Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

Cyclo, I'm not sure were you've been these past five years, but this administration is full of "inconsistencies." The only thing consistent about this administration is their inconsistency.

0 Replies

""We can't have leaks of classified information. It's not in our nation's interest." - President George W. Bush, 10/9/01"

Were these senators charged with a crime? What ever happened to "innocent until found guilty" in this country?

0 Replies

CI, good point.

I don't know (in fact I am pretty sure) if this is a good place to leave this article since it's not about Rove, but since Bolton's name has been brought up lately, maybe it's ok.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072500883.html

White House May Sidestep Dems on Bolton

By TERENCE HUNT
The Associated Press
Tuesday, July 26, 2005; 12:06 AM

WASHINGTON -- Frustrated by Senate Democrats, the White House hinted Monday that President Bush may act soon to sidestep Congress and install embattled nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations on a temporary basis.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush has used his power for temporary appointments when "he has to get people in place that have waited far too long to get about doing their business." He said that "sometimes there's come a point" when Bush has decided he needs to act.

Bolton's nomination has been stalled for months. Critics say Bolton, who has been accused of mistreating subordinates and who has been openly skeptical about the U.N., would hurt U.S. efforts to work with other countries on global matters. The administration says the tough-talking Bolton is ideally suited to lead an effort to overhaul the U.N. bureaucracy and make it more accountable.

Bush could put Bolton on the job by exercising his authority to make a recess appointment, an avenue available to the president when Congress is in recess. Lawmakers are expected to leave Friday for a summer recess and not return until Sept. 7.

Under the Constitution, the appointment would last until the end of the next session of Congress _ no later than January 2007.

Republicans have twice attempted _ and failed _ to break a Democratic filibuster against Bolton's nomination. The White House has ruled out withdrawing Bolton's name, and has called repeatedly for a vote on his nomination.

Some in Washington had expected Bush to give Bolton a recess appointment over the Senate's July Fourth break. But Republicans said negotiations with Democrats were ongoing, and a recess appointment, should it come to that, probably wouldn't occur until August. There has been no sign of a breakthrough in recent days.

0 Replies

It's impossible for us to know now whether Bolton has no, little, or significant connection to anything that Fitzgerald might be probing. So that's a wild card here which ain't worth much at this point.

And it's hard to figure why Bush didn't do a recess appointment earlier. They'd figure that on polls and projections weighted against achievements towards administration goals (in this case, further disempowering internationalist agencies and values and getting a real 'team player' in place).

Whatever set of factors made them hold off earlier on a recess appointment may look rather different now in light of the Rove/Plame scandal. They might see this recess appointment, and all the contention it will stir up, as something of a diversion from this ongoing critcal attention.

0 Replies

Turd Blossom's about to get a taste of his own medicine:

Quote:

Hat tip to kos, who also has this:

Quote:

In a fortuitious coincidence, Jerome and I have just finished interviewing a long-time Texas political writer here in Austin who says that Rove is absolutely having an affair with Karen. Rove is married and has a teenaged son. According to this writer, Rove's wife is a hardcore liberal. "I don't know how he and his wife get along," he said.

Well, quite obviously, they do not.

Now, in a simpler, more discreet time -- lo, only a few years ago -- I would have stated firmly that an important politician's personal life was none of anyone's business. That sexual relationships between consenting adults is none of the public's concern.

But as we have been constantly reminded by the Bush administration, 9/11 changed everything.

0 Replies

Egads! 9/11 did change everything - and that includes the whole world with the brilliant planning by GWBush and Rove.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Now, in a simpler, more discreet time -- lo, only a few years ago -- I would have stated firmly that an important politician's personal life was none of anyone's business. That sexual relationships between consenting adults is none of the public's concern.

But as we have been constantly reminded by the Bush administration, 9/11 changed everything.

How so?

If Rove has lied under oath, he's in trouble.

If he's messing around with the "never-married, forty-something" Karen Johnson, who gives a rat's ass?

Anyway, I thought you were of the opinion he was messing around with G/G, or was that Scottie?

0 Replies

Tico - My guess would be Darby would care. That is his wifes name correct?

Or are we saying America does not care when a powerful white male politician cheats on his wife?

Dear God Cigars for everyone if that was true. Wink

TF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Tico - My guess would be Darby would care. That is his wifes name correct?

Or are we saying America does not care when a powerful white male politician cheats on his wife?

Dear God Cigars for everyone if that was true.

TF

Happens every day. Not a good thing, in fact it's a bad thing. It's something I think the President shouldn't do. But if Carville was cheating on Matlin, I guarantee you I wouldn't waste a second being concerned about it. Mary would obviously care, but why should the rest of us?

(I've no idea what his wife's name is.)

0 Replies

Clinton sort of took care of that. He sort of slimed morality.

He got a blow job while on the phone getting reports of US servicemen KIA--in the Oval Office, from a girl his daughter's age, who was a government employee. He got away with it. The public gave their stamp of approval on it.

Previously, men were fired, sued, tarred and feathered for that type of thing.

So--nobody cares about morality in Washington anymore.

Rove can have a three way with Novak and Hillary for all I care. None of your--my--or their--business. Not since Bill.

0 Replies

Nah...wrong comparison. It has nothing to do with Bill's blow job or even Dubya's cocaine.

It has to do with Rove getting slimed and having not a breath of moral right to protest its relevancy or its lack of human caring because he's done so much of it himself.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Clinton sort of took care of that. He sort of slimed morality.

Are you seriously trying to maintain that Bill Clinton was the first president to have a mistress while in office. Or the second? Or the tenth?

Lash wrote:

He got a blow job while on the phone getting reports of US servicemen KIA--in the Oval Office,

No he did not. He got a blow job while speaking on the phone to a Congressman in an effort to convince him to support Clinton's Balkans peace plan.

Lash wrote:

...from a girl his daughter's age,

Chelsea Clinton: Born 1980
Monica Lewinsky: Born 1973
If you can't tel the difference between an eithteen year old and a twenty five year old, you need to retake math class.

Monica was old enough to be Chelsea's high school teacher.

Quote:

who was a government employee. He got away with it.

Why not? There's no Civil Service rule against dating other employees on the job, plus the fact that Monica threw her skirt up in his face and showed off her thong underwear might be interpreted by some as "consensual sex".

Quote:

The public gave their stamp of approval on it.

They did not. The public just thought that the decision by Ken Starr to investigate it, when he was hired to look into a land deal in Arkansas, was a case of an investigator thoroughly out of control. History is certain to agree with that assessment.

Quote:

Previously, men were fired, sued, tarred and feathered for that type of thing.

If you live in a small town, take a look at your local newspaper under the wedding announcements. Notice how often the bride and the groom work at the same place. I'll give you one guess what they were up to, when nobody was around, when they first met on the job. Very Happy

Quote:

So--nobody cares about morality in Washington anymore.

Anymore? When it comes to sex, when did they ever?

Quote:

Rove can have a three way with Novak and Hillary for all I care. None of your--my--or their--business. Not since Bill.

It was none of yours or anybody's business since the earlest days of the Republic.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

He got a blow job while on the phone getting reports of US servicemen KIA

As stated previously, the BJ in question was administered during a Clinton phone call to a Congressman Bill Clinton wanted to support his Balkans plan.

An interesting note. Bush 43 opposed Clinton's Balkans plan during the campaign. However, once in office he decided to turn around and back it, after giving it more thought.

Now consider the proportion of brain power Clinton was likely to muster during a BJ to a foreign policy phone call. 10% at most-and even that amount would be extraordinary.

Yet, Bush 43, devoted his entire mind to the problem, and after long thought realized that Clinton was right about the Balkans after all. This was using 100% of Bush's brainpower.

Which leads us to the inescapable conclusion: Clinton, during a blowjob and able to use only 10% of brainpower, has superior decision making ability to Bush 43 using 100% of his brainpower.

Sort of puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

0 Replies

Quote:

Which leads us to the inescapable conclusion: Clinton, during a blowjob and able to use only 10% of brainpower, has superior decision making ability to Bush 43 using 100% of his brainpower.

I can only come up with two conclusions out of that.

1. Clinton is definitely what some call a "compartmentaliser"
2. A rush of blood to the head may have different effects from different causes in different people.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
I concede BBB had a valid reason for her seemingly excessive "cut & paste," and so I am open to an explanation for why A2K Walter Cronkites must provide us with the latest headline.

Uh. Topicality?

um... interest?

Er...hoping to save time because as soon as one posts w/o sufficient linkage, one is challenged to do so?

Joe(and it's a problem how?)Nation

Uh, you spend too much time in this forum.

Er...there is a world outside of A2K.

Um...Web Cocoon

Finn (and it's a problem if you're not retired or out of work) D'Abuzz

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Now perhaps someone can provide a reasonable explanation for why it is necessary for posters to intrude on threads with "breaking news."

Presumably those who frequent A2K are quite inclined to use the web for news updates as well as opinion posting.

I concede BBB had a valid reason for her seemingly excessive "cut & paste," and so I am open to an explanation for why A2K Walter Cronkites must provide us with the latest headline.

finn

You're right, that is a different species of thing.

I think it is mostly explainable in the context of how modern political discourse has evolved in the US...the CNN instant-information phenomenon together with the short-attention-span pundit-bites. Anyone working in political news now really has to be on top of this and must play the game to some extent at least.

Deeper or more careful analysis has become increasingly rare in this environment with really nothing much on TV (where most folks now get their political news) which isn't quick and geared to the dramatic.

Print media, journals and books are where we turn if we wish to know more, or if we care about accuracy or breadth of understanding. It's not difficult to identify who here bothers to go these big extra steps and who doesn't.

I don't mind the addition here of "news update" posts. I don't think they hurt or degrade the discourse. But I do wish there was rather more of the other thing.

I don't think they, necessarily, degrade the discourse, but I do think they hurt it. Not everyone, believe it or not, who frequents A2K is retired and unemployed. Is this a discussion forum or a a web portal? At what point do the regulars intrude with stock quotes and weather updates?

This isn't a Chat Room. Or is it?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Yes. It was March 7th. Another a2k member posted a link to a website which was publishing some recently discovered personal diaries kept by Barry Goldwater. The excerpt that inflamed me so was a unnecessarily detailed account of Barry's short but apparently very passionate affair with Liberace.

The Blatham Brigade...How gratifying it must be to have a following.

Surely you can appreciate the fact that there really is no Conservative blatham who attracts syncophants as a light attracts moths.

Enjoy your admirers (I certainly would), but please don't take yourself too seriously --- usually you don't, and so I stand content.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

blatham wrote:
Yes. It was March 7th. Another a2k member posted a link to a website which was publishing some recently discovered personal diaries kept by Barry Goldwater. The excerpt that inflamed me so was a unnecessarily detailed account of Barry's short but apparently very passionate affair with Liberace.

Heehee...you kill me.

Blathamite

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lol, yeah, yeah....

As I've said all along, the focus on Rove in this case may very well be misplaced. There is every possibility that nothing will come from this from his angle (though I doubt it).

I don't doubt that there will be indictments to other members of the WH, though...

Cycloptichorn

I have no doubt that Rove is the architect of this traitorous act. If he avoids indictment, it will only be due to his ability to cover up the evidence. With so many people involved, it won't be hard to get someone to turn.

Harumph, harumph!

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Jesus Christ, are you guys arguing this crap about what Bush said again?

He said he would fire anyone who leaked information at one point, and then at another point, he said he would fire anyone who violated the law. Isn't that what's called "Hedging your bets"?

Yes, Kicky ... that's what we're talking about. If you've been paying attention...

I have been, and I was twenty pages ago when I called you on your bullshit.

Maybe if I feel like wasting my time I'll go back and find that post, but what's the point? You'll just wait another few days until you think that everyone's not paying attention again and bring up your spun version of what happened again.

It's laughable, really.

Do you have a goal for number of threads locked out?

0 Replies

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know