0
   

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

 
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 11:43 am
Chrissee wrote:
Quote:
Neither Jeb nor Condi will be successful in '08 because they aren't running in '08 LOL.


How do you know? LOL


The same way I knew your prediction that Kerry would win in a landslide was wishful thinking on your part.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 11:48 am
D'artagnan wrote:
For those of us old enough to recall the Nixon era, things are starting to seem eerily familiar: An arrogant administration, an unpopular war, and a slowly building series of questions from the press that can't be brushed aside.

Nixon, too, looked invincible for a while...


jeeeezzzz... no kiddin'. all that's missing is the awful two-tone stacked heel shoes and those plaid elephant bell bottoms with cuffs.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 11:50 am
With any reasonable person all of this does stink of a conspiracy of the WH to smear Wilson after his report of the doubts of Saddam seeking uranium in Niger. Whether it can be proved that someone connected to the WH leaked the name to the press at the behest of the WH will depend on the competency of the prosecutors. So far they seem to be pretty competent.
0 Replies
 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 11:51 am
Talking of the Bush administration poll ratings:

The nation is split in terms of job approval with Bush having a meager 49%. His approval ratings are always hovering in the same figures this year despite the Republican hold on Congress.

The satisfaction ratings are even worse with only 42% declaring themselves satisfied, far from the 1999 Clinton administration's record breaking 71% satisfaction rating.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/

So Rove might prove to be a liability and while he might be a darn good political operator Republicans might not be able to afford the flack. As D'artagnan suggests, this administration is starting too look quite much like the Nixon one.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 11:52 am
JustWonders wrote:
Chrissee wrote:
Quote:
Neither Jeb nor Condi will be successful in '08 because they aren't running in '08 LOL.


How do you know? LOL


The same way I knew your prediction that Kerry would win in a landslide was wishful thinking on your part.


He did win California in a landlside. LOL

In other words, you are admitting you don't know. LOL

Just confirming that.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 12:07 pm
California is only blue in the coastal cities (waves at DTOM).

Dubya managed to get 44.43% of the vote in that so-called heavily Democratic state in '04.

Guess it depends on your definition of 'landslide'.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 12:17 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
For those of us old enough to recall the Nixon era, things are starting to seem eerily familiar: An arrogant administration, an unpopular war, and a slowly building series of questions from the press that can't be brushed aside.

Nixon, too, looked invincible for a while...


jeeeezzzz... no kiddin'. all that's missing is the awful two-tone stacked heel shoes and those plaid elephant bell bottoms with cuffs.


And aren't there some familiar faces, too? http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/Reality%20Check/010902Rove.htm
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:09 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
For those of us old enough to recall the Nixon era, things are starting to seem eerily familiar: An arrogant administration, an unpopular war, and a slowly building series of questions from the press that can't be brushed aside.

Nixon, too, looked invincible for a while...


jeeeezzzz... no kiddin'. all that's missing is the awful two-tone stacked heel shoes and those plaid elephant bell bottoms with cuffs.


And aren't there some familiar faces, too? http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/Reality%20Check/010902Rove.htm


uh-huh. a few old friends are still dishing out the received wisdom.

take the common buzz phrases that get used everyday by the administration, change "terrorism" to communism, "iraq/iraqis" to vietnam/vietnamese and it's just like homecoming week.

the article forgot to mention another old friend from the nixon days. john ellis o'neill who recently reprised his award winning role as "the slimer of john kerry".


yep duck, sure does make ya wanna dig out the Rare Earth records, boone's farm and see if there's a baggie of that cheap, stinky mexican grass still laying around in one of those boxes out in the garage. :wink:
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:10 pm
Laughing Boone's Farm, I'm gettin' lit just thinking about it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:14 pm
pngirouard wrote:
Talking of the Bush administration poll ratings:

The nation is split in terms of job approval with Bush having a meager 49%. His approval ratings are always hovering in the same figures this year despite the Republican hold on Congress.

The satisfaction ratings are even worse with only 42% declaring themselves satisfied, far from the 1999 Clinton administration's record breaking 71% satisfaction rating.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/stateNation/

So Rove might prove to be a liability and while he might be a darn good political operator Republicans might not be able to afford the flack. As D'artagnan suggests, this administration is starting too look quite much like the Nixon one.


Good day, pngiouard...welcome to a2k.

Rove is already, one might reasonably argue, proving to be a liability. This has put the administration deeply on defensive - which breaks rule # 1. If it were just about anyone else, Rove would have them out of sight very quickly and be creating diversionary attacks. They will be, and will have been, trying to rig the game (Ted Olson as Cooper/Time's lawyer might be a good example). But it looks like this prosecutor is a serious fellow. I don't hold up much hope that Rove will fall on the 'outing' issue as a legal matter, but obstruction or fraud, maybe. Still, they are reeling now and serious damage to credibility and public conception of their integrity is right on the tipping point.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:18 pm
parados wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

You have the law ... now tell me, what is the set of facts that apply to Valerie Plame that cause her to meet this definition of "covert agent"?


LOL Tico.. Your attempt at obfuscation is very transparent.


LOL parados. It's really a simple question. It's one thing to state the law, and an entirely different matter to apply the law to a set of facts. And there's no obfuscation in my requesting you do so.

Quote:
The fact that she was a covert agent has been stipulated by all the parties involved.


Who has stipulated to this, and in what capacity?

Quote:
There would be no reason for a recusal by Ashcroft if she was not a covert agent. Fitzgerald would have no reason to call a GJ if there she was not a covert agent. The WH would not have made their comments if not for that fact. You can sit here and claim that you have no evidence all you want. The evidence is there for all but the blind to see.


So -- unless you have something to provide me by way of your earlier comment about stipulated facts -- the evidence you have to support your contention that Ms. Plame fits within the definition of "covert agent" can best be summed up by the phrase: "Of course she's a covert agent"?

Quote:
Plame worked for a CIA cover company. ( Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was subsequently acknowledged by the CIA as a front.) She was overseas. She worked in the Counterproliferation Division. All of those facts can be found in various statements by government, CIA and other sources.


That's better .. but I am looking for a link -- I've asked for that previously. In particular, I'm interested in the timeline of Ms. Plame's service for the Agency. Surely this has been put together to assuage such concerns of inquiring conservatives such as myself? Perhaps Dailykos or Salon has been working on one?

And another point (which admittedly might have no merit): Just because one works for a spy agency doesn't make one a spy. Indeed, civilians work on the Air Force Base here where I live, but that doesn't make them members of the Air Force. Civilian employees work for the Police Department, but that doesn't make them policemen. Former Sheriff Deputies retire and rejoin the force in a civilian role, but that doesn't make them law enforcement officers. The critical issue vis a vis whether Ms. Plame's constitutes a "covert agent" is what her role was in the 5 year period leading up the the dissemination of the information.

Quote:
Lets look at this in a reasonable fashion Tico. Based on the above 3 facts being true how is she not covered under the law as stated?


She may well fit the definition, parados. I'm just asking for it to be tied together. I don't buy the, "of course she's a covert agent" response, or the "why else would Fitzgerald be calling witnesses" line I get from Chrissee.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:21 pm
And I should have added...Joan Didion in particular (in Political Fictions and elsewhere) plus some other good political writers have made the observation that the US press tends to move as a pack. The Clinton/Monica issue is an example. Folks who buy the simplicities of present rightwing propaganda repeat commonly that there is a overwhelming leftwing media bias which never touches the Dem party but even the shallowest look back at editorials and subject coverage demonstrates that this 'pack' behavior took hold on the Clinton/Monica matter too.

That white house briefing where Scott got minced is really the first of its kind in five years. That is significant.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:25 pm
Very significant. And he was beat up pretty bad today as well.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:26 pm
The grilling of Scott McClellan by the White House press corp is not only significant, but LONG overdue.

And now, here are the latest BS talking points from the RNC:

Quote:
It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks.

http://www.dailykos.com

0 Replies
 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:29 pm
The parallel made by DontTread is to the point as long as one remembers Hadelman.

Bush after his last election described Rove as the "architect. Nixon described Haldeman as his architect.

In the Watergate scandal, on January 1, 1975, he was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and sentenced to an 18-month prison sentence, which he served in Lompoc Federal Prison.

Maybe it's quite early to book Rove a federal "hotel room". And who might also be booked with his party? Question
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:29 pm
blatham wrote:
If it were just about anyone else, Rove would have them out of sight very quickly and be creating diversionary attacks.


wasn't that the whole point of his idiotic "liberals wanna give terrorists therapy" routine. and the elevation of moveon to full "hates america" status.

"HEY !!! what's THAT over there ?!?!" then he slinks back under his rock to contemplate his next move in the division and conquering of the united states of america.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:30 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks.


Sounds about right.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:30 pm
Blatham wrote:
That white house briefing where Scott got minced is really the first of its kind in five years. That is significant.




Laughing You hope and dream of the most dire implications........sorry to dash your hopes on the rocks of reality but the WH is about ready to announce the nomination of the OConnor replacement and this will all disappear in the following paparrazzi fish bowl examination of the nominee.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:31 pm
Boone's Farm Apple? What about Bali Hai? LOL
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:32 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks.


Sounds about right.

It worked. You're hooked.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Karl Rove E-mails - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sheryl Crow Battles Karl Rove at D.C. Press Dinner - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Texas attorney fired for Rove article comments - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/14/2025 at 09:16:57