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

FreeDuck, Yes, please continue to bring back the original question. This administration and their adherents are experts at diversionary tactics, because it works. Maybe, someday soon, this administration will finally admit the justification for our being in Iraq; OIL. For WMD? No. For al Qaida connections? No. To remove Saddam from power? No. To bring democracy to the middle east? No. To protect the American People? Maybe for the oil supplies. Control the oil in Iraq? Yes. We are building 14 bases in Iraq, even though we'll leave Iraq when the present government "asks us to leave." ROFLMAO

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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

You're suggesting there's a substantive difference?

Spoken like a true partisan.

Quote:

Read the article again. It's about the MSM.

Ok, then the title was misleading at best. Either way, I think the lack of interest in the Berger story can be explained without relying on the old familiar "liberal media" argument.

Quote:

FD wrote:
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?

Just responding to your posts, FD.

Likewise, but that doesn't mean it's not still a diversion. My own posts included. But again, whether or not Berger is a criminal, whether his presumed punishment is just, whether there's a story there at all, has nothing to do with the fact that Plame was outed.

0 Replies

I'm sure this scandal would dry up and blow away....

If there wasn't a prosecutor working on the case dilligently. We all knew the story would stretch out in August as we waited for results; we'll just have to put up with whatever tidbits of info that we can find in the meantime.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The true double standard isn't what is assumed by some splinting hair enthusiasts. Berger wasn't in power, pleaded guilty, got a stiff fine and was restrained from his security clearance for three years. He did not put in jeopardy national security nor was he part of the current government.

On the other hand, Rove et al are people in the highest positions, in power and appear to have done all that is possible to both destroy people's lives and murky the issues afterwards. That the media and it even includes the FOX propaganda machine seize the issue is just fair. No double standards. The Berger issue is just a side issue and didn't stay long for it was resolved quickly. Not the Plame issue that shows stonewalling from the administration. Their lost. Media's gain. And Bush's loss. It weakens whatever legacy he had for his tenant stint at Pennsylvania avenue.

Bush and his hirelings have all too often for granted the kind of either naïveté or total blindsided loyalty you choose to adopt. The issue is of both legal and moral value. Not once have you ever stopped to think at the massive impropriety of non-elected partisan officials using their pulpits to not only destroy people but to mislead them into war.

The word scum comes to mind:

Quote:

scum (IMMORAL PERSON) noun [C or U] plural scum INFORMAL
a very bad or immoral person or group of people

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=70776&dict=CALD

Or:

Quote:

4. Slang One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/77/S0177700.html

And to think that those that have brought us "family values" act in such a way that would made the ultimate liar president Nixon so proud. If Clinton was impeachable for lying about his oral pleasures with Lewinski, then Bush should also be liable about what was his knowledge in this matter. There is no way he wasn't aware of the matter unless he just proves to be the sleeping president some have accused him to be. The kind of smear and outing campaign organized by the administration against the Wilson family is a top echelon decision. To this date, the administration has never come clean about it. It reneged on all Bush promises (what do you expect? Bush has no backbone. Just misplaced loyalties))

If Clinton was impeachable for lies so should Bush. He will not address the lies set forth by his administration. Nor any of his minions.

One waits impatiently for Fitzgerald's report. Unlike Starr, he isn't a hungry media feeder. The matter won't go away. If does, than much of the people serving our country should be quite concerned by their commander in chief and his clique of partisan gunslinger. Beware, this administration for matters of political convenience doesn't mind to throw you the wolfs. Nothing personal. Just understand you are quite expandable in the scheme of greater political grab.

0 Replies

png, Good analysis; the neocons will miss your message.

0 Replies

Hello cicerone!

Thanks for the kind comments.

You are indeed right that apparently many in fact endorse doubke standards. Their champions (Bush, Rove and co) can adopt whatever convenient standars that will keep them in the WH so long no one knows. But should the press have wind of them then beware: the press (most of it quite conservative and sluggish by any standards more interested in celebrities than in investigative work) will indeed expose them and by definition become a double standard group that doesn't report on people not in power or that have cause no apparent breach in the social and potical contract that ties all of our nation.

There are some on both side of the alley that think that double standards rule the game. There are some that believe they should be about the gutter fray. Take your pick of the group you want to belong to. The pick of many in this thread is quite apparent.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

png, Good analysis; the neocons will miss your message.

Actually, dis-miss, is the correct word, c.i. His "analysis," as seems to be his way, consisted of partisan wishful thinking, rhetoric, and opinion. Nothing more.

0 Replies

Nope, you definitely missed it, Wichita (but you DID vainly try to dismiss it).

Still, zero points.

0 Replies

"The neocons will miss your message." Just proven above.

0 Replies

Tico:

Neocons or red herrings such as your ilk are just like drunks: you live in utter denial. That you dismiss whatever doesn't exactly fit your take of reality (or unreality in your stupor) is just one more positive proof of it.

Funny that you would rush to put on the hat that fits you. Not that anyone here thought it wouldn't.

0 Replies

The neocons still don't know the difference between lies about a blow job and national security. Kinda sad.

0 Replies

Hello cicerone.

I must disagree with you. It isn't sad. It's utterly irresponsible.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Parados: The biggest problem with your argument is you have thus far refused to admit it has any weaknesses. All I've done is point out that you are making assumptions when you reach what you call "ONLY" conclusion possible. Because of the variables you ignore or refuse to acknowledge, the conclusion you have reached is not inescapable.

parados wrote:
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:

Sure I can. When you assert certain known facts and add to them an unknown quantity - which you make an assuption to reach - to make the equation you want, you have engaged in the very type of thinking I've identified.

Sure you can. You just won't?

Simply claiming something doesn't make it so Tico.. I laid out my list and my conclusions from it. You have not presented any citation to show a fact I didn't include or any logic to show how I could not have reached my conclusion. You have only stated my conclusions are assumptions which is the silliest argument I have ever seen by someone of your supposed intelligence.

If we apply your standard to the last Presidential election then it is only an invalid assumption that Bush won since we don't have access to the way every person in the US voted.

It appears you can only snipe around the edges Tico. You can't present any other rational conclusion supported by what we know. I can only hope you aren't a criminal lawyer Tico. I have this vision of you claiming in court that they can't convict your client of robbing a bank because the prosecutor hasn't proven that no other bank robber was there that day.

0 Replies

My statement

Quote:

I had a GREAT laugh at this one Tico. 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.

Tico's response to it :

Quote:

Parados: The biggest problem with your argument is you have thus far refused to admit it has any weaknesses. All I've done is point out that you are making assumptions when you reach what you call "ONLY" conclusion possible. Because of the variables you ignore or refuse to acknowledge, the conclusion you have reached is not inescapable.

Cite the variables I refuse to acknowledge? You can't seem to do it no matter how many times I request you to do it. Why is that Tico?

0 Replies

I see it as "sad," because those people supporting Bush can't see how illogical their stance is. It would be "irresponsible" if they understood the consequences of their stance; I sincerely believe they don't. The American People can't see through all the stonewalling and lies by this administration that seems so obvious to some of us. They accept the fact that Bush said he'll fire anybody in his administration that leaked the information on Plame. He changed that to "if they are criminally charged." Most of us understand it's ethically, morally, and legally (challenged by Bushco) wrong, but the people that supports this president thinks the same way he does. It's sad.

0 Replies

Sad it may be, but it is also intellectually bankrupt.

0 Replies

That too!

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

I wonder if Berger was sitting there cutting up stolen classified documents and thinking to himself "this is an honest mistake".

He's not yet been sentenced, so he's not being punished.

that should read "COPIES of classified documents".

still a stupid thing to do, but there's a difference between a copy and an original document.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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

You're suggesting there's a substantive difference?

Read the article again. It's about the MSM.

didn't hear you guys complain once about the liberal media or the democratic media or any of that stuff when they were hanging around drooling for the daily body count during the starr extravaganza.

0 Replies

Tico:

Would you mind specifying the facts that would support your blanket statement that there is such a thing as a generalized liberal media? Or maybe is it the blanket postulate that exonerates all the wrongdoings of your political ilk? Shoot the messenger as with Wilson and his family and blame him for his demise.

Much of the current media observers would burn you on it. But maybe you know things we don't the way you posturing (might I add naïve at best posturing)?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know