NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839

Confirmed here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/rove-blew-cia-agents-cov_3556.html

Will Karl Rove finally go to prison or even be EXECUTED?

I'll reserve judgement until the e-mails are revealed and the sources confirmed. I'm concerned that this is just a "get Karl Rove" type of move, because he is absolutely hated for his political expertise during the election.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839

Confirmed here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/rove-blew-cia-agents-cov_3556.html

Will Karl Rove finally go to prison or even be EXECUTED?
"No"


If this even is true, which I doubt, he will most likely snag a pardon.

"No"


If this even is true, which I doubt, he will most likely snag a pardon.

I predict a pardon too.

Followed by 20 years until the public even thinks about electing another Republican.

I think most already knew it was Karl Rove who have followed the story. It was just a matter of proof. But if they have now found that proof.. he is a traitor and should be treated as such.

I predict a pardon too.

Followed by 20 years until the public even thinks about electing another Republican.
Wheeeellll if this story is true (let's assume that it is), I think you can kiss the republicans chance of winning the midterm elections goodbye unless they impeach Georgie. But that's if it is true. I doubt it.

I think we just have to wait and see what comes of it. If it turns out to be him, he should be charged to the fullest extent of the law, given how many people's lives he put in danger. Whoever leaked the info is a traitor to the USA. That there is little doubt of.

Wheeeellll if this story is true (let's assume that it is), I think you can kiss the republicans chance of winning the midterm elections goodbye unless they impeach Georgie. But that's if it is true. I doubt it.

It is more fun to assume its true isn't it ^_^

They are really going to town on the Fark.com comments page on the matter

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1557447

Wheeeellll if this story is true (let's assume that it is), I think you can kiss the republicans chance of winning the midterm elections goodbye unless they impeach Georgie. But that's if it is true. I doubt it.

How would they impeach Bush? He wouldn't have done this, so I don't think there would be a case.

The only way we will win the 06/08 elections is if we have a message and a strong candidate. The Nixon scandal did nothing to help the Democratic Party; we only had one president, Carter, who was woefully bad. Not until Clinton, who had a message and could work with both sides, did we have a strong position.

Will Karl Rove finally go to prison or even be EXECUTED?
Executed? That's a bit much! No, he won't go to prison either. We've learned that members of the US government get away with near anything.

Expect to see Cornlieu in here defending Rove within five minutes.

Yeah so is The Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/2/134742/6408) making quite a deal about it. However they all seem to be using the same sources. Wait & see, wait and see. You know that Rove is the master of spin.. so it ain't over till the fat advisor sings..lol

How would they impeach Bush?

I think you might be right on this one.. but I can hear the echo's of a past famous question *if* it's true.. "What did the president know and when did he know it"

I think you might be right on this one.. but I can hear the echo's of a past famous question *if* it's true.. "What did the president know and when did he know it"

There will be an investigation should this prove to be true. Remember that question, it might prove useful. ;)

I predict a pardon too.

Followed by 20 years until the public even thinks about electing another Republican.
Assuming this gets confirmed by a legit news source, it wouldn't matter. Bush could go on national television and sacrifice a puppy to satan and eat it and the apologists would both manage to excuse it AND point fingers at the democrats

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839

Confirmed here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/rove-blew-cia-agents-cov_3556.html

Will Karl Rove finally go to prison or even be EXECUTED?

You must be the only person who reads Huffington.

I'm glad you guys were just as outraged over Sandy Bergers' little theft of documents from the National Archives. Sure it was just an honest mistake, we can all forget that he was National Security Adviser and should have known better.

I'm glad you guys were just as outraged over Sandy Bergers' little theft of documents from the National Archives. Sure it was just an honest mistake, we can all forget that he was National Security Adviser and should have known better.
He destroyed copies of them (not the documents themselves), not under orders from any higher authority. Rove, unfortunitally for Mr. Bush, happens to be his political consultant.

Destroying copies, while no less serious (and justice was served) is far less henious then outing an undercover CIA agent, which, by the way, placed the lives of many people at danger.


Cheers!

He destroyed copies of them (not the documents themselves), not under orders from any higher authority. Rove, unfortunitally for Mr. Bush, happens to be his political consultant.

Destroying copies, while no less serious (and justice was served) is far less henious then outing an undercover CIA agent, which, by the way, placed the lives of many people at danger.


Cheers!

It must be nice to live with rose colored glasses. Seriously, why would he destroy copies? He most likely did what he did under orders from his old boss. Remember him? Remember how documents would get lost and mysteriously reappear like magic during his administration.

Justice was served? Yeah, I wish I could have gotten that kind of justice when I did certain deeds. The whole point is that we don't even know if this is true yet, but Berger admitted his guilt.

Cheers.

LOL, called

What did I jsut say? Bush could sacrifice a puppy to satan and eat it on national tv, apologists would both excuse it and point fingers at the democrats

Executed? That's a bit much! No, he won't go to prison either. We've learned that members of the US government get away with near anything.
I don't know who did it, and I'll reserve judgement. But who ever did it jepordized the security for 300 million and change, an effect which will continue for quite sometime. For nothing. That's a pretty good example of treason in my book. And the penalty for that is hanging, and not necessarily a good one where a person dies quick either. The reporters should have known better too, and I wouldn't be sorry to see them walk up to the gallows. But as members of the fouth estate, they should perhaps begiven something of a pass so as not to discourage the snooping around in government, despite the completely incomprehensible nature of their act.

Ihatevacations']LOL, called

What did I jsut say? Bush could sacrifice a puppy to satan and eat it on national tv, apologists would both excuse it and point fingers at the democrats

I don't know what you "jsut" said. What about Democrat apologists? I admit whom I am, and make no pretentions.

IF it's true (and not another manufactured scandal), Rove is looking at time in Leavenworth. It's one thing to screw with papers to cover something up, it's another thing entirely to violate the National Security Act and engage in foreign Espionage activities. (That's the set the charges would come from.)
It smells, though-it smells, because Rove is that skilled a Political operator-he's not clumsy enough for the story to be credible (though he is unethical enough to come up with something like that-he'd hide his tracks better.)
The U.S. hasn't executed anyone for Treason since the Rosenbergs, not even that CIA fella that sold out hundereds of guys for seven million in cash back in the late eighties.

Bush Jr. is not sentimental the way Nixon was-he's already shown he'll hang a subordinate out to dry, send the Justice Department after his friends, etc. etc. to preserve his own position. If Rove did it, he's screwed, Bush won't make Nixon or Ford's mistake in pardoning his goodbuddies.
Besides, Rove's getting a bit long-in-the-tooth for the RNC to keep around, throwing him to the wolves is probably even expedient if he's NOT guilty of the Plame leaks.

All of which begs the question of how Karl Rove, a Civilian without either Need to Know, or Clearance, would know about Plame at all.
It's like trying to say that James Carrville knew the specifics of Clinton's Bosnia plan, or advised the President on who to put in charge of the failed Somalia op in '93. While it would be fun to compare Rove to Snakehead, it's questionable whether either man has much real input into his President's policies, or much access to information that's not only Classified, but also minute trivia that would require a serious search to uncover through Classified materials. Campaign managers like to take credit for their candidate's achievements when they hit the Pundit-circuit, but really, they're just PR men. GW Bush is quite intelligent and ruthless enough that he doesn't need to ask for advice on being an asshole from his media guy.

Ihatevacations']LOL, called

What did I jsut say? Bush could sacrifice a puppy to satan and eat it on national tv, apologists would both excuse it and point fingers at the democrats

Nah... Bush wouldn't piss off his electoral base like that. Too bad, he'd be a good addition to the cause. :D \m/

[QUOTE=Cadillac-Gage Campaign managers like to take credit for their candidate's achievements when they hit the Pundit-circuit, but really, they're just PR men. [/QUOTE]


Great point.

Ihatevacations']Assuming this gets confirmed by a legit news source, it wouldn't matter. Bush could go on national television and sacrifice a puppy to satan and eat it and the apologists would both manage to excuse it AND point fingers at the democrats
I agree! As proven by their defense of the depravities at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the Busheviks will excuse anything.

Mind you, the Democrats were just as bad in the 1990s with Clinton.

Executed? That's a bit much! No, he won't go to prison either. We've learned that members of the US government get away with near anything.

Expect to see Cornlieu in here defending Rove within five minutes.

Hey, I'm waiting to see if this is true. So far nothing from any television networks so I'm going to withold judgement.

*gets breaking news in email boxes*

It must be nice to live with rose colored glasses. Seriously, why would he destroy copies? He most likely did what he did under orders from his old boss. Remember him? Remember how documents would get lost and mysteriously reappear like magic during his administration.

Justice was served? Yeah, I wish I could have gotten that kind of justice when I did certain deeds. The whole point is that we don't even know if this is true yet, but Berger admitted his guilt.

Cheers.
A courts convinced that there is no wrongdoing in this case by Mr. Clinton. I'd highly advice you keep your slanderious comments under wraps.


Of course, if you have proof of wrongdoing, I'm sure the Gonzales justice department would love to convict Clinton of tampering with evidence. Please give it to them. Until then, kindly shove it.

I agree! As proven by their defense of the depravities at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the Busheviks will excuse anything.

Mind you, the Democrats were just as bad in the 1990s with Clinton.

Didn't senators go to Gitmo? I believe they said that the situation is better? They also didn't find evidence of torture either. (this is from the senators themselves that actually went)

A courts convinced that there is no wrongdoing in this case by Mr. Clinton. I'd highly advice you keep your slanderious comments under wraps.


Of course, if you have proof of wrongdoing, I'm sure the Gonzales justice department would love to convict Clinton of tampering with evidence. Please give it to them. Until then, kindly shove it.

Get real. Slander? Are you serious? He is a public figure and thus he would have no chance of winning. Besides, you really think he reads what is typed on here?

BTW how does it feel to be a loser? Why are you such a Clinton apologist?

I don't know what you "jsut" said. What about Democrat apologists? I admit whom I am, and make no pretentions.
We arn't discussing democrats, are we?

Ihatevacations']We arn't discussing democrats, are we?

Nice retort. Why can't we? Oh, that's right, your head is so far up Howard Deans bunghole that you can tell what he had for lunch.

A courts convinced that there is no wrongdoing in this case by Mr. Clinton. I'd highly advice you keep your slanderious comments under wraps.


Of course, if you have proof of wrongdoing, I'm sure the Gonzales justice department would love to convict Clinton of tampering with evidence. Please give it to them. Until then, kindly shove it.

I suspect not. Consider that the entire Whitewater investigation wound up being about Bill getting his Knob polished, and no charges were filed over the campaign-finance scandals involving hte Riatys and the PRC.
Both parties are so dirty neither one will let their own guys expand the scope of engagement to include things that might generate actual results for fear of having the same thing done to them. Thus, Ollie North got a 'pass' and so did Billy boy's people, thus proving that Bipartisan really means "Getting together to Screw the Public instead of doing it separately."

The U.S. hasn't executed anyone for Treason since the Rosenbergs, not even that CIA fella that sold out hundereds of guys for seven million in cash back in the late eighties.
They did need that guy to assess and contain the damage that he'd done. Unless the person who did this is going to throw them a bigger fish, they can eat shit and die. (In my perfect world they'd eat shit and die reguardless with their children suffering the sins of the father, but meh.)

Ihatevacations']We arn't discussing democrats, are we?


What exactly are we discussing?

Can we talk about how Bush and the evil Haliburton are squashing our rights, and along with Rush Limbaugh are plotting to Slander and kill liberals?

For God's sake people, Give me one good reason why you hate Karl Rove, and don't say because he's Republican, he's conservative, or something like that.
It is pathetic when anyone, conservative, liberal or moderate, goes so low that they use dirty politics and hate as a way of making a point.

Nice retort. Why can't we? Oh, that's right, your head is so far up Howard Deans bunghole that you can tell what he had for lunch.

Yo, Hall! Please, knock off the personal shit, okay? I don't like him either, but you're making your side look the fool by taking the distraction. IHV is a Deaniac, sure, maybe... more likely, he's a dogmatic Democrat who believes sincerely that his chosen affiliation is the second coming incarnated (or the Atheistic equivalent). You aren't being either dignified, or convincing, and guys like this live to piss people like you off so that they can feel morally superior (likely because they lack any genuine accomplishments of their own...).
don't be a schmuck.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839

Confirmed here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/rove-blew-cia-agents-cov_3556.html

Will Karl Rove finally go to prison or even be EXECUTED?

Here is a better website to get the latest goods that you need in the future:

http://www.buttafly.com/bush/index.php

What exactly are we discussing?

Can we talk about how Bush and the evil Haliburton are squashing our rights, and along with Rush Limbaugh are plotting to Slander and kill liberals?
So who's hand is up your ass? Or are you your own person?

Yo, Hall! Please, knock off the personal shit, okay? I don't like him either, but you're making your side look the fool by taking the distraction. IHV is a Deaniac, sure, maybe... more likely, he's a dogmatic Democrat who believes sincerely that his chosen affiliation is the second coming incarnated (or the Atheistic equivalent). You aren't being either dignified, or convincing, and guys like this live to piss people like you off so that they can feel morally superior (likely because they lack any genuine accomplishments of their own...).
don't be a schmuck.


Aw, and I was having fun.

BTW it wasn't a personal attack, it was gentle by my standards, but I shall behave from now on.

Ihatevacations']So who's hand is up your ass? Or are you your own person?

The all mighty dollar pulls my strings. I've never lost money with the GOP, so that's the main reason I support them.

The all mighty dollar pulls my strings. I've never lost money with the GOP, so that's the main reason I support them.
Apparently the question was too devious for you. You know what? Go troll elsewhere

Yo, Hall! Please, knock off the personal shit, okay? I don't like him either, but you're making your side look the fool by taking the distraction. IHV is a Deaniac, sure, maybe... more likely, he's a dogmatic Democrat who believes sincerely that his chosen affiliation is the second coming incarnated (or the Atheistic equivalent). You aren't being either dignified, or convincing, and guys like this live to piss people like you off so that they can feel morally superior (likely because they lack any genuine accomplishments of their own...).
don't be a schmuck.

He calls me a democratic apologist when I'm the only one not droppnig his dumbass for bringing up the berger incident and you are comforting him and attacking me simultaneously? I don't have to attack you people, you just prove my statement every single fucking time you post

Ihatevacations']Apparently the question was too devious for you. You know what? Go troll elsewhere



He calls me a democratic apologist when I'm the only one not droppnig his dumbass for bringing up the berger incident and you are comforting him and attacking me simultaneously? I don't have to attack you people, you just prove my statement every single fucking time you post
Hey, temper. Calm down, or else someone might report to a mod.

Get real. Slander? Are you serious? He is a public figure and thus he would have no chance of winning. Besides, you really think he reads what is typed on here?

Actually, he'd stand a damn good chance as this nonsense has been knocked down so many times that it is common knowledge that it is false. Ergo, continuing to say it is intentional slander.

BTW how does it feel to be a loser? Why are you such a Clinton apologist?
Apologist? I have nothing to apologize for. Neither does Clinton.

Didn't senators go to Gitmo? I believe they said that the situation is better? They also didn't find evidence of torture either. (this is from the senators themselves that actually went)
I trust the Red Cross and Amnesty International rather more than your Senators.

For God's sake people, Give me one good reason why you hate Karl Rove, and don't say because he's Republican, he's conservative, or something like that.

It is pathetic when anyone, conservative, liberal or moderate, goes so low that they use dirty politics and hate as a way of making a point.
You just answered your own question.

The all mighty dollar pulls my strings. I've never lost money with the GOP, so that's the main reason I support them.
Pleutocrat!

Here is a better website to get the latest goods that you need in the future:

http://www.buttafly.com/bush/index.php
I clicked that "generate conspiracy button" with high hopes. Too basic. Good site though!

Ihatevacations']Apparently the question was too devious for you. You know what? Go troll elsewhere



He calls me a democratic apologist when I'm the only one not droppnig his dumbass for bringing up the berger incident and you are comforting him and attacking me simultaneously? I don't have to attack you people, you just prove my statement every single fucking time you post

But...IHV, you are a Democratic Apologist. And a demagogue-don't be ashamed of it, people should be what they are. Me, I'm an asshole.
(See? how hard is that?? not hard at all...)
If people really didn't want to make the comparisons between Berger and Rove, it would have been left to die on its own as nobody would have responded.

Personally, I think Rove's going to wind up being the convenient scapegoat. His campaign in 2004 wasn't all that brilliant, people just didn't like Johnny Kerry as much as his handlers thought they would, and an incumbent getting less than 60% is really a failure of the campaign management unless you have a genuine three-way race. (Perot in '92, Nader in '96 along with Browne and Perot...)
I also don't think Rove did it-because I don't think he's ignorant enough to believe he could get away with it (he is, after all, a successfull campaign manager prior to his affiliation with Bush & Co. and knows his way around D.C.)
However, dumping Rove to the sharks is a pretty easy move if the actual perpetrator is, shall we say, untouchable for a number of reasons, or evidence is lacking. Since I also don't think GW is that stupid, that leaves someone on the Cabinet, or in the Senate, with oversight authority.
Appointed heads will roll before elected heads reach the block, and lesser electeds will be sacrificed before GW is. GW will be sacrificed before the Party is-that's the way it works, and that's the reason Watergate may be famous, but it didn't keep Ronnie from the Oval Orifice, did it?

The charges, if true, are about as serious a treason as you can commit short of wartime. HOWEVER, I don't think there's enough evidence to charge, much less convict, and if it's a "leak" then you might wonder who leaked, and what their motive was. For instance, getting the Democrats into a tizzy over a campaign-manager is a useful distraction for slipping something past via Executive Order.

It has made the Drudge report.

It links to the website I posted earlier.

http://www.drudgereport.com/


TIME MAG REPORTER IN DC JAIL FEAR...

Lawrence O'Donnel on McLaughlin Group: 'I'm probably gonna get pulled into the grand jury for saying this, but it will be revealed in Cooper's notes that it is Karl Rove who leaked Plame's identity'... Developing...

But...IHV, you are a Democratic Apologist. And a demagogue-don't be ashamed of it, people should be what they are. Me, I'm an asshole.
I'm not a democratic apologist, what basis do you have for that assumption? I am an asshole who doesn't like neocons and I tell shit how it is

It has made the Drudge report.

It links to the website I posted earlier.

http://www.drudgereport.com/


TIME MAG REPORTER IN DC JAIL FEAR...

Lawrence O'Donnel on McLaughlin Group: 'I'm probably gonna get pulled into the grand jury for saying this, but it will be revealed in Cooper's notes that it is Karl Rove who leaked Plame's identity'... Developing...

Third party speculation by an MSNBC analyst doesn't constitute evidence.

For God's sake people, Give me one good reason why you hate Karl Rove, and don't say because he's Republican, he's conservative, or something like that.
It is pathetic when anyone, conservative, liberal or moderate, goes so low that they use dirty politics and hate as a way of making a point.

From the comment page of Fark.com

Karl Rove has played dirty pool his entire career.

From planting a bug in his own candidate's office the day before the election (blaming the other candidate).

To having inflamatory literature left on car windshields (alleging the other candidate was gay, and that somehow the state would "go gay" if she was re-elected)

To the well-known strategies effectively used against John McCain in the 2000 election (as well as those used against a triple-amputee (FYI that's Max Cleland)Vietnam vet, labelling him as unpatriotic for disagreeing with Bush & Co).

I'm sure there's more dirty laundry on Rove but this is the most interesting stuff that has been reported of him.

From the comment page of Fark.com



I'm sure there's more dirty laundry on Rove but this is the most interesting stuff that has been reported of him.
Isn't what that guy said about Rove also hateful?

Isn't what that guy said about Rove also hateful?

What guy?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

Hehehe someone has been having fun with photoshop.. :D http://www.stephaniesworld.com/steph_lj/rove_arrested.jpg

Hehehe someone has been having fun with photoshop.. :D http://www.stephaniesworld.com/steph_lj/rove_arrested.jpg

Wasn't Karl Rove arrested once for real?

Here's an interesting fact about this discussion:
THe most vocal republicans on this discussion are esentially saying "No, he couldn't have done this, because even though it's completely within his power, capability, and wit, he would have been smarter about it to not get caught or suspected."

I trust the Red Cross and Amnesty International rather more than your Senators.

All they reported were allegations! Nothing was substantiated. :rolleyes:

I wish the news would report facts and not allegations.

Here's an interesting fact about this discussion:
THe most vocal republicans on this discussion are esentially saying "No, he couldn't have done this, because even though it's completely within his power, capability, and wit, he would have been smarter about it to not get caught or suspected."

I would agree that Karl Rove is one of the most ruthless, evil, master spin doctors of all time and probably the best in the business. Bush owes everything he has to Karl Rove.. (See: "Bush's Brain") however, even the most diabolical genius minds in the world, make mistakes. No one, not even Karl Rove is perfect.

Here's an interesting fact about this discussion:
THe most vocal republicans on this discussion are esentially saying "No, he couldn't have done this, because even though it's completely within his power, capability, and wit, he would have been smarter about it to not get caught or suspected."

Care to point to a post where a republican actually said that or implied it?

I'm concerned that this is just a "get Karl Rove" type of move, because he is absolutely hated for his political expertise during the election.

That's one way to describe it.

Followed by 20 years until the public even thinks about electing another Republican.

It took Americans just four years to get over Nixon. I'd expect a return to the staus quo in roughly the same sort of timeframe.

Care to point to a post where a republican actually said that or implied it?

It smells, though-it smells, because Rove is that skilled a Political operator-he's not clumsy enough for the story to be credible (though he is unethical enough to come up with something like that-he'd hide his tracks better.)

You were saying?

Who was right DoDo?

Don't leave me hanging with such a mystery! :)

It took Americans just four years to get over Nixon. I'd expect a return to the staus quo in roughly the same sort of timeframe.

Meh. I'm using the "Once Bitten, twice shy" approach.

EDIT

Hey, I'm an Aimbot now. Cool.

I think thumbscrews or the rack on Bob Novak could clear up our questions right quickly. Then we could see if the American people are as interested in this as in the stains on Monica Lewinsky's blue dress. That, ultimately, will decide if Rove goes to jail or if George is impeached.

Who was right DoDo?

Don't leave me hanging with such a mystery! :)

I was. I knew I read it somewhere, but I couldn't find it again, Vacations beat me to it.

To answer your sarcasm...

I was. I knew I read it somewhere, but I couldn't find it again, Vacations beat me to it.

To answer your sarcasm...

I wasn't using sarcasm. I was just wondering what your delete message meant ;)

Ihatevacations']You were saying?
The speculation doesn't make it fact. If it were that easy, the Journalists being held wouldn't need to be-the evidence would already be in front of a grand-jury.
Frankly, I'm surprised an Analyst from MSNBC speculating on who the leaker was is even considered news-esp. when the speculation was on a pundit-programme. No evidence=no evidence, and this is looking more and more like a put-up job.

Two different Journalists who printed the Plame story (and created the scandal) are trying to get better digs than the D.C. city jail, because they won't reveal their source for the leak. I doubt they talked to the guy who made that assertion on meet-the-press, when they could walk today by talking. "Obstruction of Justice" isn't a nice charge to have sitting over your head.
I put this up on the same level of credibility as the 'analysts' who said we would take 40,000 casualties going into Iraq the first time.
Guesswork does not equal proof.

Fine, but do you think it's worth looking into or not? (Rove I mean.)

Fine, but do you think it's worth looking into or not? (Rove I mean.)

Listen, it's been known all along that there was only a handfull of people it could of come from in the White House. It had to either come from Cheney's office, or Karl Rove's office, that much has pretty much never been in dispute. And this sort of under handed tactic is right up Karl Rove's alley. Look up how he got to where he is.. if it does turn out to be him, it won't surprise me one bit.

They don't seem to be trying hard enough yet.

Fine, but do you think it's worth looking into or not? (Rove I mean.)

Absolutely. the only means to discover truth consistently, is to refuse to discard any hypothesis until it is proven incorrect. While I doubt Rove had the access and such necessary, it's not an unreasonable hypothesis. Without the Journalists in question coming out and saying so, Rove is a credible suspect-I just think there are better suspects than Rove, and the case against him appears more motivated by sour grapes than by actual evidence.
Remember: Treason=Treason, American agents and operatives were endangered by the Plame Leak, and ongoing operations were compromised. whoever is guilty needs to at least see prison time for it.

There is some rather interesting (albeit inconclusive) circumstantial evidence against Rove such as "She's fair game." His reputation might also be some reason for suspicion.

There is some rather interesting (albeit inconclusive) circumstantial evidence against Rove such as "She's fair game." His reputation might also be some reason for suspicion.

Up to a point, true. That point, is teh question of whether Rove is intelligent enough to be aware of that reputation, and would knowingly hang his ass out for a momentary gain at the risk of a long-term loss.
Since he is a successful political strategist and dirty-trickster, it's unlikely he'd take a stupid risk for such a minor and temporary advantage.
It's kind of like walking out into the fast-lane of the freeway at rush-hour to pick up a hundered-dollar bill held down with a rock. If you succeed, you get a hundered bucks. If you fail, you're at best a cripple with tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, or dead.

Rove doesn't strike me as being that stupid. People that stupid don't get to the level he's at.

He doesn't necessarily have to be stupid, and I believe that he is very well aware of his infamous reputation. However, I also believe that all people who are stuck with such infamous reputations will tend to believe too much in themselves, thinking they can weasel their way out of any situation, untill they make the mistake that is all too common in all overconfident bastards.

I would agree that Karl Rove is one of the most ruthless, evil, master spin doctors of all time and probably the best in the business. Bush owes everything he has to Karl Rove.. (See: "Bush's Brain") however, even the most diabolical genius minds in the world, make mistakes. No one, not even Karl Rove is perfect.

Umm Cadillac-Gage, as I was saying.. ;)

He doesn't necessarily have to be stupid, and I believe that he is very well aware of his infamous reputation. However, I also believe that all people who are stuck with such infamous reputations will tend to believe too much in themselves, thinking they can weasel their way out of any situation, untill they make the mistake that is all too common in all overconfident bastards.

Could be... but I'm a gonna reserve judgement until we have actual evidence. Of the options, Rove is the more palatable choice for sending up in front of a Grand Jury, and he probably deserves to face a grand-jury for some of the other stunts he's pulled... but I'm rather cautious about rushing from "...analyst sez..." to "Guilty" without decent supporting evidence-I've been fooled before into convicting someone in my mind before the evidence came out, and that tends to make one a might skittish-being wrong on such a 'perfect' scenario is embarassing.
(my mistake was the suicide of a Clinton appointee that looked fishy during the Whitewater investigation.)

I generally don't trust Pundits on the Right or the Left when they speculate about something they have no direct knowledge of.

It broke the network news outlets

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

It broke the network news outlets

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

That's newsweek. Is it on the actual MSNBC web page?

Not on CNN or ABCNews or Fox News for that matter.

Third party speculation by an MSNBC analyst doesn't constitute evidence.
O'Donnell's not speculating--he's in a position to know for certain, and in his piece written for the Huffington Post, says that he's had it confirmed by another source. Newsweek also broke a story on it and you can get that on the MSNBC website. I imagine it'll be all over the Sunday morning talk shows as well. Rove's toast, and I can't wait to see him perp-walked out of the White House.

And neither can Joseph Wilson, I'll bet.

That's newsweek. Is it on the actual MSNBC web page?

Not on CNN or ABCNews or Fox News for that matter.
Oh please, you don't start questioning it until some one gives a link to a legitimate news source? Figures.

Y'know, the only person saying this is the same douchebag who threw a hissy fit when on Scarborough Country with O'Neill of the Swifties. Why is he unquestionably accepted as a truthful source.

Y'know, the only person saying this is the same douchebag who threw a hissy fit when on Scarborough Country with O'Neill of the Swifties. Why is he unquestionably accepted as a truthful source.
I'd hardly call that appearance a hissy fit--righteous indignation is closer to the truth. But as to why he should be accepted as an accurate source is simple--he was in a position to know.

Besides--what are all you right-wingers getting your panties in a twist over? There's never been any doubt that the leak originated inside the White House--the only question has been who did it. Now we're finding out it's Rove. Would you be happier if it were Scooter Libby or someone else?

This really could be Bush's Watergate if the allegations are true.

Think about it. Both instances it was about the Republican incumbent resorting to any (ie illegal) means of staying in power and crushing all opposition.

O'Donnell's not speculating--he's in a position to know for certain, and in his piece written for the Huffington Post, says that he's had it confirmed by another source. Newsweek also broke a story on it and you can get that on the MSNBC website. I imagine it'll be all over the Sunday morning talk shows as well. Rove's toast, and I can't wait to see him perp-walked out of the White House.

And neither can Joseph Wilson, I'll bet.


I'll bet you it isn't all over the Sunday shows, except for some ranting left wingers.

I'd hardly call that appearance a hissy fit--righteous indignation is closer to the truth. But as to why he should be accepted as an accurate source is simple--he was in a position to know.

Besides--what are all you right-wingers getting your panties in a twist over? There's never been any doubt that the leak originated inside the White House--the only question has been who did it. Now we're finding out it's Rove. Would you be happier if it were Scooter Libby or someone else?

Prove that.

I'd hardly call that appearance a hissy fit--righteous indignation is closer to the truth. But as to why he should be accepted as an accurate source is simple--he was in a position to know.

Besides--what are all you right-wingers getting your panties in a twist over? There's never been any doubt that the leak originated inside the White House--the only question has been who did it. Now we're finding out it's Rove. Would you be happier if it were Scooter Libby or someone else?
I really don't give a shit either way, and yes that was a hissy fit. Especially since Kerry boy has yet to release his records to the public. Instead he sent them to a couple of newspapers and in none of the articles his 180's were shown in did they say that they printed all the material that they recieved.

I found a leak....and took one.

O'Donnell's not speculating--he's in a position to know for certain, and in his piece written for the Huffington Post, says that he's had it confirmed by another source. Newsweek also broke a story on it and you can get that on the MSNBC website. I imagine it'll be all over the Sunday morning talk shows as well. Rove's toast, and I can't wait to see him perp-walked out of the White House.

And neither can Joseph Wilson, I'll bet.

If O'Donnell's in a position to know for certain, where's the Subpoena? (Note: he's not one of the two journalists currently seeking nicer taxpayer-financed digs while being sweated by the Effa-Bee-Eye.) I can almost guarantee that if he's got actual dirt, he's either under a subpoena, or will shortly be under one to reveal it to the prosecution.

Being in a position to know for certain puts him on the Witness stand, Nazz. He's not (at least, not yet), so I don't buy it.

What's more likely, is he's talking out his ass and hoping that his guesses are on-target, or close enough to make him look prescient when the truth does emerge.

Ihatevacations']Assuming this gets confirmed by a legit news source, it wouldn't matter. Bush could go on national television and sacrifice a puppy to satan and eat it and the apologists would both manage to excuse it AND point fingers at the democrats


I'm not so sure.

If it can be proved that Bush had prior knowledge of this, wich of course, he did, then he too, might be able to be brought up on charges as well.
Cheney too, for that matter.

Its nice to start seeing all the constant lies, after lies, finally beginning to unfold for Bush.
I have never felt as lied to by any other President as Bush, and no other Pres has used tactics quite so dubious, and blatantly against what we are supposed to stand for.

All of which begs the question of how Karl Rove, a Civilian without either Need to Know, or Clearance, would know about Plame at all. It's like trying to say that James Carrville knew the specifics of Clinton's Bosnia plan, or advised the President on who to put in charge of the failed Somalia op in '93. While it would be fun to compare Rove to Snakehead, it's questionable whether either man has much real input into his President's policies, or much access to information that's not only Classified, but also minute trivia that would require a serious search to uncover through Classified materials. Campaign managers like to take credit for their candidate's achievements when they hit the Pundit-circuit, but really, they're just PR men. GW Bush is quite intelligent and ruthless enough that he doesn't need to ask for advice on being an asshole from his media guy.


It's probably similar to how Saudi prince Bandar knew about the Iraq invasion before Colin Powell did I guess. Clearance, schmearance!

If O'Donnell's in a position to know for certain, where's the Subpoena? (Note: he's not one of the two journalists currently seeking nicer taxpayer-financed digs while being sweated by the Effa-Bee-Eye.) I can almost guarantee that if he's got actual dirt, he's either under a subpoena, or will shortly be under one to reveal it to the prosecution.

Being in a position to know for certain puts him on the Witness stand, Nazz. He's not (at least, not yet), so I don't buy it.



Why hasn't Robert Novak been subpoenaed? He's the one that actually wrote the story. Which is right here (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030714.shtml/). And which is where the implication that the leaker was in the White House came from:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

I'm not so sure.

If it can be proved that Bush had prior knowledge of this, wich of course, he did, then he too, might be able to be brought up on charges as well.
Cheney too, for that matter.

Its nice to start seeing all the constant lies, after lies, finally beginning to unfold for Bush.
I have never felt as lied to by any other President as Bush, and no other Pres has used tactics quite so dubious, and blatantly against what we are supposed to stand for.

I see... so Clinton was honest, upright, and forthright? Or was he given a pass for knowing where the right bodies were buried?
Squatches, I hate to tell someone who's probably older than I am, but All Polticians are lying scum.
The only difference being whether or not they have the media-leverage to get away with it in public, or get over on a minor piece of bullshit by proxy manipulation of congress.

I saw the identical statement to yours from people further-to-the-right-of-me in the 1990's. You only notice, because the lies are being told by someone you already opposed.

Rove will probably be sacrificed regardless of anything else, and like the dozens of Clinton appointees thrown to the wolves, that's where it will end. Maybe, some of his staff will wind up having "accidents" or "Comitting Suicide" to insure it. Welcome to the world I lived in ten years ago.

About the time that the Special Prosecutors can't get f'ing documents turned over, you'll start really getting it.

Maybe.

second thought: doubtful.

Once you understand that both sides are full of lying, hypocritical, dangerous scumbags, you might find that you need to ask whether one scumbag's friends are worse than another. NOTHING bush has done, or can do, given how precarious his influence really is, is irreversable damage. This is why Clinton wasn't that bad a prez, and why Bush isn't. It's why in 2008, I'll be looking for the guy the Media hate and who lacks goodbuddies in congress and overseas, just like I did in 2000.
It's better if the rest of the world looks with distaste on him or her, because I know that he or she won't be able to get outside help if he does try to screw things over so badly it can't be fixed, and he or she won't get a 'free pass' quickly or easily.

Not one of those rat-bastards is someone I would trust alone with a cute minor child, or my unattended checkbook. I'd recommend you take the same view-because like it or not, in 2009, the liar debasing the Oath of Office will probably be a Democrat, (as it was a Republican in 2000 and 2004) and just as rotten, corrupt, foul, and degrading as the previous three inhabitants of the office.

It took Americans just four years to get over Nixon.

Aye ... but ... to be fair ... that was after having to deal with the unelected Ford administration. ;)

If O'Donnell's in a position to know for certain, where's the Subpoena? (Note: he's not one of the two journalists currently seeking nicer taxpayer-financed digs while being sweated by the Effa-Bee-Eye.) I can almost guarantee that if he's got actual dirt, he's either under a subpoena, or will shortly be under one to reveal it to the prosecution.

Being in a position to know for certain puts him on the Witness stand, Nazz. He's not (at least, not yet), so I don't buy it.

What's more likely, is he's talking out his ass and hoping that his guesses are on-target, or close enough to make him look prescient when the truth does emerge.
Did you read his piece, or see the clip of what he said on the McLaughlin Group? He said that he'd known for months, but hadn't said anything because he didn't want to get dragged before the Grand Jury doing the investigation. My guess is that he was either one of the other people Rove shopped the Plame information to before he went to Novak, a group that includes Cooper and Judith Miller, or he was close enough to one of them that he saw the emails between Cooper and his editors that discussed the issue--if I had to put money on it, I'd bet on the latter, since that was the context in which he made his statement on McLaughlin.

It's why in 2008, I'll be looking for the guy the Media hate and who lacks goodbuddies in congress and overseas, just like I did in 2000.

So you voted for Nader? :D

It's probably similar to how Saudi prince Bandar knew about the Iraq invasion before Colin Powell did I guess. Clearance, schmearance!

Ahhh my friend! Even I knew we would be going back into Iraq sooner or later.

My favourite story about Karl Rove. Frankly I don't care whether its true or not :D

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2895

:eek: SWEET! :D

:eek: SWEET! :D

:D

So you voted for Nader? :D
I'd like to see what he says to this one!

They just dicussed this on CNN. An article on the site should be up either tonight or tomorrow.

My favourite story about Karl Rove. Frankly I don't care whether its true or not :D

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2895

ROFL! :D

EDIT

But is it true?

They just dicussed this on CNN. An article on the site should be up either tonight or tomorrow.

Ok so it was discussed! The question remains though. Is it true?

I love that, now that Time has turned over its reporter's notes and e-mails, Rove has admitted speaking to him during the time period in question. :p :D

Kids, can you say "modified limited hangout"?

ROFL! :D

EDIT

But is it true?

I very much doubt it ;)

I love that, now that Time has turned over its reporter's notes and e-mails, Rove has admitted speaking to him during the time period in question. :p :D

Kids, can you say "modified limited hangout"?

When did he say that?

When did he say that?

Rove's lawyer talked to reporters yesterday. Apparently, Rove's name is in Matt Cooper's notes for the story.

Thus, the modified limited hangout.

Lawyer Says Rove Talked to Reporter, Did Not Leak Name (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201043.html)
Rove talked to reporter but denies leak (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002356504_rove03.html)

Made CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/03/cooper.rove/index.html

Made CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/03/cooper.rove/index.html

Newsweek: Rove spoke to reporter before leak

People are picking it up from Newsweek so still no independent confirmation apparently.

Newsweek: Rove spoke to reporter before leak

People are picking it up from Newsweek so still no independent confirmation apparently.
i guess the only clearinghouse for truth is FOXNews.com or the White House, huh? All other news is just fabricated.

Newsweek: Rove spoke to reporter before leak

People are picking it up from Newsweek so still no independent confirmation apparently.

Rove's lawyer has confirmed publicly that Rove spoke to Matt Cooper before the leak. He denies Rove leaked.

At least 2 reporters -- Isikoff and O'Donnell -- have independently said they have been informed that Rove was the leaker.

We'll see if they are right. But Rove's sudden confession to part of the facts is very suspicious -- particularly when his name was about to be revealed in Cooper's notes.

Rove's lawyer has confirmed publicly that Rove spoke to Michael Cooper before the leak. He denies Rove leaked.

So they talked. So?

At least 2 reporters -- Isikoff and O'Donnell -- have independently said they have been informed that Rove was the leaker.

Do they have the proof? I want to see the proof before making judgements. BTW, nothing has come over the breaking news lines about this either from ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. I get them all.

We'll see if they are right. But Rove's sudden confession to part of the facts is very suspicious -- particularly when his name was about to be revealed in Cooper's notes.

Confessing that he did talk to reporters? Yea big confession :rolleyes: Here's my big confession. "I've talked to reporters too" :eek:

i guess the only clearinghouse for truth is FOXNews.com or the White House, huh? All other news is just fabricated.

No. They are all using the same story by Newsweek. Big Deal. Newsweek been wrong before. Koran being flushed down the toliet anyone?

So they talked. So?

Do they have the proof? I want to see the proof before making judgements. BTW, nothing has come over the breaking news lines about this either from ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. I get them all.

Confessing that he did talk to reporters? Yea big confession :rolleyes: Here's my big confession. "I've talked to reporters too" :eek:

Did I say I was convinced? No. Suspicious? Yes.

Are you a senior White House official that talked to one of the two subpoenaed reporters a few days before the leak by a senior White House official and whose name appears in that reporter's notes about the story with the leak?

Then you are not a suspect. :headbang:

Have you denied any involvement, but now admit to having talked to that reporter about a subject you "will not characteriz[e]" just when the notes are being turned over?

Then your revelation isn't suspicious. :rolleyes:

No. They are all using the same story by Newsweek. Big Deal. Newsweek been wrong before. Koran being flushed down the toliet anyone?
You are incredibly determined to prove that you're right even when you'll be wrong. Just watch. All this will come crashing down. Karl Rove being pure evil, the Iraq war based on lies. I actually hope I'm wrong about the Iraq war; it would be an insult to me as a patriotic American that our government has actually become the very thing we've been trying to avoid. But all this will come crashing down, the liberals will expose it as a bunch of bullshit like they've done in the past. Maybe you could try to be a little more open minded and admit that the modern Republican party ain't perfect.

Not that suspicious given the following.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him.


Now, you could of course go the whole hog regarding conspiracy theories and say that Rove has dirt on the reporters in question and so they won't say it was him, but then you'd be approaching the realm of just plain silly.

The fact that Rove is chaning his mind along the track of "I never had sexual relations with that woman." to "Oh...well, we were both lonely...and stuff happened." is incredibly suspicious. "No i didn't talk to him"...later: "yeah we met before the leak, so what?"

You are incredibly determined to prove that you're right even when you'll be wrong. Just watch. All this will come crashing down. Karl Rove being pure evil, the Iraq war based on lies. I actually hope I'm wrong about the Iraq war; it would be an insult to me as a patriotic American that our government has actually become the very thing we've been trying to avoid. But all this will come crashing down, the liberals will expose it as a bunch of bullshit like they've done in the past. Maybe you could try to be a little more open minded and admit that the modern Republican party ain't perfect.

And what if he is innocent? What will you do then?

And what if he is innocent? What will you do then?
admit I was wrong and deserving of 10 lashings with a wet noodle.

And what if he is innocent? What will you do then?

And what will YOU do if he's found guilty? :p

admit I was wrong and deserving of 10 lashings with a wet noodle.

I'm going to hold you to that.

And what will YOU do if he's found guilty? :p

Demand that he be punished.

Of course, this is O'Donnell. He put forward on the McLaughlin Group, in all seriousness, the theory that the blue states would cecede from the union!!!!

:headbang: :sniper:

And what will YOU do if he's found guilty? :p
Claim a liberal conspiracy.

In all seriousness, even if he is guilty I doubt anything will happen to him. He's too highly placed. People seem to lack the ability to get really upset about dishonesty and double dealing in our government anymore. Unless it involves sex.

Claim a liberal conspiracy.

In all seriousness, even if he is guilty I doubt anything will happen to him. He's too highly placed. People seem to lack the ability to get really upset about dishonesty and double dealing in our government anymore. Unless it involves sex.
Because that is all puritan america cares about: who is having sex and how they are using the lord's name

Ihatevacations']Because that is all puritan america cares about: who is having sex and how they are using the lord's name
Which is funny when you note that so many of them use the Lord's name during sex.
"Oh God, Yes! Yes! Faster!"

If we lose this thread it only means that the frenzy has died (or never happened :( ).

Where are you news media!

Well, kiddies, here's the next big question--if Rove did it, did Bush know he did it? In short, what did Bush know and when did he know it? After all, if Rove is the leaker--and I see no reason to believe he isn't, Corneliu's devastating logic (that's sarcasm, just in case you missed it) to the contrary--then he's guilty not only of outing an undercover CIA operative, but of putting the lives of US citizens and agents at risk worldwide, but of endangering national security in a time of war. And if Bush not only let him slide knowing that Rove had done that, but actually promoted him, then Bush is culpable as well.

Which is funny when you note that so many of them use the Lord's name during sex.
"Oh God, Yes! Yes! Faster!"
Maybe prayign for better sex works? (I don't know, myself...)