to blame be the one who
released roves comments? If were as Americans so concerned
with National Security?


[Post #57]

quick quote

"we are" in there you know

Knowingly breaking a law is STILL a crime in this country. Don't fool yourself into tinking Rove didn't know EXACTLY what he was doing.
Maybe you condone this type of behavior, but still see red when a sitting President has extra-marital affairs.
Wake up and smell the hypocrisy.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
That knock on your door will be the Secret Service

Can I have your turtle collection? :cool:


I've already dispatched the black helicopters. You'd better hurry.

:gun:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham




unethical gaff.






unfuckingbelievable :rolleyes:

unethical gaff ?

Did I read that right, or am I "reading into" your posts again.

You now have less cred than Scotty McClellen

How's that feel, skippy ? :cool:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
unfuckingbelievable :rolleyes:

unethical gaff ?

Did I read that right, or am I "reading into" your posts again.

You now have less cred than Scotty McClellen

How's that feel, skippy ? :cool:

You didn't misread it. I said that the Bush administration's got some catching up to do if they want to be as unethical as the previous administration.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
unfuckingbelievable :rolleyes:

unethical gaff ?

Did I read that right, or am I "reading into" your posts again.

You now have less cred than Scotty McClellen

How's that feel, skippy ? :cool:

I bet his nipples are hard.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by blueturk
Resignation would also be admitting that a mistake was made, or that someone in the Bush administration was wrong about something. These people are so arrogant that they don't even realize their own ineptitude, or else they simply refuse to.



I guess its just business as usual in Washington then, huh?

That's pretty much how it's always been done.

What makes you Democrats so fucking special just because a Republican is now in Office?

:gulp:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
unfuckingbelievable :rolleyes:

unethical gaff ?

Did I read that right, or am I "reading into" your posts again.

You now have less cred than Scotty McClellen

How's that feel, skippy ? :cool:

Scott McClellen isn't supposed to have 'cred', Lounge. He's a Press Secretary. He reads what's handed to him by Karl Rove. There's no 'cred' in that job.

:rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham



unethical gaff.





When a high ranking white house official, and close advisor to The President of The United States, in retaliation for being caught using FAKE "intelligence" to support going to WAR, decides to get back at the critic by outing to a reporter the fact that their WIFE is a covert CIA operative working on WMD, and then lie about.

unethical gaff






:rolleyes:


Can't wait for your term for Tom DeLay

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
You didn't misread it. I said that the Bush administration's got some catching up to do if they want to be as unethical as the previous administration.

How does enjoying a blowjob from a voluptuous young woman equate with outting a CIA operatives identity, with all the repurcussions that might come about from such an action?

In all seriousness, what are some of the other lapses you in ethics the Clinton admin had? And does one justify the other anyway?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I
What makes you Democrats so fucking special just because a Republican is now in Office?

:gulp:

Nothing.

That's our point. :cool:

Isn't it time for YOUR PARTY'S "unethical gaffs" to be exposed for what they are?

;)

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Scott McClellen isn't supposed to have 'cred', Lounge. He's a Press Secretary. He reads what's handed to him by Karl Rove. There's no 'cred' in that job.

:rolleyes:


The WHITE HOUSE Press Secretary isn't supposed to have credibility? Really? Who should then?

Oh, I see. You say, "Rove". Okay. I'll go wityh your premise. So Scotty is just a mouthpiece, and Rove is the one who'ssupposed to have scredility and integrity. and...uh...what's the title of this thread again?

[Warham]

Tom DeLay?

You mean the guy who paid his wife and daughter for working on his campaign?

Gee, I don't think any other Congressman would do something so unethical!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Finally, the Bush administration has committed an unethical gaff. A few more, and they'll catch up to the previous administration.

The BUSH ADMINISTRATION/Lil' TURD BLOSSOM shit shroom connection has committed many unethical gaffes, starting with their racist smear campaign of McCAIN in 2000.

You're just so overflowing with KOOL-AID WAR, that you'd just prefer to look over them because "the end justifys the means..."

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Tom DeLay?

You mean the guy who paid his wife and daughter for working on his campaign?

Gee, I don't think any other Congressman would do something so unethical!

If that's the extent of your knowledge of Tom DeLay's ethics problems, then you're not well read intellect you purport to be:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

give me a break :cool:

[Warham]

Originally posted by academic punk
How does enjoying a blowjob from a voluptuous young woman equate with outting a CIA operatives identity, with all the repurcussions that might come about from such an action?

In all seriousness, what are some of the other lapses you in ethics the Clinton admin had? And does one justify the other anyway?

Ask and ye shall receive!!

Top 50 countdown of the most unethical acts during the Clinton Administration...

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9694/Hook/ioHooksTOC.html

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
\


You're just so overflowing with KOOL-AID WAR, that you'd just prefer to look over them because "the end justifys the means..."


And that , my friends, is Warpig in a nutshell.


game.
set.
match.


Who's got next? :cool:

[thome]

Originally posted by Serling
Knowingly breaking a law is STILL a crime in this country. Don't fool yourself into tinking Rove didn't know EXACTLY what he was doing.
Maybe you condone this type of behavior, but still see red when a sitting President has extra-marital affairs.
Wake up and smell the hypocrisy.

I have said nothing like that or did i in my quote.
IS IT NOT ABOUT ---WHO--- revealed the statement and
is a traitor to OUR county.The reporter should be on trail.
Ro made a mistake .WHO released the info to the PUBLIC.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Ask and ye shall receive!!

Top 50 countdown of the most unethical acts in the Clinton Administration...

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9694/Hook/ioHooksTOC.html

And there only about 81% fabrications...Like the new book on HILLARY CLINTON, spurious inventions and fact twisting.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Ask and ye shall receive!!

Top 50 countdown of the most unethical acts in the Clinton Administration...

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9694/Hook/ioHooksTOC.html

cool. I'm logging out now, but I will definitely give this a read in the morning.

night all.

if manhattan gets nuked tongiht, twas nice knowing y'all.

[academic punk]

Except for Thome. he's a pain in the ass.

[Serling]

Originally posted by thome
I have said nothing like that or did i in my quote.
IS IT NOT ABOUT ---WHO--- revealed the statement and
is a traitor to OUR county.The reporter should be on trail.
Ro made a mistake .WHO released the info to the PUBLIC.

If I give you a stolen gun and you go out and murder someone with it, I HAVE STILL BROKEN THE LAW.

What ROVE did is considered a TREASONABLE ACT. Wake up.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And there only about 81% fabrications...Like the new book on HILLARY CLINTON, spurious inventions and fact twisting.

Then you won't mind going over that list with me and figuring out just what is fact and fiction. You aren't getting away that easy! Dismissing it without even reading it first. Shame on you!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Then you won't mind going over that list with me and figuring out just what is fact and fiction. You aren't getting away that easy! Dismissing it without even reading it first. Shame on you!

Fine, let's get an independent counsel to investigate this? Oh wait, CLINTON's the most investigated PRESIDENT in history...

Let's move into the present and do the same.;)

[Warham]

Chicken...

;)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Chicken...

;)

I don't feel like rehashing pointless shit from the past...

Do you have iTunes WAR?

[Warham]

No, I don't.

How is it?

[thome]

Originally posted by Serling
If I give you a stolen gun and you go out and murder someone with it, I HAVE STILL BROKEN THE LAW.

What ROVE did is considered a TREASONABLE ACT. Wake up.

A little slower next time?

What part of Released the info to the public do you not GET?

[thome]

Any honest american concerned as you are. If accidental info
came into your hands would you try a make a Buck on it.??

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, I don't.

How is it?

Pretty good really, I no longer buy the lossless tunes.:) But they give you free "Podcasts" now, I'm listening to AL FRANKEN skewer the prick whole slagged Clinton with lies and really, really shitty "reporting." In fact he admits he's made many factual errors in the book, but he did it for money more than anything else...And many of his biggest critics are conservatives.

Ed KLEIN is his name.

[DLR'sCock]

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050710183509990003


Bush Doesn't Respond to Question About Rove
Spokesman Says Anyone Working at White House Has President's Confidence
By PETE YOST, AP


APPresident Bush with Karl Rove in September of 2003

WASHINGTON (July 12) - After two days of questions, the White House said Tuesday that President Bush continues to have confidence in Karl Rove, the presidential adviser at the center of the investigation into the leak identifying a female CIA officer. Meanwhile, prominent Democrats are calling for Rove to be fired.

Bush did not respond to a reporter's question Tuesday about whether he would fire Rove, in keeping with a June 2004 pledge to dismiss any leakers of Valerie Plame's identity.

At a White House briefing afterward, spokesman Scott McClellan was pressed about Rove's future.

''Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the president's confidence,'' McClellan said.

The White House said two years ago that Rove wasn't involved in the leak. According to a July 2003 e-mail that surfaced over the weekend, Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that the woman ''apparently works'' for the CIA. It added that the woman had authorized a trip to Africa by her husband, U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, to check out allegations that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons.

At the time of Rove's conversation with Cooper, Wilson had accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Cooper's e-mail is now in the hands of federal prosecutors who are hunting down the leakers inside the Bush administration who revealed Plame's name to the news media.


The Players




The revelation about Rove prompted Democratic calls for Bush to follow through on his promise to fire leakers of Plame's identity.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said Tuesday that ''Karl Rove ought to be fired.'' With Kerry on Capitol Hill was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. a possible 2008 presidential contender, who indicated her agreement with Kerry's view.

''I'm nodding,'' she told reporters.

The issue triggered 61 questions during two press briefings Monday by McClellan. It was McClellan who had provided the previous assurances about no role for Rove, but he refused to repeat those assurances Monday.

''Did Karl Rove commit a crime?'' a reporter asked McClellan.

''This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation,'' McClellan replied.

McClellan gave the same answer when asked whether President Bush has confidence in Rove, the architect of the president's successful political campaigns.

The investigation was ongoing in 2003 when McClellan assured the public Rove wasn't involved, a reporter pointed out, but the spokesman refused to elaborate.


Multiband:
Rove Under Fire for Revelation

Broadband:
The Revelation: Is It a Crime?
McClellan Gets a Grilling


In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken directly with Rove about the matter and that ''he was not involved'' in leaking Plame's identity to the news media. McClellan said at the time: ''The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved,'' ''It was a ridiculous suggestion'' and ''It's not true.''

Rove's own public denials at the time and since have been more narrowly worded: ''I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name,'' Rove said last year.

Democrats pressed Bush to act.

''The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration,'' said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ''I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security.''

Democratic consultant Paul Begala, appearing on ABC's ''Good Morning America'' Tuesday, said Rove has both a legal problem and a political problem.

He said the legal issue should be resolved by the grand jury. Begala also said the White House has a political problem because ''people are going to look at this crowd and say, Gee, we can't trust a thing they say after the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) controversy.' ''



Join a News Conversation
Millions of opinions in the blogosphere ... and just as many opposing points of view. The truth, as they say, is somewhere in between.


Enter the BlogZone




New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail for refusing to reveal who in the administration talked to her about Plame.

Cooper had also planned to go to jail rather than talk, but at the last minute he agreed to cooperate with investigators when a source, Rove, gave him permission to do so. Cooper's employer, Time Inc., also turned over Cooper's e-mail and notes.

One of the e-mails was a note from Cooper to his boss in which he said he had spoken to Rove, who described the wife of former U.S. Ambassador and Bush administration critic Joe Wilson as someone who ''apparently works'' at the CIA, Newsweek magazine reported.

It said ''Wilson's wife'' - not CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney - authorized a trip by Wilson to Africa. The purpose was to check out reports that Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake uranium for use in nuclear weapons.

Rove's conversation with Cooper took place five days after Plame's husband suggested in a New York Times op-ed piece that the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq. Wilson's trip to Africa provided the basis for his criticism.

Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, said his client did not disclose Plame's name. Luskin declined to say how Rove found out that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and refused to say how Rove came across the information that it was Wilson's wife who authorized his trip to Africa.


AP-NY-07-12-05 14:58 EDT

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Pretty good really, I no longer buy the lossless tunes.:) But they give you free "Podcasts" now, I'm listening to AL FRANKEN skewer the prick whole slagged Clinton with lies and really, really shitty "reporting." In fact he admits he's made many factual errors in the book, but he did it for money more than anything else...And many of his biggest critics are conservatives.

Ed KLEIN is his name.

I've heard of that guy.

I've heard about podcasting but haven't really checked it out yet.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I guess its just business as usual in Washington then, huh?

That's pretty much how it's always been done.

What makes you Democrats so fucking special just because a Republican is now in Office?

:gulp:

With all due respect BBB, fuck you. I'm not even a Democrat in the first fucking place. You haven't heard me praising Clinton, Kerry, or anybody else for that matter. You have heard me criticize Dubya, because I just happen to think that George W. Bush is an ignorant, arrogant, and corrupt spoiled rich boy who basically lucked into the presidency, and in his greed and ignorance is fucking things up royally, with a little help from his friends. I guess I just don't like the guy.

"I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here." —George W. Bush, speaking at the President's Economic Forum in Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002

[Warham]

Speaking of Waco and unethical...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I've heard of that guy.

I've heard about podcasting but haven't really checked it out yet.

It is cool, there are a lot of radio shows I want to check out, I jumped to FRANKEN first (even though he is a little boring) 'cause we only get right wing radio in Buffalo, not just RUSH, we actually have a local lunatic as well. That's fine, sometimes I listen to RUSH. But it's all one way here and not very fair and balanced...

Anyways, the PODCASTS come in 16 min. segements. And it's all free.

[Serling]

Originally posted by thome
A little slower next time?

What part of Released the info to the public do you not GET?

Don't play the rube. This kind of thing went on, and was PUBLICLY condemed, By George Bush senior when he was head of the C.I.A. in the 1970's.
Dishonestly disregarding the crime committed by Carl Rove disqualifies you from any serious political discussion.

Rove needs to be put on trial for treason, plain & simple. He purposely jeapordized the well being of a active C.I.A. agent.

[Serling]

Originally posted by thome

What part of Released the info to the public do you not GET?

READ THE PRESIDENTS LIPS

The INFORMATION would NEVER have GOTTEN INTO the hands of the reporter if not given to said reporter, in a ACT OF TREASON, by one CARL ROVE.

Have you ever had a LOGIC class?

A+B=C not B=C


A+B=C

Pay attention.

[Big Train]

I have to go with Thome on this one, partly. Your gun metaphor is a bit whacky.

While I agree Rove has to answer for what he did, to use your metaphor, he only loaded the gun. A bullet did not have to go off. The report and newspaper, errr, weapon, intentionally chose to publish that information. Information they could have just as easily kept to themselves and still had a great story. It isn't like they aren't familiar with the concept of being moderately vague , it is what they specialize in.

[Serling]

You miss the point Big Train. I'll reiterate.

Leaking the name of a C.I.A. operative IS A FEDERAL CRIME.

STOP

Right there. The gist of the matter.

CARL ROVE committed TREASON.

If he told you, me, Captain Kangaroo.......it DOES NOT MATTER.

The leaking of the name of a CENTER INTELLIGENCE AGENCY operative IS AN ACT OF TREASON.

It need go no further.

The Newspaper acted in an unethical manner, no argument. Novak & company should be prosecuted.

ROVE set everything else in motion.

[Big Train]

I've GOT that and have agreed with you on it.. Your intentionally missing my point. If leaking the name to a private party is treason, how can disseminating it in a widely read public forum be anything less?

Hang them all high I'm saying.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Serling
You miss the point Big Train. I'll reiterate.

Leaking the name of a C.I.A. operative IS A FEDERAL CRIME.

STOP

Right there. The gist of the matter.

CARL ROVE committed TREASON.

If he told you, me, Captain Kangaroo.......it DOES NOT MATTER.

The leaking of the name of a CENTER INTELLIGENCE AGENCY operative IS AN ACT OF TREASON.

It need go no further.

The Newspaper acted in an unethical manner, no argument. Novak & company should be prosecuted.

ROVE set everything else in motion.

She reports to work everyday at a desk, she's not a Field Operative and even if Rove had spoken her name it would only be a crime if she had been in the field within the past 5 years.

And that is the question i want answered.
If she has been under cover in a covert operation within the last 5 years then Rove may very well be fired for what he did.

In my opinion he is guilty just for saying it was "Wilson's Wife", but unless she was active in the last 5 years, there is no crime.

Not to mention the fact that the CIA considered her identity "Compromised" long before this shit hit the fan.
Someone did some talking way before Karl Rove stepped into the picture.

But if Rove did something wrong i hope they throw the freakin book at him for it. I find it shocking that people under investigation still retain their security clearance.

Something stinks, and i'd like to know what it is exactly.

I'm not one for conspiracy though. I require proof before i jump on any wagons.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
I've GOT that and have agreed with you on it.. Your intentionally missing my point. If leaking the name to a private party is treason, how can disseminating it in a widely read public forum be anything less?

Hang them all high I'm saying.

Because classified information is intentionally leaked to the press all the time by the White House, or the Pentagon, or whomever in gov't. It's done as a means to garner support, discredit conspiracies, do hatchet jobs on political opponents, whatever. It's not the press' job to decide which information provided through unofficial gov't channels is to be reported and which information is to be kept hidden.

The press, to some extent, has to decipher what is "classified" in order to protect secrets, and what is classified in order to protect gov't blundering. Obviously, they shouldn't report about stories that would jeopordize terrorist investigations and the like, but if ROVE puts this info out, it's totally on him.

The press is often used by the gov't to sell their talking points, in fact, TIME magazine was used during Operation DESERT SHIELD to discredit Saddam HUSSEIN when they received "classified" files on the ex-Iraqi dictator from anonymous sources at the CIA in order to justify the war against him. Of course, the CIA had these same files when he was our ally, but they remained secret then. The Pentagon Papers are a good example of classification in order to hide bungling, of the Vietnam war in that case. If the gov't is going to release classified material to achieve short sighted goals and expect it to be reported, then they have to not expect journalists to act as declassification authorities when information they don't want out there is released by whistle-blowers or by partisan hacks like ROVE. That would amount to a cover-up.

The fucked up thing about all this is that the journalist that reported nothing and wrote nothing on this is sitting in jail due to her refusal to reveal sources and the conservative journalist that actually spouted off the name remains on CNN.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Finally, the Bush administration has committed an unethical gaff. A few more, and they'll catch up to the previous administration.

You sound like a fuckin' clown when you type something like that.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
You sound like a fuckin' clown when you type something like that.

Really? Perhaps you missed the link to the Top 50 Unethical Actions of the Clinton administration I posted last night. It'd be worthy checking out before you make these kinds of rash, uninformed statements.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Really? Perhaps you missed the link to the Top 50 Unethical Actions of the Clinton administration I posted last night. It'd be worthy checking out before you make these kinds of rash, uninformed statements.

Oh ok, so this Rove shit is gw&friends FIRST "unethical gaff?"

Is treason a gaff?

Seriously dude, you're slipping. I know you don't have much to work with these days.

And for the last time, comparing Clinton to bush is useless. No one cares. No one in here except you gives a shit. Because gw&friends' treachery is ocurring now and it's getting thousands of people killed!

[thome]

I believe Rove could have been reprimanded fired whatever, in
house policy . I also blame the journalist for sensationalising
all this BS thats what they do they don't care what happens as long
as the Magazine SELLS. Where is the "Thread about Ethics in Media."


"How Rumors ruined The Earths Future "
Posted in Some Alien Fish wrap ..................(I Know )

How constant finger pointing and false and just.. hyped up reporting
screwed everyones head up.

90% of all fights are due to overloaded mouths?

[Warham]

If he didn't break the law, how is that treason, OD?

You liberals really need to wait until this investigation is over before you get all rabid about Karl Rove. Seriously.

And the comparison was in jest (but in reality, we all know it's true). Perhaps you don't have a sense of humor anymore. I still do. I think you need to settle down a little bit and stop taking some of this stuff so seriously. Seriously.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
If he didn't break the law, how is that treason, OD?

You liberals really need to wait until this investigation is over before you get all rabid about Karl Rove. Seriously.

And the comparison was in jest (but in reality, we all know it's true). Perhaps you don't have a sense of humor anymore. I still do. I think you need to settle down a little bit and stop taking some of this stuff so seriously. Seriously.

I sincerely believe it's in poor taste to be constantly complaing about Clinton when real people are really being killed because of real criminal actions. There is NOTHING funny about it.

[Warham]

Clinton killed plenty of people too, OD, and because of real criminal actions...

It doesn't matter if it's one person or two thousand. It's bad period.

Now you can continue lecturing me about being PC on the Roth Army.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Now you can continue lecturing me about being PC on the Roth Army.

I'm not lecturing you. Offend away, I don't care. I'm just sharing my opinion on your crass remarks.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Because classified information is intentionally leaked to the press all the time by the White House, or the Pentagon, or whomever in gov't. It's done as a means to garner support, discredit conspiracies, do hatchet jobs on political opponents, whatever. It's not the press' job to decide which information provided through unofficial gov't channels is to be reported and which information is to be kept hidden.

The press, to some extent, has to decipher what is "classified" in order to protect secrets, and what is classified in order to protect gov't blundering.

Your logic is a bit off to me. Saying "Sources think he may have weapons" (About a public figure) is very much different than "Sources say Plame's wife is an active CIA agent". One is just an accusation someone can refute and move on. The other is an accusation that someone could be killed for, just to remove doubt. Why people can see the seriousness of that, I don't know.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Your logic is a bit off to me. Saying "Sources think he may have weapons" (About a public figure) is very much different than "Sources say Plame's wife is an active CIA agent". One is just an accusation someone can refute and move on. The other is an accusation that someone could be killed for, just to remove doubt. Why people can see the seriousness of that, I don't know.

It in fact was kept under-wraps (by the woman in jail). It was leaked by NOVAK, and he's off the hook apparently.

My only point is that you seem to be saying that the media should never report anything that is classified because it's a violation o f law. Well, they often do with government sanction.

The people who actually got this from ROVE are the ones suffering the most, whereas ROVE and NOVAK, the two most guilty parties have had yet to have their comeuppance.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I'm not lecturing you. Offend away, I don't care. I'm just sharing my opinion on your crass remarks.

That's OK. It did it's job.

The very fact that we are discussing it proves my point.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Clinton killed plenty of people too, OD, and because of real criminal actions...

It doesn't matter if it's one person or two thousand. It's bad period.

Now you can continue lecturing me about being PC on the Roth Army.

Name one.

And not from a list peddled by Jerry Falwell and Richard Mellonhead Treasonous Fuck Scaife.

Name one person that you can prove was killed by Bill Clinton.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
Name one.

And not from a list peddled by Jerry Falwell and Richard Mellonhead Treasonous Fuck Scaife.

Name one person that you can prove was killed by Bill Clinton.

I can name over 1,700 that died as a result of The Chimp and his handlers:mad:

[thome]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I can name over 1,700 that died as a result of The Chimp and his handlers:mad:
3 million died As A Result of Cinton. Rwanda, same as your set up.
7000 Bosnia
10,000 Noreaga(sp) landing strip White Water.

Resutl of is a weird scenario .

I am being a dick an i know it.( you can use this against me in a future
post)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by thome
3 million died As A Result of Cinton. Rwanda, same as your set up.
7000 Bosnia
10,000 Noreaga(sp) landing strip White Water.

Resutl of is a weird scenario .

I am being a dick an i know it.( you can use this against me in a future
post)

Oh brother...Are you really this dopey? CLINTON sent troops into RWANDA to massacre TUTSIS? Uh-no, he stopped ethnic cleansing in BOSNIA thereby preventing Al-QAIDA from getting into western Europe and into our interests. The Invasion of PANAMA was in 1989. :rolleyes: Then BUSH also killed 700,000 SUDANESE according to your logic...

[thome]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh brother...Are you really this dopey? CLINTON sent troops into RWANDA to massacre TUTSIS? Uh-no, he stopped ethnic cleansing in BOSNIA thereby preventing Al-QAIDA from getting into western Europe and into our interests. The Invasion of PANAMA was in 1989. :rolleyes: Then BUSH also killed 700,000 SUDANESE according to your logic...

Heres my weirdness, Bush sent troops to Irak they new we were coming
we built up on thier shores for a year. Entered thier country to remove
sadamm .The Irak army fired at us killing our troops.Not Bush!



The insurgents (terrorists) kill our boys. Bush has'nt killed anyone.
If a cop goes to remove a mass murderer from his home
an that freek kills the cop are we supposed to Try the chief of
police?

[academic punk]

Originally posted by FORD
Name one.

And not from a list peddled by Jerry Falwell and Richard Mellonhead Treasonous Fuck Scaife.

Name one person that you can prove was killed by Bill Clinton.


One of the top Iraqi artists was killed by Clinton during the retalitory strike against Hussein for attempting to have HW killed during one of his trips to Kuwait.

Look, someone is in the top seat of the White House for eight years, there WILL be problems and discrepancies. We're not governed, thank God, by robots. And people who reach this level have GOT to egotistical, arrogant, power-hungry, and elitist. There is NO other way they can attain this level.

So thought I have some issues with some on Warham's list, many elements are vaild.

But two wrongs don't make a right and all that shit.

Rove knew exactly what he was doing, and tried to find a loophole to release this sensitive information and still be able to say "I know nothing". In celebration of todays sentence for Bernie Ebbers, youn could say Rove "cooked the books". And what might this do for morale in our intelligence agencies? That your govt will stab you in the back, b/c they don't like how someone else (your husband) outted their misrepresentations?

It's indefensible. The fact that we're spending so much time talking about Clinton proves it.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Name one.

And not from a list peddled by Jerry Falwell and Richard Mellonhead Treasonous Fuck Scaife.

Name one person that you can prove was killed by Bill Clinton.

FORD, you really don't want to get into this, do ya?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
FORD, you really don't want to get into this, do ya?

All you have is that bullshit "Clinton Chronicles" horseshit, implying that everytime someone in Arkansas died of an allergic reaction to a bee sting, it was somehow the fault of Bill Clinton's almighty penis.

http://www.bartcop.com/gif/russertc.gif

[Warham]

Don't even have to get into Arkansas to come up with a pretty good list of stiffs.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
Don't even have to get into Arkansas to come up with a pretty good list of stiffs.

Hell no. Try North Carolina:


Meanwhile, Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, called Democratic attacks on Rove "out of control and entirely inappropriate ... accusations based on rumor and innuendo".

Washington Post, 7-13-05

What do you call a female sheep anyway?

[DLR'sCock]

So isn't what Rove did, outing an active CIA operative an ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?


I was curious, I think it is....

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
CLINTON sent troops into RWANDA to massacre TUTSIS? Uh-no, he stopped ethnic cleansing in BOSNIA thereby preventing Al-QAIDA from getting into western Europe and into our interests.

You don't honestly believe that do you? Or do you? :rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You don't honestly believe that do you? Or do you? :rolleyes:

Yes, in fact I do. You don't?

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Because classified information is intentionally leaked to the press all the time by the White House, or the Pentagon, or whomever in gov't.

It's not the press' job to decide which information provided through unofficial gov't channels is to be reported and which information is to be kept hidden.

The press, to some extent, has to decipher what is "classified" in order to protect secrets,

Unfuckinbelievable, REALLY!!!! It's not their job to figure it out? Are you people at places like the LA and NY Times are soooo fucking stupid that it isn't plainly obvious outing a CIA (whether true or not) agent could have serious repercussions to that person? It's treason...

Hang Rove High
Hang Novak High
Hang the editors high
Hang the reporters high

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes, in fact I do. You don't?


Uh....no. Didn't stop that German cell from supporting the 9/11 crowd. We all seem to forget that most of the 9/11 hijackers lived in Europe before coming to the US. Yeah, that ethnic cleansing really stopped 'em alright. :rolleyes:

[FORD]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
So isn't what Rove did, outing an active CIA operative an ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?


I was curious, I think it is....

It is, and the Chimp's daddy even said so.

BTW, did any of the Busheep know that Poppy fired KKKarl Rove in 1992, for leaking privileged information to Bob Novak??

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by FORD
BTW, did any of the Busheep know that Poppy fired KKKarl Rove in 1992, for leaking privileged information to Bob Novak??

I wouldn't mind a link on that one. Interesting.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
It is, and the Chimp's daddy even said so.

BTW, did any of the Busheep know that Poppy fired KKKarl Rove in 1992, for leaking privileged information to Bob Novak??

It's only a felony to "out" a CIA agent that is "in the field." Valerie Plame was manning a desk in Washington when all this happened and was not "under cover" or "on assignment." Not every CIA employee is a secret "James Bond" type of agent.

However, if Mr. Rove did anything wrong, I believe he should resign. He should also face further prosecution if that is also warranted.

That is, after he is found guilty by a special prosecutor or a judge, not the press or the liberal elite, which is actually one and the same.

:gulp:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It's only a felony to "out" a CIA agent that is "in the field." Valerie Plame was manning a desk in Washington when all this happened and was not "under cover" or "on assignment." Not every CIA employee is a secret "James Bond" type of agent.

However, if Mr. Rove did anything wrong, I believe he should resign. He should also face further prosecution if that is also warranted.

That is, after he is found guilty by a special prosecutor or a judge, not the press or the liberal elite, which is actually one and the same.

:gulp:


Do you REALLY think a special, independent prosecutor would pursue a case OF THIS PROFIL AND STATURE for TWO years - with the kind of money and manpower that entails - that did not have validity?

Next you're gonna try the defense that he never said her name.

And how many wives does Joe Wilson have? How many CIA's does this country run?

This is just the start. People are going to come out of the woodwork now to discuss how Rove has screwed them.

Hopefully, McCain will be among them (and I bet he IS even now, just behind closed doors. Be careful how you treat people on your way up, as the saying goes, y'all...)

[FORD]

I noticed the Busheep and media whores have been running that "desk jockey" spin for the last couple of days, but none of them have provided any evidence that they know for a fact exactly what Valerie Plame did for the CIA. Therefore you cannot assume that she was NOT a field operative. And this being the CIA, you probably never will get a straight answer from them, as it's the nature of a secret organization. Poppy Bush and our own Agent Zimmerman being obvious examples of deniability.

[academic punk]

If I were a government employee in any capacity, but espially as a CIA operative, I would be feel completely disenfranchised with all this, and would definitely be looking for work in the private sector, IMMEDIATELY.

BTW, Plame does not have authority to send her husband ANYWHERE. She can recommend, and the governemtn does (appropriately) give special consideration to married couples who work for the govt. But no, she did not "send" him anywhere.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Unfuckinbelievable, REALLY!!!! It's not their job to figure it out? Are you people at places like the LA and NY Times are soooo fucking stupid that it isn't plainly obvious outing a CIA (whether true or not) agent could have serious repercussions to that person? It's treason...

Hang Rove High
Hang Novak High
Hang the editors high
Hang the reporters high


THEY DIDN'T FUCKING PRINT IT IN THE NY TIMES, LA TIMES, WASH. POST! Did they? The "reporters" are to blame for what exactly? Being passed information by ROVE? Have you noticed the only reporter that is "rotting" in jail is the one that printed nothing in regards to this story? So any reporter that receives ANY "classified" information should go to jail now because they merely were passed it from a source with an agenda? What an incredibly moronic thing to say! Amazing...Truly an amazing statement, let's fucking execute WOODWARD and BERNSTEIN; those fucking traitors!

TIME had the story and did nothing with it until right-wing mouth piece (of shit) NOVAK outed her (who also works for TIME WARNER). Obviously you completely missed my point. NOVAK is the one that made it public, and he seems to be getting off, along with the Lil' Turd Blossom. My point is that if classified information is leaked to the press through officially sanctioned sources, then those officially sanctioned sources cannot arbitrarily draw distinctions for classified material is released for the public good or for accountability (which doesn't necessarily apply here, though the public sure has the right to know that Turd-boy is outing intell. officers) and and the info. released to further their own little propaganda efforts. Pul-leeze, your smarter than this BIGGIE T.:rolleyes:

This whole case is about punishing journalists for what ROVE did, and again, members of The BUSH Admin. escaping any accountability for their misdeeds and/or their incompetence

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian


not the press or the liberal elite, which is actually one and the same.

:gulp:

You're joking , right?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It's only a felony to "out" a CIA agent that is "in the field." Valerie Plame was manning a desk in Washington when all this happened and was not "under cover" or "on assignment." Not every CIA employee is a secret "James Bond" type of agent.

However, if Mr. Rove did anything wrong, I believe he should resign. He should also face further prosecution if that is also warranted.

That is, after he is found guilty by a special prosecutor or a judge, not the press or the liberal elite, which is actually one and the same.

:gulp:

She was an undercover operative; spare us the "depends on what the definition of is is" qualifiers BBB.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
THEY DIDN'T FUCKING PRINT IT IN THE NY TIMES, LA TIMES, WASH. POST! Did they? The "reporters" are to blame for what exactly? Being passed information by ROVE? Have you noticed the only reporter that is "rotting" in jail is the one that printed nothing in regards to this story? So any reporter that receives ANY "classified" information should go to jail now because they merely were passed it from a source with an agenda? What an incredibly moronic thing to say! Amazing...Truly an amazing statement, let's fucking execute WOODWARD and BERNSTEIN; those fucking traitors!

TIME had the story and did nothing with it until right-wing mouth piece (of shit) NOVAK outed her (who also works for TIME WARNER). Obviously you completely missed my point. NOVAK is the one that made it public, and he seems to be getting off, along with the Lil' Turd Blossom. My point is that if classified information is leaked to the press through officially sanctioned sources, then those officially sanctioned sources cannot arbitrarily draw distinctions for classified material is released for the public good or for accountability (which doesn't necessarily apply here, though the public sure has the right to know that Turd-boy is outing intell. officers) and and the info. released to further their own little propaganda efforts. Pul-leeze, your smarter than this BIGGIE T.:rolleyes:

This whole case is about punishing journalists for what ROVE did, and again, members of The BUSH Admin. escaping any accountability for their misdeeds and/or their incompetence


Ahh, but Novak didn't TECHNICALLY out her.

Rove knew. Cooper knew. Miller knew. That qualifies as two private-sector people, and that qualifies as public knowledge.

It's a technicality, sure, but it explains why Novak hasn't ans never will face charges.

[Nickdfresh]

But the one who ultimately had the responsibility for the classified material was ROVE, he had the clearance, he was in a position of public trust with the government.

[blueturk]

Senate Does Battle Over Rove's Role in Plame Leak
Dueling Republican, Democratic Amendments Fail

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A04

In bitingly partisan exchanges yesterday, lawmakers plunged into the dispute over Karl Rove's hand in leaking a covert CIA operative's identity, as the Senate rejected a bid to strip the White House aide of his security clearance.

A day of dueling news conferences ended with a Senate debate that turned unusually personal. It began when Democratic leaders proposed an amendment, aimed at Rove, to deny access to classified information to any federal employee who discloses a covert CIA agent's identity.


Republican leaders retaliated with a measure designed to strip the security clearances of the chamber's top two Democrats. Even as he urged support for his amendment, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) acknowledged the blatantly political tone of the debate. "This is a sad and a disappointing afternoon here in the United States Senate," he said.

Frist's amendment failed, 64 to 33, when 20 Republicans joined all present Democrats in voting against it. The Senate then rejected the Democrats' measure aimed at Rove, by a 53-to-44 vote along party lines. Both items were offered as amendments to a homeland security appropriations bill.

Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, accompanied the president on a trip to Indianapolis -- both men walking together from the White House to the Marine One helicopter on the South Lawn. Bush usually walks alone to the helicopter, and their public stroll was widely perceived as a presidential show of support.

Through his attorney, Rove in recent days has acknowledged discussing CIA official Valerie Plame -- though not by name -- with a Time magazine reporter shortly before columnist Robert D. Novak named her in a July 2003 column, citing two senior administration officials as his sources. Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, had written that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons material to justify the invasion there and the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Democrats say the White House unmasked Plame in an effort to undermine Wilson's allegations. As part of its case for going to war in 2003, the administration cited evidence that Iraq may be trying to obtain uranium in Niger. Wilson said his own 2002 trip showed there was no evidence for such a claim. But administration officials told reporters that Wilson's Niger trip deserved little credibility, since he was dispatched at the recommendation of his wife at the CIA. A special counsel is investigating, and Rove is among several senior White House officials who have spoken to a grand jury.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) hosted Wilson at a Capitol news conference yesterday in which both men criticized Rove and defended Wilson's allegations of manipulated Iraq intelligence. "I made my bones confronting Saddam Hussein and securing the release of over 2,000 Americans in hiding in Kuwait," Wilson said. "Karl Rove made his bones doing political dirty tricks." Several House Democrats also criticized Rove.

Senate Republicans responded with their own news conference. "I have seen nothing so far that would indicate that there was any law broken by Karl Rove," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.) said. Sen. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.) said: "Joe Wilson's attacks were a political sham. They were then, and they still are today."

On the Senate floor, Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) offered the measure targeting Rove's security clearance, and Frist offered his aimed at Reid and Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.). Frist's amendment would have denied clearance to any senator who refers to a classified FBI report on the floor, a shot at Reid's May 12 reference to a report on a Bush judicial nominee. It also would have stripped access to classified information to an officeholder making a statement that is "based on an FBI agent's comments which is used as propaganda by terrorist organizations." That was aimed at Durbin's comments last month comparing the treatment of detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to techniques used by the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge.

Reid called Frist's amendment "about as juvenile and as mudslinging as I have seen."

A dismayed Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) vowed to vote against both measures and chastised her colleagues for veering from the homeland security funding issue. "This is exactly why the American public holds Congress is such low esteem," she said in a brief floor speech.

On Frist's amendment, several Republicans did not vote nay until it was clear the measure would fail. Virginia and Maryland senators voted against the Frist amendment except for Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), who was absent.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401962.html

[Big Train]

Nick, please don't ever call me "Biggie T" again, that is so fucking gay I don't know where to start.

Forgive me for the subtley which I know sometimes passes by you. The sentece I wrote read "places like" because it was fucking six in the morning when I wrote that and could not remember the finer points of this and where my keys were.

Why the fuck you libs keep belaboring the point I have already given you NUMEROUS times, I don't know. Perhaps your broken record rhetoric is so ingrained you don't know when you've actually won. Yet, I"M the one not listening....

Rove should hang. OK? OK? Can I be ANY more clear? HE should H-A-N-G. Ok, we are clear on that.....

Possessing the information may or may not be a crime, depending on what they did with it, which can go beyond just printing it. Whoever did print it, in any forum or article, should go to jail. Period. If Novak did, Novak goes. If the reporters didn't, let them go, but only after you know EXACTLY what they DID do with the infomation, as the damage is now done, it's important to know what happened. Until this chick decides to talk, I have no problem letting her stew.

[Nickdfresh]

When to Give Up a Source
In surrendering a reporter's notes, Time Inc.'s top editor says the rule of law trumps the promise of confidentiality. Where does journalism go from here?
By BILL SAPORITO

Jul. 11, 2005
For journalists, confidential sources can be as essential as ink. That's why so many were surprised last week when Norman Pearlstine, editor-in-chief of Time Inc., said he would reveal some confidential information about a big story. In a case involving TIME magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, Pearlstine agreed to comply with a federal subpoena and surrender Cooper's notes and files relating to a story he had written that is part of an investigation into the disclosure of a CIA operative's identity. Time Inc. had appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court, but when the court declined last week to hear the case, Pearlstine made the decision he calls "the most difficult I have made in more than 36 years in the news business."

Many in the media world quickly criticized the move as a capitulation to government pressure that could scare off future sources. "I can't think of a time," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, "when a news organization has done something like this." Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said Time Inc.'s decision signals that sources--and reporters--will now have to worry about media companies in addition to government prosecutors. "How will sources believe that journalists can keep their word?" he asked. But others pointed out that Time Inc. had run out of venues to fight the case. "Time Inc. fought this as hard as anyone could, with great lawyers, at great expense," said Newton Minow, former FCC chairman and professor emeritus at Northwestern University School of Law. "Once that happens, you have to obey the law."

The Cooper case evolved from an investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who set out to identify the unnamed Bush Administration sources cited by journalist Robert Novak in a July 2003 column that outed CIA officer Valerie Plame. Cooper subsequently wrote a piece for TIME's website saying that "some government officials" had provided him with information similar to what Novak had reported. Cooper suggested in his article that the sources were seeking to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who found evidence contradicting the Administration's prewar claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa for nuclear weapons. Judith Miller of the New York Times may have spoken to the same sources, though she didn't publish anything. (Nonetheless, she, like Cooper, could face jail time for declining to reveal her contacts.) The New York Times criticized Time Inc.'s decision to hand over material--publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said he was "deeply disappointed"--and said it backed Miller's refusal to testify. Cooper was stoically diplomatic: "There's honor in obeying an order backed by the Supreme Court. There's honor in civil disobedience. I wish Time Inc. had tried to hold out longer against handing over papers that identified my sources. But there's surely principle in both decisions."

After Time Inc. agreed to turn over the requested materials to Fitzgerald's office, speculation quickly surfaced over whose names would be identified. Much of that focused on Karl Rove, senior adviser to President George W. Bush. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said Cooper called Rove during the week before Novak's story appeared but declined to say what they discussed. Luskin said Rove "has never knowingly disclosed classified information." The lawyer said he has received repeated assurances from Fitzgerald's office that Rove is not a target in the case.

The investigation has been bizarre from the start. For one thing, it's still unclear whether any laws were broken in the Plame revelation. (Deliberately disclosing an operative's name is illegal but only if the government is actively trying to conceal its relationship with that person.) Yet Fitzgerald's wide-ranging investigation has involved subpoenas of at least five journalists, and several, including Cooper, NBC's Tim Russert and the Washington Post's Walter Pincus, have testified on at least a limited basis. The courts have repeatedly denied Cooper and Miller privilege to protect their sources. After the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, Pearlstine says he concluded that Time Inc. had an obligation to follow the law and obey the ruling. "An organization that prides itself on pointing its finger at people shouldn't be breaking the law itself," he said.

Some pundits have countered that an act of civil disobedience by Time Inc.--declining to follow an "unjust" ruling while being prepared to suffer the legal consequence--wouldn't be the same as placing oneself above the law. In Pearlstine's view, "when the courts rule that a citizen's obligation to testify before a grand jury takes precedence over the press's First Amendment right, to me, going against that finding would put us above the law." Others have questioned whether Time Inc. was putting corporate priorities over journalistic ones. Continued refusal to cooperate with the judge would have meant increased fines (well above the current $1,000-a-day penalty). Pearlstine vehemently dismissed the idea of any such calculation. "I am solely responsible for this decision, and the threat of fines never figured into my thinking," he said. He added that he did not consult with Time Inc. CEO Ann Moore or Richard Parsons, CEO of Time Warner, Time Inc.'s parent.

In handing over the requested materials, Pearlstine and Time Inc. made the argument that there was now no need for Cooper to testify because Cooper's files contain at least some of the information Fitzgerald has been seeking. In the interim, Cooper and Miller have asked Judge Thomas F. Hogan to sentence them, if it comes to that, to home confinement or, barring that, to federal prison camps, as opposed to maximum-security prisons or the notorious Washington jails.

Will Time Inc.'s actions alter the rules of journalism? Some think so. "This is going to be open season on journalists," says Dalglish. "Litigators are out there thinking, Why not subpoena them? I'm probably going to win." In Pearlstine's view, Time Inc.'s decision is a narrowly framed one that applies only to a case that involves a federal grand jury with access to secret testimony about a national-security issue. He says he still believes in the value of confidential sources--and fighting to keep them that way as far as the law allows.

Another way in which this case differs from a typical one is that unlike in a traditional whistle-blower scenario in which a source is being protected from potential retaliation, the source or sources being protected in the Cooper case may well have been retaliating against Wilson. "This was leading into a blind alley," says Jim Wheaton, who teaches media law at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley. "If the Supreme Court had taken the case, it was likely to say there's no privilege, period." Jay Rosen, chairman of New York University's journalism department, understood the logic of Time Inc.'s ultimate decision. "I find it hard to get worked up into the same outrage as others about the Time decision, which seems to me to be a practical decision," he told the Wall Street Journal.

In the future, the best hope for journalists may be a federal shield law, now in Congress, which would let reporters keep sources confidential under any circumstances. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, while 18 additional states have similar protections. A federal law has been proposed by Senator Richard Lugar and Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, who have signed up dozens of co-sponsors. It's not that legislators love the media. But when it comes to advancing their politics, legislators can be world-class leakers and could have as much to lose as journalists.
--With reporting by Mark Thompson and Viveca Novak/Washington and Nathan Thornburgh/New York


Subscriber Link (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1079501,00.html)

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Big Train
Nick, please don't ever call me "Biggie T" again, that is so fucking gay I don't know where to start.

Forgive me for the subtley which I know sometimes passes by you. The sentece I wrote read "places like" because it was fucking six in the morning when I wrote that and could not remember the finer points of this and where my keys were.

Why the fuck you libs keep belaboring the point I have already given you NUMEROUS times, I don't know. Perhaps your broken record rhetoric is so ingrained you don't know when you've actually won. Yet, I"M the one not listening....

Rove should hang. OK? OK? Can I be ANY more clear? HE should H-A-N-G. Ok, we are clear on that.....



You ever get the feeling that this guy is something of a douche?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by academic punk
You ever get the feeling that this guy is something of a douche?

No.

:gulp:

[Big Train]

I try not to be, but when you have essentially repost your point 3-4 times for someone to get it, it gets frustrating.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
I try not to be, but when you have essentially repost your point 3-4 times for someone to get it, it gets frustrating.

Try to make your points a little less convoluted.

My point is that there a consequences to a free press if everybody is carted off to prison without careful deliberation of who is really guilty here.

And you contradicted yourself, a journalist should rot in jail when she never revealed, or wrote anything?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train


Rove should hang. OK? OK? Can I be ANY more clear? HE should H-A-N-G. Ok, we are clear on that.....



Are we CLEAR?

Crystal, Sir :D


:cool:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Big Train
I try not to be, but when you have essentially repost your point 3-4 times for someone to get it, it gets frustrating.


Uh...back up. I was talking about Rove being a douche. Just so we're all on the same page.

[Guitar Shark]

NY Times
July 15, 2005

Karl Rove's America

By PAUL KRUGMAN

John Gibson of Fox News says that Karl Rove should be given a medal. I agree: Mr. Rove should receive a medal from the American Political Science Association for his pioneering discoveries about modern American politics. The medal can, if necessary, be delivered to his prison cell.

What Mr. Rove understood, long before the rest of us, is that we're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts. Instead, we're living in a country in which there is no longer such a thing as nonpolitical truth. In particular, there are now few, if any, limits to what conservative politicians can get away with: the faithful will follow the twists and turns of the party line with a loyalty that would have pleased the Comintern.

I first realized that we were living in Karl Rove's America during the 2000 presidential campaign, when George W. Bush began saying things about Social Security privatization and tax cuts that were simply false. At first, I thought the Bush campaign was making a big mistake - that these blatant falsehoods would be condemned by prominent Republican politicians and Republican economists, especially those who had spent years building reputations as advocates of fiscal responsibility. In fact, with hardly any exceptions they lined up to praise Mr. Bush's proposals.

But the real demonstration that Mr. Rove understands American politics better than any pundit came after 9/11.
Every time I read a lament for the post-9/11 era of national unity, I wonder what people are talking about. On the issues I was watching, the Republicans' exploitation of the atrocity began while ground zero was still smoldering.

Mr. Rove has been much criticized for saying that liberals responded to the attack by wanting to offer the terrorists therapy - but what he said about conservatives, that they "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war," is equally false. What many of them actually saw was a domestic political opportunity - and none more so than Mr. Rove.

A less insightful political strategist might have hesitated right after 9/11 before using it to cast the Democrats as weak on national security. After all, there were no facts to support that accusation.

But Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant. For one thing, he knew he could count on the administration's supporters to obediently accept a changing story line. Read the before-and-after columns by pro-administration pundits about Iraq: before the war they castigated the C.I.A. for understating the threat posed by Saddam's W.M.D.; after the war they castigated the C.I.A. for exaggerating the very same threat.

Mr. Rove also understands, better than anyone else in American politics, the power of smear tactics. Attacks on someone who contradicts the official line don't have to be true, or even plausible, to undermine that person's effectiveness. All they have to do is get a lot of media play, and they'll create the sense that there must be something wrong with the guy.

And now we know just how far he was willing to go with these smear tactics: as part of the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson IV, Mr. Rove leaked the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the C.I.A. I don't know whether Mr. Rove can be convicted of a crime, but there's no question that he damaged national security for partisan advantage. If a Democrat had done that, Republicans would call it treason.

But what we're getting, instead, is yet another impressive demonstration that these days, truth is political. One after another, prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have declared their allegiance to the party line. They haven't just gone along with the diversionary tactics, like the irrelevant questions about whether Mr. Rove used Valerie Wilson's name in identifying her (Robert Novak later identified her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame), or the false, easily refuted claim that Mr. Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger. They're now a chorus, praising Mr. Rove as a patriotic whistle-blower.

Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush's father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.

Most of all, it's about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
NY Times
July 15, 2005

Karl Rove's America

By PAUL KRUGMAN
....

Most of all, it's about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?

See MEZRO's comment, in the CHINA thread, regarding the WALMART crowd...

[bobgnote]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
So isn't what Rove did, outing an active CIA operative an ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?


I was curious, I think it is....

TREASON's in time of war, two witnesses to deliberate aid and comfort to the enemy, there were no witnesses, since the whole thing was a rumor by reporters who get paid to jerk the gullible, while they hide the energy inflation bubble, that standard inflation standards will not reveal, but hey, when all the funding dries up, the cities and service districts all fail, then somebody besides the Chinese and Al Queda can know about it from my YEARS of patient explaining to fans of rock, which is all there is in the USA, rockheads trying to think outside shows.

[DLR'sCock]

Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on CIA Officer
By David Johnston and Richard W. Stevenson
The New York Times

Friday 15 July 2005

Washington - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a CIA officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the CIA officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

Six days later, Mr. Novak's syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson's "wife had suggested sending him" to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a CIA operative.

The column provoked angry demands for an investigation into who disclosed Ms. Wilson's name to Mr. Novak. The Justice Department appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a top federal prosecutor in Chicago, to lead the inquiry. Mr. Rove said in an interview with CNN last year that he did not know the CIA officer's name and did not leak it.

The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying that he had not disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity.

On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials who were his sources for the earlier column. The first source, whose identity has not been revealed, provided the outlines of the story and was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger." Mr. Novak wrote that when he called a second official for confirmation, the source said, "Oh, you know about it."

That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said. Mr. Rove's account to investigators about what he told Mr. Novak was similar in its message although the White House adviser's recollection of the exact words was slightly different. Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he had heard parts of the story from other journalists but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name.

Robert D. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer, said Thursday, "Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor." Mr. Luskin has previously said prosecutors have advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target in the case, which means he is not likely to be charged with a crime.

In a brief conversation on Thursday, Mr. Novak declined to discuss the matter. It is unclear if Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury, and if he has whether his account is consistent with Mr. Rove's.

The conversation between Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove seemed almost certain to intensify the question about whether one of Mr. Bush's closest political advisers played a role in what appeared to be an effort to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility after he challenged the veracity of a key point in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, saying Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear fuel in Africa.

The conversation with Mr. Novak took place three days before Mr. Rove spoke with Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, whose e-mail message about their brief talk reignited the issue. In the message, whose contents were reported by Newsweek this week, Mr. Cooper told his bureau chief that Mr. Rove had talked about Ms. Wilson, although not by name.

After saying in 2003 that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that Mr. Rove had any role in the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's name, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, has refused in recent days to discuss any specifics of the case. But he has suggested that President Bush continues to support Mr. Rove. On Thursday Mr. Rove was at Mr. Bush's side on a trip to Indianapolis.

As the political debate about Mr. Rove grows more heated, Mr. Fitzgerald is in what he has said are the final stages of his investigation into whether anyone at the White House violated a criminal statute that under certain circumstances makes it a crime for a government official to disclose the names of covert operatives like Ms. Wilson.

The law requires that the official knowingly identify an officer serving in a covert position. The person who has been briefed on the matter said Mr. Rove neither knew Ms. Wilson's name nor that she was a covert officer.

Mr. Fitzgerald has questioned a number of high-level administration officials. Mr. Rove has testified three times to the grand jury. I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, has also testified. So has former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. The prosecutor also interviewed Mr. Bush, in his White House office, and Mr. Cheney, but they were not under oath.

The disclosure of Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak raises a question the White House has never addressed: whether Mr. Rove ever discussed that conversation, or his exchange with Mr. Cooper, with the president. Mr. Bush has said several times that he wants all members of the White House staff to cooperate fully with Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation.

In June 2004, at Sea Island, Ga., soon after Mr. Cheney met with investigators in the case, Mr. Bush was asked at a news conference whether "you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found" to have leaked the agent's name.

"Yes," Mr. Bush said. "And that's up to the US attorney to find the facts."

Mr. Novak began his conversation with Mr. Rove by asking about the promotion of Frances Fragos Townsend, who had been a close aide to Janet Reno when she was attorney general, to a senior counterterrorism job at the White House, the person who was briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Novak then turned to the subject of Ms. Wilson, identifying her by name, the person said. In an Op-Ed article for The New York Times on July 6, 2003, Mr. Wilson suggested that he had been sent to Niger because of Mr. Cheney's interest in the matter. But Mr. Novak told Mr. Rove he knew that Mr. Wilson had been sent at the urging of Ms. Wilson, the person who had been briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Rove's allies have said that he did not call reporters with information about the case, rebutting the theory that the White House was actively seeking to intimidate or punish Mr. Wilson by harming his wife's career. They have also emphasized that Mr. Rove appeared not to know anything about Ms. Wilson other than that she worked at the CIA and was married to Mr. Wilson.

This is not the first time Mr. Rove has been linked to a leak reported by Mr. Novak. In 1992, Mr. Rove was fired from the Texas campaign to re-elect the first President Bush because of suspicions that he had leaked information to Mr. Novak about shortfalls in the Texas organization's fund-raising. Both Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove had been the source.

Mr. Novak's July 14, 2003, column was published against a backdrop in which White House officials were clearly agitated by Mr. Wilson's assertion, in his Op-Ed article, that the administration had "twisted" intelligence about the threat from Iraq.

But the White House was also deeply concerned about Mr. Wilson's suggestion that he had gone to Africa to carry out a mission that originated with Mr. Cheney. At the time, Mr. Cheney's earlier statements about Iraq's banned weapons were coming under fire as it became clearer that the United States would find no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons and that Mr. Hussein's nuclear program was not far advanced.

Mr. Novak wrote that the decision to send Mr. Wilson "was made at a routinely low level" and was based on what later turned out to be fake documents that had come to the United States through Italy.

Many aspects of Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation remain shrouded in secrecy. It is unclear who Mr. Novak's other source might be or how that source learned of Ms. Wilson's role as a CIA official. By itself, the disclosure that Mr. Rove had spoken to a second journalist about Ms. Wilson may not necessarily have a bearing on his exposure to any criminal charge in the case.

But it seems certain to add substantially to the political maelstrom that has engulfed the White House this week after the reports that Mr. Rove had discussed the matter with Mr. Cooper, the Time reporter.

Mr. Cooper's e-mail message to his editors, in which he described his discussion with Mr. Rove, was among documents that were turned over by Time executives recently to comply with a subpoena from Mr. Fitzgerald. A reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, who never wrote about the Wilson case, refused to cooperate with the investigation and was jailed last week for contempt of court. In addition to focusing new attention on Mr. Rove and whether he can survive the political fallout, it is sure to create new partisan pressure on Mr. Bush. Already, Democrats have been pressing the president either to live up to his promises to rid his administration of anyone found to have leaked the name of a covert operative or to explain why he does not believe Mr. Rove's actions subject him to dismissal.

The Rove-Novak exchange also leaves Mr. McClellan, the White House spokesman, in an increasingly awkward situation. Two years ago he repeatedly assured reporters that neither Mr. Rove nor several other administration officials were responsible for the leak.

The case has also threatened to become a distraction as Mr. Bush struggles to keep his second-term agenda on track and as he prepares for one of the most pivotal battles of his presidency, over the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice.

As Democrats have been demanding that Mr. Rove resign or provide a public explanation, the political machine that Mr. Rove built to bolster Mr. Bush and advance his agenda has cranked up to defend its creator. The Republican National Committee has mounted an aggressive campaign to cast Mr. Rove as blameless and to paint the matter as a partisan dispute driven not by legality, ethics or national security concerns, but by a penchant among Democrats to resort to harsh personal attacks.

But Mr. Bush said Wednesday that he would not prejudge Mr. Rove's role, and Mr. Rove was seated conspicuously just behind the president at a cabinet meeting, an image of business as usual. On Thursday, on the trip with Mr. Bush to Indiana, Mr. Rove grinned his way through a brief encounter with reporters after getting off Air Force One.

Mr. Bush's White House has been characterized by loyalty and long tenures, but no one has been at Mr. Bush's side in his journey through politics longer than Mr. Rove, who has been his strategist, enforcer, policy guru, ambassador to social and religious conservatives and friend since they met in Washington in the early 1970's. People who know Mr. Bush said it was unlikely, if not unthinkable, that he would seek Mr. Rove's departure barring a criminal indictment.

[thome]

Its something to do i guess?

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Try to make your points a little less convoluted.

My point is that there a consequences to a free press if everybody is carted off to prison without careful deliberation of who is really guilty here.

And you contradicted yourself, a journalist should rot in jail when she never revealed, or wrote anything?

Again with subtley Nick. The word IF was in my original post.

A journalist should rot in jail for not cooperating after a crime she has intimate knowledge of has occured, yes. It's obstuction. The information obviously reached her, so she is somewhat involved in all of this.

If she was never involved in any way with the suspects in this case, then no, she should not be in jail.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Again with subtley Nick. The word IF was in my original post.

A journalist should rot in jail for not cooperating after a crime she has intimate knowledge of has occured, yes. It's obstuction. The information obviously reached her, so she is somewhat involved in all of this.

If she was never involved in any way with the suspects in this case, then no, she should not be in jail.

She "should rot in prison?" On what charge? She hasn't been charged with anything, she's never been tried or convicted of any crime. It's the only way to go to jail in the US without being tried and convicted. Your ignorance is endemic of that which is meant to silence an independent, free press in this country and foster more government control. Again, if WATERGATE happened today, WOODWARD and BERNSTEIN would be in jail right now, and the real criminals get off. BULLSHIT!

And the words "implications for a free press" were in my original post. And she's still in jail, yet NOVAK is still free. You're attacking the message bearer...

[LoungeMachine]

Hello undefined
Lawyers Secured Rove's Waiver
Executives Hear Reporters' Anger

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 16, 2005; Page A06

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, facing a jail term in the Valerie Plame leak investigation, never asked White House political adviser Karl Rove to release him from a pledge of confidentiality because Cooper's attorney believed that any conversation between the two men could be construed as obstruction of justice.

"I forbid Matt to call him," Richard Sauber said yesterday. "I cringed at the idea. These two witnesses would have to explain their discussion before the grand jury."



Matthew Cooper, right, avoided jail after attorney Richard Sauber, left, brokered a deal with counsel for Karl Rove. (By Kevin Wolf -- Associated Press)
Cooper's last-minute avoidance of imprisonment, on the day that New York Times reporter Judith Miller was taken into custody, capped an intense period of backstage maneuvering that turned as much on coincidence as on a prominent journalist and his high-level informant struggling through intermediaries to protect their reputations.

Cooper testified Wednesday after Sauber worked out a waiver of confidentiality with Rove's attorney in the case, which began with columnist Robert D. Novak revealing in July 2003 that Plame, the wife of an administration critic, was a covert CIA operative. Cooper's story was posted online days later.

The fallout continues to cause turmoil at the nation's oldest newsmagazine, where two reporters this week presented their bosses with evidence that confidential sources are wary of dealing with them because Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine surrendered Cooper's notes in the case. That decision, after Time had exhausted its legal appeals, was "probably the most difficult moment," said Cooper's wife, Democratic consultant Mandy Grunwald.

"Did it make sense to still go to jail when his company had already broken his confidence to his sources? His lawyer and many friends said, 'Are you crazy? Don't go to jail now when they've already handed over your notes.' He just decided he had made the commitment and only the source could break the commitment," she said.

Sauber said that on July 3, two days after the notes were turned over, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald told him that he still needed Cooper's testimony and that the reporter could face criminal contempt charges, which would be likely to carry a substantially longer jail sentence. Sauber said he warned Cooper: "You could have a felony on your record."

Despite the threat, Sauber said, Cooper insisted he would "never be able to work" in journalism if he accepted the general waiver that Rove and other White House officials had given journalists. "I just thought those blanket waivers handed out essentially by one's boss are hard to consider uncoerced," Cooper said in an interview yesterday.

Cooper testified last year about his conversations with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, under what he considered a personal waiver from Libby. But Cooper faced contempt again when Fitzgerald demanded to know who his other source was, and Sauber said they were "unwilling" to contact Rove "based on a fishing expedition."

On July 6, the day Cooper expected to be jailed, Sauber was taking a red-eye flight back from a family vacation in Alaska and changed planes in Chicago. He bought a Wall Street Journal and saw Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, quoted as saying: "If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it's not Karl he's protecting."

After checking with Cooper, Sauber called Luskin and asked if Rove would approve a waiver that mentioned Cooper by name. They hammered out a statement that said Rove "affirms his waiver . . . concerning any conversation he may have had with Matthew Cooper" in July 2003.

Cooper left the impression he had talked to Rove that day when he said his source had released him in "somewhat dramatic fashion." He said yesterday that "I definitely should have been more clear."

Luskin has said that he merely reaffirmed the blanket waiver by Rove, who is the president's deputy chief of staff, and that the assurance would have been available at any time. He said that Cooper's description of last-minute theatrics "does not look so good" and that "it just looks to me like there was less a desire to protect a source."

On Monday, two Time correspondents, upset about Pearlstine's decision to release Cooper's notes, showed top company officials e-mails from sources who said they would now have trouble trusting the magazine. The tense meeting in the Washington bureau with Pearlstine, Time Inc. Editorial Director John Huey and Managing Editor Jim Kelly was "angry" and filled with "bile," said several participants who requested anonymity because the meeting was confidential.

One reporter, Mark Thompson, circulated copies of an e-mail from a woman who deals regularly with whistle-blowers, saying that she would not turn over a confidential source to Time and that the magazine had slid to the bottom of her media list. He told Pearlstine the Cooper decision had "made our job a heck of a lot tougher." Another, Brian Bennett, displayed a similar note from a source with the name blacked out.

When Huey told the staff that they were in a conservative judicial environment, Michael Weisskopf, who lost an arm in Iraq, accused him of a "cop-out."

Kelly said the meeting "accomplished what it set out to do, to have all 18 correspondents tell Norm their concerns and fears about his decision and have Norm explain his decision maybe a little differently than it had been explained initially in the press."

Kelly said "the biggest issue" was the argument that "I can't count on the company to stand behind me when I make a promise to a potential source." But he said Pearlstine argued that the Plame case was unique and that "there are many instances in which the editor in chief would stand behind you and defy the Supreme Court," even if that meant paying fines and going to jail.

The staff is frustrated, Kelly said, because "it's an emotional thing for journalists. It's baked in all our bones that we will protect our sources."

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
She "should rot in prison?" On what charge? She hasn't been charged with anything, she's never been tried or convicted of any crime. It's the only way to go to jail in the US without being tried and convicted. Your ignorance is endemic of that which is meant to silence an independent, free press in this country and foster more government control.

And the words "implications for a free press" were in my original post. And she's still in jail, yet NOVAK is still free. You're attacking the message bearer...

She is obstructing a federal investigation by refusing to name her source. THAT is what she did/is doing. THey are trying to get to the bottom of who did/did not have the information in order to plug the hole. Will this have a "chilling effect" because of this unique situation. Highly unlikely. How often does a source come out and say "Yea I did it"? NEVER. Should this should be considered a unique set of circumstances that had to be acted upon. BTW, which party do you think is leading the charge on this one? The dems couldn't sit idly by on this, the biggest break they have had in eons. If you want to talk about killing the messenger, free speech etc...look who's trampling over people at the gates to get what they want.

Novak should be in custody too, I have never had a problem with that argument. I'm wondering why he isn't myself at this point.

What is the implication for a free press? It's not a felony to have confidential information. It's not a felony to print confidential information in a "sourced form", as they are mere accusations without names.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
See MEZRO's comment, in the CHINA thread, regarding the WALMART crowd...

Yes....the Walmart crowd.

Gotta love 'em.

They DO fucking vote.

Not for you guys, though.

;)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yes....the Walmart crowd.

Gotta love 'em.

They DO fucking vote.

Not for you guys, though.

;)

They would if we mailed them all $300 advances and called them "tax rebates":D

[blueturk]

Or if God personally approved the Dem's political agenda. :rolleyes:

"Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 15, 2003

[Warham]

Reports: Rove Learned About CIA Officer's Identity From Journalists
Saturday, July 16, 2005

WASHINGTON — Although Joseph Wilson (search) and many Democrats have spent the last week saying Karl Rove (search) leaked the identity of a CIA operative to journalists, it may have been the other way around, according to sources familiar with grand jury testimony.

Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame (search), but that he originally learned about her from the news media and not government sources, a person briefed on the testimony told The Associated Press.

The person, who works in the legal profession, told AP that Rove testified last year that he remembered specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak (search) that Plame, who is Wilson's wife, worked for the CIA. Days earlier, Wilson, a former ambassador, had written a harsh critique of the Iraq war that was published in the New York Times

The Times also reported Friday that Rove spoke with Novak as he was preparing his July 2003 article. Novak is the reporter who first outted Plame in print but, he has not appeared to be a focus of the investigation thus far.

The Times reported that someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said Rove also learned from Novak the situation under which Wilson traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA, and the details about the Africa trip, Rove testified.

After hearing Novak's account, the person familiar with the testimony said, Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

Rove testified that by the time Novak called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from someone else in the media but he couldn't remember exactly who.

The Novak Conversation

According to the New York Times, Novak started his conversation with Rove by asking about the promotion of Frances Fragos Townsend to a senior counterterrorism job at the White House.

The talk eventually turned to Wilson, who criticizing the Bush administration's use of faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, legal sources said; Novak apparently identified Plame by name.

A few days before these conversations, in an op-ed article for The New York Times on July 6, 2003, Wilson suggested that he had been sent to Niger (search) because of Vice President Dick Cheney's interest in the matter. But Novak told Rove he knew that Wilson had been sent at the urging of his wife, the sources said.

Novak's column was printed six days later, touching off what would turn into a political firestorm that launched a federal criminal investigation that continues today into who leaked Plame's identity.

Three days after the Novak conversation, Rove testified, the chief of staff had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and — in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations — informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name, sources told the AP and the Times.

An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson's wife in a confidential conversation as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA.

On Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two Bush administration officials who were his sources for the earlier column that identified Plame. One source was Rove, the other has not yet been named.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said Thursday his client truthfully testified to the grand jury and expected to be exonerated.

"Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago," Luskin said. "And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation."

Republicans argued Friday that the latest information exonerates their man.

"Karl Rove wasn't the leaker, he was actually the recipient of the information," Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman told FOX News on Friday morning.

Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Thursday that Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."

Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But prosecutors must prove the leaking official knew the officer was covert and knowingly outed his or her identity. One of the questions that still remains is exactly what status Plame had at the time of the leak; many reports say she had a desk job at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., at the time.

Wilson on Thursday acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her.

"My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

But in an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.

Melissa Mahle, a former CIA agent who knows Plame, said her friend's exact status at the time of the outing isn't the issue. She stressed that Plame was an expert in weapons of mass destruction, which is no light intelligence matter.

"Valerie was an undercover officer ... the reality is, Valerie has no cover anymore," said Mahle, the author of "Denial and Deception." "When you're an undercover officer, you nurture that undercover" status and the contacts you make during the job, she added.

"It's not so important what she was doing that moment in time because your career is linked by all of your activities and if you were exposed by beig a CIA officer, bad guys are going to start looking at what you were doing before and backtracking."

On the issue of allegations that Plame was actually the one who sent Wilson to Niger — and not someone within the Bush administration, Mahle said that isn't possible given the rigid chain of command in the CIA.

"You don't send somebody oversees as an officer ... we have a chain of command ... those kind of decisions go up your chain so Valerie wasn't in the position of making that decision," she added.

GOP: Dems Have Nothing Better To Do

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and other leaders asked Friday that Congress hold hearings regardless of the ongoing criminal probe.

"In previous Republican Congresses the fact that a criminal investigation was underway did not prevent extensive hearings from being held on other, much less significant matters," Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders wrote Speaker Dennis Hastert.

On Thursday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada pressed for legislation — which ultimately failed — to strip Rove of his clearance for classified information, which he said Bush should have done already. Instead, Reid said, the Bush administration has attacked its critics: "This is what is known as a cover-up. This is an abuse of power."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Democrats were resorting to "partisan war chants."

Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., introduced legislation for an investigation that would compel senior administration officials to turn over records relating to the Plame disclosure.

"It seems to me this all comes down to an issue of White House credibility," Lawrence Haas, former communications director for Al Gore, told FOX News. "Nothing is more important for a White House than credibility ... this administration doesn't necessarily always play it straight ... they have a tendency to skirt the line when it comes to honesty."

Mehlman told FOX News on Friday that what happened on the Senate floor the day before was nothing more than a "partisan charade" full of "smears" on Rove.

Democrats needs to let the independent counsel to his job, Mehlman added. "We need politics to be about solutions, not insults … the angry left should not drive the Democratic Party."

"What the real problem here is, this is a political game to get Karl Rove — a political strategist who has beaten the Democrats time and time again," added Republican strategist Brad Blakeman.

Ron Kaufman, a former White House political director and current GOP strategist, told FOX News on Friday that Democrats are still bitter and sore about losing the past few elections and, during the slow summer months in Washington, the Rove issue is one they're trying to nail the administration with.

"There is no problem here except for a group of Democrats that can't talk about Social Security, can't talk about terrorism … so they're talking about Karl Rove," Kaufman said. "It's time for the Democrats to realize they lost, we won, let's get on with the things Americans care about."

FOXNews.com's Liza Porteus and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Reports: Rove Learned About CIA Officer's Identity From Journalists
Saturday, July 16, 2005

...
Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame (search), but that he originally learned about her from the news media and not government sources, a person briefed on the testimony told The Associated Press.
...



Yes, and ROVE's word is shit. He may have perjured himself.;)

[Warham]

The liberal dream is falling apart.

[LoungeMachine]

ROVE / NOVAK LEAKS GO BACK 13 YEARS

From The Seattle Times:

The leaking of Plame's identity recalls an incident from the 1992 presidential campaign, in which Rove was fired from the elder Bush's re-election team because of suspicions that he had leaked information to columnist Robert Novak — the same columnist who first reported Plame's CIA role in 2003, citing anonymous administration sources.

At the time, Bush's campaign was in trouble, and there was concern he might not even win his home state of Texas. The Novak column described a Dallas meeting in which the campaign's state manager, Robert Mosbacher, was stripped of his authority, because the Texas effort was viewed as a bust.

Mosbacher complained, expressing his suspicion that Rove was the leaker. Rove denied the charge, but he was fired nevertheless.

Times staff writer Rick Schmitt and researcher Benjamin Weyl contributed to this report.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
ROVE / NOVAK LEAKS GO BACK 13 YEARS

From The Seattle Times:



Undoubtedly an unbiased source in that little liberal burg in the Pacific Northwest. :rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Undoubtedly an unbiased source in that little liberal burg in the Pacific Northwest. :rolleyes:


THE SOURCE DOESN'T MATTER, BRI, JESUS..........ROVE WORKED FOR G.HW.BUSH AND WAS FIRED

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Despite Rove revelations, story of leak largely untold
White House denied links while adviser met with prosecutors
Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen, Washington Post

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Washington -- Karl Rove had a secret.

In public, he was masterminding President Bush's re-election and brushing off suggestions he had played any part in an unfolding drama: the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame. In private, the senior White House adviser was meeting, on five occasions, with federal prosecutors to tell what he knew about the matter.

The story he would tell prosecutors did not seem to square with the White House's denial that it had played any role in one of the most famous leaks since Watergate. Rove told prosecutors he had discussed Plame in passing with at least two reporters, including the columnist who eventually revealed her name and role in a secret mission that would raise questions about Bush's case for war against Iraq. At the same time, other White House officials were whispering about Plame, too.

It is now clear: There has been an element of pretense to the White House strategy of dealing with the Plame case since the earliest days of the saga. Revelations emerging slowly at first, and in a rapid cascade over the past several days, have made plain that many important pieces of the puzzle were not so mysterious to Rove and others inside the Bush administration. White House officials were aware of Plame and her husband's potentially damaging charge that Bush was "twisting" intelligence about Iraq's nuclear ambitions well before the episode evolved into Washington's latest scandal.

Uncertain elements

But as the story hurtles toward a conclusion sometime this year, there are several elements that remain uncertain. The most important -- did anyone commit a crime?

This article, based on interviews with lawyers and officials involved in the case, is an effort to step back from the rapidly unfolding events of recent weeks and clarify what is known about the Plame affair and what key factors are still obscure. Those people declined to be identified by name because special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has asked that closed-door proceedings not be discussed.

It all started in the early days of 2002 with Joseph Wilson IV, a flamboyant ex-diplomat who had left government for a more lucrative life of business consulting. Wilson was a veteran of the diplomatic wars of Iraq and Africa, so it seemed logical to some in the CIA, including his wife, Plame, to send him on a secret mission to Niger. Wilson's task was to determine if Iraqis had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Africa to build nuclear weapons.

To a Bush administration intent on selling the American public on war based on the threat posed by Iraq's weapons program, the yellowcake was no small deal. The White House would soon cite it as evidence that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons.

Wilson spent a week in Niger chatting with locals about the allegation, coming to the conclusion that the yellowcake charges were probably unfounded. He reported his findings to the agency -- but they never made their way to the White House.

Cheney's decision

The story might have ended there, but Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials decided to make the yellowcake charges a central piece of the administration's evidence in arguing Hussein had designs on a dangerous program of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs. On the march to war, Bush officials rebuffed concerns from some at the CIA and included in his January 2003 State of the Union the now-famous 16 words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Wilson was floored, then furious.

Wilson set out to discredit the charge, working largely through back channels at first to debunk it. He called friends inside the government and the media and told the New York Times' Nicholas Kristof of his findings in Niger. Kristof aired them publicly for the first time in his May 6, 2003, column but did not name Wilson. This caught the attention of officials inside Cheney's office, as well as others involved in war planning, according to people who had talked with them.

The White House, hailing the lightning-quick toppling of Hussein, suddenly found itself on the defensive at home over its WMD claims. It was not just Wilson, but Democrats, reporters and a few former officials who were publicly wondering whether Bush had led the nation to war based on flimsy, if not outright false, intelligence.

Administration officials set out to rebuff their critics, Wilson in particular. By the time the Washington Post published Wilson's allegation questioning the intelligence (but not citing his name) on the front page on June, 12, 2003 -- one month before the Plame affair was public -- Wilson was on the administration's radar screen.

The more Wilson pushed, the more the White House was determined to push back against a man they regarded as an irresponsible provocateur.

Up until this point, Wilson had worked mostly behind the scenes, but on July 6, he penned an op-ed in the New York Times, writing, "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons programs was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Quick response

The White House response was swift. There is a simple rule in politics: Kill a story before it kills you. The Bush team spread word to reporters that Wilson was a Democrat, a supporter of Bush's political opponents who was sent on an inconclusive mission that people in power knew nothing of.

Then, they went a step further.

Two days after Wilson went public, columnist Robert Novak told Rove that he was hearing that Wilson had been sent on the mission at the suggestion of his wife, who was working in the CIA, a lawyer familiar with the conversation said. "I heard that, too," Rove replied, according to the lawyer. Rove said Novak had told him Plame's name and that that was the first time he had heard it, the lawyer said.

On July 7, Bush took off for a trip to Africa. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was on the trip, carried with him a memo containing information about Plame, as well as other intelligence on the yellowcake claim. It is on this trip that, prosecutors believe, some White House aides might have learned about Plame.

The origin of the Plame information is central to the case. Prosecutors are trying to determine whether White House officials shared information about Plame based on the State Department memo, or from conversations with reporters, as Rove has testified, or somewhere else. If it turns out Plame's identity was learned from the memo, it would undermine the GOP defense that Rove and other administration officials were simply discussing information they had learned from reporters.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said he could say "categorically" that Rove had not obtained any information about Plame from any confidential source, such as a classified document. A lawyer familiar with Rove's testimony hedged a bit on who precisely had told Rove about Plame, saying it might have come secondhand from another aide, as well as from Novak.

Discrediting Wilson

In Washington, Rove and others were discrediting Wilson's story even as then-CIA director George Tenet said that the yellowcake allegation should never have been included in Bush's speech. "This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed," Tenet said in a July 11 statement.

In a conversation that same day, Rove told Time magazine's Matthew Cooper that Wilson's wife was in the CIA and authorized the mission to Niger; but he did not use her name. Afterward, Rove e-mailed then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley to tell him he had waved Cooper off Wilson's claim.

A day later, Cheney's top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, told Cooper he had heard the same thing about Plame, and a senior administration official flagged Wilson's wife's role, almost in passing, to the Washington Post's Walter Pincus.

Novak named Plame

On July 14, Novak's column ran, naming Plame for the first time and saying two senior administration officials had provided him with the information. The White House anti-Wilson campaign continued, but legally it did not matter, because once Plame's name was in the public domain, Rove and others were free to gossip about her.

CIA officials believed that the revealing of Plame's identity was a potential crime and contacted the Justice Department to investigate. CIA officials maintain that Plame never ordered up the trip.

It is not clear when the White House realized Plame might have been a covert operative, but Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called for an FBI probe 10 days after the Novak column was published. It would be a crime to reveal her name only if a government official knew that Plame had covert status and knew that the government was actively concealing her identity.

The uproar over the leak was ephemeral, as the story seemed to wilt in the summer heat. But in late September, a senior White House official was quoted as telling the Post at least six reporters had been told of Plame before Novak's column, "purely and simply out of revenge." Two days later, Bush was told that the Justice Department was investigating whether someone had unlawfully leaked the identity of an undercover agent.

U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald in Chicago was named special counsel three months later, setting in motion an aggressive investigation that would soon force about a dozen administration officials to testify, compel the Supreme Court to consider the age-old question of how much protection a reporter can provide a source and land one reporter, the New York Times' Judith Miller, behind bars for refusing to testify. Her role remains a mystery, because she never wrote a story.

Fitzgerald subpoenaed White House phone records and e-mails, guest lists for parties and information about the State Department memo reportedly brought aboard Air Force One. What started out as a simple investigation into a leak evolved slowly at first, swiftly in the early days of 2004, into a wider probe of other potential illegalities. Bush and Cheney were asked to talk to investigators informally, while a parade of officials from Powell to Rove to McClellan appeared before the grand jury.

Reporters obtained releases from sources such as Libby to discuss confidential conversations, while others refused. Cooper and Miller, in a case that reached and was rejected by the Supreme Court, refused to reveal sources and were held in contempt. Cooper was released by Rove to talk; Miller is sitting in an Alexandria, Va., jail.

The showdown over sources has already impeded at least two major media outlets. The Cleveland Plain Dealer, fearing criminal prosecution, has decided against publishing two investigative pieces not related to the Plame controversy because they were based on anonymous leaks. Time reporters have said that at least two sources have told them they would no longer provide information because the company had turned over documents in the Plame case.

As for the Bush administration, the investigation has exposed how an administration that publicly deplores leaking has engaged aggressively in the practice to advance its goals.

Yet much of the case remains a mystery. Did the White House leak the identity of a CIA operative? Is it a crime? Did Bush have any knowledge of it? Will Fitzgerald have spent this much time pressuring officials and reporters and not deliver an indictment? Those questions should be answered soon, as the grand jury's term is set to expire in October.

:cool:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
The liberal dream is falling apart.
Say who? YOU?:rolleyes:

puh-leeze:cool:


Actually the workings of Bush/Rummy/Cheney/Rice/Wolfie/Perle/Bremer/DeLay/Cunninham/Rove/Santorum will all eventually turm out in our favor.

The pendulum will swing back to the Left, because you guys over shot the runway, took it too far, and are about to pay the consequences.

see ya:D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Say who? YOU?:rolleyes:

puh-leeze:cool:


Actually the workings of Bush/Rummy/Cheney/Rice/Wolfie/Perle/Bremer/DeLay/Cunninham/Rove/Santorum will all eventually turm out in our favor.

The pendulum will swing back to the Left, because you guys over shot the runway, took it too far, and are about to pay the consequences.

see ya:D

True dat.' The return of REAL Liberal Democracy is a historical inevitability, it's just a matter of time, and of how much damage these Neo Con, Leo Straussian Mythology beLIEving, buffoons can do to our country and military.
http://www.webstersd.org/High/Projects/chaotic60s/assassinations/PhotoGallery/images/jfk.jpg

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Say who? YOU?:rolleyes:

puh-leeze:cool:


Actually the workings of Bush/Rummy/Cheney/Rice/Wolfie/Perle/Bremer/DeLay/Cunninham/Rove/Santorum will all eventually turm out in our favor.

The pendulum will swing back to the Left, because you guys over shot the runway, took it too far, and are about to pay the consequences.

see ya:D

You guys have to hope for the demise of the Republican party, otherwise you won't get back into the drivers seat. None of the party's liberal agenda or ideas will get the voters inspired enough to care.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
You guys have to hope for the demise of the Republican party, otherwise you won't get back into the drivers seat. None of the party's liberal agenda or ideas will get the voters inspired enough to care.

This IS the demise of the Republican party. It has been ever since the BCE took it over and started implementing their perpetual war, perpetual fear, perpetual fascist agenda.

People are starting to wake up to the fact that they were never Republicans to begin with, but fascist corporatists with no loyalty to God, country or anything else but the almighty dollar.

[Big Train]

Thanks for the laughs this morning guys...:)

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
You guys have to hope for the demise of the Republican party, otherwise you won't get back into the drivers seat. None of the party's liberal agenda or ideas will get the voters inspired enough to care.

The main thing that inspires support for Bush is fear, which Dubya uses every chance he gets. He just came down here to drum up support for CAFTA, but spent a lot of time talking about terrorism before his pitch. If 9/11 had not happened, Bush would not be in office right now.

[Big Train]

If memory serves, Bush was in office BEFORE 9/11. I think he was reelected not on the basis of 9/11, although I will say it was a major part of his base, but because Kerry was so weak across the board. Which was a REAL fear of mine in not voting for him. He had zero positions and zero solutions. I have no time for that.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
If memory serves, Bush was in office BEFORE 9/11. I think he was reelected not on the basis of 9/11, although I will say it was a major part of his base, but because Kerry was so weak across the board. Which was a REAL fear of mine in not voting for him. He had zero positions and zero solutions. I have no time for that.

Oh come on, BUSH's Presidency was floundering before 9/11 (as it is now). He was in trouble already after only eight months in office, he was showing he was a "divider, not a uniter." And he had won a very controversial election, in which he lost the popular vote. Bush certainly did not cause 9/11, at least not proactively, but his only selling point to the middle of the roaders and 'soccer moms' was fear.

So, when was the last "terra-alert" we had? It's all in your head bitches, what there was of "al Qaeda" was effectively dismantled by mid-2003. We are causing a new generation to become "al Qaida" with our War in Iraq.

[blueturk]

Here's what I'm talking about, BT. Fear as a campaign tactic. Feel free to name any other basis that you think Dubya was re-elected upon besides terrorism. Or his "religion".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ridge-alerts_x.htm

Posted 5/10/2005 11:21 PM

Ridge reveals clashes on alerts
By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.

His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation's homeland security apparatus.

Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.


"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "

Revising or scrapping the color-coded alert system is under review by new Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff. Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said "improvements and adjustments" may be announced within the next few months.

The threat level was last raised on a nationwide scale in December 2003, to orange from yellow — or "elevated" risk — where the alert level is now. In most cases, Ridge said Homeland Security officials didn't want to raise the level because they knew local governments and businesses would have to spend money putting temporary security upgrades in place.

"You have to use that tool of communication very sparingly," Ridge said at the forum, which was attended by seven other former department leaders.

The level is raised if a majority on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council favors it and President Bush concurs. Among those on the council with Ridge were Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI chief Robert Mueller, CIA director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Ridge and Ashcroft publicly clashed over how to communicate threat information to the public. But Ridge has never before discussed internal dissention over the threat level.

The color-coded system was controversial from the start. Polls showed the public found it confusing.

Contributing: Associated Press

[Big Train]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh come on, BUSH's Presidency was floundering before 9/11 (as it is now). He was in trouble already after only eight months in office, he was showing he was a "divider, not a uniter." And he had won a very controversial election, in which he lost the popular vote. Bush certainly did not cause 9/11, at least not proactively, but his only selling point to the middle of the roaders and 'soccer moms' was fear.

So, when was the last "terra-alert" we had? It's all in your head bitches, what there was of "al Qaeda" was effectively dismantled by mid-2003. We are causing a new generation to become "al Qaida" with our War in Iraq.

Bush won two elections based on a no-confidence vote of the democratic party. Pure and simple. Using fear or not, which I do give you some points for in general, the bottom line is the guy the Dems put up in both cases could not counter the fear with "I'm a leader, I can handle it". He did not sell the American people that he was the person who could handle these strange and scary times. It's cut and dried.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
It's cut and dried.

It certainly is......
http://www.democracymeansyou.com/art/posters/diebold/diebold_1a.jpg

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Big Train
Bush won two elections based on a no-confidence vote of the democratic party. Pure and simple. Using fear or not, which I do give you some points for in general, the bottom line is the guy the Dems put up in both cases could not counter the fear with "I'm a leader, I can handle it". He did not sell the American people that he was the person who could handle these strange and scary times. It's cut and dried.

Exactly! As I said before, without the terrorism threat Bush would not be in office right now. It's cut and dried.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Bush won two elections based on a no-confidence vote of the democratic party. Pure and simple. Using fear or not, which I do give you some points for in general, the bottom line is the guy the Dems put up in both cases could not counter the fear with "I'm a leader, I can handle it". He did not sell the American people that he was the person who could handle these strange and scary times. It's cut and dried.

How exactly is winning the popular vote a "no-confidence vote?" Hell, in most countries they would have had a run-off election in such a close election, and GORE would have won it.

Again, it's mostly derived from the right-wing hatchet job done on CLINTON, stupid rumors that I still hear in this forum that have been proven to be complete fabrications. Investigate BUSH like CLINTON was investigated, start a "TEXAS Project" to uncover every sordid detail of BUSH's past life for years on end, and have an independent counsel investigate every allegation ever made against BUSH, (including that both he and his father cheated on their wives, and that Junior's daughters are sluttier than PARIS HILTON) and we'll see what happens. The only vote taken in the past two elections is the REPUBLICAN's ability to run negative, smear campaigns, and their ability to appeal to every base instinct of fear.

[Big Train]

Perhaps. But it could have happened on another issue as well. The bottom line is that on EVERY issue (domestic issues as well), Bush won. Kerry had no domestic plan either, so although I give you SOME points for fear, I also can't deny that Kerry lost domestically too. He had no plan whatsoever for any domestic issue. Gore's ridicoulous "three lock box" Social Security plan I won't even get into...

It wasn't just fear, although fear did play a part in it.

[Warham]

Why don't you Democrats just admit that Gore and Kerry sucked as candidates and we can move on?

Kerry certainly didn't inspire any independents to vote for him. The Democratic ticket on the ballot could have been a blank, and 55 million would have still voted red.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
Why don't you Democrats just admit that Gore and Kerry sucked as candidates and we can move on?

Kerry certainly didn't inspire any independents to vote for him. The Democratic ticket on the ballot could have been a blank, and 55 million would have still voted red.

Evidently Gore and Bush were virtually tied on the suck meter. As for Kerry, he did suck as a candidate, but without the fear factor Bush would have had nothing to make him look any better as a candidate. Again, the Bush campaign was based largely on fear. What else did he have? A war based on non-existent WMD's? A record deficit? Blatant favoritism to the wealthy? You sheep fucking kill me.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Why don't you Democrats just admit that Gore and Kerry sucked as candidates and we can move on?



Okay. I will. Gore was a lousy candidate.

But only in the sense that he was not a "seller", which is what a "candidate" is. He WAS the VP for eight years, and distinguished himself as a completely competent and knowledgable administrator.

How was Gore not a campaigner? He apologized to Bush in the midst of a debate for his math in the previous debate. BUsh's math was all over the place, making unfounded and just plain wrong claims, but never once did he ever retract his statements.

THAT'S how you win a campaign. It makes you seem incompetnet to say "I was wrong". Howveer, it's NOT how you actually run the country once you get the office. Bush's administration has made far too many mistakes - to the cost of people's lives and livelihoods - to keep pretending that they are always right.

Bush on the other hand can sell himslf with his "aw, shucks, I'm a Washington outsider just like y'all" very well, but look to Rove and Cheney to actually be the weavers of the actual web.

Bush is essentially Redford in "The Candidate". An absoluytely brilliant campaign, wins, and then realizes what he's gotten himself into and then says, "Now what?"

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Why don't you Democrats just admit that Gore and Kerry sucked as candidates and we can move on?

.


The day you admit The Chimp is a brain dead moron, Cheney, Rove, and Rummy all are evil motherfuckers who should all be in the Haig, and that the designated hitter rule should be outlawed:cool:


Then we can talk:D

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The day you admit The Chimp is a brain dead moron, Cheney, Rove, and Rummy all are evil motherfuckers who should all be in the Haig, and that the designated hitter rule should be outlawed:cool:


Then we can talk:D


Sorry, but it's spelled "Hague" and we nullified that silly ICC treaty which would have given away our sovereignty. :cool:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Sorry, but it's spelled "Hague" and we nullified that silly ICC treaty which would have given away our sovereignty. :cool:

Must've mixed it up with Alexander "Im in charge here" Haig, who when asked if he would ever run for president, quipped; " I may throw my helmet in the ring" or words to that effect:D


DH still blows:cool:

[Big Train]

Originally posted by academic punk
Okay. I will. Gore was a lousy candidate.

But only in the sense that he was not a "seller", which is what a "candidate" is. He WAS the VP for eight years, and distinguished himself as a completely competent and knowledgable administrator.

How was Gore not a campaigner? He apologized to Bush in the midst of a debate for his math in the previous debate. BUsh's math was all over the place, making unfounded and just plain wrong claims, but never once did he ever retract his statements.

THAT'S how you win a campaign. It makes you seem incompetnet to say "I was wrong". Howveer, it's NOT how you actually run the country once you get the office. Bush's administration has made far too many mistakes - to the cost of people's lives and livelihoods - to keep pretending that they are always right.

Bush on the other hand can sell himslf with his "aw, shucks, I'm a Washington outsider just like y'all" very well, but look to Rove and Cheney to actually be the weavers of the actual web.

Bush is essentially Redford in "The Candidate". An absoluytely brilliant campaign, wins, and then realizes what he's gotten himself into and then says, "Now what?"

Man, take that to the DNC, find someone who sorta fits the bill and they might actually put up a decent fight next time.

If Bush was "The Candidate" was Clinton Redford's role in "Indecent Proposal"?

[Warham]

LOL!

[Nickdfresh]

Bush vows to fire anyone who committed crime in CIA leak

Monday, July 18, 2005; Posted: 1:37 p.m. EDT (17:37 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/index.html)) -- President Bush told reporters Monday that if anyone committed a crime in connection with the leak of a CIA agent's identity, "they will no longer work in my administration."

He would not, however, discuss the possible role Karl Rove or other administration officials may have played in the exposure of CIA officer Valerie Plame after her husband questioned a key piece of the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq.

At a brief news conference following a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Bush said, "We have a serious ongoing investigation here, and it's being played out in the press. I think it's best if people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. ... I would like this to end as quickly as possible. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

On Sunday, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper told CNN's "Late Edition" that Rove told him Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent involved with weapons of mass destruction in a July 2003 conversation after Wilson had raised questions about one of the arguments underpinning the invasion of Iraq.

"After that conversation, I knew that she worked at the CIA, and worked on WMD issues," said Cooper, who appeared last week before a grand jury investigating the leak. "But as I made clear to the grand jury, I'm certain Rove never used her exact name and certainly never indicated she had a covert status."

Cooper said Rove ended the conversation by telling him, "I've already said too much."

He also said that Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, confirmed the information.

The reporter recounted his 2 1/2 hours before the grand jury in a Time magazine article this week and on Sunday talk shows. In the Time article, he said he asked Libby "if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, 'Yeah, I've heard that, too' or words to that effect."

Cooper told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he regarded that as confirmation of what Rove had told him.

The controversy dates back to the furious debate over the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the claims that Baghdad was harboring a nuclear weapons program in violation of U.N. sanctions. In his 2003 State of the Union address, with war looming, President Bush told the nation that British intelligence had evidence that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Africa.

Nearly three months after Baghdad fell to U.S. troops, Wilson disclosed that the CIA asked him to travel to Niger in 2002 to investigate that allegation, and that he had reported back to the agency that the report was unlikely. The resulting controversy prompted the administration to back off the claim, though CIA Director George Tenet said Wilson's report had been inconclusive.

Eight days after Wilson's account appeared in The New York Times, syndicated columnist and CNN contributor Robert Novak identified Plame as a CIA operative in a column that suggested that Plame was responsible for sending her husband to Niger to investigate the uranium report. Novak cited two senior administration officials in his column.

A lawyer familiar with grand jury testimony in the case said Friday that Novak told Rove that Plame was a CIA agent, not the other way around. The lawyer said Rove responded to Novak, 'I heard that, too.' "

Novak declined to comment on the report, citing a lawyer's advice.

Rove, the architect of Bush's campaigns for governor of Texas and president, now serves as deputy White House chief of staff. Leading Democrats are calling for him to be fired, or at least have his security clearance yanked for the duration of the investigation.

In October 2003, after CIA officials requested a criminal investigation of the leak, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said neither Rove nor Libby played any role in the leak. McClellan said anyone found to have leaked classified information would be fired -- a pledge Bush himself reaffirmed in June 2004.

Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman told CNN's "Late Edition" that Rove -- long considered one of the most aggressive strategists in American politics -- is the victim of an "unprecedented" partisan smear campaign by Democrats.

"They're trying to have short-term political gain and smear a good man," Mehlman said. "And it's wrong, and they should apologize for it."

But Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, said the issue was "so much bigger than Karl Rove."

"The underlying issue here is, whether or not Joe Wilson said things rightly or wrongly, he was right -- flat right -- that Niger was not selling yellowcake to Iraq, which was a justification for going to war," Biden said. "This was all about whether or not those who had access to intelligence information in this administration used it appropriately, not just whether or not the agency was right."

He added, "Anybody who's ever made a mistake in this administration has never paid at all. Everyone who has been right in this administration has been fired."

Republican spokesmen have accused Wilson of lying about the origins of his mission and say his report actually bolstered the report -- which later turned out to have been bogus -- that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.

Wilson called his wife's exposure an act of political retaliation that ended her career. But some observers have questioned whether Plame, then assigned to Washington, met the definition of an undercover agent in the 1982 law that makes revealing the identity of an American spy a felony.

Wilson has said that the CIA considered her exposure to be a crime when it sought a Justice Department investigation of the matter.

"The CIA would not have frivolously referred this to the Justice Department if they did not believe a possible crime had been committed," he told CBS' "Face the Nation."

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by academic punk
Okay. I will. Gore was a lousy candidate.

But only in the sense that he was not a "seller", which is what a "candidate" is. He WAS the VP for eight years, and distinguished himself as a completely competent and knowledgable administrator.

How was Gore not a campaigner? He apologized to Bush in the midst of a debate for his math in the previous debate. BUsh's math was all over the place, making unfounded and just plain wrong claims, but never once did he ever retract his statements.

THAT'S how you win a campaign. It makes you seem incompetnet to say "I was wrong". Howveer, it's NOT how you actually run the country once you get the office. Bush's administration has made far too many mistakes - to the cost of people's lives and livelihoods - to keep pretending that they are always right.

Bush on the other hand can sell himslf with his "aw, shucks, I'm a Washington outsider just like y'all" very well, but look to Rove and Cheney to actually be the weavers of the actual web.

Bush is essentially Redford in "The Candidate". An absoluytely brilliant campaign, wins, and then realizes what he's gotten himself into and then says, "Now what?"


I agree with this 1000%, although in 2000 I voted for Nader never ever believing that there were of that many brain dead and gullible fools that bought Bush campaign's bullshit, propoganda and lies, boy will I never make that mistake again....I forgot how foolish and uninformed people are...........

[DLR'sCock]

Oh, so now it has to be a crime after it is seen "so far" that Fatso didn't technically commit a crime. Hmmmmmmmm I am sure he did though, when he told his aide, and that said aide then leaked it to Miller..., although Cooper said yesterday that Rove did tell him....

[Nickdfresh]

Cheney staff chief tied to CIA leak
By PETE YOST
Associated Press
7/18/2005

http://www.buffalonews.com/graphics/2005/07/18/0718libby.jpg
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was a source for article identifying CIA officer.

Associated Press
Matthew Cooper says Karl Rove told him, at end of call, "I've already said too much."

WASHINGTON - Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was a source along with President Bush's chief political adviser for an article on Time magazine's Web site that identified an undercover CIA officer, Time reporter Matthew Cooper said Sunday, further countering White House contentions that neither aide was involved in the leak.

In an effort to quell a chorus of calls to fire deputy White House chief of staff for policy Karl Rove, Republicans said that Rove originally learned about CIA officer Valerie E. Plame's identity from the news media. That exonerates Rove, the Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman said on NBC's "Meet the Press," and Democrats should apologize.

But it is not clear that it was a journalist who first revealed the information to Rove.

A lawyer familiar with Rove's grand jury testimony said Sunday that Rove learned about the CIA officer either from the media or from someone in government who said the information came from a journalist. The lawyer spoke on condition of anonymity because the federal investigation is continuing.

In a first-person account in this week's issue of Time magazine, Cooper writes that during his grand jury appearance Wednesday, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald "asked me several different ways if Rove had indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA." Cooper said Rove did not indicate how he had heard.

The White House's assurance in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leak of the CIA officer's identity "was a lie," said John D. Podesta, White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration. He said Rove's credibility "is in shreds."

Until last week, the White House had insisted for nearly two years that Libby and Rove had no connection to the leak. Plame's husband is a Bush administration critic, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq at the start of the Persian Gulf War and a former ambassador to Gabon.

The White House refused last week to repeat its denials about Rove's involvement. The refusal came amid the disclosure that Rove told Cooper on July 11, 2003, that Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA and that she had a role in arranging a trip he took to Africa at the CIA's behest in 2002 to inquire whether Iraq was trying to obtain uranium ore for alleged weapons of mass destruction. The White House on Sunday declined to comment about Libby, saying the investigation was ongoing.

The CIA sent Wilson to check out whether the government of Niger had sold yellowcake to Iraq for possible use in nuclear weapons.

Five days before Rove spoke with Cooper, Wilson had written an op-ed article for the New York Times suggesting that the Bush administration had twisted prewar intelligence, including a "highly doubtful" report that Iraq had bought nuclear materials from Niger.

Libby and Rove were among the unidentified government officials who provided information for a Time article about Wilson, Cooper said on "Meet the Press."

Cooper also said that there might have been other government officials who were sources for his article. Time posted "A War on Wilson?" on its Web site July 17, 2003.

In his first-person account, Cooper said Rove ended their telephone conversation with the words, "I've already said too much." Cooper speculated that Rove could have been "worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else."

"This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife," Cooper wrote of his phone call with Rove.

Cooper also had a conversation about Wilson and his wife with Libby. According to Cooper, "Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too' or words to that effect" when Cooper asked whether Libby had heard anything about Wilson's wife having a role in sending her husband to Niger. Cooper's testimony about Libby came in August 2004, after Libby, like Rove this month, provided a waiver of confidentiality, Cooper said.

Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the third-ranking House Republican, and Wilson clashed on CBS' "Face the Nation." Blunt said many people in Washington understood that Plame worked at the CIA and went to its headquarters every day. It "certainly wouldn't be the first time that the CIA might have been overzealous in sort of maintaining the kind of top-secret definition on things longer than they needed to," Blunt said.

Wilson pointed out that his wife "was covered according to the CIA, and the CIA made the referral" to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation.

Wilson said friends and neighbors of the couple did not know that she worked for the CIA and that they understood her to be "an energy analyst, an energy consultant."

www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050718/1008502.asp

[academic punk]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
Oh, so now it has to be a crime after it is seen "so far" that Fatso didn't technically commit a crime. Hmmmmmmmm I am sure he did though, when he told his aide, and that said aide then leaked it to Miller..., although Cooper said yesterday that Rove did tell him....

The real issue - at least the one that is most pronounced at thsi time -0 is that the White House consciously and deliberately duped the public. Two years ago they claimed NO involvement or knowledge in this whole matter.

Suddenly, it's apparent that there was...a LITTLE. The they try to say "Oh, but Rove is a hero, here's what actually happened", and then suddenly Cooper's tesimony contradicts the WH's latest statements. What's it going to take? These people are CORRUPT. They are DUPLICITOUS. They LIED and are HYPOCRITES.

Take off the blinders. Sure the glare is painful, but at least you'll be able to see.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by academic punk
The real issue - at least the one that is most pronounced at thsi time -0 is that the White House consciously and deliberately duped the public. Two years ago they claimed NO involvement or knowledge in this whole matter.

Suddenly, it's apparent that there was...a LITTLE. The they try to say "Oh, but Rove is a hero, here's what actually happened", and then suddenly Cooper's tesimony contradicts the WH's latest statements. What's it going to take? These people are CORRUPT. They are DUPLICITOUS. They LIED and are HYPOCRITES.

Take off the blinders. Sure the glare is painful, but at least you'll be able to see.

It's called "moving the goalposts."

[Warham]

Now that the press have blown their wads over this story, we'll find out the truth when that investigation is completed. I'm sure Rove will be found innocent of any wrongdoing, and the libs can move on to the next round of trying to destroy Bush's presidency.

* Rathergate - Failed
* Club G'itmo - Failed
* Execute Karl Rove for treason - Will Fail
* ???

[Guitar Shark]

You might gain a little bit of credibility if you stopped referring to the opposition as "libs" or "liberals" in every post, War. It isn't just liberals who are uneasy about these events.

[Warham]

So you are saying that conservatives are worried about Club G'itmo and Karl Rove, GS?

[Guitar Shark]

Some, yes. Absolutely.

[Warham]

And I'm sure some liberals like George W. Bush too. Would that be a good assumption?

[Guitar Shark]

Sure, I suppose so. :D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
So you are saying that conservatives are worried about Club G'itmo and Karl Rove, GS?

There's a difference between conservatives and Neo Cons WAR. Some conservatives still care about the truth and justice. Neo Cons are habitual liars that have begun to believe their own bullshit.

Neo cons have created a new al Qaeda, and their failed policies are causing more terrorist attacks, and the very real possibility of another military defeat in IRAQ. The surest sign of this is the nukes talk.

[Warham]

How about terrorists are the cause of more terrorist attacks? That might be putting too much of a spin on it, or might require jumping through too many hoops. Our 'failed policies' didn't seem to be a factor in all the bombings they did prior to 2003.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Warham
How about terrorists are the cause of more terrorist attacks? That might be putting too much of a spin on it, or might require jumping through too many hoops.

It also totally ignores the root causes of what motivates people to turn to terrorism.

Seriously War, you should start seeing the "gray" in life once in a while.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
How about terrorists are the cause of more terrorist attacks? That might be putting too much of a spin on it, or might require jumping through too many hoops. Our 'failed policies' didn't seem to be a factor in all the bombings they did prior to 2003.

When you went to college WARPIG, did you notice any courses for Terror 101? Did you see the PIRA recruiting at job fairs.

Al Qaeda was largely destroyed after 9/11. We helping to recruit a whole new batch. Nobody becomes a terrorist because it's a great career.

[Warham]

Oh, I do. I just think in this case it's their religious fanaticism that's causing it, GS.

See, if terrorists were after the U.S., then they would be attacking our soldiers mano e mano. Instead, they are blowing up innocent Mideast civilians. They are attacking their own kind, in simpler terms. It's all about killing in the name of Allah, and getting your 72 virgins when you take the dirt nap. I think the hatred of the United States is born out of jealousy more than anything else.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark


Seriously War, you should start seeing the "gray" in life once in a while.

Right wing extremist can't deal with "gray". probably because it's only one letter away from.... you know....

http://www.pinette.net/chris/flags/gay/gay-glory.gif

[Warham]

Nobody I know calls me an extremist. LOL.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Oh, I do. I just think in this case it's their religious fanaticism that's causing it, GS.

See, if terrorists were after the U.S., then they would be attacking our soldiers mano e mano. Instead, they are blowing up innocent Mideast civilians. They are attacking their own kind, in simpler terms. It's all about killing in the name of Allah, and getting your 72 virgins when you take the dirt nap. I think the hatred of the United States is born out of jealousy more than anything else.

Mainly, they're doing it in IRAQ. Jealousy? That's a Neo Con myth. Many of the Islamic Fundamentalists could give a shit about America and just want to turn their own societies into Islamic Republics.

More like we've support dictatorships in the Middle East since WWII, the ones they wanted to overthrow. And we helped train many of them in IRAQ.

Truth is, there is no real al Qaeda, just fragmented groups coming together and recruiting people using our bullshit justified invasion in IRAQ.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Truth is, there is no real al Qaeda, just fragmented groups

Well no shit, Sherlock. That is the entire basis of their organization.

Give the man a door prize. :rolleyes:

[Keeyth]

I'll take what's behind the green door... :D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Well no shit, Sherlock. That is the entire basis of their organization.

Give the man a door prize. :rolleyes:

Not according to the dolts you voted for. If they're just a fragmented unit of disorganized factions that are as prone to fight each other than they are the US, then they're not really much of a threat once Afghanistan is gone, are they? Hardly what I hear from Gov't propaganda, especially during the election. The truth is that the Jihadists have failed, their attack on 9/11 was one of desperation, not strength. And we already have the guys who did it! The only real strength is what we give them through our blunders (like IRAQ). But I'm glad you're coming around BBB.;)

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
It also totally ignores the root causes of what motivates people to turn to terrorism.

Seriously War, you should start seeing the "gray" in life once in a while.

Ahem, *cough cough*, yeah right....:rolleyes:

[ODShowtime]

Now that the press have blown their wads over this story, we'll find out the truth when that investigation is completed. I'm sure Rove will be found innocent of any wrongdoing, and the libs can move on to the next round of trying to destroy Bush's presidency.



Originally posted by Guitar Shark
You might gain a little bit of credibility if you stopped referring to the opposition as "libs" or "liberals" in every post, War. It isn't just liberals who are uneasy about these events.

He's right, your credibility is in the shitter. I used to respect your opinion.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
It also totally ignores the root causes of what motivates people to turn to terrorism.

Seriously War, you should start seeing the "gray" in life once in a while.

Fat Chance:rolleyes:

I wouldn't hold your breath, counselor:cool:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham


See, if terrorists were after the U.S., then they would be attacking our soldiers mano e mano. .

I refuse to believe you're really THIS stupid:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I refuse to believe you're really THIS stupid:rolleyes:

No, it's because they are pussies. Terrorists know that if they went against our forces directly, they would get mowed down. Attacking civilians is the easy and cowardly thing to do.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
He's right, your credibility is in the shitter. I used to respect your opinion.

I've never respected yours.

;)

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
I've never respected yours.

;)

yeah, yeah. Anyone you brand as a liberal. :o

[Warham]

Just like John Kerry, you can't admit that you are one.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, it's because they are pussies. Terrorists know that if they went against our forces directly, they would get mowed down. Attacking civilians is the easy and cowardly thing to do.

Actually, they're trying to spark a civil war between SHIITES and SUNNIS. They know we won't be there forever.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually, they're trying to spark a civil war between SHIITES and SUNNIS. They know we won't be there forever.

We'll just be there until Armageddon ends.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
No, it's because they are pussies. Terrorists know that if they went against our forces directly, they would get mowed down. Attacking civilians is the easy and cowardly thing to do.

Uh...I don't know if you've been noticing, but a lot of these guys are blowing themselves up. You can't get any more man y mano than that, and it seems that they're doing a pretty good job of "mowing ythemselves down" in the process.

Think of it like chess: they just managed to ue one pawn to take out two rooks. And, importantly and irrefutably, it's nigh impossible to stop someone willing to kill themself - and goes into thewir mission with the intention of dying - for their cause.

[Warham]

So on top of being pussies, they are just fucking stupid as well!

I'd like to see their faces when they realize there aren't 72 virgins waiting for them on the other side.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Just like John Kerry, you can't admit that you are one.

What the hell does that word even mean dude? You really use it like a swear word. Like your mind has been rotted by Drugs Limbaugh over the years.

I'm a white, educated, licensed professional who will be making quite a bit of money in the coming years if society doesn't fall apart. I have no love for the poor or the downtrodden. I have no reason to vote demoratic. NONE. The only thing I'm liberal about is drugs.

I don't sit here and bitch about gw&friends taking away welfare or any of that shit. I bitch because they're destroying checks and balances in our government, cheating, lying, and starting unwinnable wars!

Oh I'm real liberal! I really want to shake up the system! :rolleyes:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
So on top of being pussies, they are just fucking stupid as well!

I'd like to see their faces when they realize there aren't 72 virgins waiting for them on the other side.

I'm not saying my beliefs disagree with yours on this, but taking that attitude towards their mindset is dangerous. Regardless if there are 72 virgins awaiting their "martyrdom", if we don't understand the mindset (and it goes waaaay beyond being "pussies" and "fucking stupid") we can never ever defeat them.

They are looking at this from the long view. They bleieve that a hunderd years from now they will have finally destoyed the "Evil Empire" tha is the U.S., and be the worlds dominant power. One hundred years. If, or longer if need be. That's what we're fighting.

[Warham]

The last time I checked OD, all three branches of government were working fine. The only checks and balances that are breaking down are the ones in your mind.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
The last time I checked OD, all three branches of government were working fine. The only checks and balances that are breaking down are the ones in your mind.

:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by academic punk
I'm not saying my beliefs disagree with yours on this, but taking that attitude towards their mindset is dangerous. Regardless if there are 72 virgins awaiting their "martyrdom", if we don't understand the mindset (and it goes waaaay beyond being "pussies" and "fucking stupid") we can never ever defeat them.

They are looking at this from the long view. They bleieve that a hunderd years from now they will have finally destoyed the "Evil Empire" tha is the U.S., and be the worlds dominant power. One hundred years. If, or longer if need be. That's what we're fighting.

But they will not destroy the United States by using car bombs, or using planes as missiles, or sending their children with bombs strapped to their backs into a town square.

I don't believe this administration is looking at it short term either. The problem is that people in this country have no attention span of any kind. They want results in five minutes, not five years! The War on Terror might never be over! Some folks realize it, others do not.

[LoungeMachine]

A/P and OD have just about shredded what little argument[s] you had to begin with, as thin as they were, warham.

You're on the losing side of this thread, this argument, and this administration, and the sooner you accept that [ ala Catherdral ] the sooner you can regain some respect around here.

You're entering thome country.

Just admit that Neo-cons had an agenda to invade Iraq, fixed the intel to fit their plan, and smeared ANYONE [Blix, Kaye, Wilson, et al] who dared cross them

Fuck dude, it's NOT a crime to admit your party FUCKED UP

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
The War on Terror might never be over! Some folks realize it, others do not.

And certain people have a STAKE in it perpetuation, just like the "War on Drugs"

Deja Vu anyone?


Have some more Kool-Ade:rolleyes:

[ODShowtime]

all I know is, there used to be a hell of a lot more gw supporters in here.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
The last time I checked OD, all three branches of government were working fine. The only checks and balances that are breaking down are the ones in your mind.


ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE????????????????????

I give up.

They're right. You're too far gone to bother with:cool:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
The War on Terror might never be over! Some folks realize it, others do not.


Unfortunately, neither party does this very fact that you point out any favors by vowing in their campaigns "We will win the war on terror".

You're right. It never will be over. It has no beginning, and no end. It's like vowing "under my watch, no one will ever kick over a sand castle again".

But have we exaceperated the situation with our acts over the past twenty-five years, and the last five in particular? I believe so.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
The last time I checked OD, all three branches of government were working fine. The only checks and balances that are breaking down are the ones in your mind.


Originally posted by LoungeMachine
ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE????????????????????

I give up.

They're right. You're too far gone to bother with:cool:

I'm sayin! I had no idea how to respond that! I was dumbfounded!

[academic punk]

Yeah, good point.

Warham, weren't you the one complaining and commenting how the judicial branch was all fucked up during the whole Schaivo melee?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by academic punk
Yeah, good point.

Warham, weren't you the one complaining and commenting how the judicial branch was all fucked up during the whole Schaivo melee?

How dare you throw his own words back at him?;)

[academic punk]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
How dare you throw his own words back at him?;)

It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it.

Do I win a turtle?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by academic punk
It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it.

Do I win a turtle?

You sure do!!! :D

Claim your prize here:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24310



:cool:

[academic punk]

How dare you compare turtles to...horses.

For shame.

Let's get back on topic:

"The president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, is spending all his time working on Bush's next Supreme Court nominee. Well sure, that's because this judge could decide if Rove is going to prison or not." --Jay Leno

[Warham]

Originally posted by academic punk
Unfortunately, neither party does this very fact that you point out any favors by vowing in their campaigns "We will win the war on terror".

You're right. It never will be over. It has no beginning, and no end. It's like vowing "under my watch, no one will ever kick over a sand castle again".

But have we exaceperated the situation with our acts over the past twenty-five years, and the last five in particular? I believe so.

Even I would agree that we'll never kill them all or outright win. That's just human nature at it's finest. It's a mistake to say we can WIN the war. We can only curb the bombings, etc., and keep it at a reasonable level.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
We can only curb the bombings, etc., and keep it at a reasonable level.


You just essentially said what John Kerry did in his "we can reduce this to the point we're it's only a nuisance" statement from his profile last october in the NY Times magazine. (a quote in fact, that Rove attacked Kerry for)

See, warham? At heart, even you may well be a closet liberal!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Even I would agree that we'll never kill them all or outright win. That's just human nature at it's finest. It's a mistake to say we can WIN the war. We can only curb the bombings, etc., and keep it at a reasonable level.

Or, create MORE "terrorists" :rolleyes:

If you really think this has ANYTHING to do with "terror", you're a fucking idiot.

Just as the "war on drugs" has NOTHING to do with drugs.


Put the kool ade down for JUST A MINUTE, and have a moment of clarity with us, please;)

:cool:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
A/P and OD have just about shredded what little argument[s] you had to begin with, as thin as they were, warham.

You're on the losing side of this thread, this argument, and this administration, and the sooner you accept that [ ala Catherdral ] the sooner you can regain some respect around here.

You're entering thome country.

Just admit that Neo-cons had an agenda to invade Iraq, fixed the intel to fit their plan, and smeared ANYONE [Blix, Kaye, Wilson, et al] who dared cross them

Fuck dude, it's NOT a crime to admit your party FUCKED UP

Dude, when Karl Rove is found innocent of these charges, are you going to choke on your own words?