NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh my, James Carville and Karl Rove -- twins separated at birth!

James Carville said "It's the Economy, Stupid," not "OMG he's a Fag Lover Who's Going to Force Everyone to Convert Gay!!"

James Carville didn't expose any covert national security operatives for personal gain or petty spite either.

:rolleyes:

Classic Republican subject change #2.

Agreed. And the White House being mum on the subject means they painted themselves into a corner with no way out.

Oh my, James Carville and Karl Rove -- twins separated at birth!
You know, we may actually agree on this. Carville is a scumbag of the highest order, but even at his worst, he's never done what Rove is involved in.

You know, we may actually agree on this. Carville is a scumbag of the highest order, but even at his worst, he's never done what Rove is involved in.
I still think the evidence is a long way from showing that Rove has committed a crime. I guess no one cares that Joe Wilson has pretty much exonerated Rove from any prosecution under the IIPA statue. Unfortunately, no one had ever read his book until just recently, so the fact that his wife hasn't been operating outside the U.S. since 1997 just escaped everyones attention.

Maybe I should include Dick Morris in the list. He wasn't always a forthright conservative, you know.


Classic Republican subject change #2.

Don't you know a joke when you see one? Lighten up!

Don't you know a joke when you see one? Lighten up!

Physician, heal thyself.

Here are the main problems with the Rove apologists talking points.

The leak did not just out Plame. Let's say she was no longer actively covert. Those who used the same cover business still are. Her international contacts still are. The contacts of those she worked with are compromised as well. She worked in WMD's. Where is the Republican concern about mushroom clouds now? What if we lose information about the next 9/11, the next subway/bus attack, the detonation of a dirty bomb?

Even if he was not the direct leak, Rove confirmed or passed on information that compromised secret activities of the CIA. At the vert very least, he violated his confidentiality agreement.

Even if Wilson and Plame were conniving douchebags, that does not excuse the compromising of countless operatives and sources during a time of war.

So how come criticizing the war is unAmerican, because it hurts the morale of the troops, but disseminating secret information about agent's identities doesn't have the same effect on the intelligence community?

Do you thimk the CIA will do better or worse work if they think their cover can be blown if they dig up facts that counter the Administration's policy, or if outing them can score political points?

This is not trivial. This is not just about Wilson and Plame. This is about directly hindering the War on Terror.

Yeah and uh huh... I'd much rather wait for a conclusion rather then picking some articles to post. :rolleyes: You need to get your ideas right. This forum disgusts me, so I'll go back to playing the game instead of debating with some people who think they know everything.
A ham then, for the widow. :rolleyes:

Should've picked "Staying Power" as your nom de guerre.

Here are the main problems with the Rove apologists talking points.

The leak did not just out Plame. Let's say she was no longer actively covert. Those who used the same cover business still are. Her international contacts still are. The contacts of those she worked with are compromised as well. She worked in WMD's. Where is the Republican concern about mushroom clouds now? What if we lose information about the next 9/11, the next subway/bus attack, the detonation of a dirty bomb?

Even if he was not the direct leak, Rove confirmed or passed on information that compromised secret activities of the CIA. At the vert very least, he violated his confidentiality agreement.

I hadn't considered the bolded point--whoever leaked Plame's name is potentially on the hook for everyone blown as a result of the leak, even if Plame wasn't covert at the time. The statute doesn't say that the agents have to be named--just that identifying information has to be given, and if their covers were blown by leaking the name of the front company they claimed as an employer, then that could certainly be covered by the statute.

I said this a few pages back, and no one bothered to respond to it, so I'll say it again. Regardless if anyone is ever convicted of this crime, regardless is anyone ever spends a day in jail, this was a bullshit action, especially when you consider the reasons it was done. It was, to my mind, treasonous, even if it doesn't meet the constitutional standard for the crime, and those of you who are acting as though Rove is some sort of national hero for doing it have a fucked up sense of priority.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. The Republicans I grew up with, and whose party I was briefly a member of, would have condemned this action the second it happened. Some of them did, although many are now recanting since Rove was named specifically. I'd be howling for blood if this happened in a Democratic administration. Why?

Because I'm an American first and a partisan second. Those of you who continue to defend Rove--you're partisan first and American second. I'm calling you out. You'll defend a traitor rather than stand for what's best for the country and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You're no better than Rove if you defend him.

If this gets me deleted for flaming, so be it--some shit is more important than an internet forum.

I said this a few pages back, and no one bothered to respond to it, so I'll say it again. Regardless if anyone is ever convicted of this crime, regardless is anyone ever spends a day in jail, this was a bullshit action, especially when you consider the reasons it was done. It was, to my mind, treasonous, even if it doesn't meet the constitutional standard for the crime, and those of you who are acting as though Rove is some sort of national hero for doing it have a fucked up sense of priority.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. The Republicans I grew up with, and whose party I was briefly a member of, would have condemned this action the second it happened. Some of them did, although many are now recanting since Rove was named specifically. I'd be howling for blood if this happened in a Democratic administration. Why?

Because I'm an American first and a partisan second. Those of you who continue to defend Rove--you're partisan first and American second. I'm calling you out. You'll defend a traitor rather than stand for what's best for the country and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You're no better than Rove if you defend him.

If this gets me deleted for flaming, so be it--some shit is more important than an internet forum.

Well said. I have long called for Bob Novak's part in this to come under scrutiny as well. This was about a treasonous actions 2 years ago, and its about treason today as well. Regardless of how airtight a criminal case would be, these actions are shameful in the highest degree; selling out one's nation for personal power. Pathetic.

The US should not sacrafice its intelligence to partisanship in both the literal and the figurative sense.

Funny how the Rove apologists are leaving this alone now. Maybe they are finally getting an inkling of the gravity of this.

Thanks to Nazz and Cat-Tribe and all the other informed posters, especially Cat-Tribe (no offense Nazz.) Quite excellent research that the Bushistas were only able to respond to by ignoring or making strawmen out of it.

Rove may have unwittingly done something unethical; that is, confirming an open secret to a reporter without clearing the facts with a security advisor beforehand (rather than afterward, as he did).

So instead of discrediting Wilson's story through argument, Rove threw the suckerpunch, exposing Wilson's claims of official authority as lies, but breaking a rule of confidentiality in the process. However, Plame hadn't been covert in over 5 years, putting the leaked information outside the letter of the criminal code.

So, Karl Rove acted for the Party, rather than according to procedure (if you believe he got his info from reporters), or possibly unethically (if you believe the "revenge" speculation some Democrats reflexively point to).

Seems like grounds for some kind of demotion to me, either way. While Wilson's tea-party in Niger (with individuals having every motivation to deny dealing with Saddam) may have been fabricated for political gain, Administration officials are bound to a higher standard of ethics than journalists. Rove should have simply pointed to other nations' continued support for the yellowcake claims, rather than taking the low road.

Rove may have unwittingly done something unethical; that is, confirming an open secret to a reporter without clearing the facts with a security advisor beforehand (rather than afterward, as he did).

So instead of discrediting Wilson's story through argument, Rove threw the suckerpunch, exposing Wilson's claims of official authority as lies, but breaking a rule of confidentiality in the process. However, Plame hadn't been covert in over 5 years, putting the leaked information outside the letter of the criminal code.

So, Karl Rove acted for the Party, rather than according to procedure (if you believe he got his info from reporters), or possibly unethically (if you believe the "revenge" speculation some Democrats reflexively point to).

Seems like grounds for some kind of demotion to me, either way. While Wilson's tea-party in Niger (with individuals having every motivation to deny dealing with Saddam) may have been fabricated for political gain, Administration officials are bound to a higher standard of ethics than journalists. Rove should have simply pointed to other nations' continued support for the yellowcake claims, rather than taking the low road.

You didn't even read this thread, did you?

Let's make this simple.

Read carefully Cat_Tribe's carefully rearched examples of statutes that are just the tip of the iceberg as to what this case may entail. Read them thoroughly.

Then answer Nazz' very simple, straightforward question.
To paraphrase him (please correct me if I get the spirit wrong,):

Why would the CIA call for an investigation into the outing of a covert agent if said agent was not, in fact, covert?

To put it another way:

Why would the CIA seek an outside ruling, from the Justice Department, on a question it can simply answer itself?

Finally, realize that the news article in question named not only Plame but the name and location of the fictional company that was her cover. Now, unless you think Robert Novak is a supersleuth who has the free time away from his columns and his TV appearances to do all the legwork of uncovering a CIA operation, someone had to have leaked highly confidentional, highly important, highly sensitive information to someone.

Mrs. Wilson, whatever her assignment at the time of the article, had been a covert agent for a very extended period of time.

She had contacts. She had been seen with people. She worked with other agents. They had been seen with people. Her area of expertise? WMD.

Think about that. Think about that long and hard. Think about what we're currently at war with.

Was making a political attack (even if it was in self-defense ) worth that?

Then remember that Wilson was a GHW Bush appointee.

We don't know that Rove was the originator of the treasonous release of information. Someone was. Someone committed a very serious crime regarding national security in a time of war. That bears repeating. Someone committed a very serious crime regarding national security in a time of war.

We know Rove was involved somehow. At the very least, no matter where you lie in the socio-political spectrum, you should be very very interested in getting down to the truth.

People need to be squeezed about this, and squeezed hard. Whoever did this was worse than any terrorist. If one is blase` about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, then one should have no problem using stronger measures in this case.

Now, I tried to avoid any facts that are in dispute.

The Branch Rovidians amongst the Busheviks (if those two are even exclusive) will keep denying and denying right up until all the news channels talk about the Guilty Verdict, then they'll insist Rove was framed or given up as a sacrificial goat by the Bush Administration.

Corruption tends to be easier with fewer parties in charge methinks. Maybe it's time we add more before another scandal (be it Democrat or Republican) truly fucks up the country beyond repair.

The Branch Rovidians amongst the Busheviks (if those two are even exclusive) will keep denying and denying right up until all the news channels talk about the Guilty Verdict, then they'll insist Rove was framed or given up as a sacrificial goat by the Bush Administration.

Corruption tends to be easier with fewer parties in charge methinks. Maybe it's time we add more before another scandal (be it Democrat or Republican) truly fucks up the country beyond repair.
Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else in the Bush Admin takes the bullet for Rove when things start to heat up even more. Bush wouldn't have a brain without Rove, and they can't afford to lose that.

I'm through with the 'did not', 'did so' arguments, but Bush-haters never fail to amaze me in their creativity. I ran across this little gem while perusing the Sunday Yahoo! news

As presidential adviser Karl Rove has been under fire for his role in the alleged outing of a CIA employee, a liberal blog is now suggesting people leave a special care package on Rove's lawn -- the gift of excrement.


I'm sure this is just a one-of-kind effort, but I didn't want you guys to miss out, if you're so inclined.

Because I'm an American first and a partisan second. Those of you who continue to defend Rove--you're partisan first and American second. I'm calling you out. You'll defend a traitor rather than stand for what's best for the country and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You're no better than Rove if you defend him.
Bullshit Nazz. By the time I got involved in the Plamefest there was more than enough evidence beginning to pile up that Rove, while a manipulative bastard, had not been the origin of the leak. I have no problem convicting the guilty party, but it was/is shortsighted in the extreme to try and blame everything on Rove. The Democratic party will have a bunch of crow to eat if they continue pushing to axe Rove, simply because there is no longer ANY credibility towards the idea that he was the leak. The really funny part is that he knew all along that he wasn't the leak, and unless I miss my guess specifically allowed the Dems to shoot themselves in the foot by not protesting too much as they attacked him. Of course, that may be assuming that Rove is more diabolical than he actually is, but one can hope.

Bullshit Nazz. By the time I got involved in the Plamefest there was more than enough evidence beginning to pile up that Rove, while a manipulative bastard, had not been the origin of the leak. I have no problem convicting the guilty party, but it was/is shortsighted in the extreme to try and blame everything on Rove. The Democratic party will have a bunch of crow to eat if they continue pushing to axe Rove, simply because there is no longer ANY credibility towards the idea that he was the leak. The really funny part is that he knew all along that he wasn't the leak, and unless I miss my guess specifically allowed the Dems to shoot themselves in the foot by not protesting too much as they attacked him. Of course, that may be assuming that Rove is more diabolical than he actually is, but one can hope.

Ravenshrike,

It is possible that Rove intended to do as you say. We don't know yet. I don't see how it's funny at all. Please read my last post.

We do know he's involved somehow, but the White House denied his involvement. The White House has been caught in a blatant and verifiable lie.

We should all ignore partisan speculation and focus on the facts, and focus on supporting Fitzgerald, who is working to uncover the truth.

I'm through with the 'did not', 'did so' arguments, but Bush-haters never fail to amaze me in their creativity. I ran across this little gem while perusing the Sunday Yahoo! news

-snip-

I'm sure this is just a one-of-kind effort, but I didn't want you guys to miss out, if you're so inclined.

There's no "did not" or "did so."

Unless the CIA blew it's own cover, someone leaked information that has likely compromised the cover and job of countless undercover agents. I support Fitzgerald.

I wonder when the dirt is going to start flying about Fitzgerald? It would certainly fit an established pattern...

There's no "did not" or "did so."

Unless the CIA blew it's own cover, someone leaked information that has likely compromised the cover and job of countless undercover agents. I support Fitzgerald.

I wonder when the dirt is going to start flying about Fitzgerald? It would certainly fit an established pattern...
Is that the Carville/Morris/Clinton pattern of slandering special prosecutors? Such low expectations... The next target is Lewis Libby. I think everyone has moved on from Rove and decided to attack him next. Sooner or later, they'll pile on to the right guy and then, maybe, Wilson will be indicted.

Oh, and by "did not" and "did so", I just mean that the arguments are repeating themselves. But you didn't say if you intended to join the poop party on Rove's lawn.

I think I'll let Patrick Fitzgerald and the grand jury he's convened come to that conclusion, thank you very much. I will say it again--if Plame wasn't covert, then Fitzgerald would never have convened the grand jury. Look at the timeline--Fitzgerald was named as the special prosecutor months after CIA made the referral to justice--plenty of time for Justice to determine whether or not Plame's outing fit the definition under IIPA or perhaps the Espionage Act. If there had been no crime committed, there would have been no grand jury. Period.
I hate to be so late with this, but I've been busy. Fitzgerald has told Rove that he's not a target, not at this point, anyway. Plus, Grand Juries decided if sufficient evidence exists to indict, not the other way around. No indictment = no crime, not No crime = No Grand Jury.

Grand Juries can be fishing expeditions at times, too. Get a bunch of testimony and then decide what to do. This was probably too notorious by the time a SP was appointed for the guy to just drop the whole case and you know what egos lawyers have. He probably couldn't drop it, even if it was obvious there was no crime committed at all.

[edit]
One last little thing. I agree completely with everyone that has said "There's a lot we don't know". I do think it's a mistake to accuse and slander someone just because we don't like his politics. On the other hand, if that Grand Jury returns an indictment and a court convicts Rove, it's an entirely different matter. I'll wonder how a smart guy like that did such a stupid thing.

Let's make this simple.

Read carefully Cat_Tribe's carefully rearched examples of statutes that are just the tip of the iceberg as to what this case may entail. Read them thoroughly.

Then answer Nazz' very simple, straightforward question.
To paraphrase him (please correct me if I get the spirit wrong,):

Why would the CIA call for an investigation into the outing of a covert agent if said agent was not, in fact, covert?

To put it another way:

Why would the CIA seek an outside ruling, from the Justice Department, on a question it can simply answer itself?

Finally, realize that the news article in question named not only Plame but the name and location of the fictional company that was her cover. Now, unless you think Robert Novak is a supersleuth who has the free time away from his columns and his TV appearances to do all the legwork of uncovering a CIA operation, someone had to have leaked highly confidentional, highly important, highly sensitive information to someone.

Mrs. Wilson, whatever her assignment at the time of the article, had been a covert agent for a very extended period of time.

She had contacts. She had been seen with people. She worked with other agents. They had been seen with people. Her area of expertise? WMD.

Think about that. Think about that long and hard. Think about what we're currently at war with.

Was making a political attack (even if it was in self-defense ) worth that?

Then remember that Wilson was a GHW Bush appointee.

We don't know that Rove was the originator of the treasonous release of information. Someone was. Someone committed a very serious crime regarding national security in a time of war. That bears repeating. Someone committed a very serious crime regarding national security in a time of war.

We know Rove was involved somehow. At the very least, no matter where you lie in the socio-political spectrum, you should be very very interested in getting down to the truth.

People need to be squeezed about this, and squeezed hard. Whoever did this was worse than any terrorist. If one is blase` about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, then one should have no problem using stronger measures in this case.

Now, I tried to avoid any facts that are in dispute.

It really is so simple. I agree with everything Cat-Tribe and Nazz and now yourself have said. It couldn't be more obvious, I'm thinking of something to compare it to, but it's just so obvious I'm coming up empty..lol

There were many on this site when Plame's "cover" was first blown on the Republican side who said things like "The person is a traitor and should be shot" and other things along those lines.

Then when it turned out to be who was always actually suspected, Rove. The tune from a lot of the die hard Neo-Cons and Republicans have changed. I think Cat-Tribe's post about the different positions that "Whittier-- " has taken over the course of this exercise in partisanship, was actually quite brilliant.

And it certainly showed one thing above all else, (keeping in mind I'm not from the United States) that the Democrats have always wanted the person who outed Plame's head on a stick, and the Republicans wanted their head on a stick until they found out who leaked Plame's name, Rove.

To me? That speaks volumes!

It really is so simple. I agree with everything Cat-Tribe and Nazz and now yourself have said. It couldn't be more obvious, I'm thinking of something to compare it to, but it's just so obvious I'm coming up empty..lol

There were many on this site when Plame's "cover" was first blown on the Republican side who said things like "The person is a traitor and should be shot" and other things along those lines.

Then when it turned out to be who was always actually suspected, Rove. The tune from a lot of the die hard Neo-Cons and Republicans have changed. I think Cat-Tribe's post about the different positions that "Whittier-- " has taken over the course of this exercise in partisanship, was actually quite brilliant.

And it certainly showed one thing above all else, (keeping in mind I'm not from the United States) that the Democrats have always wanted the person who outed Plame's head on a stick, and the Republicans wanted their head on a stick until they found out who leaked Plame's name, Rove.

To me? That speaks volumes!
Doesn't seem like anyone wants due process, does it? That's a quaint American custom, where one gets a trial before he's hung.

I hate to be so late with this, but I've been busy. Fitzgerald has told Rove that he's not a target, not at this point, anyway. Plus, Grand Juries decided if sufficient evidence exists to indict, not the other way around. No indictment = no crime, not No crime = No Grand Jury.

Grand Juries can be fishing expeditions at times, too. Get a bunch of testimony and then decide what to do. This was probably too notorious by the time a SP was appointed for the guy to just drop the whole case and you know what egos lawyers have. He probably couldn't drop it, even if it was obvious there was no crime committed at all.

First you drag Clinton into this (in your previous post,) then you make statementsd that are misleading half-truths (while not a "target," Rove has been told he's a "subject.")

I mean, if you're going to argue this poorly, could you at least do it creatively?

Now, let me make this perfectly clear. While we do not know for sure the exact "who," of the crime, a crime has been committed. Somewhere, someone down the line leaked classified information outing Plame and her fictitious cover job. (I know you won't address the bolded part just there. You've selectively skipped past it several times already.)

The other fact you're in denial about is that the White House (intentionally or unintentionally,) was not forthcoming about the truth about an ongoing criminal investigation.

Doesn't seem like anyone wants due process, does it? That's a quaint American custom, where one gets a trial before he's hung.

The investigation is ongoing. It is just hoped that people who know what happened are forthcoming as to how much they knew and when they knew it. That's all I ask.

By the way, in a thoughtful manner, are you able to build a case as to how Wilson lied?

I hadn't considered the bolded point--whoever leaked Plame's name is potentially on the hook for everyone blown as a result of the leak, even if Plame wasn't covert at the time. The statute doesn't say that the agents have to be named--just that identifying information has to be given, and if their covers were blown by leaking the name of the front company they claimed as an employer, then that could certainly be covered by the statute.

I said this a few pages back, and no one bothered to respond to it, so I'll say it again. Regardless if anyone is ever convicted of this crime, regardless is anyone ever spends a day in jail, this was a bullshit action, especially when you consider the reasons it was done. It was, to my mind, treasonous, even if it doesn't meet the constitutional standard for the crime, and those of you who are acting as though Rove is some sort of national hero for doing it have a fucked up sense of priority.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. The Republicans I grew up with, and whose party I was briefly a member of, would have condemned this action the second it happened. Some of them did, although many are now recanting since Rove was named specifically. I'd be howling for blood if this happened in a Democratic administration. Why?

Because I'm an American first and a partisan second. Those of you who continue to defend Rove--you're partisan first and American second. I'm calling you out. You'll defend a traitor rather than stand for what's best for the country and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You're no better than Rove if you defend him.

If this gets me deleted for flaming, so be it--some shit is more important than an internet forum.
AGAIN, you f*cking ROCK.

*bows*

Doesn't seem like anyone wants due process, does it? That's a quaint American custom, where one gets a trial before he's hung.
It's *HANGED*, not "hung". Get it right.

It's *HANGED*, not "hung". Get it right.

:cool:

Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else in the Bush Admin takes the bullet for Rove when things start to heat up even more. Bush wouldn't have a brain without Rove, and they can't afford to lose that.
An article came up yesterday that tries to tie Colin Powell to certain memos, now that you mentioned it - maybe i'll post it or someone else will. Not much time. :(

EDIT: Yeah, if they lose "Bush's Brain" then they're left with his superior physical dexterity .... :rolleyes:
*poke Segway*
*poke biking into security*
*poke pretzel*

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/

More relevations from Cooper. So we know Rove was the primary source for Cooper. We have yet to determine exactly how Rove learned of Mrs Wilson in the first place.

According to Cooper, Rove said the information would soon be declassified. Which means that Rove knew for a fact (if Cooper's testimony is to be believed,) that the information was classified at the time that Rove passed it on.

I'm through with the 'did not', 'did so' arguments, but Bush-haters never fail to amaze me in their creativity. I ran across this little gem while perusing the Sunday Yahoo! news


I'm sure this is just a one-of-kind effort, but I didn't want you guys to miss out, if you're so inclined.
Well, i commend you for appreciating the matter of this thread with a submission of matter of a similar nature. I appreciate your levity.

If he is found to have exposed Plame, he had good reasons for it and as such will most likely not go to jail for it.

One of the things we know is that it was not the Vice President who told Joe Wilson to go to Nigeria, but Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. The purpose of the mission was to do everything necessary to discredit Bush's case for war in Iraq. Both Wilson and Plame were bitterly opposed to any war with Iraq.
Valerie Plame's ouster was due to her own arrogance about her place in the American government. She was the one that ordered him to go, she was the one who authorized it.
In fact, Mr. Wilson knew it was his wife and not the VP that had authorized the trip. So the question is, what authority did she have to authorize something that was not ok'd by the VP?
And now new stuff is coming up about Wilson and Plame being extremely bitter over Bush's election in 2000.
At the end of the investigation it may turn out that those two made an attempt to destroy the President of the United States and their attempt backfired. Especially in Plame's case.
Now instead of accepting responsibility they are calling for the imprisonment of people who interfered with their plot, and again, their attempts could be backfiring.
And if that is the case, then it is Mrs. Plame and Mr. Wilson who belongs in prison for jeopardizing the national security of the United States and for costing the lives of many American troops.


I've never heard of someone buying a story hook line and sinker like you did. This is amazing, did you just read the RNC distributed talking points over dinner and say uh huh, uh huh, to every single one? Just how much b.s do you rightwingers actually have to swallow before it starts leaving a sour taste in your mouth. And I'll bet you actually believe the new WH story that the reporter was ALSO the source, huh, as IF that could actually happen in the world of professional journalism. When was the last time you heard of a professional journalist being his own source and NOT getting fired for it?

You know full well that if this were happening within a Democratic Administration, you guys would be salivating for blood, and don't deny it. You guys are just going along with the excuses and making up your own because these are YOUR guys, and I find that the most disgusting part of all.

Don't you see that this is just a ploy to save Bush's ass? Bush declared that if anyone in his Admin was guilty, they would be fired. To admit Rove's guilt not only means that Bush has to keep his word, but it also opens his Admin up for all kinds of criminal investigations which could lead to impeachment. Clinton was impeached for less. Therefore, Rove MUST be found innocent, for the sake of the whole Admin, so all manner of obfuscation will now take place to those ends, and I'm sure you'll buy all of it. What a rube.

I've never heard of someone buying a story hook line and sinker like you did. This is amazing, did you just read the RNC distributed talking points over dinner and say uh huh, uh huh, to every single one? Just how much b.s do you rightwingers actually have to swallow before it starts leaving a sour taste in your mouth. And I'll bet you actually believe the new WH story that the reporter was ALSO the source, huh, as IF that could actually happen in the world of professional journalism. When was the last time you heard of a professional journalist being his own source and NOT getting fired for it?

You know full well that if this were happening within a Democratic Administration, you guys would be salivating for blood, and don't deny it. You guys are just going along with the excuses and making up your own because these are YOUR guys, and I find that the most disgusting part of all.

Don't you see that this is just a ploy to save Bush's ass? Bush declared that if anyone in his Admin was guilty, they would be fired. To admit Rove's guilt not only means that Bush has to keep his word, but it also opens his Admin up for all kinds of criminal investigations which could lead to impeachment. Clinton was impeached for less. Therefore, Rove MUST be found innocent, for the sake of the whole Admin, so all manner of obfuscation will now take place to those ends, and I'm sure you'll buy all of it. What a rube.

I don't know what's the most impressive magic trick in the history of humanity, but I bet not even David Cooperfield could turn a whole flock of War Hawks into Ostriches with their heads in the sand better than Plamegate did.

An article came up yesterday that tries to tie Colin Powell to certain memos, now that you mentioned it - maybe i'll post it or someone else will. Not much time. :(

EDIT: Yeah, if they lose "Bush's Brain" then they're left with his superior physical dexterity .... :rolleyes:
*poke Segway*
*poke biking into security*
*poke pretzel*

Cue "But Kerry ran into a secret serviceman while skiing!" comment in 4, 3, 2, 1....

It's *HANGED*, not "hung". Get it right.
Dammit, I'm a physicist, not a linguist. Point taken.

First you drag Clinton into this (in your previous post,) then you make statementsd that are misleading half-truths (while not a "target," Rove has been told he's a "subject.")

I didn't make the implication that the SP was going to be slandered by the current White House administration. I was only pointing out how well it had been done in the past. The current administration doesn't have nearly the track record with SPs that the previous one did.

Now, let me make this perfectly clear. While we do not know for sure the exact "who," of the crime, a crime has been committed. Somewhere, someone down the line leaked classified information outing Plame and her fictitious cover job. (I know you won't address the bolded part just there. You've selectively skipped past it several times already.)

The other fact you're in denial about is that the White House (intentionally or unintentionally,) was not forthcoming about the truth about an ongoing criminal investigation.

The investigation is ongoing. It is just hoped that people who know what happened are forthcoming as to how much they knew and when they knew it. That's all I ask.

Who should they be forthcoming to? NS, the media, the Grand Jury? Has anyone refused to testify, or lied to the Grand Jury? I don't recall any lost records, exercise of executive privilege, or anything that might resemble obstruction.



By the way, in a thoughtful manner, are you able to build a case as to how Wilson lied?
Okay, Joe Wilson... Quite a character. There are more things that we don't know about him than things we do know.

For example, in his book, he wrote, “The assertion that Valerie had played any substantive role in the decision to ask me to go to Niger was false on the face of it. ...Valerie could not — and would not if she could — have had anything to do with the CIA decision to ask me to travel to [Niger].”

But later, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in its bipartisan report, said that “interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that [Wilson’s] wife, a CPD employee [a reference to the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division], suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the deputy chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from [Wilson’s] wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both [Niger’s prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’”

So why did Wilson say his wife played no “substantive role” in it? It must depend on the meaning of substantive, huh?

Like I said before, there are a lot of things we don't know and none of them lead directly to the White House, no matter how badly you want them to.

.... I think my brain is going to explode due to the completely non-sensical nature of the origional argument in this thread.....

.... I think my brain is going to explode due to the completely non-sensical nature of the original argument in this thread.....

I sympathise.

The problem is that I think we need to argue this point methodically. The more we can state the unassailable facts (featured prominently in The Cat-Tribe's posts, TheNazz' posts, and to a lesser extent my own posts,) the more we can state in original language the implications of this case. the better.

So, spell out the parts of this argument (in a clinical manner, preferably,) that are most troubling to you and why.

It bears repeating (not to you Microevil, this is to the followers of this particular thread in general,) that it is not Democrats that have called for the investigation we're discussing. It was specifically the CIA who called for a Justice Department investigation. Unless you are going to make the case that the CIA is controlled by partisan "liberals" or "Democrats," please don't say this investigation is based purely on "politics" or "liberal whining."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/

According to Cooper, Rove said the information would soon be declassified. Which means that Rove knew for a fact (if Cooper's testimony is to be believed,) that the information was classified at the time that Rove passed it on.
*sighs* Pay attention. Cooper started that line of questioning about the report Wilson made, which was mostly declassified not 3 hours later in a press statement by the CIA itself if I remember correctly. Rove was not talking about Plame at all there.

*sighs* Pay attention. Cooper started that line of questioning about the report Wilson made, which was mostly declassified not 3 hours later in a press statement by the CIA itself if I remember correctly. Rove was not talking about Plame at all there.

Hmm, you may be right, though that still means that the information (Wilson's report,) was classified until 3 hours later. That in itself is a violation of his non disclosure agreement. Unless, of course, someone higher up had prior knowledge and gave Rove specific permission to disseminate the information. It follows that someone higher up than Rove is now involved in the "What did you know, and when did you know it?" line of questioning.

It also doesn't explain why Rove expressed concern that he may have said too much.

I sympathise.

The problem is that I think we need to argue this point methodically. The more we can state the unassailable facts (featured prominently in The Cat-Tribe's posts, TheNazz' posts, and to a lesser extent my own posts,) the more we can state in original language the implications of this case. the better.

So, spell out the parts of this argument (in a clinical manner, preferably,) that are most troubling to you and why.

It bears repeating (not to you Microevil, this is to the followers of this particular thread in general,) that it is not Democrats that have called for the investigation we're discussing. It was specifically the CIA who called for a Justice Department investigation. Unless you are going to make the case that the CIA is controlled by partisan "liberals" or "Democrats," please don't say this investigation is based purely on "politics" or "liberal whining."

Yeah, and even the argument that "the CIA is controlled by partisan 'liberals' or 'Democrats'" is faulty because there is a former republican congressman sitting at the head of the agency. And anyway, the thought of Rove being considered a national hero makes me want to vomit. I'm even a moderate, I'm not even a lefty, but this shit is getting out of hand, and I can't believe the gaul that some of these fanatical right wing nutjobs have. I beginning to believe that sheep don't go eat grass as a pass time anymore, I think they watch a lot of fox news.

Yeah, and even the argument that "the CIA is controlled by partisan 'liberals' or 'Democrats'" is faulty because there is a former republican congressman sitting at the head of the agency. And anyway, the thought of Rove being considered a national hero makes me want to vomit. I'm even a moderate, I'm not even a lefty, but this shit is getting out of hand, and I can't believe the gaul that some of these fanatical right wing nutjobs have. I beginning to believe that sheep don't go eat grass as a pass time anymore, I think they watch a lot of fox news.

lol

Hmm, you may be right, though that still means that the information (Wilson's report,) was classified until 3 hours later. That in itself is a violation of his non disclosure agreement. Unless, of course, someone higher up had prior knowledge and gave Rove specific permission to disseminate the information. It follows that someone higher up than Rove is now involved in the "What did you know, and when did you know it?" line of questioning.

It also doesn't explain why Rove expressed concern that he may have said too much.
Rove was warning Cooper not to write an article endorsing Wilson's comments because they were, as evidenced by the declassification of the report, complete and utter bullshit. If I had to make a guess I'd say that the report had already been declassified by the time they talked but the fact that it was hadn't been announced to the general public yet. I'm unsure if declassification is done by timestamp or by day.

What I'm surprised about is that Godwin's law hasn't had to have been invoked yet on an argument about the Bush administration.

Rove was warning Cooper not to write an article endorsing Wilson's comments because they were, as evidenced by the declassification of the report, complete and utter bullshit. If I had to make a guess I'd say that the report had already been declassified by the time they talked but the fact that it was hadn't been announced to the general public yet. I'm unsure if declassification is done by timestamp or by day.
Except that Wilson's claims were never debunked or disproved. Really, Ravenshrike, you ought to get out more. :rolleyes:

Except that Wilson's claims were never debunked or disproved. Really, Ravenshrike, you ought to get out more. :rolleyes:

Umm...yeah. I thought we went over that with Ravenshrike, the evidence Wilson claimed to have not found was not found by anyone else either.

Nobody found any incriminating evidence in Niger against Iraq as such. They found plenty against Iran, which as we all know has a Nuke program...not so much Iraq.

Ravenshrike, do you have evidence that Wilsons claims were debunked somehow? I haven't seen it, but I've heard it claimed on Fox News...but they never mention HOW it was debunked.

Cue "But Kerry ran into a secret serviceman while skiing!" comment in 4, 3, 2, 1....
FLORT! :)

I think there's a site or something somewhere that coordinates all the pratfalls and such of every democrat in American history, just so the republicans can toss it up and play bait & switch anytime any real scrutiny comes 'round in this kind of forum.
*fish, fish*

Dammit, I'm a physicist, not a linguist. Point taken.
Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a political advisor! ;)
Well, then, maybe for another thread as not to jack this one, maybe you could give your angle on scalar fields. Might read interestingly. Or the hierarchy problem.

Who should they be forthcoming to? NS, the media, the Grand Jury? Has anyone refused to testify, or lied to the Grand Jury? I don't recall any lost records, exercise of executive privilege, or anything that might resemble obstruction.
Yeah, two years later. Getting to the bottom of it. Well i'm not gonna beat horsie here, merely backtrack the thread a bit .....





Like I said before, there are a lot of things we don't know and none of them lead directly to the White House, no matter how badly you want them to.

Sorry, it sureasf*ck looks like it does lead that way, considerably ....

*ahem*

Reporter says Cheney aide was a source

By Pete Yost, Associated Press Writer | July 17, 2005

WASHINGTON --The vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was a source along with the president's chief political adviser for a Time story that identified a CIA officer, the magazine reporter said Sunday, further countering White House claims 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 Karl Rove, Republicans said that Rove originally learned about Valerie Plame's identity from the news media. That exonerates Rove, the Republican Party chairman said, 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 the latest issue of Time magazine, reporter Matt Cooper wrote that during his grand jury appearance last Wednesday, prosecutor Patrick 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 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 Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq at the start of the Persian Gulf War.
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 authorized a trip he took to Africa in 2002. The White House on Sunday declined to comment about Libby, saying the investigation was ongoing.
The CIA sent Wilson to check out intelligence that the government of Niger had sold yellowcake uranium to Iraq for nuclear weapons. The chief rationale for the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 was that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Five days before Rove spoke with Cooper, Wilson had written a newspaper opinion piece suggesting the administration had twisted prewar intelligence, including a "highly doubtful" report that Saddam bought nuclear materials from Niger.
Libby and Rove were among the unidentified government officials who provided information for a Time story about Wilson, Cooper told NBC's "Meet the Press."
Cooper also said there may have been other government officials who were sources for his article. Time posted "A War on Wilson?" on its Web site on July 17, 2003.
The reporter refused to elaborate about other sources. He said that he has given all information to the grand jury in Washington where he was questioned for 2 1/2 hours.
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, Cheney's chief of staff.
According to Cooper, "Libby replied, 'Yeah, I've heard that too' or words to that effect" when Cooper asked if Libby had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Cooper's testimony about Libby came in August 2004, after Libby, like Rove this month, provided a specific waiver of confidentiality, Cooper said.
In 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the idea that Rove was involved in leaking information about Wilson's wife was "ridiculous."
The only concession by any Republican in the controversy came from Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the third-ranking House Republican.
Asked about the White House's previous statements that Rove was not involved, Blunt told CBS' "Face the Nation" that spokesmen for the White House "need to be very thoughtful about what they say and be sure that their credibility is sustained."
At the time of the assurances, McClellan said he had checked directly with Rove.
"I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you," McClellan told the press in October 2003. McClellan said then that he had also checked with Libby and National Security Council official Elliott Abrams before saying they were not involved in the leak.
Blunt and Wilson clashed on CBS.
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."

Rove was warning Cooper not to write an article endorsing Wilson's comments because they were, as evidenced by the declassification of the report, complete and utter bullshit. If I had to make a guess I'd say that the report had already been declassified by the time they talked but the fact that it was hadn't been announced to the general public yet. I'm unsure if declassification is done by timestamp or by day.

I'll add my voice to the crowd clamoring for the evidence that Wilson lied. This was a guy, after all, that was hailed as a hero by George HW Bush in 1991. Remember that on March 7, 2003, the IAEA announced that the Niger/Uranium documents weren't real. The very next day, the State Department agreed that the Niger documents were forgeries.

Wilson never said "Cheney sent me." What he did say was that the Vice President's office had requested that Niger be looked in to.

Wilson's wife was in no position to unilaterally send him on the trip. As a former ambassador to Iraq and Niger, he was clearly a good choice. Plame was involved in WMD. Why shouldn't she send a letter to her superiors suggesting Wilson might be a good idea?

Funny that Bush supporters are so worried about possible nepotism...

George Bush has adjusted his claims that he would fire anyone who leaked Plame's name to "Fire anyone who committed a crime." I've bolded the important parts of the article, the rest seemed to be a review of everything that has happened so far, as well as responses from Dems and Repubs.

Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-18T232516Z_01_N18274057_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush vowed on Monday to fire anyone found by a federal probe to have acted illegally in the exposure of a CIA agent, in a shift from a broader pledge to dismiss anyone found to have leaked information in the case.

Bush, whose top political adviser Karl Rove has been caught up in the investigation, told reporters he did not know all the facts and urged them to wait until the inquiry was complete before "you jump to conclusions."

"I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration," Bush said at a news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Asked on June 10, 2004, whether he stood by an earlier White House pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name, Bush replied: "Yes." On Monday, he added the qualifier that it would have to be demonstrated that a crime was committed.

Democrats accused Bush of lowering the "ethics bar." New York Sen. Charles Schumer said the standard for holding a high White House position "should not simply be that you didn't break the law."

Only one-quarter of Americans believe the White House is fully cooperating with the investigation, according to an ABC News poll released on Monday. And White House spokesman Scott McClellan faced a new barrage of questions about the controversy.

McClellan rejected suggestions Bush had moved the goal posts on his dismissal vow.

"No, I disagree," he told reporters. "I think that you should not read anything into it more than what the president said at this point."

Bush cited the federal probe into who revealed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of a prominent critic of his administration's Iraq policy, and refused as he did last week to comment on specifics of the case.

It is against the law for a government official to knowingly expose a covert CIA agent.

Rove has been named by a Time magazine reporter as one of the sources who identified the agent to the media, before she was named in a newspaper column in July 2003.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said his client had been "repeatedly assured" he was not a target of the special prosecutor's investigation.

The Time reporter, Matthew Cooper, said Rove was the first person to tell him that the agent worked for the CIA. Cooper said he told a grand jury last week that Rove told him the woman worked at the "agency," or CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying "I've already said too much."

He said Rove did not disclose the woman's name, but told him information would be declassified that would cast doubt on the credibility of her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, who had charged the Bush administration with exaggerating the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs in making its case for war.

Cooper also said that in previous testimony to the grand jury he had discussed Wilson and his wife with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

The White House had earlier denied that Rove or Libby were involved in the leak.

Wilson accuses the Bush administration of seeking retribution by leaking his wife's name.

Prominent Democrats have called on Bush to fire Rove, the architect of his two presidential election victories and now his deputy chief of staff, or block his access to classified information.

Some Republicans have sprung to Rove's defense, saying he did not break any laws because he did not reveal her name and may not have known she had undercover status.

"President Bush backed away from his initial pledge and lowered the ethics bar," Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said. "Bush should be prepared to keep his word, and to enforce a high standard of ethics in the White House as he promised from the beginning of his administration."

McClellan denied the White House's credibility had been hurt by his earlier statements that Rove and Libby were not involved in the leak. He said Bush had "great faith in the American people and their judgment."

"We have a serious, ongoing investigation here, and it's being played out in the press," Bush said.

Does this change a lot, a bit, or nothing at all? :confused:

George Bush has adjusted his claims that he would fire anyone who leaked Plame's name to "Fire anyone who committed a crime." I've bolded the important parts of the article, the rest seemed to be a review of everything that has happened so far, as well as responses from Dems and Repubs.

Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-18T232516Z_01_N18274057_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML)



Does this change a lot, a bit, or nothing at all? :confused:
Y'know, if Bush was held to this part Asked on June 10, 2004, whether he stood by an earlier White House pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name, Bush replied: "Yes." On Monday, he added the qualifier that it would have to be demonstrated that a crime was committed. Rove wouldn't be fired.

Y'know, if Bush was held to this part, Rove wouldn't be fired.

Probably because they'll stymie the process by adding more conditions to the point where it would have been impossible to convict anyone. Its an old politicians trick.

And don't say that neither Bush nor Rove wouldn't use that. Their politicians for crying out loud. Did you expect politicians to be honest and squeaky clean?

Y'know, if Bush was held to this part Rove wouldn't be fired.
I believe the original statement was that he would "handle" anyone who "broke the law". I don't recall the F-word being used.

what has happened on this thread the last couple of days? I have not been able to really get enough time in on the forums due to work.
What direction has the talk taken?

Speaking of being plain silly ....

I've laid out the statute, with links. My analysis is accurate, and your strawman version doesn't refute it.

If you looked back to when I quoted the IIPA (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html) at length, the guilty discloser must have had "authorized access to classified information." Mr. Rove and/or the leakers undoubtedly have such access. Those in the press and on this forum do not.

Ha.Then you should not be talking bout it then should you?

Then you should not be talking bout it then should you?

Only if she had classified clearance.

May one suggest then that you back and re-read the excellent posts of Cat-Tribe, who has taken much time and effort to post and prove that said information was NOT public?
At the time that Rove spoke to the reporter, the information was already previously made public by Robert Novak.

I think we're on the downhill side of both the effort to implicate Rove and the course of this thread.

In todays WSJ, I read an article that seems to put a slant on the story that there is another source that leaked the info first. Sorry I had to type it in, rather than link it, but it was from a print paper.


I've used an unnamed source. Take it for what it's worth. Still, I think the fire in this story is dying rapidly.
So Novak told Rove, who would have reason to believe that everyone else knew it as well. But the question is, who told Novak?

Oops, it's appears that Vietnam Vet John Kerry (who also plays a US Senator) outed an actual covert agent:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/14/225202.shtml

Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:48 p.m. EDT
John Kerry Outed Undercover CIA Agent

Sen. John Kerry, who called for Karl Rove to be fired over allegations that he revealed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, outed a genuine undercover CIA agent just this past April - even after the Agency asked that his identity be kept secret.

Kerry blew the cover of CIA secret operative Fulton Armstrong during confirmation hearings for U.N. ambassador nominee John Bolton.

Questioning Bolton, Kerry asked: "Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed for his position?" - according to a transcript excerpted by the New York Times.
"The answer is yes," the top Democrat continued.

In his response to Kerry, Mr. Bolton did his best to maintain the agent's confidentiality, reverting to the Armstrong's pseudonym.

"As I said," he told Kerry, "I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that."

Two years earlier, Armstrong had been identified in news reports on his dispute with other officials over intelligence involving Cuba. But he was operating in a different capacity and his identity wasn't secret at the time.

"When the Bolton nomination resurrected the old accounts, however, the C.I.A. asked news organizations to withhold his name," the Times said.

Apparently the CIA directive wasn't good enough for Sen. Kerry - who outed Armstrong anyway and later defended the move by saying his Republican colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, had also mentioned the name.

And besides, said Kerry, the secret agent's name "had already been in the press."

From the NYT April 13, 2005:

Loose Lips Let Slip Agent's Name At Hearing

Typical partisan liberal hypocrisy. Notice that none of the libs are demanding that Kerry be tossed in jail.

Ah, the old Right-Wing switcheroo. Any time something gets hot, shift the blame elsewhere.

Rove reveals treasonous information? But Kerry did this and Clinton did that! Big Halliburton, do you not see that a (supposed) criminal act has nothing to do with another (supposed) criminal act? The sins of one do not excuse the sins of another.

I suppose you subjected the Kerry story to the same level of cynicism you used for the Rove/Plame story, right? Because if you did, then I can't help but think you stumbled across this nuggett of information:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504120007

Even the darling of the right, Michelle Malkin, has debunked this story.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002056.htm

All you are doing is changing the subject, and a poor job at that.

why don't people reason in an adult manner anymore?


Please read Cat Tribe's brilliant posts. If you can't understand them, shut up.

typical liberal response to sound pro american facts. Try to silence the opposition.

I think Joe Wilson has pretty much undone any prosecution under the IIPA. I haven't seen anyone write about possible violations of the Espionage Act, so I'm not sure the prosecutor is considering this. I think it's still in play, however.
If that is indeed the case, then clearly Mr. Wilson deserves prison time. But you will never see the democrats support prison for Wilson because he is their anti bush ally. As well as a partisan democrat operative.

You are utterly insane, and Karl Rove is an evil open sor on this country.

Even you cannot be so delusional as to think that any undercover agent within the C.I.A ever wants to have their cover blown, at any time.

Furthermore, your stubborn refusal to admit that Rove may just have commited a crime, and the suggestion that this is an attempt to destroying any traces of credibility George Bush may have had, is also delusional.

If this had been the Clinton Administration you would be howling for heads to roll and you know it.

Hippocrasy at its finest.
When this was posted, the poster had not read the thread nor read any of the facts of the case.
Suggestion, leave the countering to someone intelligent who can give concise rebuttals, such as Mr. Cat Tribe. Though I disagree with his interpretation.
All you are doing is smattering typical partisan democrat propaganda false hoods.

If that is indeed the case, then clearly Mr. Wilson deserves prison time. But you will never see the democrats support prison for Wilson because he is their anti bush ally. As well as a partisan democrat operative.

Pot, meet kettle. All that needs to be said.

Here are the main problems with the Rove apologists talking points.

The leak did not just out Plame. Let's say she was no longer actively covert. Those who used the same cover business still are. Her international contacts still are. The contacts of those she worked with are compromised as well. She worked in WMD's. Where is the Republican concern about mushroom clouds now? What if we lose information about the next 9/11, the next subway/bus attack, the detonation of a dirty bomb?

Even if he was not the direct leak, Rove confirmed or passed on information that compromised secret activities of the CIA. At the vert very least, he violated his confidentiality agreement.

Even if Wilson and Plame were conniving douchebags, that does not excuse the compromising of countless operatives and sources during a time of war.

So how come criticizing the war is unAmerican, because it hurts the morale of the troops, but disseminating secret information about agent's identities doesn't have the same effect on the intelligence community?

Do you thimk the CIA will do better or worse work if they think their cover can be blown if they dig up facts that counter the Administration's policy, or if outing them can score political points?

This is not trivial. This is not just about Wilson and Plame. This is about directly hindering the War on Terror.
War on Terror? You must mean that war that you have been opposing so vociferously. Now that a democratic party operative has been named, you go from calling it illegitimate to acting as if it is legitimate.

If that is indeed the case, then clearly Mr. Wilson deserves prison time. But you will never see the democrats support prison for Wilson because he is their anti bush ally. As well as a partisan democrat operative.

Yeah, a partisan democrat operative who was appointed by GHW Bush himself.

War on Terror? You must mean that war that you have been opposing so vociferously. Now that a democratic party operative has been named, you go from calling it illegitimate to acting as if it is legitimate.

So just because he opposes the legality of the "War on Terror," you're saying it's justified for a petty political revenge to compromise Il Bushe's proclaimed goal of winning it?

Flip Flopper.

:rolleyes:

typical liberal response to sound pro american facts. Try to silence the opposition.

What are you talking about? Did you even read any of the articles? Have you once tried to answer the questions raised By Cat-Tribe and Nazz? How about my later posts?

No, you just fast-forwarded past all that, homed in on one imflammatory sentence I put in in the hopes that it would goad you into reading the actual evidence, and responded only to that.

Those are some pretty powerful blinkers you're wearing, buddy. I think you have carpal tunnel vision.*

When Michelle Malkin defends Kerry, you know the accusation has to be complete horse-(censored).

*intentional

War on Terror? You must mean that war that you have been opposing so vociferously. Now that a democratic party operative has been named, you go from calling it illegitimate to acting as if it is legitimate.
You talk a lot of shit, but you never back it up. If you're talking about Wilson, let's see some damn proof, something a bit less biased than Newsmax, if you don't mind. So far, you and your buddies in this thread haven't come up with anything. Of course, neither has Ken "I lie like I breathe" Mehlman as well as all the other right-wing hacks, so I'm not surprised you haven't done so either.

I hadn't considered the bolded point--whoever leaked Plame's name is potentially on the hook for everyone blown as a result of the leak, even if Plame wasn't covert at the time. The statute doesn't say that the agents have to be named--just that identifying information has to be given, and if their covers were blown by leaking the name of the front company they claimed as an employer, then that could certainly be covered by the statute.

I said this a few pages back, and no one bothered to respond to it, so I'll say it again. Regardless if anyone is ever convicted of this crime, regardless is anyone ever spends a day in jail, this was a bullshit action, especially when you consider the reasons it was done. It was, to my mind, treasonous, even if it doesn't meet the constitutional standard for the crime, and those of you who are acting as though Rove is some sort of national hero for doing it have a fucked up sense of priority.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. The Republicans I grew up with, and whose party I was briefly a member of, would have condemned this action the second it happened. Some of them did, although many are now recanting since Rove was named specifically. I'd be howling for blood if this happened in a Democratic administration. Why?

Because I'm an American first and a partisan second. Those of you who continue to defend Rove--you're partisan first and American second. I'm calling you out. You'll defend a traitor rather than stand for what's best for the country and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You're no better than Rove if you defend him.

If this gets me deleted for flaming, so be it--some shit is more important than an internet forum.

I agree with the first paragraph.
However, you have no proof that Rove is the one who disclosed the name. All the evidence points to the contrary. That he got the information from the media.
If the system finds enough evidence that states that Rove lied about getting said info from the media and was THE person who leaked her identity, then and only then would I agree that he belongs in jail. however, the democrats and their supporters have given no proof that Rove has committed such crime.
Even The Cat Tribe, whose posts the dems keep referring to for support, recognized that Rove may not be guilty of a crime.
I would be more likely persuaded by what he posts than by the mindless jibberish the other anti bushies and anti rovers have been posting.

Well said. I have long called for Bob Novak's part in this to come under scrutiny as well. This was about a treasonous actions 2 years ago, and its about treason today as well. Regardless of how airtight a criminal case would be, these actions are shameful in the highest degree; selling out one's nation for personal power. Pathetic.

The US should not sacrafice its intelligence to partisanship in both the literal and the figurative sense.
Novak. Well what do you know? We agree on something. Why is Novak being given a free stay out of jail card by the justice department?

Rove may have unwittingly done something unethical; that is, confirming an open secret to a reporter without clearing the facts with a security advisor beforehand (rather than afterward, as he did).

So instead of discrediting Wilson's story through argument, Rove threw the suckerpunch, exposing Wilson's claims of official authority as lies, but breaking a rule of confidentiality in the process. However, Plame hadn't been covert in over 5 years, putting the leaked information outside the letter of the criminal code.

So, Karl Rove acted for the Party, rather than according to procedure (if you believe he got his info from reporters), or possibly unethically (if you believe the "revenge" speculation some Democrats reflexively point to).

Seems like grounds for some kind of demotion to me, either way. While Wilson's tea-party in Niger (with individuals having every motivation to deny dealing with Saddam) may have been fabricated for political gain, Administration officials are bound to a higher standard of ethics than journalists. Rove should have simply pointed to other nations' continued support for the yellowcake claims, rather than taking the low road.

Now that, I will definately agree with.

War on Terror? You must mean that war that you have been opposing so vociferously. Now that a democratic party operative has been named, you go from calling it illegitimate to acting as if it is legitimate.

Really? Where exactly did you see me say I was opposed to an effective War on Terror? Hmmm, you have a quote? Can you find somewhere where I said I was opposed to national security? You keep pulling things from your butt like that, you're going to be holding your liver in your hand, eventually.

Wilson was appointed by GHW Bush himself. Wilson donated money to George W. Bush's 2000 election.

Can you actually argue with my conclusions about the case, or are you going to continue tossing inaccurate and airy accusations around?

I agree with the first paragraph.
However, you have no proof that Rove is the one who disclosed the name. All the evidence points to the contrary. That he got the information from the media.
If the system finds enough evidence that states that Rove lied about getting said info from the media and was THE person who leaked her identity, then and only then would I agree that he belongs in jail. however, the democrats and their supporters have given no proof that Rove has committed such crime.
Even The Cat Tribe, whose posts the dems keep referring to for support, recognized that Rove may not be guilty of a crime.
I would be more likely persuaded by what he posts than by the mindless jibberish the other anti bushies and anti rovers have been posting.
Let's see. Rove's lawyer, a man named Luskin has publicly acknowledged more than once that Rove served as a source for Matthew Cooper on Valerie Plame's identity. Matthew Cooper confirms this. Luskin tries to get around this admission by throwing up a smokescreen about whether or not Plame was covert. Fact is, whether or not she was is irrelevant to the crime of espionage--it only matters under the IIPA statute--but logic says that if there was no crime when CIA referred the matter to the Justice department, then there would never have been a grand jury impanelled. Remember--the investigation into whether or not there was a crime committed preceded the grand jury--without a crime, there is no grand jury. There is a grand jury, ergo, there was a crime.

Does that make Rove guilty under the IIPA? That I don't know, but he was certainly in violation of his nondisclosure agreement, the one he signed when he got a security clearance, the one that said, in short, that classified information is classified until it is declassified, no matter if it becomes public knowledge or not. Furthermore, it says that a person may not leak or confirm anything having to do with classified information, but rather must take affirmative action to see if the information is still classified before making any comment at all. What this means is, even if Rove is telling the truth--something that would be a first--he still violated his nondisclosure agreement by confirming Plame's identity to Cooper.

This is stuff that his lawyer has admitted, so please spare me your trite "there's no proof he did it" crap.

Maybe Rove's dirty tricks will finally catch up with him. He's the dirtiest man in DC (previously the dirtiest in Texas).

Maybe Rove's dirty tricks will finally catch up with him. He's the dirtiest man in DC (previously the dirtiest in Texas).
The dirtiest man in D.C. is the Swimmer.

Let's see. Rove's lawyer, a man named Luskin has publicly acknowledged more than once that Rove served as a source for Matthew Cooper on Valerie Plame's identity. Matthew Cooper confirms this. Luskin tries to get around this admission by throwing up a smokescreen about whether or not Plame was covert. Fact is, whether or not she was is irrelevant to the crime of espionage--it only matters under the IIPA statute--but logic says that if there was no crime when CIA referred the matter to the Justice department, then there would never have been a grand jury impanelled. Remember--the investigation into whether or not there was a crime committed preceded the grand jury--without a crime, there is no grand jury. There is a grand jury, ergo, there was a crime.

Does that make Rove guilty under the IIPA? That I don't know, but he was certainly in violation of his nondisclosure agreement, the one he signed when he got a security clearance, the one that said, in short, that classified information is classified until it is declassified, no matter if it becomes public knowledge or not. Furthermore, it says that a person may not leak or confirm anything having to do with classified information, but rather must take affirmative action to see if the information is still classified before making any comment at all. What this means is, even if Rove is telling the truth--something that would be a first--he still violated his nondisclosure agreement by confirming Plame's identity to Cooper.

This is stuff that his lawyer has admitted, so please spare me your trite "there's no proof he did it" crap.

i and others on this thread have already shown that having a grand jury does not automatically mean a crime was committed. But rather, the job of a grand jury is to determine IF a crime was committed.
You and a few others continue to claim that the grand jury is proof positive that a crime was indeed committed. Which is a false assumption. The job of the grand jury is not to determine who is guilty. But to determine if:
1. has a crime been committed
2. who is likely to have committed said crime.

Once the grand jury does that, then the case goes to trial. And the trial judge (or a jury that is not the same as the grand jury) will be the ones who determine who is guilty of committing any crime the grand jury determines has been committed.

No Whittier--what has happened is that you have yet again refused to accept reality, even when it smacks you in the face with a two-by-four.

A grand jury is convened only when a crime can be proved as to having been committed. The commission of the crime is not in question. What is in question is whether or not the prosecution can provide enough evidence to charge the people they think were responsible for the crime--that's for the grand jury to decide. The who--not the what happened.

But whatever--you've never been willing to believe anything that someone who disagrees with you has to say, even when they prove you to be a moron in the course of the discussion. This time will be no different. :rolleyes:

No Whittier--what has happened is that you have yet again refused to accept reality, even when it smacks you in the face with a two-by-four.

A grand jury is convened only when a crime can be proved as to having been committed. The commission of the crime is not in question. What is in question is whether or not the prosecution can provide enough evidence to charge the people they think were responsible for the crime--that's for the grand jury to decide. The who--not the what happened.

But whatever--you've never been willing to believe anything that someone who disagrees with you has to say, even when they prove you to be a moron in the course of the discussion. This time will be no different. :rolleyes:
Reality? Ha. You have a weird sense of reality. I don't know what country you are in but grand juries don't work that way in the US.

Having had your misperception on how the american political system made clear, you resort to flaming.

Whittier and Nazz, perhaps you could both site the legal code involved?

Whittier,

would you be so kind as to include actual articals/facts/logical conclusions in your posts?

Thank you for playing.

Whittier and Nazz, perhaps you could both site the legal code involved?
I found a website from the University of Dayton early this morning that dealt with the Grand Jury system, but it was pretty basic. It backed up what I said as far as the federal system is concerned, but noted that in the individual states, grand juries can serve different purposes. I still claim that my definition is more accurate, however, since the Fitzgerald Grand Jury is a federal one, and for the other reasons I've already stated in this thread and elsewhere.

If you're interested, Gymoor, I've posted a long excerpt from Judge Tatel's decision in the Cooper/Miller privilege case in the thread with the title "Is Bushgate unraveling?" or something like that.

Whittier,

would you be so kind as to include actual articals/facts/logical conclusions in your posts?

Thank you for playing.
Second.

*nods*

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

"What is the purpose of the grand jury?

The primary function of the modern grand jury is to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment."

If there is no probable cause, there is no crime.

"Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence."

A Grand Jury is not the same as a trial jury.

There are no protections for people targeted by Grand Juries. The prosecution and introduce lies and political hearsay, and the victim of the political attack will have zero defense. An indictment that was based on lies or false testimony cannot be appealed. The system is broken.

http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0142.html

"The function of a grand jury is to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge anyone for committing a major crime."

"The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment requirement for grand juries to apply only to the federal judiciary"

"Grand juries serve both the practical needs of the judicial system and the rights of the people. They pre-screen potential trials, making it less likely that the courts will waste time trying cases that the prosecution has little chance of winning. That both saves taxpayer dollars and helps to limit the backlog of cases. They also make it more difficult for rogue government officials to use unjust prosecution as a harassment weapon against citizens with whom they disagree. That was the reason for its inclusion in the Bill of Rights."

How well does today's federal grand jury system work to protect the people from tyranny? Some have charged that there is little real protection from harassment prosecution. A former federal judge, William Campbell, has claimed that a prosecutor, "...if he is candid, will concede that he can indict anybody, at any time, for almost anything, before any grand jury."

Others object to the fact that grand jury witnesses are not allowed to have their attorneys present in the courtroom. The Supreme Court has ruled, in fact, that it is "sufficient for the grand jury to hear only the prosecutor's side." At first blush this doesn't sound fair; but the whole purpose of the grand jury proceeding is to judge the worthiness of the prosecutor's case. It seems reasonable to me, then, that only his case need be heard.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ii780222.html

" Advocating a commission to study it, state Rep. John S. Matijevich (D., North Chicago) said in 1973 that "we must determine whether the initial purpose of the grand jury to stand as a safeguard between the prosecution and the accused is still preserved under the present system... if it is no longer the buffer that it was intended to be, we might be better to replace the grand jury with the information and complaint process."

" Grand juries can be an effective buffer between innocent people and the state"


Actually, it looks like we're both wrong. According to those links. The purpose of the GJ is neither to determine if a crime was committed nor if a person is guilty but rather the purpose of the GJ is to protect innocent people from persecution by government officials with a personal or political agenda.

In that case, I strongly believe that they won't indict Rove due to the fact that Dems howling for blood has all the hallmarks of an attempt at political persecution. Many dems have even admitted they wanted him imprisoned for his political viewpoints.

I found a website from the University of Dayton early this morning that dealt with the Grand Jury system, but it was pretty basic. It backed up what I said as far as the federal system is concerned, but noted that in the individual states, grand juries can serve different purposes. I still claim that my definition is more accurate, however, since the Fitzgerald Grand Jury is a federal one, and for the other reasons I've already stated in this thread and elsewhere.

If you're interested, Gymoor, I've posted a long excerpt from Judge Tatel's decision in the Cooper/Miller privilege case in the thread with the title "Is Bushgate unraveling?" or something like that.
Do you have a link? I would like to see if it says anything like those 3 sites I just qouted from.

Many dems have even admitted they wanted him imprisoned for his political viewpoints.Quote one fucking Democrat who has said that he or she wants Rove imprisoned for his political viewpoint--either do it or retract that statement, because it's slanderous and I won't stand for it.

Of more relation to the case at hand:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,581456,00.html

"A huge unanswered question in this case is whether the leaker or leakers knew that Plame was undercover when they gave her identity away. That is a necessary element for any indictment for leaking the name of a covert agent."

Sounds to me that they are saying that it is yet to be proven that a crime was committed.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/cia.leak/

"It is a federal crime to leak the name of a covert CIA agent."

As proven earlier, Rove did not know that she was a covert CIA agent. He only knew she worked at the CIA. A noncovert CIA agent does not have the same protection that a covert agent would have. Hence, since Plame was last undercover back in 1997, the law would not have covered her.

snip.
Don't you fucking dodge it--you either retract that slanderous statement about Democrats or you back it up. I'm going to hound you until you do one or the other. I'll put it in my signature if I have to until you come clean.

Of more relation to the case at hand:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,581456,00.html

"A huge unanswered question in this case is whether the leaker or leakers knew that Plame was undercover when they gave her identity away. That is a necessary element for any indictment for leaking the name of a covert agent."

Sounds to me that they are saying that it is yet to be proven that a crime was committed.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/cia.leak/

"It is a federal crime to leak the name of a covert CIA agent."

As proven earlier, Rove did not know that she was a covert CIA agent. He only knew she worked at the CIA. A noncovert CIA agent does not have the same protection that a covert agent would have. Hence, since Plame was last undercover back in 1997, the law would not have covered her.

That is in case they want to convict him under the Identities Act or whatever it is. He could still be put in jail for knowingly leaking classified information

Quote one fucking Democrat who has said that he or she wants Rove imprisoned for his political viewpoint--either do it or retract that statement, because it's slanderous and I won't stand for it.
ooh I'm really scared. :rolleyes:

Ihatevacations']That is in case they want to convict him under the Identities Act or whatever it is. He could still be put in jail for knowingly leaking classified information
If he knew it was classified at the time he leaked it.

Don't you fucking dodge it--you either retract that slanderous statement about Democrats or you back it up. I'm going to hound you until you do one or the other. I'll put it in my signature if I have to until you come clean.
Eh, you could probably find something on the DU boards if you went looking. Now can all of you just shut the fuck up about it until the Prosecuter actually charges someone with something?

ooh I'm really scared. :rolleyes:
I'm not trying to scare you---just showing what a lowlife liar you are.

Don't you fucking dodge it--you either retract that slanderous statement about Democrats or you back it up. I'm going to hound you until you do one or the other. I'll put it in my signature if I have to until you come clean.
Be my guest. You're not getting a single retraction because my view is based on the statements of democrats who have called Rove a criminal for his political agenda. That is the same as saying you want him imprisoned for his political views. But fortunately for Americans and unfortunately for the dems, the US court system has a tradition of not jailing people for their politics.

I'm not trying to scare you---just showing what a lowlife liar you are.
That is so laughable. Again, take a look at the DU boards.

Be my guest. You're not getting a single retraction because my view is based on the statements of democrats who have called Rove a criminal for his political agenda. That is the same as saying you want him imprisoned for his political views. But fortunately for Americans and unfortunately for the dems, the US court system has a tradition of not jailing people for their politics.You can't even come up with a quote for what I've bolded--when Democrats are saying that Rove belongs in jail, they're saying that he belongs there for his behavior, not his beliefs. You're a fucking liar and the whole board knows it.

You can't even come up with a quote for what I've bolded--when Democrats are saying that Rove belongs in jail, they're saying that he belongs there for his behavior, not his beliefs. You're a fucking liar and the whole board knows it.
Hmmm. Looks I was wrong. And I thought you was above flaming. Ah well, we can't be right all the time now can we.

The Nazz, there is no point.

He has been caught flat-out lying on more than one occassion before. He does not care.

He has admitted in TGs that he thinks it is permissible to lie in the realm of politics.

You've made it clear he has no basis for his statement. No point in going further.

The Nazz, there is no point.

He has been caught flat-out lying on more than one occassion before. He does not care.

He has admitted in TGs that he thinks it is permissible to lie in the realm of politics.

You've made it clear he has no basis for his statement. No point in going further.
Fair enough--but I'm not changing my signature.

On a side note, I posted a nice excerpt from Judge Tatel's concurrence in the Cooper/Miller case over in the Bushgate unraveling thread. I'd be interested in your comments.

If he knew it was classified at the time he leaked it.

Since when has ignorance of the law been an excuse for breaking it, Whittier? As I understood it, you have a duty as a citizen to know the law so as not to break it.

It is illegal to release the name of a covert agent (Note: the term "willfully" never enters into that sentence). Rove released the name of a covert agent. Ergo, Rove committed an offense against the law, and he should therefore be punished accordingly.

To think we have to explain the concept of law and order to the same Republicans who have claimed to hold it up against those wishy-washy Dems . . . sheesh.

The Nazz, there is no point.

He has been caught flat-out lying on more than one occassion before. He does not care.

He has admitted in TGs that he thinks it is permissible to lie in the realm of politics.

You've made it clear he has no basis for his statement. No point in going further.
Ah. The typical diatribe of a liberal extremist such as those who contribute to certain sites like this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

"Dozens of "reliable liars" were brought out of the attic, dusted off, and sent with orders to appear on Fox, CNN, and other networks. They began talking to reporters in an effort to keep the American public from recognizing that this administration is more corrupt than the Nixon White House, and more criminal than the Iran-Contra gang."

See the typical response of the libs to facts set out by their opponents is to label them liars.

Speaking of which, you and The Nazz wouldn't be contributers to that site now would you?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/ken-mehlman-what-karl-rove-said-was.html

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/004743.html

Looky here: more democrats crying "liar"

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/23.html

The "he's lying" defense has really lost most of its power to persuade. Especially since that is exactly how dems respond to the statements of all people they hate.

*snip*

ROTFLASTC

Since when has ignorance of the law been an excuse for breaking it, Whittier? As I understood it, you have a duty as a citizen to know the law so as not to break it.

It is illegal to release the name of a covert agent (Note: the term "willfully" never enters into that sentence). Rove released the name of a covert agent. Ergo, Rove committed an offense against the law, and he should therefore be punished accordingly.

To think we have to explain the concept of law and order to the same Republicans who have claimed to hold it up against those wishy-washy Dems . . . sheesh.
The US has so many laws it impossible to know all of them. The courts have long recognized this as a fact that has often been a mitigating circumstance in a quite a few cases.

Thank god this isn't Europe. Here, you don't have to worry about being imprisoned for doing something you did not know was illegal. The US system of justice, tempers justice with mercy. Making it superior to many others.

Ah. The typical diatribe of a liberal extremist such as those who contribute to certain sites like this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

"Dozens of "reliable liars" were brought out of the attic, dusted off, and sent with orders to appear on Fox, CNN, and other networks. They began talking to reporters in an effort to keep the American public from recognizing that this administration is more corrupt than the Nixon White House, and more criminal than the Iran-Contra gang."

See the typical response of the libs to facts set out by their opponents is to label them liars.

Speaking of which, you and The Nazz wouldn't be contributers to that site now would you?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/ken-mehlman-what-karl-rove-said-was.html

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/004743.html

Looky here: more democrats crying "liar"

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/23.html

The "he's lying" defense has really lost most of its power to persuade. Especially since that is exactly how dems respond to the statements of all people they hate.

It's quite artful how you manage to seamlessly segue from a crippling attack on your character to a complete Strawman on TCT.

But really, your argument is what is colloquially known among us westerners as "horseshit". Allow me to break it down for you and describe why:

1) "I'm not going to talk about The Cat Tribe's pointed argumentation directly, but here are the ramblings of some wierdo blogger named Frank."
2) "Frank is of the same political persuasion as The Cat Tribe's uncle's neighbor's cousin's best friend's former roommate."
3) "You cannot trust The Cat Tribe's arguments, because clearly he is linked in some way to Frank. Perhaps he is Frank, but even I'm not dumb enough to suggest that. Explicitly, anyway"

Now, ordinarily I would consider it obvious how this argument is false, but since you don't exactly strike me as a blogger equivalent of a Da Vinci in the painting world, I'll lay it out for you:

You have made no argument against The Cat Tribe's arguments. Instead, you have just rambled that he is in some way connected to "liberals," and as we all know, these liberals will stop at nothing to destroy Bush, as seen from the rantings of a few choice passages of the blogs of a few goofy guys. There is no connection between TCT and "liberals." There is no connection between the views of orthodox "liberals" and said goofy meanderings, any more than you can argue a connection between the views of the RNC and abortion-clinic bombers because they share a few of the same beliefs. As such, you haven't done a thing to discredit TCT, and are only making yourself look more and more like a fool who will willingly be led around by the nose so long as Rove is pulling the string.

This probably isn't getting through to you. It probably just sounds like another liberal offensive on your hermetically sealed mental world and will be dismissed as such. If so, I'm sorry for you. I really am.

The US has so many laws it impossible to know all of them. The courts have long recognized this as a fact that has often been a mitigating circumstance in a quite a few cases.

Thank god this isn't Europe. Here, you don't have to worry about being imprisoned for doing something you did not know was illegal. The US system of justice, tempers justice with mercy. Making it superior to many others.

There are two problems with that argument. The first is that there is a difference between some random yokel getting put in prison because he didn't know it was an offense south of the Mason-Dixon not to take your hat off to a lady, and someone who was in the position of dealing with sensitive information all the time and casually passed it around despite the damage it could do. If he didn't know that it was criminal to do something like that to a CIA operative, Rove should be fired for no other reason than because he is completely incompetent.

The second problem is that you have described grounds for leniency, not "getting off scot-free." And no, the two aren't the same thing in this case, any more than at any other time.

Quote one fucking Democrat who has said that he or she wants Rove imprisoned for his political viewpoint--either do it or retract that statement, because it's slanderous and I won't stand for it.

"Slander is Spoken. When it's Printed, it's Libel. Get your terms straight."

Sorry, just had to get that one in. :D

It's funny not only watching Whittier flip-flop on the issue of what should be done to the Leaker, but now outdoing Bill Clinton in the field of Redefining Terms.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman I exposed as an undercover agent."

If he knew it was classified at the time he leaked it.
oh, irony knight, your so funny when trying to cover your party's ass

Pardon me....but when the Right proclaims Karl Rove a hero, and in the same breath calls Deep Throat a traitor, then we see the real "rule of law" that the GOP is interested in.

By Republicans, For Republicans.

Pardon me....but when the Right proclaims Karl Rove a hero, and in the same breath calls Deep Throat a traitor, then we see the real "rule of law" that the GOP is interested in.

By Republicans, For Republicans.
My Party, right or wrong, but my Party.

-snip-

Perfect.

My Party, right or wrong, but my Party.

I other words:

It's my Party and I'll deny if I want to.

I other words:

It's my Party and I'll deny if I want to.
We're coming up with all sorts of good ones tonight. :D

There are two problems with that argument. The first is that there is a difference between some random yokel getting put in prison because he didn't know it was an offense south of the Mason-Dixon not to take your hat off to a lady, and someone who was in the position of dealing with sensitive information all the time and casually passed it around despite the damage it could do. If he didn't know that it was criminal to do something like that to a CIA operative, Rove should be fired for no other reason than because he is completely incompetent.

The second problem is that you have described grounds for leniency, not "getting off scot-free." And no, the two aren't the same thing in this case, any more than at any other time.
More jibberish ranting by another Dem who has declared Rove guilty for his political views.

You liberal extremists should just give up. Rove is not going to jail no matter how much you dislike his politics.

More jibberish ranting by another Dem who has declared Rove guilty for his political views.
No, we have declared Rove guilty for his history of slander and libel, his firing in 93 for something he did to some one running against him and for diclosing classified information, a la testimony of Cooper, Irony Knight

You liberal extremists should just give up. Rove is not going to jail no matter how much you dislike his politics.

You conservative apologists should give up. And learn to give a shit about your country and those that serve it.

It isn't about whether Rove will go to jail.

It is about somebody endangering the lives of CIA agents and jepoardizing our national security.

I don't give a fuck who it is. I want them caught and appropriate action taken.

You are the one making excuses based on politics.

Rove is still the primary suspect.

And, by his own admission, he has lied and deliberately deceived the public about his involvement in this. And he has deliberately engaged in smear tactics of a potentially illegal type for political gain.

Some "hero."

You conservative apologists should give up. And learn to give a shit about your country and those that serve it.

It isn't about whether Rove will go to jail.

It is about somebody endangering the lives of CIA agents and jepoardizing our national security.

I don't give a fuck who it is. I want them caught and appropriate action taken.

You are the one making excuses based on politics.

Rove is still the primary suspect.

And, by his own admission, he has lied and deliberately deceived the public about his involvement in this. And he has deliberately engaged in smear tactics of a potentially illegal type for political gain.

Some "hero."

Those aren't facts. Those are just your opinions.

Those aren't facts. Those are just your opinions.
oh irony knight, your so funny, care to contradict any of thsoe with "real" facts then

Oh god Whit(less). Forsake the dark arts of necromancy!

Ihatevacations']oh irony knight, your so funny, care to contradict any of thsoe with "real" facts then

I think he's trying to break Commando's record for Blind Dogma and Ignorant Rhetoric.

:D

More jibberish ranting by another Dem who has declared Rove guilty for his political views.

Oh come on Whittier. Even you can't be that dense.

Oh come on Whittier. Even you can't be that dense.

Excuse me. That was factually inaccurate.

Well now. It should be interesting for what the apologists have to say about this.

So fire away boys and girls!

Sorry for the cut/paste but the post likes you to login.....


Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; Page A01

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

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

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.

The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.

Wilson has said his wife's identity was revealed to retaliate against him for accusing the Bush administration of "twisting" intelligence to justify the Iraq war. In a July 6 opinion piece in the New York Times and in an interview with The Washington Post, he cited a secret mission he conducted in February 2002 for the CIA, when he determined there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium for a nuclear weapons program in the African nation of Niger.

White House officials discussed Wilson's wife's CIA connection in telling at least two reporters that she helped arrange his trip, according to one of the reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, and a lawyer familiar with the case.

Prosecutors have shown interest in the memo, especially when they were questioning White House officials during the early days of the investigation, people familiar with the probe said.

Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, has testified that he learned Plame's name from Novak a few days before telling another reporter she worked at the CIA and played a role in her husband's mission, according to a lawyer familiar with Rove's account. Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when "people in the special prosecutor's office" showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney.

"He had not seen it or heard about it before that time," Luskin said.

Several other administration officials were on the trip to Africa, including senior adviser Dan Bartlett, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and others. Bartlett's attorney has refused to discuss the case, citing requests by the special counsel. Fleischer could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, have been identified as people who discussed Wilson's wife with Cooper. Prosecutors are trying to determine the origin of their knowledge of Plame, including whether it was from the INR memo or from conversations with reporters.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the memo made it clear that information about Wilson's wife was sensitive and should not be shared. Yesterday, sources provided greater detail on the memo to The Post.

The material in the memo about Wilson's wife was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson's intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.

The memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR's opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

The description of Wilson's wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered "a footnote" in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.

It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.

On July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in The Post and the New York Times discussing his trip to Niger, the INR director at the time, Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements for Powell, according to sources familiar with the events. He went back and reprinted the June 10 memo but changed the addressee from Grossman to Powell.

Ford last year appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak and described the details surrounding the INR memo, the sources said. Yesterday he was on vacation in Arkansas, according to his office.

That pretty much sums it up then, methinks. So where's Whittier's "witty" retort, or all those other supposedly educated people on this topic?

SOMEBODY owes some posters some cookies. *nods*

Where does it say that Rove is the primary suspect or even a major suspect?

And who is this Carl W. Ford Jr who disagreed with Wilson's position? Seems like he would have a motive.

"It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret."

note the bolded part.


"Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

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

These paragraphs contradict the claims that it was already decided that a crime had been committed.


"The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later."

Here's a question: What is Powell's role in this? Has he been questioned?
I just think it interesting that 7 days after he gets the memo, Plame's is id'd as a CIA agent.

"Wilson has said his wife's identity was revealed to retaliate against him for accusing the Bush administration of "twisting" intelligence to justify the Iraq war."

I have to dimiss this accusation because Mr. Wilson has present no proof that the revelation was politically motivated. At this point, it is only his opinion. It is not a proven fact.

"Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, has testified that he learned Plame's name from Novak a few days before telling another reporter she worked at the CIA and played a role in her husband's mission, according to a lawyer familiar with Rove's account. Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when "people in the special prosecutor's office" showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney."

So far all we know is that the original source was Mr. Novak. But who the heck told Novak? Why is no one asking that? Also, note that it states that Rove had not seen the memo until the prosecutor showed it to him.

"Ford last year appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak and described the details surrounding the INR memo, the sources said. Yesterday he was on vacation in Arkansas, according to his office."

How interesting that mr. Ford has chosen to go on vacation at this time.

Finally, you should be asking what were the roles of Dan Bartlet, Ari Fleischer, and the other White House officials involved in the trip. Just who exactly were these other officials?

"Knowingly." Do you think the S on the document stood for "Superman"?

Jesus, I bet you were foaming at the mouth when Clinton redefined "Sexual Relationship" and here you are doing the same thing trying to excuse Rove's arrogant foot shot.

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

Is it just me or does it seem like all the other right-wingers have left Whittier as the only one trying to defend this crap, as the only one tenuously holding on to the pathetic "there was no crime" line of defense? You just keep hanging on there, Whittier--Rush needs people like you.

Is it just me or does it seem like all the other right-wingers have left Whittier as the only one trying to defend this crap, as the only one tenuously holding on to the pathetic "there was no crime" line of defense? You just keep hanging on there, Whittier--Rush needs people like you.

Does Rush need competetion taking up his precious oxycontin supply? :D

Isn't treason still treason? If Rove did reveal her, then he committed treason. You aren't allowed to commit treason, no matter what your reasons, are you?

"Knowingly." Do you think the S on the document stood for "Superman"?

Jesus, I bet you were foaming at the mouth when Clinton redefined "Sexual Relationship" and here you are doing the same thing trying to excuse Rove's arrogant foot shot.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
All I am doing is pointing out that the article he cited does not support the charge that Rove is guilty of knowingly disclosing Plame's secret id. And that actually, it did the opposite.

Is it just me or does it seem like all the other right-wingers have left Whittier as the only one trying to defend this crap, as the only one tenuously holding on to the pathetic "there was no crime" line of defense? You just keep hanging on there, Whittier--Rush needs people like you.
I'm waiting for Black Forest to answer my first question. Where does it say that Rove is the primary or even a major suspect?

All I am doing is pointing out that the article he cited does not support the charge that Rove is guilty of knowingly disclosing Plame's secret id. And that actually, it did the opposite.


So..the fact that the guy who printed the article said on live television that Rove was his source means nothing?

Isn't treason still treason? If Rove did reveal her, then he committed treason. You aren't allowed to commit treason, no matter what your reasons, are you?
That's if he did. If she was id'd by Novak before he spoke to the reporters, as is the case here in reality, then he is not the one guilty of treason. Because he would have reason to believe that she was not classified, due to Novak publishing his article a few days before Rove spoke to Cooper.

The question remains to be answered (and I notice none of you have been able to address it) who told Novak? Cause we know Rove got his information from Novak. So where did Novak get the info from? Why are they not leaning on him to disclose his source? Why is Novak getting a stay out of jail free card?

The real culprit is being protected by powerful interests in Washington. I wonder who it is.

So..the fact that the guy who printed the article said on live television that Rove was his source means nothing?
No it doesn't. I am pointing out that Rove got his information from Novak and that it is interesting that no one after Novak despite the fact he is the one who made Plame's supposed secret cover public. Instead, everyone is after Rove's head.

Would you prefer to condemn the innocent just to score political points or would you rather nab the person who really did commit the crime? I would rather nab the latter.

That's if he did. If she was id'd by Novak before he spoke to the reporters, as is the case here in reality, then he is not the one guilty of treason. Because he would have reason to believe that she was not classified, due to Novak publishing his article a few days before Rove spoke to Cooper.

The question remains to be answered (and I notice none of you have been able to address it) who told Novak? Cause we know Rove got his information from Novak. So where did Novak get the info from? Why are they not leaning on him to disclose his source? Why is Novak getting a stay out of jail free card?

The real culprit is being protected by powerful interests in Washington. I wonder who it is.

The man who published the article went on live television and named Rove, as his source on the story he printed.
Thats pretty damning, despite what you wish to believe.

The only questions that need to be asked are
1. who else knew of her identity.
2. How much did Rove know concerning her current status, ie; covert or not.
3. Did anyone else leak the same information.


The man is an idiot for talking to a reporter.

Whittier, that doesn't make any sense at all.

No it doesn't. I am pointing out that Rove got his information from Novak and that it is interesting that no one after Novak despite the fact he is the one who made Plame's supposed secret cover public. Instead, everyone is after Rove's head.

Would you prefer to condemn the innocent just to score political points or would you rather nab the person who really did commit the crime? I would rather nab the latter.

I would nab the man who leaked secret information to the press, and thus endangering american lives.

So far...thats only Rove, but who knows..there may be more.

The man who published the article went on live television and named Rove, as his source on the story he printed.
Thats pretty damning, despite what you wish to believe.

The only questions that need to be asked are
1. who else knew of her identity.
2. How much did Rove know concerning her current status, ie; covert or not.
3. Did anyone else leak the same information.


The man is an idiot for talking to a reporter.
If you are talking about Novak's article, which came out before Cooper's, I have not seen Novak on TV saying "Rove told me". That, of course, would contradict what Rove said and what the prosecuters believe, which is that Novak told Rove.
Therefore, Rove was not the one who disclosed her identity.

I agree with your questions. And maybe Rove is an idiot for talking to the reporter.

But I do smell some kind of conspiracy here. And that conspiracy involves very powerful interests.

Why disclose Plame's name? No politician, whether Republican or Democrat would ever disclose an undercover agent for personal political gain.
Why the jump to scapegoat Rove?
Why did Miller feel it so important to go to jail to protect her other source (unless he/she was facing potential lethal retaliation)?

I sense something dark happening under the tip of this iceberg.

And until it brought to light, I won't be satisfied with "Rove is guilty just because he talked about it." There is more to it than that. Rove is only a small peice of the puzzle. He is a mere unwitting cog in some sort plot. Though I don't know what that plot is.

I would nab the man who leaked secret information to the press, and thus endangering american lives.

So far...thats only Rove, but who knows..there may be more.
Yes, Rove did talk to the press. Maybe it was unethical for him to do so, maybe it wasn't. But note that was only after Mr. Novak had already made Plame's covert identity public knowledge. So why is Novak not sitting in jail?

Yes, Rove did talk to the press. Maybe it was unethical for him to do so, maybe it wasn't. But note that was only after Mr. Novak had already made Plame's covert identity public knowledge. So why is Novak not sitting in jail?

You don't read very well.

Novak isn't in jail because he had no security clearance. It's not his job to keep secrets. Therefore, he is free to report on information he is given.

Also, reports of Novak's testimony and Rove's don't jibe. One of the two is fibbing (oh no, you mean a conservative might lie?!)

Miller rots in jail because she wouldn't cooperate with a court order. Novak did. Cooper did.

It seems this case is snowballing instead of going away. Fitzgerald knows more than we do about it. This could expand to be a case about the fixing of intelligence around the war. If we hear of any British officials getting supoenas (is that possible?) then we know the manure is about to hit the fan for the Bush admin

President Hastert, anyone?

(shudder)

http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000979690


"The article further revealed that Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of Plame, not the other way around. After hearing from Novak about Plame, according to this source, Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too." The Novak column appeared six days later."

"Actually, as the Times noted, this account squares up pretty well with Novak’s own description, contained in a column of Oct. 1, 2003. Novak wrote then that a first inside official gave him the tip on Plame and a second source confirmed that. That second source was Rove, the Times says. "

What a dumb moron. Anytime the media asks you to confirm something, you always decline no matter what it is.

"Asked by investigators how he knew enough to confirm Novak 's information was accurate, write Johnston and Stevenson, Rove said he had heard portions of the story about Plame helping to arrange her husband's trip to Africa from other journalists, but had not heard her name.

Rove has said he did not know the C.I.A. officer's name and did not leak it. The Times' source holds that Rove did not know that Plame was a covert officer. "

Even though it clears him of committing a crime, he is still dumb for commenting on it. In politics, your enemies will hold everything you say against you. This is a very good example of that. I think he commented because of his famous ego. But having ego and talking about something that is already known, due to publication in a major paper like the NY Times, is not illegal. Nor is being a moron illegal.

In his first interview on this incident, on July 21, 2003, for Newsday, however, Novak said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

The Times added this description of its source: “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 he did not disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.”

The Times reporters observe: “The revelation of Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak raises a question the White House has never addressed: whether Mr. Rove ever described that conversation, or his conversation with Mr. Cooper, with the president.”

How much does the President know?

Clearly this establishes that Rove did not disclose that Plame was undercover, as he did not have access to that information. So who did, and who disclosed?

"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit." one of OJ's attorneys.

You don't read very well.

Novak isn't in jail because he had no security clearance. It's not his job to keep secrets. Therefore, he is free to report on information he is given.

Also, reports of Novak's testimony and Rove's don't jibe. One of the two is fibbing (oh no, you mean a conservative might lie?!)

Miller rots in jail because she wouldn't cooperate with a court order. Novak did. Cooper did.

It seems this case is snowballing instead of going away. Fitzgerald knows more than we do about it. This could expand to be a case about the fixing of intelligence around the war. If we hear of any British officials getting supoenas (is that possible?) then we know the manure is about to hit the fan for the Bush admin

President Hastert, anyone?

(shudder)

And you are assuming that Rove would have such clearance. I know for a fact that clearances are only given on a need to know basis. Being buddies with the President would not be enough to get Rove a clearance. Since there would be no need for him, to have the information.

Hastert Hastert Hastert!!!

:D

[url](SNIP)

"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit." one of OJ's attorneys.

That was the late Johnny Cochran. And using that quote only reinforces the image of you as a shameless Bushevik hack who wants to get Rove off on a technicality.

Nevermind that anyone Valerie Plame dealt with overseas is at the very least going to be suspect in the eyes of foreign governments and at worst are going to be tortured and/or executed for dealing with her knowingly or otherwise. Not to mention it just made Human Intelligence gathering much more difficult for America in such a critical period of history.

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

That was the late Johnny Cochran. And using that quote only reinforces the image of you as a shameless Bushevik hack who wants to get Rove off on a technicality.

Nevermind that anyone Valerie Plame dealt with overseas is at the very least going to be suspect in the eyes of foreign governments and at worst are going to be tortured and/or executed for dealing with her knowingly or otherwise. Not to mention it just made Human Intelligence gathering much more difficult for America in such a critical period of history.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Roll your eyes all you want. The fact remains that Rove is not guilty of a crime, let alone treason.

Roll your eyes all you want. The fact remains that Rove is
not guilty of a crime, let alone treason.

And I call you on your bullshit. If it had been James Carville who leaked Valerie Plame under a Democratic administration you'd be bitching, moaning and pissing about him getting away with treason on a technicality.

:rolleyes:

Oh, just so everyone will hopefully stop getting their panties in a twist about this issue until they actually charge someone with a crime; a "secret" classification is the second lowest intelligence classification out there that is used. Covert operatives fall under a much, much higher intelligence classification if they are, in fact, covert. Since the entire paragraph was marked secret, it is somewhat unlikely that the secret was even mainly referring to her status as an agent.

And I call you on your bullshit. If it had been James Carville who leaked Valerie Plame under a Democratic administration you'd be bitching, moaning and pissing about him getting away with treason on a technicality.

:rolleyes:
I would hope that if Carville was innocent, he would not be scapegoated for someone else's crime. Regardless of what mistakes he might of made.

Oh, just so everyone will hopefully stop getting their panties in a twist about this issue until they actually charge someone with a crime; a "secret" classification is the second lowest intelligence classification out there that is used. Covert operatives fall under a much, much higher intelligence classification if they are, in fact, covert. Since the entire paragraph was marked secret, it is somewhat unlikely that the secret was even mainly referring to her status as an agent.
See, now that is a good point. In fact barely a couple of sentences in the memo even referred to Plame.

Maybe more rightwingers will help ... ha.

*BUMP*

Oh, just so everyone will hopefully stop getting their panties in a twist about this issue until they actually charge someone with a crime; a "secret" classification is the second lowest intelligence classification out there that is used. Covert operatives fall under a much, much higher intelligence classification if they are, in fact, covert. Since the entire paragraph was marked secret, it is somewhat unlikely that the secret was even mainly referring to her status as an agent.

Well I have had multiple clearances. One thing remains. Even if it is secret, you are still not supposed to talk about it. The catch all argument for "what if" scenarios was "need to know"

Then again Rove probably thought the Press had a need to know..... ;)

He should at the least get a reprimand and possibly get his clearances yanked for being chatty just like anybody else.

I'm waiting for Black Forest to answer my first question. Where does it say that Rove is the primary or even a major suspect?
I've posted this link before, from the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp), a very conservative magazine--it calls Rove a "subject," which in the parlance of the Justice department is one step below target. Target is the highest level of suspicion, and subject is right below that, so Rove isn't exactly what you'd call off the hook.

I've posted this link before, from the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp), a very conservative magazine--it calls Rove a "subject," which in the parlance of the Justice department is one step below target. Target is the highest level of suspicion, and subject is right below that, so Rove isn't exactly what you'd call off the hook.

I, am as always, stunned by the Rove apologist's inability to process information.

As has been clearly shown, not only was Plame's identity as a CIA agent being actively protected, but also that part of the rational for that protection was to insure the secrecy of any number of additional agents she had contact with. At this point, this is only in dispute by people who refuse to look at the facts.

Was Rove ultimately responsible for the leak? We don't know. We know for a fact that even confirming secret information is a no-no as far as his security clearance goes. We know Rove was involved. We also know that the Whitehouse said that he was not involved.

No one from the Right has looked at the fact that this scandal didn't just unmask a single pencil pushing CIA operative (which she, accoriding to several sources, was most decidedly not,) but has weakened the operational ability of many CIA agents and their sources abroad.

No one on the Right has explained how it was worth it to compromise the identity of an operative who specializes in WMD in order to make a PR attack on a former ambassador who was appointed by GHW Bush himself.

No one on the Right has pointed out how exactly Joe Wilson lied. He never said Cheney sent him, and the Whitehouse itself confirmed that the Niger claim was faulty.

All they really seem to be able to throw at Wilson was that his wife in some way helped him get the Niger job.

Okay Righties, answer me this. How often in GWB's life has a relative helped him get a job/in to school/out of trouble?

I'm waiting.

I'm waiting.
Might be a long wait ..... *sigh*

*extends a cookie*

Might be a long wait ..... *sigh*

*extends a cookie*

lol

I, am as always, stunned by the Rove apologist's inability to process information.

As has been clearly shown, not only was Plame's identity as a CIA agent being actively protected, but also that part of the rational for that protection was to insure the secrecy of any number of additional agents she had contact with. At this point, this is only in dispute by people who refuse to look at the facts.

Was Rove ultimately responsible for the leak? We don't know. We know for a fact that even confirming secret information is a no-no as far as his security clearance goes. We know Rove was involved. We also know that the Whitehouse said that he was not involved.

No one from the Right has looked at the fact that this scandal didn't just unmask a single pencil pushing CIA operative (which she, accoriding to several sources, was most decidedly not,) but has weakened the operational ability of many CIA agents and their sources abroad.

No one on the Right has explained how it was worth it to compromise the identity of an operative who specializes in WMD in order to make a PR attack on a former ambassador who was appointed by GHW Bush himself.

No one on the Right has pointed out how exactly Joe Wilson lied. He never said Cheney sent him, and the Whitehouse itself confirmed that the Niger claim was faulty.

All they really seem to be able to throw at Wilson was that his wife in some way helped him get the Niger job.

Okay Righties, answer me this. How often in GWB's life has a relative helped him get a job/in to school/out of trouble?


Again, as I stated previously, you are incorrectly assuming that Rove would have a clearance to have such information. Again, such clearances are not given to everyone in the administration. They are given only on a need to know basis.
Rove had no need to know what Plame's status in the CIA was. Therefore, he would not have a clearance to get such information. Which is contrary to what you arguing.
Being a buddy of the President or even his campaign strategist does not mean you are gauranteed automatic security clearance. It does not work that way.
Therefore, because Rove did not know she was undercover, he has not comitted a crime.
Further, no publication has even stated that Rove THE suspect. All publications, even those the Bush haters keep linking too, only say that he is one of many who are being questioned.

Now if some people weren't so dense, (with their "I hate Bush, I'll do anything to destroy Bush and America" mentality), they would be able to comprehend that.

Again, as I stated previously, you are incorrectly assuming that Rove would have a clearance to have such information. Again, such clearances are not given to everyone in the administration. They are given only on a need to know basis.
Rove had no need to know what Plame's status in the CIA was. Therefore, he would not have a clearance to get such information. Which is contrary to what you arguing.
Being a buddy of the President or even his campaign strategist does not mean you are gauranteed automatic security clearance. It does not work that way.
Therefore, because Rove did not know she was undercover, he has not comitted a crime.
Further, no publication has even stated that Rove THE suspect. All publications, even those the Bush haters keep linking too, only say that he is one of many who are being questioned.

Now if some people weren't so dense, (with their "I hate Bush, I'll do anything to destroy Bush and America" mentality), they would be able to comprehend that.

So Rove didn't have clearance. I guess that's why the Whitehouse is refusing to remove his security clearance :rolleyes:.

So basically, you are stating that Rove was too dumb to check to see if the information he was confirming was sensitive or not. He just blurted it out without checking. Great excuse. That in itself is a violation of his non-disclosure contract.

Also, the "he didn't know, so it's not a crime," excuse only works for the IIPA.

Nor have I ever stated that Rove is THE suspect. He is involved though. As are others. Anyone involved should be fired, be they Republican, Democrat, or Scientologist.

Nice texas two-step away from the specific questions I asked.

So Rove didn't have clearance. I guess that's why the Whitehouse is refusing to remove his security clearance :rolleyes:.

So basically, you are stating that Rove was too dumb to check to see if the information he was confirming was sensitive or not. He just blurted it out without checking. Great excuse. That in itself is a violation of his non-disclosure contract.

Also, the "he didn't know, so it's not a crime," excuse only works for the IIPA.

Nor have I ever stated that Rove is THE suspect. He is involved though. As are others. Anyone involved should be fired, be they Republican, Democrat, or Scientologist.

Nice texas two-step away from the specific questions I asked.


1. Do you have evidence to support your claim that he has one and that the white house is refusing to revoke it. Since, revocation of said clearance would the first action taken if Rove did what you claim he did.

2. Everyone has had a small slip here and there. It does not mean we crucify them all. Again, it depends on what he knew. Lack of knowledge would be a determining factor. Wanting revenge is not.

3. You guys have been stating through out this thread that "Rove is guilty" "Rove is the sole person responsible" "Rove talked to the press so he's guilty by default".

4. I believe he did just blurt it out without checking. It happens to the best of us.

Instead passing judgment on someone we've been waiting 5 years to condemn to hell, how bout we sit back and let the justice department decide who is the guilty party?

The other thing you don't understand about security clearances is that have one, does not get you access to all information. I had a clearance and they don't work that way. Just because you have secret access does not mean you have access to all secret files. Only the ones you have a "need to know" clearance for.

1. Do you have evidence to support your claim that he has one and that the white house is refusing to revoke it. Since, revocation of said clearance would the first action taken if Rove did what you claim he did.

2. Everyone has had a small slip here and there. It does not mean we crucify them all. Again, it depends on what he knew. Lack of knowledge would be a determining factor. Wanting revenge is not.

3. You guys have been stating through out this thread that "Rove is guilty" "Rove is the sole person responsible" "Rove talked to the press so he's guilty by default".

4. I believe he did just blurt it out without checking. It happens to the best of us.

Instead passing judgment on someone we've been waiting 5 years to condemn to hell, how bout we sit back and let the justice department decide who is the guilty party?
1. If you actually read news instead of RNC talking points, you would know that Rove indeed has security clearance, and that several members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have called for it to be revoked until this investigation is over.

2. That makes absolutely no sense. Clear it up.

3. No one has been saying that Rove acted alone--not even Novak. He stated from the beginning that he got the name from two White House sources, so Rove couldn't have acted alone. More importantly, the thread has evolved from "Rove is guilty of violating the IIPA" to "Rove is likely guilty of something, probably perjury or obstruction, maybe worse because his story doesn't add up."

4. What you believe means the square root of jack-fuck-all without something to back it up. We've presented evidence. You've presented nothing but weak excuses and bullshit accusations.

The other thing you don't understand about security clearances is that have one, does not get you access to all information. I had a clearance and they don't work that way. Just because you have secret access does not mean you have access to all secret files. Only the ones you have a "need to know" clearance for.

Fine. What does that have to do with anything? I'm saying Rove was an idiot for not checking to see if the information he had was sensitive in nature before using it. That's the responsible thing to do, and that's what anyone whose primary concern was for America would do.

Crime or no crime, Rove put political agenda over national security. Period.

Nevermind. I have new information that leads me to believe Mr. Rove should never have been granted a clearance in the first place. This is related to the reason he was fired by the first Bush.
Seems him and Mr. Novak have a very cozy relationship. If that is the case, we have two people who belong in prison. A politician and a journalist.
This is due to the fact that Mr. Rove gave Novak secret information back in 92 which was also published. The guy has a record.

Fine. What does that have to do with anything? I'm saying Rove was an idiot for not checking to see if the information he had was sensitive in nature before using it. That's the responsible thing to do, and that's what anyone whose primary concern was for America would do.

Crime or no crime, Rove put political agenda over national security. Period.
Nay. The guy has a leaky mouth. And an ego that is a threat to US national interests. His previous record in the Bush Sr. administration proves it.

Who ever gave him the clearance fucked up because he clearly wasn't fit to have one in this current administration.

Wonders how much other secret information Rove has been leaking to the press.

This isn't about a political agenda, this is about egomania. I think he did it just to show off. I know the type. They fucking disgust me.

Nevermind. I have new information that leads me to believe Mr. Rove should never have been granted a clearance in the first place. This is related to the reason he was fired by the first Bush.
Seems him and Mr. Novak have a very cozy relationship. If that is the case, we have two people who belong in prison. A politician and a journalist.
This is due to the fact that Mr. Rove gave Novak secret information back in 92 which was also published. The guy has a record.
Not to be snippy, but what took you so long? This has been part of the story since before it was a story. I find it difficult to believe that you're only now discovering that Rove's been a dirtbag for his entire career.

Not to be snippy, but what took you so long? This has been part of the story since before it was a story. I find it difficult to believe that you're only now discovering that Rove's been a dirtbag for his entire career.
I was unaware of the reason he was fired in 92. I thought it was because he had a political difference with Bush Sr.'s policies.

Still though, why is Novak getting off. He is part of the conspiracy.

I was unaware of the reason he was fired in 92. I thought it was because he had a political difference with Bush Sr.'s policies.
So does that mean that you're also willing to back off the accusation that Democrats want Rove in jail because of his political beliefs, or do you think that they might have reason to believe that he's been involved in criminal activity? Because I'm more than willing to change my signature if you're willing to back off the accusation. I'd love to do so, as a matter of fact.

My head explodes...

So does that mean that you're also willing to back off the accusation that Democrats want Rove in jail because of his political beliefs, or do you think that they might have reason to believe that he's been involved in criminal activity? Because I'm more than willing to change my signature if you're willing to back off the accusation. I'd love to do so, as a matter of fact.
Depends on which Democrats. I didn't say all, I said many. I do not back off that. But that is irrelevant now. Even if every single dem did want him imprisoned for his political views, it would not cover for the fact that he has been committing serious breaches of US national security.
The fact that one person hates your politics does not excuse you going out and, say, killing someone else or doing any other seriously illegal activity.
I am of the opinion that democrats want him in jail cause they don't like his politics. What you do with your signature is up to you.

Still though, why is Novak getting off. He is part of the conspiracy.

Becuase he didn't violate any laws. He's a prick, but he didn't violate any laws.

Becuase he didn't violate any laws. He's a prick, but he didn't violate any laws.
actually, if Rove told him that the information was classified secret, he would be guilty of a crime for going ahead and publishing it.

actually, if Rove told him that the information was classified secret, he would be guilty of a crime for going ahead and publishing it.

No.

The fact the information is classified means he can't talk about it.

Once Rove blew it; the info becomes fair game.

No.

The fact the information is classified means he can't talk about it.

Once Rove blew it; the info becomes fair game.

Hence why after the fact, Rove specifically told Chris Matthews that Plame was "fair game."

Also, in a free society, reporters have to have the freedom to write about secrets, otherwise the government could classify anything that is particularly harmful to their reputations as "classified." Though this is something that the Bush White House has done anyway.

And you are assuming that Rove would have such clearance. I know for a fact that clearances are only given on a need to know basis. Being buddies with the President would not be enough to get Rove a clearance. Since there would be no need for him, to have the information.

Actually that is not true.

Clearances are handed out by the level of access they will have. Being they pass the back ground checks of course.

Take AeroDefense. Every full time employee has a secret clearance.

If the President said Rove was going to be involved a great deal of the time, Rove would have gone through the process of getting a certain level of a clearance.

SOme more interesting reading on the subject.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2005%2F07%2F24%2FMNGCEDSPUC1.DTL

SOme more interesting reading on the subject.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2005%2F07%2F24%2FMNGCEDSPUC1.DTL
a liberal cali newspaper? The day they become objective will be the day hell freezes over.

Actually that is not true.

Clearances are handed out by the level of access they will have. Being they pass the back ground checks of course.

Take AeroDefense. Every full time employee has a secret clearance.

If the President said Rove was going to be involved a great deal of the time, Rove would have gone through the process of getting a certain level of a clearance.
actually I've had to take classes on the subject. And I ensure, they are only issued on a need to know basis. At least in defense department they are.

a liberal cali newspaper? The day they become objective will be the day hell freezes over.

Hmmm, I read your attached articles and provide materials (even some conservative sources, such as Malkin,) to refute them.

You, on the other hand, merely attack the source.

Perhaps you'd like to address the points made in the particular article? If it's so biased and unobjective, it should be a fairly easy task.

a liberal cali newspaper? The day they become objective will be the day hell freezes over.
Don't just assume that because it's based in San Francisco that it's a liberal paper. The liberal paper in SF is the Examiner--the Chronicle is just another corporate rag, but then again, why should you care? It's so much easier to pull assumptions out of your ass than it is to actually look at the reporting.

Edit: Once I clicked on the link, it became obvious you hadn't. Why? Because the very first line shows that it's not even a SF Chronicle story. It's a pickup from the NY Times. Jeez. You're so young to have such a closed mind.

Don't just assume that because it's based in San Francisco that it's a liberal paper. The liberal paper in SF is the Examiner--the Chronicle is just another corporate rag, but then again, why should you care? It's so much easier to pull assumptions out of your ass than it is to actually look at the reporting.

Edit: Once I clicked on the link, it became obvious you hadn't. Why? Because the very first line shows that it's not even a SF Chronicle story. It's a pickup from the NY Times. Jeez. You're so young to have such a closed mind.
Oh wow. A liberal paper qouting another liberal paper. I'm like really impressed. :rolleyes:

Hmmm, I read your attached articles and provide materials (even some conservative sources, such as Malkin,) to refute them.

You, on the other hand, merely attack the source.

Perhaps you'd like to address the points made in the particular article? If it's so biased and unobjective, it should be a fairly easy task.
90% of the papers in Cali are liberally biased.

90% of the papers in Cali are liberally biased.

Ah, and you gathered this information from www.pulledfromanunnamednetherorifice.com, right?

90% of the papers in Cali are liberally biased.
and 98% of statistics are made up.
Ah, and you gathered this information from www.pulledfromanunnamednetherorifice.com, right?
Of course...that's where he gets all of his information.

This is easily solved.

Whittier, please name the 90% of california publications that are liberally biased and the 10% that are not.

Thank you for your time.

Poor liberal California...the richest and most populous state in the Union...

This is easily solved.

Whittier, please name the 90% of california publications that are liberally biased and the 10% that are not.

Thank you for your time.

Poor liberal California...the richest and most populous state in the Union...
AGH! LOGIC!!! :D

AGH! LOGIC!!! :D

Logic is to Whittier as salted holy water is to a vampiric slug.

California gets it wrong most of the time. Because they are run by spoiled liberall elitists.

actually I've had to take classes on the subject. And I ensure, they are only issued on a need to know basis. At least in defense department they are.

Unless they have changed. I am ex DoD and I worked in AeroDefense so I am not making this up. I have held several levels.

So sorry but you are wrong on this.

Unless they have changed. I am ex DoD and I worked in AeroDefense so I am not making this up. I have held several levels.

So sorry but you are wrong on this.
No. I am sorry. Cause something must have changed since you've had one. Because that's what they teach when they train us on opsec.

Even though you might have a clearance, if I think you are suspicious or I've never seen you before, or you are not on the official list of people authorized to have access to certain information, I have authority to deny you access, regardless of your clearance level.

No. I am sorry. Cause something must have changed since you've had one. Because that's what they teach when they train us on opsec.

Even though you might have a clearance, if I think you are suspicious or I've never seen you before, or you are not on the official list of people authorized to have access to certain information, I have authority to deny you access, regardless of your clearance level.

Sure Whitt.

One thing I know is that the people that work in the business don't give details as to what they do.

So I call BS on your claims.

*sighs*

Ah well I guess that is what is called Role play. :rolleyes:

Can we let this thread die now?

California gets it wrong most of the time. Because they are run by spoiled liberall elitists.

Yeah, California is practically a 3rd world country :rolleyes:

I guess that's why California provides the rest of America with so little in the way of cultural products, technology and agriculture.

Oh, and you do realize that, generally, red states suck at the federal teat much more than blue states? California is absolutely raped when it comes to the amount of federal taxes it pays as compared to the federal funding it gets back. New York and New Jersey are similary swindled.

Yet, California is still the richest and most populous of the states.

What makes me laugh is when a conservative makes a statement that insinuates that they are somehow superior to an elitist.

Sure Whitt.

One thing I know is that the people that work in the business don't give details as to what they do.

So I call BS on your claims.

*sighs*

Ah well I guess that is what is called Role play. :rolleyes:

Can we let this thread die now?
actually I haven't given any details.

In the intrests of letting this silly thread die, I withdraw from it.

Go ahead and make your counter claims whitt, I won't visit......

Yeah, California is practically a 3rd world country :rolleyes:

I guess that's why California provides the rest of America with so little in the way of cultural products, technology and agriculture.

Oh, and you do realize that, generally, red states suck at the federal teat much more than blue states? California is absolutely raped when it comes to the amount of federal taxes it pays as compared to the federal funding it gets back. New York and New Jersey are similary swindled.

Yet, California is still the richest and most populous of the states.

What makes me laugh is when a conservative makes a statement that insinuates that they are somehow superior to an elitist.

Actually california:
1. is over represented in Congress since at least half the state pop. is illegal immigrants who are not US citizens. But that will be corrected once the Constitution is amended so that only US citizens can be counted in the census. Of course this would mean much less federal funds for California also.

2. California ranks 48 in the entire US in terms of quality of education.

3. California is number 1 when it comes to high school drop out rates.

4. California is still having economic problems while the rest of the nation is enjoying an economic recovery.

5. In california, the criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens.

6. California has the highest crime rate in the nation (probably due to criminals having more rights than law abiding us citizens)

7. In california, almost everything is decided in a very partisan manner and everything depends on what group you are in.

8. In California, blacks and women have brainwashed into thinking they can't get into college without affirmative action becuase they can't make in life on their own merit.

9. In California, when a woman turns 18 she is told she is too old to go on to college.

10. In California, when a crime takes place (a woman being raped or abducted, or some kid being assaulted for his bike, or a blackwoman being doused with gasoline on a public street then set ablaze), everyone turns around and walks the other saying "It none of my business." Or as in the case of the black woman, they close their apartment windows and plug in their ears so they can ignore her agonizing screams.

11. In California, when a pedophile is released, he is released where there are public schools and lots of little children for him to prey on.

12. In California, everyone is very willing to repeal your constitutional rights just so they can make a quick buck or two.

13. In California, if there is a conflict between human life and coyote life, the enviro wackos side with the coyote.

14. In California, (though officially illegal) it's considered normal to use date rape drugs.

15. California has the highest level of deadbeat parents in the entire United States.

16. Also the highest number of pedophiles.

17. In California, the city dictate what color you can paint your house.

18. In California, they are so focused on increasing property values that when taxes go up, the poor are often kicked out of their homes which are seized by municipal governments because poor families can't afford the property taxes.

19. In California, seems like China is being allowed to buy just about anything they want in California.

20. In California, most people who graduate high school are barely reading at a 5th grade level.

21. In California, the dems are opposing redistricting because they know they will lose power if it goes through.

22. Due to failed liberal policies, California is the mosted indebted state in the nation.

All this due to the failed policies of the democrats who have been running California for over 40 years.
Of course, I could list other things that are wrong with California. Other failed policies that the dems have been enforcing in California.

See, most of the the above list, is not a reflection on the people of California themselves, rather, the entire list is a reflection of how much the policies of the democrats have failed the people the dems were elected to serve. Of how big a grave that the dems have dug for the people of the once golden state.

See, what California democrats can't comprehend is the fact that the people of California want real changes. Not partisan attacks on dems' opponents. Not superficial crap that does nothing but reward offenders.
That is why in the next election, republicans will sweep the state.

And when we do, we will correct all the problems I have listed above. Problems that the dems have either ignored or contributed to making worse.

In the intrests of letting this silly thread die, I withdraw from it.

Go ahead and make your counter claims whitt, I won't visit......
? I am not going to make any counter claims. Let's just say we have our disagreement and not go into it any further.

Actually california:
-snip-

Pure and unadulterated horseflop. Please don't try to educate a Californian about California. Your little red book of conservative lies is is laughable at best. I was going to do a point by point refutation, but what's the point? You'll never read it and you'll never cite your sources.

This post by you about California should at the very least expose you as a simple troll or as a complete and total conservative tool. The lies, omissions and exaggerations are clear enough to make an honest conservative wince.

Actually california:
1. is over represented in Congress since at least half the state pop. is illegal immigrants who are not US citizens. But that will be corrected once the Constitution is amended so that only US citizens can be counted in the census. Of course this would mean much less federal funds for California also.

2. California ranks 48 in the entire US in terms of quality of education.

3. California is number 1 when it comes to high school drop out rates.

4. California is still having economic problems while the rest of the nation is enjoying an economic recovery.

5. In california, the criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens.

6. California has the highest crime rate in the nation (probably due to criminals having more rights than law abiding us citizens)

7. In california, almost everything is decided in a very partisan manner and everything depends on what group you are in.

8. In California, blacks and women have brainwashed into thinking they can't get into college without affirmative action becuase they can't make in life on their own merit.

9. In California, when a woman turns 18 she is told she is too old to go on to college.

10. In California, when a crime takes place (a woman being raped or abducted, or some kid being assaulted for his bike, or a blackwoman being doused with gasoline on a public street then set ablaze), everyone turns around and walks the other saying "It none of my business." Or as in the case of the black woman, they close their apartment windows and plug in their ears so they can ignore her agonizing screams.

11. In California, when a pedophile is released, he is released where there are public schools and lots of little children for him to prey on.

12. In California, everyone is very willing to repeal your constitutional rights just so they can make a quick buck or two.

13. In California, if there is a conflict between human life and coyote life, the enviro wackos side with the coyote.

14. In California, (though officially illegal) it's considered normal to use date rape drugs.

15. California has the highest level of deadbeat parents in the entire United States.

16. Also the highest number of pedophiles.

17. In California, the city dictate what color you can paint your house.

18. In California, they are so focused on increasing property values that when taxes go up, the poor are often kicked out of their homes which are seized by municipal governments because poor families can't afford the property taxes.

19. In California, seems like China is being allowed to buy just about anything they want in California.

20. In California, most people who graduate high school are barely reading at a 5th grade level.

21. In California, the dems are opposing redistricting because they know they will lose power if it goes through.

22. Due to failed liberal policies, California is the mosted indebted state in the nation.

All this due to the failed policies of the democrats who have been running California for over 40 years.
Of course, I could list other things that are wrong with California. Other failed policies that the dems have been enforcing in California.

See, most of the the above list, is not a reflection on the people of California themselves, rather, the entire list is a reflection of how much the policies of the democrats have failed the people the dems were elected to serve. Of how big a grave that the dems have dug for the people of the once golden state.

See, what California democrats can't comprehend is the fact that the people of California want real changes. Not partisan attacks on dems' opponents. Not superficial crap that does nothing but reward offenders.
That is why in the next election, republicans will sweep the state.

And when we do, we will correct all the problems I have listed above. Problems that the dems have either ignored or contributed to making worse.

You're funny :D

Can I take you home and put you in a cage?

You're funny :D

Can I take you home and put you in a cage?

I don't know... is it legal to put long-haired trolls in cages in California?

You're funny :D

Can I take you home and put you in a cage?

Cages in California are made from the bones of innocent children and are lined with paper from midwestern farm deeds. :rolleyes:

Speaking of which, did you know it's illegal in California to shoot whales from a moving vehicle or to detonate a nuclear weapon within the Berkley city limits?

Strange but true.

i was going to feed the troll, but im sure he had enough goats for dinner

Pure and unadulterated horseflop. Please don't try to educate a Californian about California. Your little red book of conservative lies is is laughable at best. I was going to do a point by point refutation, but what's the point? You'll never read it and you'll never cite your sources.

This post by you about California should at the very least expose you as a simple troll or as a complete and total conservative tool. The lies, omissions and exaggerations are clear enough to make an honest conservative wince.
1. "Your little red book of lies...." typical response of a democrat to the exposure of their party's failed policies.
2. The fact is I am a Californian. Born and raised. I see all the bullshit the democratic party's policies cause, but which the democrats conveniently ignore and pretend don't exist.
3. If you can refute those give it a try. But I know California democratic misinformation tactics when I see them. I've dealt with Cali dems before.
4. Sources? So you say if its not in some university text that was written by John the Dem it never happened? You want sources?
My brother who had his bike taken at knife point.
The parents of the 16 year old girl who was abducted in our neighborhood, in 1997, after which the police said they couldn't try to track down the abductees because they said it was a "personal dispute". Well, I need a blow job, because personal disputes between boyfriends and girlfriends don't usually involve the boyfriend abducting the girlfriend with the help of 5 of his psychopath friends who beat her and then drag her into the waiting van which then speeds off leaving tire tracks.
The case of the African American woman who was doused with gasoline at 2 in the morning and set ablaze to be burned alive, is widely known in the Whittier area. It was on the front pages of the Whittier Daily News for months as police sought out people willing to talk and to apprehend the suspects. But Mr. Gymoor would have us believe that just because its pointed out by a rep. that this barbaric crime against humanity never happened.
That California is last in education, first in pedophilia, rape and other crimes is supported by federal statistics.

1. "Your little red book of lies...." typical response of a democrat to the exposure of their party's failed policies.
2. The fact is I am a Californian. Born and raised. I see all the bullshit the democratic party's policies cause, but which the democrats conveniently ignore and pretend don't exist.
3. If you can refute those give it a try. But I know California democratic misinformation tactics when I see them. I've dealt with Cali dems before.
4. Sources? So you say if its not in some university text that was written by John the Dem it never happened? You want sources?
My brother who had his bike taken at knife point.
The parents of the 16 year old girl who was abducted in our neighborhood, in 1997, after which the police said they couldn't try to track down the abductees because they said it was a "personal dispute". Well, I need a blow job, because personal disputes between boyfriends and girlfriends don't usually involve the boyfriend abducting the girlfriend with the help of 5 of his psychopath friends who beat her and then drag her into the waiting van which then speeds off leaving tire tracks.
The case of the African American woman who was doused with gasoline at 2 in the morning and set ablaze to be burned alive, is widely known in the Whittier area. It was on the front pages of the Whittier Daily News for months as police sought out people willing to talk and to apprehend the suspects. But Mr. Gymoor would have us believe that just because its pointed out by a rep. that this barbaric crime against humanity never happened.
That California is last in education, first in pedophilia, rape and other crimes is supported by federal statistics.

Fine. Back up those assertions. Where are the governmental studies you speak of?

4. Sources? So you say if its not in some university text that was written by John the Dem it never happened? You want sources?
My brother who had his bike taken at knife point.
The parents of the 16 year old girl who was abducted in our neighborhood, in 1997, after which the police said they couldn't try to track down the abductees because they said it was a "personal dispute". Well, I need a blow job, because personal disputes between boyfriends and girlfriends don't usually involve the boyfriend abducting the girlfriend with the help of 5 of his psychopath friends who beat her and then drag her into the waiting van which then speeds off leaving tire tracks.
The case of the African American woman who was doused with gasoline at 2 in the morning and set ablaze...*snips*.

Hey, who doesn't?

Fine. Back up those assertions. Where are the governmental studies you speak of?
They're on the federal govt. websites. Look them up.

Not only are they supported by the US government, but most of them are self evident to everyday Californians. To not see them, is to be blinded by your party's thirst for power.

They're on the federal govt. websites. Look them up.

Not only are they supported by the US government, but most of them are self evident to everyday Californians. To not see them, is to be blinded by your party's thirst for power.

Nope. You asserted it, you do the legwork. I'm tired of your unsubtantiated crapola.

1. "Your little red book of lies...." typical response of a democrat to the exposure of their party's failed policies.
2. The fact is I am a Californian. Born and raised. I see all the bullshit the democratic party's policies cause, but which the democrats conveniently ignore and pretend don't exist.
3. If you can refute those give it a try. But I know California democratic misinformation tactics when I see them. I've dealt with Cali dems before.
4. Sources? So you say if its not in some university text that was written by John the Dem it never happened? You want sources?
My brother who had his bike taken at knife point.
The parents of the 16 year old girl who was abducted in our neighborhood, in 1997, after which the police said they couldn't try to track down the abductees because they said it was a "personal dispute". Well, I need a blow job, because personal disputes between boyfriends and girlfriends don't usually involve the boyfriend abducting the girlfriend with the help of 5 of his psychopath friends who beat her and then drag her into the waiting van which then speeds off leaving tire tracks.
The case of the African American woman who was doused with gasoline at 2 in the morning and set ablaze to be burned alive, is widely known in the Whittier area. It was on the front pages of the Whittier Daily News for months as police sought out people willing to talk and to apprehend the suspects. But Mr. Gymoor would have us believe that just because its pointed out by a rep. that this barbaric crime against humanity never happened.
That California is last in education, first in pedophilia, rape and other crimes is supported by federal statistics.
What you don't seem to understand, Whittier, is that when you've been proven a liar and a bullshit artist on the level of Michael Savage as many times as you have, you have no credibility, not even among people who might otherwise agree with you. That means that those of us on the opposite side can pretty much dismiss anything you say without a hint of regret, unless you back it up. You don't get to make unsubstantiated claims and have them accepted anymore--you lost that privilege a long time ago. There are others who are conservative on this board who I'll give the benefit of the doubt at times--not you. So back it up, bub, or be ignored.

What you don't seem to understand, Whittier, is that when you've been proven a liar and a bullshit artist on the level of Michael Savage as many times as you have, you have no credibility, not even among people who might otherwise agree with you. That means that those of us on the opposite side can pretty much dismiss anything you say without a hint of regret, unless you back it up. You don't get to make unsubstantiated claims and have them accepted anymore--you lost that privilege a long time ago. There are others who are conservative on this board who I'll give the benefit of the doubt at times--not you. So back it up, bub, or be ignored.
lol pwned (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/positive11.jpg)!

lol pwned (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/positive11.jpg)!
He'll ignore me--he always does--but it had to be said.

Apparently Whittier only recognizes 48 states since he states that California is both last in education and 48th.

Abraham Simpson -- I'll be deep in the cold cold ground before I recognize Missouri

While I admit the shortcomings of California public school education, California still boasts some of the best Universities in the world, which I'm sure was conveniently omitted from whatever foam-flecked right-wing publication Whittier contemplated while making his daily "deposit" in his "thinking chamber".

Apparently Whittier only recognizes 48 states since he states that California is both last in education and 48th.

Abraham Simpson -- I'll be deep in the cold cold ground before I recognize Missouri

While I admit the shortcomings of California public school education, California still boasts some of the best Universities in the world, which I'm sure was conveniently omitted from whatever foam-flecked right-wing publication Whittier contemplated while making his daily "deposit" in his "thinking chamber"."Last in education" is a bullshit phrase anyway, simply because "education" is not a measurable statistic. Last in what? money spent per student? lowest average SAT score? highest rate of dropouts? highest number of dropouts? There are tons more ways to measure educational standards, and in any measure that deals strictly with raw numbers, California is likely to get fucked, simply because they're the largest state in terms of population. I have no doubt that by some standard, California is 48th--but by some other standard, they could be first. The accusation means nothing outside of context.

But then again, I couldn't expect Whittier to understand a concept that complex--anything that rises above the level of "Liberal bad!" is beyond him.

What you don't seem to understand, Whittier, is that when you've been proven a liar and a bullshit artist on the level of Michael Savage as many times as you have, you have no credibility, not even among people who might otherwise agree with you. That means that those of us on the opposite side can pretty much dismiss anything you say without a hint of regret, unless you back it up. You don't get to make unsubstantiated claims and have them accepted anymore--you lost that privilege a long time ago. There are others who are conservative on this board who I'll give the benefit of the doubt at times--not you. So back it up, bub, or be ignored.
Excuse me, mr. Americahater, what you do on a nonserious forum is of little consequence to the real world. Everything I listed about California and the results of Democratic rule in that state, are in the real world, facts.
These facts are observed everyday by average Californians. I will not cite sources for some acne face kid sitting in his basement cheering on the likes of Al Qaeda. I will not cite sources for some liberal who sits in some university smoking pot and posting crap on a forum that has no bearing on real life.
See, the reason why liberals like you don't like people like me, is that people like me, go beyond belief. You sit here and you whine about this and you whine about that. The side you have chosen, in the outside world, has been in charge of California for 40 years. And during those 40 years, the democrats have repeatedly fucked up. They have repeatedly screwed over the people they were elected to represent. California teachers are the highest paid in the nation, yet, as I noted already, California is 48 when it comes to education quality. But it ranks very high on high school drop outs. Everytime someone tries to fix a broken system, the dems cry foul.
Whenever someone tries to level a playing field that the dems promised but failed to level, the Democrats cry racism. I think racism is when the Democrat controlled legislature both refuses to support inner city schools and strongly opposes federal efforts (by the Bush administration) to increase support of said schools.
I don't give a damn what some kids think of my opinions on some forum where I have found that no one is serious about their views.
I have the real world credentials. Something you DO NOT have.
Politics is not a game. For many people, its life and death. For many people, it affects their livelihoods. But I really don't think you can comprehend just how serious real world politics is. I mean, all I've seen you post on here is "blah blah blah blah evil republicans this, evil republicans that, blah blah blah blah blah". People like you make America a bad place to be. People like me, make America better for everyone else.
YOU have never held a public office. YOU have never ran for anything. I ran for 3 offices. YOU have never advised on any campaigns. I have done so on a couple of campaigns.
That's the difference between you and me. You think its all just a game. I've been in the process, I've seen what goes on in real life. I take it seriously.
See, you know me here, you don't know jack in real life.
So STFU.

can you ACTUALLY cite anything to prove california is 48? I was under the impression alabama was 48 with like mississippi and arkansas or something behind us

Apparently Whittier only recognizes 48 states since he states that California is both last in education and 48th.

Abraham Simpson -- I'll be deep in the cold cold ground before I recognize Missouri

While I admit the shortcomings of California public school education, California still boasts some of the best Universities in the world, which I'm sure was conveniently omitted from whatever foam-flecked right-wing publication Whittier contemplated while making his daily "deposit" in his "thinking chamber".

I am talking about public education grades k through 12. Universities are not the same since they are not free. Not even California.
If kids are dropping out of high school how the heck are you going to expect them to be able to go on to a university?
With all the shortcomings of the California public school system, how do you expect these kids to be ready for university level work? The vast majority of california college students are in community colleges taking remedial math and reading classes because they are not up to their own grade level. Hell, even some of the state university's have no choice but to give their students remedial courses in math and reading and even in writing.
I've been a student at one state university and at one community college. That's the right wing publication I take the information from.

"Last in education" is a bullshit phrase anyway, simply because "education" is not a measurable statistic. Last in what? money spent per student? lowest average SAT score? highest rate of dropouts? highest number of dropouts? There are tons more ways to measure educational standards, and in any measure that deals strictly with raw numbers, California is likely to get fucked, simply because they're the largest state in terms of population. I have no doubt that by some standard, California is 48th--but by some other standard, they could be first. The accusation means nothing outside of context.

But then again, I couldn't expect Whittier to understand a concept that complex--anything that rises above the level of "Liberal bad!" is beyond him.
The only thing california comes in number one at, when it comes to education, is spending. In everything else, except high school drop out rates, California comes in near to last. This is due to the democrats failed policies.

Fine. Just back it up.

Ihatevacations']can you ACTUALLY cite anything to prove california is 48? I was under the impression alabama was 48 with like mississippi and arkansas or something behind us
Whittier doesn't back up, he just heaps claims on top of claims. He's an example of the difference between a Californian and someone who lives in California. (even if he's 'born and raised,' but since he's made so many dubiuos claims that one has to be viewed with a suspect eye as well...)

Thing is, you totally can be a California conservative-but if your two-sizes-two-small underwear is jammed up your butt making you hyper-uptight and you're still hot and bothered about there being 'gold in them der hills,' you just live here and aren't really a Californian.

If you can get served by a New Yorker without him getting impatient, you're probably not a Californian...(I wanted to poke a little fun at ourselves, cause we relaxed like that ;) )

If he is found to have exposed Plame, he had good reasons for it and as such will most likely not go to jail for it.

One of the things we know is that it was not the Vice President who told Joe Wilson to go to Nigeria, but Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. The purpose of the mission was to do everything necessary to discredit Bush's case for war in Iraq. Both Wilson and Plame were bitterly opposed to any war with Iraq.
Valerie Plame's ouster was due to her own arrogance about her place in the American government. She was the one that ordered him to go, she was the one who authorized it.
In fact, Mr. Wilson knew it was his wife and not the VP that had authorized the trip. So the question is, what authority did she have to authorize something that was not ok'd by the VP?
And now new stuff is coming up about Wilson and Plame being extremely bitter over Bush's election in 2000.
At the end of the investigation it may turn out that those two made an attempt to destroy the President of the United States and their attempt backfired. Especially in Plame's case.
Now instead of accepting responsibility they are calling for the imprisonment of people who interfered with their plot, and again, their attempts could be backfiring.
And if that is the case, then it is Mrs. Plame and Mr. Wilson who belongs in prison for jeopardizing the national security of the United States and for costing the lives of many American troops.

Are you the reincarntion of Hitler or just Bushs litlle boyfriend? What a bunch of propaganda and lies, you would be, like most die hard (creationist) republicans a good speaker for Dr Goebels ministery of propaganda, that is where you belong. Shame on you. Rove belongs in jail for putting a CIA officer in danger for political reasons/lies, point. It is as simple as that. :upyours:

Ihatevacations']can you ACTUALLY cite anything to prove california is 48? I was under the impression alabama was 48 with like mississippi and arkansas or something behind us

Again, I am not some kid in some university doing some report that does not impact real life.
The statement is supported by information collected by both the state of California and the US government.
The states you mentioned, are last only in terms of money spent. Yet, the quality of education in those states is for some reason, better than in California which spends tens of billions on education.

Numbers do not equal quality.

Are you the reincarntion of Hitler or just Bushs litlle boyfriend? What a bunch of propaganda and lies, you would be, like most die hard (creationist) republicans a good speaker for Dr Goebels ministery of propaganda, that is where you belong. Shame on you. Rove belongs in jail for putting a CIA officer in danger for political reasons/lies, point. It is as simple as that. :upyours:

Invoking Godwin's law doesn't help us against Whittier. The point is to constantly rub his nose in the fact that he is nothing more than a two-bit partisan hack troll who commonly makes up lies out of whole cloth. Making such overly hyperbolic comparisons only plays into his hands.

Whittier doesn't back up, he just heaps claims on top of claims. He's an example of the difference between a Californian and someone who lives in California. (even if he's 'born and raised,' but since he's made so many dubiuos claims that one has to be viewed with a suspect eye as well...)

Thing is, you totally can be a California conservative-but if your two-sizes-two-small underwear is jammed up your butt making you hyper-uptight and you're still hot and bothered about there being 'gold in them der hills,' you just live here and aren't really a Californian.

If you can get served by a New Yorker without him getting impatient, you're probably not a Californian...(I wanted to poke a little fun at ourselves, cause we relaxed like that ;) )
Dems ignore all evidence that counters their propaganda. All evidence that has been presented by myself, have been ignored on the basis that it comes from a republican. The views of liberals here have no basis in reality. Therefore, what they think does not matter.
And because the views of democrats have no basis in reality, the democrats are going to lose california's senate seat in 2006.
So you all can go on with your speculations and unrealistic discussions because ultimately, you lose.
Check mate.

Invoking Godwin's law doesn't help us against Whittier. The point is to constantly rub his nose in the fact that he is nothing more than a two-bit partisan hack troll who commonly makes up lies out of whole cloth. Making such overly hyperbolic comparisons only plays into his hands.
I've already exposed you as the typical democrat.
"bush is a liar"
"cheney is a liar"
"Ann Coulter is a liar"
"Powell is a liar"
"John McCain is a liar"
"Hastert is a liar"
"Rice is a liar"
"Schwarzeneggar is a liar"
"all republicans are liars"


Don't expect people in the real world to go for that crap.

Invoking Godwin's law doesn't help us against Whittier. The point is to constantly rub his nose in the fact that he is nothing more than a two-bit partisan hack troll who commonly makes up lies out of whole cloth. Making such overly hyperbolic comparisons only plays into his hands.

Noop, a hyperbolic comparision would it be when he was just a troll, I think he is altough a extremist, somewhat a propagandist extreme right reactionar and, regarding his posts that are not so smart, a kind of would be Obersturmbahnführer. Again you only can conclude that (he is a kiddo) he really looks like a clerc at the Reichspropagandaleitung, nothing more, he is unaware and knows shit about history (guess he is running for Winki for the words Reichspropagandaleitung and the grade of Obersturmbahnführer, hmm he would be more a Sturman or a small Gestapo denouncer of leftist or other resistance), don't waste your time on such a arrogant piece of s...

Dems ignore all evidence that counters their propaganda. All evidence that has been presented by myself, have been ignored on the basis that it comes from a republican. The views of liberals here have no basis in reality. Therefore, what they think does not matter.
And because the views of democrats have no basis in reality, the democrats are going to lose california's senate seat in 2006.
So you all can go on with your speculations and unrealistic discussions because ultimately, you lose.
Check mate.
How exactly does that address what I said or lead to a checkmate?

Ah, you know what? Nevermind. I don't expect you to do anything more than what you always do.

Don't expect people in the real world to go for that crap.You consider yourself to be representative of the real world, huh? :rolleyes:

I've already exposed you as the typical democrat.
"bush is a liar"
"cheney is a liar"
"Ann Coulter is a liar"
"Powell is a liar"
"John McCain is a liar"
"Hastert is a liar"
"Rice is a liar"
"Schwarzeneggar is a liar"
"all republicans are liars"


Don't expect people in the real world to go for that crap.

I'm surprised your gatro-intestinal tract doesn't implode. You've pulled everything you can from it. Real world? Paris Hilton has a better idea of what the real world is than you. John Hinkley watching a Jodi Foster film festival is more connected to reality.

Also, if you want to expose me as anything, how about you address things I've actually said, rather than rummaging around in your fevered Ann-Coulter-in-thighboots imagination?

Dems ignore all evidence that counters their propaganda. All evidence that has been presented by myself, have been ignored on the basis that it comes from a republican. The views of liberals here have no basis in reality. Therefore, what they think does not matter.
And because the views of democrats have no basis in reality, the democrats are going to lose california's senate seat in 2006.
So you all can go on with your speculations and unrealistic discussions because ultimately, you lose.
Check mate.

Ahhh Whitt, you have some spittle there....

"Ann Coulter is a liar"


Well Annie was on a Canadian show talk about our friendship with Canada and how they supported us in wars like Viet Nam. The fellow said no we didn't and she said yes you did. He stood his ground and she said Well I will have to look into it and get back to you.

She never did.

Hmmmm sounds like a liar.

Dems ignore all evidence that counters their propaganda. All evidence that has been presented by myself, have been ignored on the basis that it comes from a republican. The views of liberals here have no basis in reality. Therefore, what they think does not matter.
And because the views of democrats have no basis in reality, the democrats are going to lose california's senate seat in 2006.
So you all can go on with your speculations and unrealistic discussions because ultimately, you lose.
Check mate.

Random declarations do no equal evidence. Show me hard numbers and logical analysis, and if I can not find the same to refute them, then I will graciously concede the point. The fact is is you are less interested in the truth than O.J. is in finding the real killer.

Random declarations do no equal evidence. Show me hard numbers and logical analysis, and if I can not find the same to refute them, then I will graciously concede the point. The fact is is you are less interested in the truth than O.J. is in finding the real killer.

Unfortunately, Partisanship and Logic are incompatible as with the case of Whittier (or should it be Whitless?)

Whittier's claims are unquestionabely true. We are fools to demand such silly things as "sources" and "evidence". They are tools of the liberal conspiracy. These are cold, hard facts we're dealing with.

After all, he heard it from his friend who used to know a guy who volunteered a bit for some senator's campaign.

Sorry, kid. I can go claiming that Nebraska has the country's largest lumber industry, or that Florida is 48th when it comes to yearly average temperature, but it doesn't make it true.

Again, I am not some kid in some university doing some report that does not impact real life.
The statement is supported by information collected by both the state of California and the US government.
The states you mentioned, are last only in terms of money spent. Yet, the quality of education in those states is for some reason, better than in California which spends tens of billions on education.

Numbers do not equal quality.
wait wait wait, you have the information to support your claims, supposedly, yet you refuse to link to it because your not a "kind in some university doing a report"

Oh almighty irony knight, I bow to your logic

It's funny how good conservatives/Republicans/Rove supporters are at changing the subject. We went from a thread about how corrupt Karl Rove is to a thread bashing California.

Now, if Whittier or his cohorts were up to the level of mr Rove himself, they'd tie all this up in a neat bow by somehow connecting the dots between Karl Rove and California.

1.) Karl rove sold out the Intelligence Community for purely political purposes.

2.) California is a post-apocalyptic liberal thieves' den.

3.) ???

4.) Profit.

It's funny how good conservatives/Republicans/Rove supporters are at changing the subject. We went from a thread about how corrupt Karl Rove is to a thread bashing California.

Now, if Whittier or his cohorts were up to the level of mr Rove himself, they'd tie all this up in a neat bow by somehow connecting the dots between Karl Rove and California.

1.) Karl rove sold out the Intelligence Community for purely political purposes.

2.) California is a post-apocalyptic liberal thieves' den.

3.) ???

4.) Profit.
It may be they're that way because they can't stay on topics that distress them about themselves - being so self-centered, "conservative" and all, they want as little rocking as possible in their own world and basically, f*ckall everyone else to their benefit. That way they don't have to consciously embrace a change they need to make, they instead can blame everything/one else and demonize them. While making themselves out to be the victims. Makes sense to me. :rolleyes:

*note- feel free to correct me if you REALLY want to .... :fluffle:

It may be they're that way because they can't stay on topics that distress them about themselves - being so self-centered, "conservative" and all, they want as little rocking as possible in their own world and basically, f*ckall everyone else to their benefit. That way they don't have to consciously embrace a change they need to make, they instead can blame everything/one else and demonize them. While making themselves out to be the victims. Makes sense to me. :rolleyes:

*note- feel free to correct me if you REALLY want to .... :fluffle:

Yeah, they're always the victims. Poor poor rich white men who control all 3 parts of government. I feel so sorry for them.

Actually california:
-snip-
16. Also the highest number of pedophiles.
-snip-

Looking further into this, I found it to be true. What Whittier doesn't state is that 75% of them turn out to be registered Republicans.*

*see, I can make absurd and unsubstantiated claims as well.

Any new info floating around on the internets?

Any new info floating around on the internets?
Only that Bob Novak has been suspended from CNN for saying "bullshit" on the air today and walking off the set. He seems to be feeling the pressure a bit. Video here. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/04.html#a4312)

Your government knows Rove is a Norwegian sleeper, just check 'his' parents. We all know what Norwegians are after... OIL!
are you a challenged individual? norway is the 5th largest oil producer in the world. in addition, u dont see them invading self sufficient functional middle eastern nations in pursuit of it (and WMDs of course, eh-hem).

are you a challenged individual? norway is the 5th largest oil producer in the world. in addition, u dont see them invading self sufficient functional middle eastern nations in pursuit of it (and WMDs of course, eh-hem).

Lufen, I think his post was intentionally facetious.

Only that Bob Novak has been suspended from CNN for saying "bullshit" on the air today and walking off the set. He seems to be feeling the pressure a bit. Video here. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/04.html#a4312)
Bout fucking time.

Yeah, they're always the victims. Poor poor rich white men who control all 3 parts of government. I feel so sorry for them.
Makes me think they'd be better demons themselves instead of "humans".

Yeah, they're always the victims. Poor poor rich white men who control all 3 parts of government. I feel so sorry for them.
Ah, so you're racist against white people? ah ha. Just as I thought.

Ah, so you're racist against white people? ah ha. Just as I thought.

Well, that's a lie. You can't claim to have thought about anything.

I find it pretty astonishing that people can still discuss Plame and Wilson's evil plan to discredit the reasons for going to Iraq, when it turns out those reasons were always wrong.

Ah, so you're racist against white people? ah ha. Just as I thought.

Well, considering I'm white, that's kinda hard to do. Thanks for playing.

Well, considering I'm white, that's kinda hard to do. Thanks for playing.

You have to understand that Whittier is a Bushevik Cartoon Villain. Day after day he keeps going no matter how many timed he gets pwned by people on this forum. And when he doesn't have even a tenuous grasp on the facts, he resorts to disingenuous tricks like crying racism/religionism/etc.

You have to understand that Whittier is a Bushevik Cartoon Villain. Day after day he keeps going no matter how many timed he gets pwned by people on this forum. And when he doesn't have even a tenuous grasp on the facts, he resorts to disingenuous tricks like crying racism/religionism/etc.

People from around his end of the political spectrum must be pissed that this guy is attempting to represent them. Maybe that's his point. Maybe he's a Bush hater who is lampooning Bush apologists by exaggerating their foibles.

If he actually is a Bush supporter, he's hurting those that would agree with his premises by presenting such a torturedly weak case.