0
   

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

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 07:45 pm
Lash wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Lash wrote:
Wilson outed her, along with Corn, to make the case against Bush.

Nobody knew she was a NOC until Corn and Wilson said so--in their effort to drag the WH into a scandal. Otherwise, it would only be known she was an EMPLOYEE of the CIA.


that is absolutely the stupidest thing i have ever heard.

perhaps it is within your mental bearing to totally trash your spouse in the name of your political/religious agenda, but you would be a real enigma to just about everybody else on the planet.

well, perhaps a suicide bomber would appreciate that concept.

really lash, you should consider what you are proposing there...

You're the one who should think about it.

He didn't have to trash her.

Her NOC status was not publicly known until Corn outed her two days after the Novak column. As far as anyone knew until then, she was a CIA employee. Corn and Wilson are the ones who blabbed her NOC status.


okay...

i googled your referrence. and what pops up ?

clifford may.

clifford may on nro online. clifford may on free republic.

clifford may. nro. free republic.

so then i read david corn's article.

and once again, it does not say what you claim it does.

saying "if so and so is" is not the same as "so and so is". and on top of that, it has no meaning at all after another person has already brought "so and so" into the conversation.

your assertion, or i should say may's assertion that you parroted, is utterly bizarre.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 07:47 pm
As in all hat, no cattle?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 07:55 pm
Lash wrote:
Everyone in DC knew she worked for the CIA. She had the lousiest secret -keeping ability---SEVERAL journalists have admitted they knew.

names please ?

CASUAL friends were told by Plame....

names please ?

Wilson said she told him after the second date.

wilson had top level security clearances. ya know, being an ambassador and all, dealing with c.i.a. in the embassies etc. guess ya never heard of love at first sight or any of that romantic stuff.

But, her NOC status wasn't widely known until Corn outed her, in his effort to make Rove's comment more sinister than it was.
i'd never heard of her till novak blabbed. had you ?



why don't you just go for the gusto ? "wilson cultivated and married valerie plame only so he could get a free trip to niger and snipe at george bush".

makes as much sense as what may claims...
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 08:04 pm
Niger.

A free trip to Niger.

Free.

Where is the line of people waiting to go on that?

(Have the Niger Tourism Bureau PM me.)

Joe
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 08:17 pm
Aren't you afraid that you would trip over all the yellow cake?
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 08:18 pm
Mmmm...cake.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 08:19 pm
I'm just burnin'
Doin' the neutron dance . . .
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 09:44 pm
The only proven liars so far are Wilson, Plame and Cooper.

It isn't Karl Rove who should be worrying and that's why he's not Smile
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 11:08 pm
What and when?
Hardball with Chris Matthews' for July 21: RoveGate Timeline: What Did The White House Know And When Did It Know It? David Shuster

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

We have new information tonight in the CIA leaks investigation. MSNBC has confirmed that the grand jury has been examining a classified State Department memo that could be crucial to the case. And this memo, requested by then Secretary of State Colin Powell in response to a column critical of the administration, was shared with Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary at the time, and has prompted testimony from multiple State Department officials.

HARDBALL correspondent David Shuster reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID SHUSTER, NBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A witness who testified at the grand jury and lawyers for other witnesses say the memo was written in July of 2003, identified Valerie Wilson, also known as Valerie Plame, as a CIA officer, and cited her in a paragraph marked S for sensitive.

According to lawyers, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and undersecretaries, including John Bolton, gave testimony about this memo. And a lawyer for one State Department official says his client testified that, as President Bush was flying to Africa on Air Force One two years ago, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer could be seen reading the document on board.

The timing is significant, because the president's trip on July 7 was one day after Ambassador Joe Wilson's column was published criticizing the administration. In other words, on July 6, Wilson's column comes out. On July 7, the State Department memo about Wilson's wife is seen on Air Force One. And, on July 8, Karl Rove had a conversation with columnist Robert Novak, but says it was Novak who told him about Valerie Plame, not the other way around.

Rove also says he never saw the State Department memo until prosecutors showed it to him. Six days later, on July 14, 2003, Novak published the now infamous column that publicly identified Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, as a CIA operative.

Grand jury witnesses say a call record kept by Ari Fleischer shows Novak placed a call to him during this period. And lawyers for several witnesses say their clients were questioned by investigators about Fleischer's conversations. Fleischer, however, did not have the power to be a decision-maker in the administration. And White House observers point out, he wouldn't have likely taken it upon himself to disseminate the State Department memo. In any case, Fleischer and his lawyer have declined to comment.

As far as Karl Rove is concerned, a recent line of questioning about him suggests the grand jury may be pursuing issues related to possible inconsistencies. For weeks, Karl Rove's lawyer has been saying the now deputy White House chief of staff testified his 2003 conversation with "TIME" magazine reporter Matt Cooper was about welfare reform and, only at the end of that discussion, did Rove talk about anything else.

Matt Cooper recalls leaving Karl Rove a message about welfare reform. But Cooper testified that, when he and Karl Rove spoke, Joe Wilson was the only topic of conversation. Cooper says this contradiction with Rove, combined with his testimony that Rove told him about the Wilson's CIA wife, prompted a flurry of grand jury questions. And Cooper told NBC's Tim Russert the grand jurors themselves played an active role.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "MEET THE PRESS")

MATT COOPER, "TIME": A lot of questions that I answered were posed by them, as opposed to the prosecutor. I thought they were very involved.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHUSTER: Legal experts say that, if the grand jurors are convinced they were misled by Karl Rove, the president's adviser could face charges of perjury or obstruction of justice. Karl Rove's lawyer says the contradiction with Cooper is innocent and can be chalked up to conflicting memories of a 2003 conversation.

(on camera): By all accounts, much about this investigation was known only to the prosecutors and grand jurors. And they are sworn to secrecy.

Witnesses and their lawyers, however, are under no legal obligation to stay silent. And their accounts reveal that this investigation, at least in part, has focused on a classified State Department memo. The question is, was this how the White House learned about Valerie Wilson? And, if so, did anybody in the White House take information about Wilson that was marked secret and pass it along?

I'm David Shuster for HARDBALL in Washington.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 11:39 pm
Bolton will never be U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
John Bolton will never be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Whether he should be or not is no longer the question. Whether the "temperament" charges against him were fair or if he was just a victim of Chris Dodd's pro-Cuba fetish doesn't matter.

It is now politically impossible. On Friday, individual clouds that had been drifting around for months -- in some cases, years -- finally merged into a media perfect storm. It is now raging. Whether he knows it or not, Bolton has been thrown overboard as far more significant players start working overtime before the ship of state begins taking on water.

Bolton arch-nemesis Steve Clemons called it at the beginning of the month: The announced retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor effectively killed Bolton's chances -- at least at a Senate confirmation. I thought that, still -- even despite Democrats holding firm in refusing to allow cloture on the nomination (even post "Gang of 14" filibuster deal), the White House was still pushing the pick -- and seemed to be moving toward the recess appointment contingency.

But then consider what has become known -- and what new questions have arisen -- in the last 48 hours: Richard Keil of Bloomberg News reports that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald maybe looking at testimony of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby that could be in conflict with testimony given by various journalists.

That suddenly brings into sharp focus the possibility that Rove and Libby may be facing serious legal trouble. On top of that, the Times story Friday discusses the State Department memo that clearly identified Valerie Plame (Wilson) as being undercover with the CIA -- and whether former press secretary Ari Fleischer had access to it.

Then, as Josh Marshall points out, as part of her confirmation hearings for a State Department public relations position, Karen Hughes was, by law, obligated to answer a questionnaire, that among other things, asked whether there were any legal proceedings to which she might be a be part of: She admitted that she had testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury. Marshall points out, Bolton answered "no" on the questionnaire -- though, it turns out he also testified before the grand jury on the contents of the Plame memo.

If Bolton intentionally misled the Senate in his questionnaire, he's toast. End of story. But, that's relevant to the big picture.

The key is revealed in Clemons' latest post: He asserts that Bolton was a major source for NYT's Judith Miller, currently incarcerated for refusing to surrender a source's name to the Fitzgerald grand jury. Now, one has to toss in a couple of caveats here: Steve, of course, has to depend on an anonymous source that somehow "knows" that Bolton was an anonymous source for many of Miller's stories.

Still, bringing it all together: DC now has two major players potentially facing legal peril, a reporter in jail -- and the most contentious confirmation process ever for a nominee to the United Nations. But the link of Bolton to Miller -- and thus to the Plame-Rove story -- is what can turn a confusing, "silly summer season" story into Washington nuclear pyrotechnics.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 11:45 pm
Bush Aide Learned Early of Leaks Probe
washingtonpost.com
Bush Aide Learned Early of Leaks Probe
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 25, 2005; A02

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday that he spoke with White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. immediately after learning that the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. But Gonzales, who was White House counsel at the time, waited 12 hours before officially notifying the rest of the staff of the inquiry.

Many details of the investigation led by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald are unknown. Sources close to the case have said Fitzgerald is looking into possible conflicts between what President Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove and vice presidential staff chief I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury, and the accounts of reporters who spoke with the two men.

Gonzales said yesterday on "Fox News Sunday" that he is among the group of top current and former Bush administration officials who have testified to the grand jury about the unmasking of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative. Gonzales, who has recused himself from the case, would not discuss details of his testimony but said he learned about Plame's work from newspaper accounts.

In the New York Times yesterday, columnist Frank Rich cited news reports from 2003 that when Gonzales was notified about the investigation on the evening of Monday, Sept. 29, 2003, he waited 12 hours before telling the White House staff about the inquiry. Official notification to staff is meant to quickly alert anyone who may have pertinent records to make sure they are preserved and safeguarded.

Asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" about the column, Gonzales said the Justice Department had informed his office around 8 p.m. and that White House lawyers said he could wait until the next morning before notifying the staff. He did not say why he called Card.

"I specifically had our lawyers go back to the Department of Justice lawyers and ask them, 'Do you want us to notify the staff now, immediately, or would it be okay to notify the staff early in the morning?' And we were advised, go ahead and notify the staff early in the morning, that would be okay." He said most of the staff had left by the time the Justice Department called and that "no one knew about the investigation."

But he acknowledged telling one person: "the chief of staff. And immediately the next morning, I told the president. And shortly thereafter, there was notification sent out to all the members of the White House staff," Gonzales said.


Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), appearing on the same program, questioned why Gonzales would not have notified the staff immediately by e-mail and suggested that Fitzgerald pursue whether Card may have given anyone in the White House advance notice of the criminal investigation.

"The real question now is, who did the chief of staff speak to? Did the chief of staff pick up the phone and call Karl Rove? Did the chief of staff pick up the phone and call anybody else?" Biden asked.

The case centers on the White House response in the days after July 6, 2003, when former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence on Iraq's weapons arsenal to justify war. In an op-ed piece, Wilson wrote that the government sent him to Niger to investigate assertions that Iraq had tried to acquire materials there for a nuclear weapon and that he had reported back, before the war, that no proof had been found to support the allegations.

Eight days after Wilson's article appeared, Robert D. Novak published a syndicated column suggesting that the administration did not take Wilson's findings seriously and noting that Wilson's wife -- Plame -- was a CIA operative who had suggested him for the trip.

After accusations that someone in the administration had jeopardized an operative's cover in political retaliation, the Justice Department appointed Fitzgerald in December 2003 to investigate.

Asked on CBS why he did not investigate the leak when it first became public, Gonzales said: "This is the kind of issue that I felt that we should wait and see whether or not there would be some kind of criminal investigation. And of course, there was."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jul, 2005 11:53 pm


The emerging White House defense is important in light of recent attention on a classified State Department memo that had key info about Wilson's wife. The memo, dated June 10, 2003, was labeled top secret at the top of the first page; a paragraph referring to "Valerie Wilson" at the CIA had the letters snf in front of it, for "Secret No Foreign," meaning the info is secret and can't be shared with any foreign national, says a government official who reviewed it but asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the material.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 05:57 am
It looks more and more like perjury and obstruction of justice will be the charge of the day come the conclusion of Fitz's investigation.

Possibly conspiracy as well. It certainly seems that there was collusion amongst the WH to act on this matter.

It will be interesting...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 07:58 am
joe nation said:
Quote:
And no wonder John Bolton hasn't packed for NYC yet.

Yeah, that seems a distinct possibility, doesn't it. Why no (widely expected) recess appointment, at least so far? There might be other reasons, but your thesis might just be correct too.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 08:11 am
I haven't seen this here yet, apologies if I just missed it and it's a repeat:

Quote:
Eight Days in July

By FRANK RICH
Published: July 24, 2005

PRESIDENT BUSH'S new Supreme Court nominee was a historic first after all: the first to be announced on TV dead center in prime time, smack in the cross hairs of "I Want to Be a Hilton." It was also one of the hastiest court announcements in memory, abruptly sprung a week ahead of the White House's original timetable. The agenda of this rushed showmanship - to change the subject in Washington - could not have been more naked. But the president would have had to nominate Bill Clinton to change this subject.

When a conspiracy is unraveling, and it's every liar and his lawyer for themselves, the story takes on a momentum of its own. When the conspiracy is, at its heart, about the White House's twisting of the intelligence used to sell the American people a war - and its desperate efforts to cover up that flimflam once the W.M.D. cupboard proved bare and the war went south - the story will not end until the war really is in its "last throes."

Only 36 hours after the John Roberts unveiling, The Washington Post nudged him aside to second position on its front page. Leading the paper instead was a scoop concerning a State Department memo circulated the week before the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife, the C.I.A. officer Valerie Plame, in literally the loftiest reaches of the Bush administration - on Air Force One. The memo, The Post reported, marked the paragraph containing information about Ms. Plame with an S for secret. So much for the cover story that no one knew that her identity was covert.

But the scandal has metastasized so much at this point that the forgotten man Mr. Bush did not nominate to the Supreme Court is as much a window into the White House's panic and stonewalling as its haste to put forward the man he did. When the president decided not to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with a woman, why did he pick a white guy and not nominate the first Hispanic justice, his friend Alberto Gonzales? Mr. Bush was surely not scared off by Gonzales critics on the right (who find him soft on abortion) or left (who find him soft on the Geneva Conventions). It's Mr. Gonzales's proximity to this scandal that inspires real fear.

As White House counsel, he was the one first notified that the Justice Department, at the request of the C.I.A., had opened an investigation into the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife. That notification came at 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2003, but it took Mr. Gonzales 12 more hours to inform the White House staff that it must "preserve all materials" relevant to the investigation. This 12-hour delay, he has said, was sanctioned by the Justice Department, but since the department was then run by John Ashcroft, a Bush loyalist who refused to recuse himself from the Plame case, inquiring Senate Democrats would examine this 12-hour delay as closely as an 18½-minute tape gap. "Every good prosecutor knows that any delay could give a culprit time to destroy the evidence," said Senator Charles Schumer, correctly, back when the missing 12 hours was first revealed almost two years ago. A new Gonzales confirmation process now would have quickly devolved into a neo-Watergate hearing. Mr. Gonzales was in the thick of the Plame investigation, all told, for 16 months.

Thus is Mr. Gonzales's Supreme Court aspiration the first White House casualty of this affair. It won't be the last. When you look at the early timeline of this case, rather than the latest investigatory scraps, two damning story lines emerge and both have legs.

The first: for half a year White House hands made the fatal mistake of thinking they could get away with trashing the Wilsons scot-free. They thought so because for nearly three months after the July 6, 2003, publication of Mr. Wilson's New York Times Op-Ed article and the outing of his wife in a Robert Novak column, there was no investigation at all. Once the unthreatening Ashcroft-controlled investigation began, there was another comfy three months.

Only after that did Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel, take over and put the heat on. Only after that did investigators hustle to seek Air Force One phone logs and did Mr. Bush feel compelled to hire a private lawyer. But by then the conspirators, drunk with the hubris characteristic of this administration, had already been quite careless.

It was during that pre-Fitzgerald honeymoon that Scott McClellan declared that both Karl Rove and Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, had personally told him they were "not involved in this" - neither leaking any classified information nor even telling any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the C.I.A. Matt Cooper has now written in Time that it was through his "conversation with Rove" that he "learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A." Maybe it all depends on what the meaning of "telling," "involved" or "this" is. If these people were similarly cute with F.B.I. agents and the grand jury, they've got an obstruction-of-justice problem possibly more grave than the hard-to-prosecute original charge of knowingly outing a covert agent.

Most fertile - and apparently ground zero for Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation - is the period at the very outset when those plotting against Mr. Wilson felt safest of all: those eight days in July 2003 between the Wilson Op-Ed, which so infuriated the administration, and the retaliatory Novak column. It was during that long week, on a presidential trip to Africa, that Colin Powell was seen on Air Force One brandishing the classified State Department memo mentioning Valerie Plame, as first reported by The New York Times.

That memo may have been the genesis of an orchestrated assault on the Wilsons. That the administration was then cocky enough and enraged enough to go after its presumed enemies so systematically can be found in a similar, now forgotten attack that was hatched on July 15, the day after the publication of Mr. Novak's column portraying Mr. Wilson as a girlie man dependent on his wife for employment.

On that evening's broadcast of ABC's "World News Tonight," American soldiers in Falluja spoke angrily of how their tour of duty had been extended yet again, only a week after Donald Rumsfeld told them they were going home. Soon the Drudge Report announced that ABC's correspondent, Jeffrey Kofman, was gay. Matt Drudge told Lloyd Grove of The Washington Post at the time that "someone from the White House communications shop" had given him that information.

Mr. McClellan denied White House involvement with any Kofman revelation, a denial now worth as much as his denials of White House involvement with the trashing of the Wilsons. Identifying someone as gay isn't a crime in any event, but the "outing" of Mr. Kofman (who turned out to be openly gay) almost simultaneously with the outing of Ms. Plame points to a pervasive culture of revenge in the White House and offers a clue as to who might be driving it. As Joshua Green reported in detail in The Atlantic Monthly last year, a recurring feature of Mr. Rove's political campaigns throughout his career has been the questioning of an "opponent's sexual orientation."

THE second narrative to be unearthed in the scandal's early timeline is the motive for this reckless vindictiveness against anyone questioning the war. On May 1, 2003, Mr. Bush celebrated "Mission Accomplished." On May 29, Mr. Bush announced that "we found the weapons of mass destruction." On July 2, as attacks increased on American troops, Mr. Bush dared the insurgents to "bring 'em on." But the mission was not accomplished, the weapons were not found and the enemy kept bringing 'em on. It was against this backdrop of mounting desperation on July 6 that Mr. Wilson went public with his incriminating claim that the most potent argument for the war in the first place, the administration's repeated intimations of nuclear Armageddon, involved twisted intelligence.

Mr. Wilson's charge had such force that just three days after its publication, Mr. Bush radically revised his language about W.M.D.'s. Saddam no longer had W.M.D.'s; he had a W.M.D. "program." Right after that George Tenet suddenly decided to release a Friday-evening statement saying that the 16 errant words about African uranium "should never have been included" in the January 2003 State of the Union address - even though those 16 words could and should have been retracted months earlier. By the next State of the Union, in January 2004, Mr. Bush would retreat completely, talking not about finding W.M.D.'s or even W.M.D. programs, but about "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

In July 2005, there are still no W.M.D.'s, and we're still waiting to hear the full story of how, in the words of the Downing Street memo, the intelligence was fixed to foretell all those imminent mushroom clouds in the run-up to war in Iraq. The two official investigations into America's prewar intelligence have both found that our intelligence was wrong, but neither has answered the question of how the administration used that wrong intelligence in selling the war. That issue was pointedly kept out of the charter of the Silberman-Robb commission; the Senate Intelligence Committee promised to get to it after the election but conspicuously has not.

The real crime here remains the sending of American men and women to Iraq on fictitious grounds. Without it, there wouldn't have been a third-rate smear campaign against an obscure diplomat, a bungled cover-up and a scandal that - like the war itself - has no exit strategy that will not inflict pain.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/opinion/24rich.html?pagewanted=1

Good point about Gonzales, I hadn't thought of that.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 08:18 am
seems to me we are seeing a re-birth of Nixon's enemies list. Will it become the in thing, a status booster to be on the Bush enemies list?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 08:24 am
JustWonders wrote:
The only proven liars so far are Wilson, Plame and Cooper.

It isn't Karl Rove who should be worrying and that's why he's not Smile


The sky is green...it is...it really is. It's green.

It's a bit difficult to fathom why you bothered even writing this post, JustGiggles. As to intellectual penetration and sophistication of analysis, it ranks right up there with "my daddie can beat up your daddie, poopy-head."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 08:25 am
Quote:
July 25, 2005, 8:47 a.m.
A Rove Perjury Rap?

"Even if [Rove] didn't have that contemporaneous e-mail, it has to be about something material," says Victoria Toensing, a former federal prosecutor who also, as a Capitol Hill aide, helped draft the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. "Whether [Cooper] called [Rove] about welfare reform or the price of milk, it wasn't at the heart of what the testimony was about, which was Valerie Plame. It would never be considered material."

Rather, Toensing says, the difference between Rove's and Cooper's account of their conversation falls within the normal differences in recollection that often occur when two people are asked about the same event. And if such differences were the basis for a perjury prosecution, Toensing says, one might as well speculate that Matt Cooper could face such charges. Both scenarios, she suggests, are ridiculous. "Somebody remembers something as happening on Tuesday, and somebody remembers it happening on Wednesday. People differ in their memory. It's not perjury."


Hmmm. A contemporaneous email from Rove memoralizing the welfare discussion initiated by Cooper ... Cooper acknowledges he "might have inquired about welfare reform" ... he was, it seems, hoping to publish an article re welfare reform ...

Interesting ...
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 08:26 am
blatham wrote:
The sky is green...it is...it really is. It's green.

It's a bit difficult to fathom why you bothered even writing this post, JustGiggles. As to intellectual penetration and sophistication of analysis, it ranks right up there with "my daddie can beat up your daddie, poopy-head."


What's a "daddie"?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 08:28 am
It's just like a diddie but with a higher sperm count.
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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 06:26:09