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

But the public evidence against Rove at this point is mighty thin and the case seems minor compared to the incidents cited above. We can only conclude that the media frenzy is disproportion

What Now, Karl?

Sandy Berger, former National Security Adviser under President Clinton, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in federal court. Berger admitted that he intentionally took and destroyed copies of classified documents from the National Archives. He had stuffed some in his pants, cut some of them up with scissors, and lied to the investigators and the American public. He claimed he was reviewing Clinton administration documents to decide which ones to provide to the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks on Washington D.C. and New York. He said it had been "an honest mistake" and that he "deeply regrets" his actions.

parados wrote:

Tico wrote:

Quote:

You do not have a logical mind, which I determined in our last go-round.

Determined or just "made up" to give yourself a basis for continuing to argue?

Tico, you would argue that I was assuming if I claimed 2+2 = 4.

No, I wouldn't. But you tend to claim 2 + X = 4.

parados wrote:

A conclusion is not the same thing as an assumption.
A logical conclusion is based on logic Tico. ...

Thanks for the "lesson," Einstein. I meant assumption, and that's why I typed the word "assumption."

Quote:

Facts we know.
Rove and Libby told reporters that Wilson's wife sent him to Niger
A state dept memo is the only known source of that information prior to reporters being told it. (The CIA doesn't state that his wife sent him.)
The memo was circulated amongst WH staff on Air Force 1
The prosecutor is investigating the memo and WH staff and who had access to that memo.

The logical conclusion is that Rove and Libby got the information about Wilson's wife either directly or indirectly from the memo. The memo is not quite accurate in its information and the same innaccuracies have appeared in the information alleged to come from Rove and Libby. The ONLY assumption here Tico is yours when you claim it could have come from a State dept employee. Your assumption violates some of the known facts. Reporters have all stated they heard it from WH employees, not state dept. There is no evidence to support your assumption.

(1) You assume there are no other sources of the information aside from the State Dept. memo. (You appear to feel confident in making that assumption because there are no other "known" sources.) (2) You assume that Rove and Libby got their information from the State Dept. Memo. (3) You assume that nobody at the State Dept. revealed the information to a reporter, who then told Rove and Libby. (4) You assume that Rove and/or Libby saw the State Dept. memo.

Those appear to be the major assumptions you made in order to reach the conclusion you did. What I've done is point out that you have made these assumptions. You are again showing an inability to either, (A) recognize when you make an assumption, or (B) admit you are making an assumption.

parados wrote:

The ONLY assumption I have made Tico is that the known facts are true.

I really think you believe that to be true. I really think you believe your logic is flawless. But as I've clearly pointed out above, you are making many more assumptions than that one.

parados wrote:

Your MAJOR premise seems to be that what we know can't possibly be true.

That is not my major premise. Is it possible that you see that now?

without the testimony of journalists, prosecutors have been unable to get to the bottom of the matter.

Rove had earlier served as an adviser to Ashcroft during the course of three political campaigns. And Rove's onetime political consulting firm had been paid more than $746,000 for those services.

a number among Ashcroft's inner circle had partisan backgrounds that included working closely with Rove.

"The new information, that Ashcroft had not only refused to recuse himself over a period of months, but also was insisting on being personally briefed about a matter implicating his friend, Karl Rove,

a forceful case being made by career Justice Department employees be made that the attorney general should step aside and a special prosecutor be named.

Deputy Attorney General Comey said in a statement that the A.G.'s personal staff was also being fully recused in the matter.

and you can't show me where I have substituted x for 2.. The only thing that is funny is your attempts to claim something is completely unknown when all evidence points to it.
Quote:

I don't assume at all.

2.) The source of the innaccurate information is the source of it. Cite another REAL source that can be referenced. You can't. You ASSUME there could be another source.

Most logical conclusions are built on some assumptions. I recognize that.

It is you that can't seem to tell the conclusion apart from the assumptions.

I can take my argument apart much better than you can. I know the weaknesses in it. You haven't even come close to addressing those weaknesses. Instead you attack me when you can't really attack the argument.

Oh? Then you will cite sources to support your claim that the information was given to a reporter by someone in the state dept? I won't hold my breath waiting.

Your premise is that we can't reach conclusions because some fact MIGHT be revealed even though there is NOTHING to support that fact even existing other than idle speculation.

Who testified to GJ that they got the information from a reporter? Which State Dept officials were required to testify about talking to reporters? We do KNOW that Rove and Libby testified. We do KNOW that several reporters have testified they were told the information by Rove or Libby. I assume those things we know are accurate. You assume that something else COULD have happened in spite of what we know.

The problem Tico is that you can't come up with another reasonable explanation to knock down my argument. You can only argue that my "logic is flawed" while not providing any other REASONABLE explanation that fits the facts. Your only argument makes assumptions that are in no way supported. I have laid out a case using information that is available. You argue that I don't have all the information but provide NOTHING to show what I don't have. The only one arguing that X exists is YOU Tico.

RE: Berger vs. Rove. Yeah, what Berger did was stupid, but the key difference here is that he cooperated and he admitted what he had done to investigators. Hence, there's really no need for moral outrage.

So we can quit trying to change the subject.

FreeDuck wrote:

RE: Berger vs. Rove. Yeah, what Berger did was stupid, but the key difference here is that he cooperated and he admitted what he had done to investigators. Hence, there's really no need for moral outrage.

So we can quit trying to change the subject.

"No need for moral outrage"? What he did was beyond stupid ... it was criminal. I think there's plenty of room for moral outrage.

It remains to be seen whether what Rove did was criminal.

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

RE: Berger vs. Rove. Yeah, what Berger did was stupid, but the key difference here is that he cooperated and he admitted what he had done to investigators. Hence, there's really no need for moral outrage.

So we can quit trying to change the subject.

"No need for moral outrage"? What he did was beyond stupid ... it was criminal. I think there's plenty of room for moral outrage.

It remains to be seen whether what Rove did was criminal.

He's also admitted it and being punished for it. What's the point?

I think his point is "Dems in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... "

Ticomaya wrote:

I think his point is "Dems in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... "

Well, that was certainly his headline. My point was, saying that dems do bad stuff too doesn't negate the bad stuff you do.

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I think his point is "Dems in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... "

Well, that was certainly his headline. My point was, saying that dems do bad stuff too doesn't negate the bad stuff you do.

True, but I was under the impression that instead of trying to "negate" any bad stuff, he was pointing out a double standard employed by the media.

Tico, the title of the article was "Dems in glass houses shouldn't throw stones", not "media in glass houses..." or "media double standards...".

If you want to divert this discussion to one about media reporting, that's another topic. I much preferred the discussion about the actual question at hand, which is did Rove, or someone else close to the pres, or Novak, violate the law? And if so what should happen to them?

Dear Gawd, please visit them with Your healing power so that their memories may be fully restored and heal their forked tongues so that they may start speaking the truth. For a change. Amen.