or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Novak/Plame
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Novak/Plame - Page 2

post #41 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Baffled? Oh c'mon!

Though I'm sure political influence has a good deal to do with this, the swift conclusion that this is the issue in a nutshell is not really getting into the meat of the discussion. I mean, if you just wave your hand and claim conspiracy, what's that helping either now or later? What are you learning? What does this actually do to influence or prevent similar situations in the future, or are these just matters of fate?

Groverat has a good point re: grand jury testimony and Novak.

Anyway, so do I take it that, in theory, as many as 4 people have blabbed about this woman's covert CIA position to reporters -- two to Novak, and one each from Cooper and Miller potentially? I guess that's what the prosecution is trying to find out: just how many people leaked this info. Otherwise, if Novak has maybe given up his sources in the grand jury, what would be the point of going after the other two?

Like I said, please excuse my ignorance. I'm just trying to put the pieces together now, and I'm obviously late to the game.
post #42 of 346
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Indictments don't have to be public, so it is extremely likely that Novak sold his source up the river at first bark and is simply keeping silent about it.

What would be really sweet is if Novak lied on the stand to protect Rove, and then will go to jail for purjury when the other two reporters cough up the data.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #43 of 346
What would be most awesome is if Novak was hit by a bus.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #44 of 346
Thanks for clearing that up for me Grove, you rock.

Though as an Evangelical I have to disapprove of the last comment.
You know, the whole "Be good to your Enemies" thing.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #45 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Thanks for clearing that up for me Grove, you rock.

Though as I Evangelical I have to disapprove of the last comment.
You know, the whole "Be good to your Enemies" thing.

nah, the bus part feels right to me.
post #46 of 346
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
What would be most awesome is if Novak was hit by a bus.

Mine is better because:

1. The punishment would fit the crime, and his bad karma would be biting him in the ass.

2. Raped in prison
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #47 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by running with scissors
nah, the bus part feels right to me.

If Judith Miller gets to write his obit, then I'm down with that.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #48 of 346
perhaps we need to compromise and hope that he goes to jail, gets raped in prison, and hit by a bus the day they let him out.

hmmm... sort of sounds like a familiar country tune.
post #49 of 346
Let's not forget the Judith Miller's now famous mountain of false information about Iraq during the lead-up to the war. She's no saint.
post #50 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I don't have a background in law, that's my dear beloved wife. I'm a journalism grad.

Novak isn't being pursued because he likely cooperated right away and gave up his source. Indictments don't have to be public, so it is extremely likely that Novak sold his source up the river at first bark and is simply keeping silent about it.

The other two (you know, the two with actual morals and principles) are protecting their source (by either keeping quiet or waiting for permission from the reveal).

Here's my own personal idea:
I think Novak is being given special treatment, but I don't think he escaped indictment. I would bet money that they didn't grill Novak very hard at all because they knew they were going to get to go after some others who were not Bush loyalists like Novak.

In short:
Novak hasn't necessarily been skipped over by the prosecution; I think it is unlikely that they would just ignore him. However, he is a wretched piece of human filth who I would like to see exit earth very soon who is probably getting a little bit of preferential treatment.


This is about the only scenerio that i can think to make sense of why the reporter who outed the agent is left alone and the reporter that wrote nothing is in jail. I'm sure Novak wet his pants 1 minute into the interview.
post #51 of 346
Judith Miller may also be a Bush shill like Novak, but at least she tried hard to protect her source and maintain some journalistic integrity.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #52 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Judith Miller may also be a Bush shill like Novak, but at least she tried hard to protect her source and maintain some journalistic integrity.

Yeah, but here's the problem: the whole idea of protecting journalistic sources, particularly when it comes to the government, is predicated on the idea that someone has come forward with evidence of malfeasance knowing that if their identity were to be revealed they would suffer reprisals. A whistle blower, acting in the public interest.

What Judith Miller et al have done is in the governments interest, either by passing along information for reasons of political reprisal or protecting the names of the people who did.

I realize that the general principles of journalistic integrity don't really make a distinction (possibly because this kind of overt using of the press for revenge is pretty unprecedented, at least at this level), but I find it difficult to regard Ms. Miller as a martyr to anything but her own hubris.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #53 of 346
Quote:
What would be most awesome is if Novak was hit by a bus.

"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #54 of 346
Will it looks like the case against Rove being at least one of the sources is getting stronger.

http://nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politi...rtner=homepage
post #55 of 346
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Will it looks like the case against Rove being at least one of the sources is getting stronger.

http://nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politi...rtner=homepage

I heard on the radio that Rove is saying since he said "The ambassador's wife is a CIA agent" instead of "Valarie Plume is a CIA agent", that he did not reveal her and did not break the law. super weak - Clinton style weak.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #56 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
I heard on the radio that Rove is saying since he said "The ambassador's wife is a CIA agent" instead of "Valarie Plume is a CIA agent", that he did not reveal her and did not break the law. super weak - Clinton style weak.

That actually won't stand up in court...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #57 of 346
I cannot wait for him to fall. I really hope this gets ugly.

addabox:

You make a good point. It's a really fine line that reporters cross.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #58 of 346
I am hopeful, but pessimistic that Karl Rove will fall...soon.
post #59 of 346
I apologize, in advance, for this long quoted piece ... but it's almost comedy gold.

The following is a excerpts of a rush transcript of the White House press briefing Monday... You can see the video here.

Quote:
QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk.

You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.

You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...

(LAUGHTER)

... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.

We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them. QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them.

When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

MCCLELLAN: I'll come back to you in a minute.

QUESTION: Scott, (inaudible) president spoke about war on terrorism and, also, according to India Globe report there is bombings in London and also bombings in India. And at both places, Al Qaida was involved.

According to the India Globe and press reports, Pakistani television said that Osama bin Laden is now alive and they had spoken with him. And his group is (inaudible) terrorism around the globe is concerned.

Well, now, the major bombings after 9/11 took place in London and (inaudible) fighting against terrorism is concerned.

Where do we stand now? Really, where do we go from London as far as terrorism is concerned? How far can we go after Osama bin Laden now to catch him, because he's still in Pakistan?

MCCLELLAN: What occurred in London is a grim reminder that we are at war on terrorism. We are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism.

You heard the president talk earlier today to the FBI personnel and others who were at Quantico. And the president talked about our global war on terrorism. He talked about our strategy for taking the fight to the enemy, staying on the offensive, and working to spread freedom and democracy to defeat the ideology of hatred that terrorists espouse.

And the president pointed back to the 20th century. He pointed out that in World War II, freedom prevailed over fascism and Nazism. And in the Cold War, freedom prevailed over communism.

MCCLELLAN: Freedom is a powerful force for defeating an ideology such as the one that the terrorists espouse. And that's why it's so important to continue working to advance freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. And that's what we will continue to do.

And the president also talked about the great progress we've made at home to protect the home front.

The families and friends of those who lost their lives in London continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. We know what it's like to be attacked on our own soil.

And that's why the president made a decision that we were going to take the fight to the enemy to try to disrupt plots and prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And that's exactly what we are doing.

But we're also going to work with the free world to support the advance of freedom and democracy in a dangerous region of the world. For too long we ignored what was going on in the Middle East. We accepted and tolerated dictatorships in exchange for peace and stability, and we got neither.

As the president said, free nations are peaceful societies. And that's why it's so important that we continue to support the advance of freedom, because that's how you ultimately defeat the ideology of hatred and oppression that terrorists espouse.

QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #60 of 346
Quote:
You make a good point. It's a really fine line that reporters cross.

Well it's the goddamn liberal media...
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #61 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by audiopollution
I apologize, in advance, for this long quoted piece ... but it's almost comedy gold.

The following is a excerpts of a rush transcript of the White House press briefing Monday... You can see the video here.

OMG, when did our press grow some gonads? Are these European reporters?
post #62 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Are these European reporters?

Nope. Crazy, huh?!

As far as I remember, the questions were being posed by reporters from the 3 main US networks.

Dance, McClellan, dance!
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #63 of 346
I think the White House may have pissed off the press just enough for them to really go after them on this. I really hope they grill them daily on this shit.
post #64 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by trick fall
I think the White House may have pissed off the press just enough for them to really go after them on this. I really hope they grill them daily on this shit.

"pissed off the press"? How, by existing?



This is the Democratic party and their TOOL the NYT looking to take down Rove and by extension...Bush. They don't give two shits about "national security" and that's evidenced by how they've all jumped all over the story. Rove said he didn't leak the name and as of now, I've seen nothing contradicting that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #65 of 346
Quote:
"pissed off the press"? How, by existing?

I'm so dumbstruck I just don't even know how to respond.
post #66 of 346
Quote:
They don't give two shits about "national security"...

YEAH! Dirty rotten traitorous Democratic scum...
You know, what's interesting about our country is that for years we were isolated from the world by two great oceans, and for a while we got a false sense of security as a result of that. We...
Reply
You know, what's interesting about our country is that for years we were isolated from the world by two great oceans, and for a while we got a false sense of security as a result of that. We...
Reply
post #67 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
This is the Democratic party and their TOOL the NYT...



As a not-so-happy subscriber, I'm looking at today's (Monday's) paper, and wow! The Rove-Plame story is right above the fold in the middle of...nowhere! Right. It's buried on page 12, just inside a half-page story about the life and death of Alison Montana. And even at that, it's focused on the reporters, not Karl. Tomorrow's story is likely to finally make the front-page - how long have the blogs been on top of this? - but is a story about the press briefing frenzy itself, not its content. Meanwhile, has the Times ever put any DSM-related story ahead of page 21? Not that I've seen. Either of them. And who does Judith Miller work for, anyway? Who published reams of uncorrobated - and since debunked - stories cheerleading the case for war? Mostly sourced anonymously from Chalabi via Karl Rove, to Judith Miller?

If the Times is a tool, it ain't of Democrats. Just writing all that makes me want to cancel my subscription.
post #68 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
"pissed off the press"? How, by existing?



This is the Democratic party and their TOOL the NYT looking to take down Rove and by extension...Bush. They don't give two shits about "national security" and that's evidenced by how they've all jumped all over the story. Rove said he didn't leak the name and as of now, I've seen nothing contradicting that.

Um. Actually the documents Time provided to the investigation clearly cite K. Rove as a source.

Now, are you trying to get away with a question of what the definition of "name" is?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #69 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
This is the Democratic party and their TOOL the NYT looking to take down Rove and by extension...Bush.

NYT? What?

What?

John Roberts works for CBS.
David Gregory works for MSNBC.
Terry Moran works for ABC.
Carl Cameron works for FOX News.

What?

NEW YORK TIMES 9/11 TERRORISM LIBERAL OIL-FOR-FOOD TERRORISM YOU HATE AMERICA LIBERAL TREE HUGGER.... *zzzz*
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #70 of 346
Thread Starter 
Quote:
This is the Democratic party and their TOOL the NYT looking to take down Rove and by extension...Bush. They don't give two shits about "national security" and that's evidenced by how they've all jumped all over the story. Rove said he didn't leak the name and as of now, I've seen nothing contradicting that.

Bullshit. I kind of support Bush (certainly more than I support the democrats), and I think Rove is a traitor to the country.

This is a bipartisan issue, revealing undercover CIA operatives is treason.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #71 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


So...

It's pretty firmly established that Rove is the one who leaked Plame's name.

Here's my running question, and it's one that's going to be answered over time... how do Republican loyalists feel about someone who will out an undercover CIA agent because of partisan bitterness?

Actually when looking at the actual emails from the reporters themselves, it is very clear Rove did not give up the name and has been consistant in his comments about that.

Republican loyalists feel fine about what Rove did because Democratic loyalists have been lobbing charges for so long, they forget the context of their later charges.

Wilson was said to be credible when speaking about his trip because he had been sent by someone very high up in the CIA like George Tenet or by Dick Cheney himself. In otherwords someone sent a hack out to do a job and when the results are dismissed they claim he couldn't have been a hack because of the people who choose him.

Wilson himself brought about inquiry into his claims by pushing his views and even publishing an op/ed in the New York Times. People were attempting to claim that this was a case of a person chosen by the administration turning on the administration. In otherwords it was a Democratic attack ploy to say Bush was being called a liar by his own people.

Anyone who has looked into this knows Rove gave permission to any sources to discuss what he told them back in late 2003/early 2004. The email that has been released clearly shows that Rove was telling the reporter not to give the story legs because the claim by Wilson of his trip being authorized by Tenet or Cheney was not true. His trip had been authorized by his wife.

Setting the facts straight on that matter in no manner attempts to out or even harm Plame. All it does is correct the lie being told by Wilson.

Here is a copy of the Wilson op/ed.

Wilson

The reason Cooper and Novak aren't being pursued is really quite clear. Rove knows what he said and long ago gave permission to the parties to speak about it. Miller is sitting in jail on contempt charges for the principle of being able to keep sources anonymous. I don't think what she is doing is wrong. However it isn't some sort of government conspiracy related to prosecution when all the other parties are told to talk and do talk, and she doesn't and is jailed. Novak was asked to testify and obviously did very early on.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #72 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Bullshit. I kind of support Bush (certainly more than I support the democrats), and I think Rove is a traitor to the country.

This is a bipartisan issue, revealing undercover CIA operatives is treason.

Except for you have to know that they are undercover CIA operatives for that charge to stick. If I give out your name to the police as the name of the person who keeps running over my trashcans and you just happen to be an undercover CIA agent, I haven't committed a crime. Now if I hold a rank and security clearance that shows I should have known better, that is different. However no one has shown Rove had this. Additionally if he did, I'm sure someone would have jumped all over it by now.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #73 of 346
That's very Clintonian of you.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #74 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Except for you have to know that they are undercover CIA operatives for that charge to stick. If I give out your name to the police as the name of the person who keeps running over my trashcans and you just happen to be an undercover CIA agent, I haven't committed a crime. Now if I hold a rank and security clearance that shows I should have known better, that is different. However no one has shown Rove had this. Additionally if he did, I'm sure someone would have jumped all over it by now.

Nick

It is most likely that what Rove did wasn't illegal at all - but it was ridiculous, wrong, and "bush" league politics. Rove should resign or be fired. He shouldn't be prosecuted, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be consequences.
post #75 of 346
Apparently this prosecutor thinks someone committed a crime, whether it was Rove or someone else, or he wouldn't be pursuing it like he is.

SDWs comment that it's the New York Times doing this and Nick's apologia are really sad. Why can't you just say it was wrong? What in the world do you have invested in this issue?
post #76 of 346
trumpt:

Who leaked her name?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #77 of 346
Russert on the Today Show:

Quote:
"As one Republican said to me last night, if this was a Democratic White House we'd have congressional hearings in a second."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #78 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
"pissed off the press"? How, by existing?



This is the Democratic party and their TOOL the NYT looking to take down Rove and by extension...Bush. They don't give two shits about "national security" and that's evidenced by how they've all jumped all over the story. Rove said he didn't leak the name and as of now, I've seen nothing contradicting that.

I would bet you're a big fan of Rick Santorum, hypocrit extraordinaire?

Rick's Hero: Hypocrisy good for society

One of my political heroes, the eighteenth-century British statesman William Wilberforce, argued that hypocrisy can often be a social good. -Rick Santorum, It Takes a Family, p. 280
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #79 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
It is most likely that what Rove did wasn't illegal at all - but it was ridiculous, wrong, and "bush" league politics. Rove should resign or be fired. He shouldn't be prosecuted, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be consequences.

I agree that it seems like a lowball move. However when looking at the reaction, I have to look at the action that caused it. There were people who were claiming Clinton killed Vince Foster. However they weren't being given prime time guest speaking slots or ending up writing editorials for the N.Y. Times with Time magazine in hot pursuit.

People were trying to frame this as the administration turning against itself by claiming Wilson had certain credibility because of who sent him. Wilson himself was cultivating this belief. Someone contacting you to inquire about these claims, or additionally contacting someone to defend against these claims is not wrong. If you don't like the reaction, take a look at that action that causes it. It is like complaining that a woman kicked you in the balls after you grab her butt. Sure being kicked in the balls sucks, but you shouldn't go around grabbing butts.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #80 of 346
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Apparently this prosecutor thinks someone committed a crime, whether it was Rove or someone else, or he wouldn't be pursuing it like he is.

SDWs comment that it's the New York Times doing this and Nick's apologia are really sad. Why can't you just say it was wrong? What in the world do you have invested in this issue?

There is a big difference between saying that leaking the name was wrong, and saying that Rove committed and is guilty of a crime.

What really is sad is to see the left so wrapped up in guilt by association that every little bit of news becomes part of a grand conspiracy theory.

/conspiracy on

Bush lied in his State of the Union speech.

He did? How do you know that?

This one guy Wilson was sent to Niger by Tenet at the request of Dick Cheney himself. He came back and said there were no weapons and since he reported directly to Tenet to answer Cheney's questions, that means that Bush and the administration knew and lied.

But he wasn't sent by Tenet, he was sent by his wife.

OMG, now that is even worse, you told me his wife sent him!

Why is telling the truth wrong?

Because his wife is classified as a secret agent and you just blew her cover.

/conspiracy off

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Novak/Plame