Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Like what? The National Enquirer?

More from Wikipedia on Karl Rove (or Bush's Brain):

George W. Bush Administration
George W. Bush was first inaugurated in January 2001, and Rove accepted a position in the Bush administration as Senior Advisor to the President. The President's confidence in Rove has been so strong that during a meeting with South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun on 14 May 2003, President George W. Bush brought only Rove and then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Rove has played a significant role in shaping policy at the White House, which has led some to allege that politics have overly influenced the administration's actions. One oft-cited example is that terror warnings were regularly made at times when John Kerry's ratings rose during the 2004 presidential election, or the 2006 announcement that planned terrorist attacks had been thwarted, which was made at a time of increased pressure for the White House due to the a domestic wire-tapping scandal. Karl Rove gave up his policy role in the administration in April 2006.

[edit]
White House Iraq Group
In 2002 and 2003 Rove chaired meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a secretive internal White House working group established by August 2002, eight months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. According to CNN and Newsweek, WHIG was "charged with developing a strategy for publicizing the White House's assertion that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States."[3] WHIG's existence and membership was first identified in a Washington Post article by Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus on August 10, 2003; members of WHIG included George W. Bush's chief of staff Andrew Card, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby, legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio, and communication strategists Mary Matalin, Karen Hughes, and James R. Wilkinson. Quoting one of WHIG's members without identifying him or her by name, the Washington Post explained that the task force's mission was to "educate the public" about the threat posed by Hussein and (in the reporters' words) "to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad." Rove's "strategic communications" task force within WHIG helped write and coordinate speeches by senior Bush administration officials, emphasizing in September 2002 the theme of Iraq's purported nuclear threat.[4]

The White House Iraq Group was "little known" until a subpoena for its notes, email, and attendance records was issued by CIA leak investigator Patrick Fitzgerald in January 2004, a legal move first reported in the press and acknowledged by the White House on March 5, 2004.[5][6]
END QUOTE

Anything you'd like to refute, with sources other than yourself?

The Valerie Plame issue is far from over.

Check out the NY Times for today's news about it:

topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timetopcs/people/r/karl_rover/index.html

As a supposed teacher, fox, you should at least be up on current events don't you think?

"Is our children learning"
George Dubya Bush

JTT & Advocate,


Have you checked this one out? It's quite interesting, and concerns Karl Rove's grandfather and the Nazi connection, as well as the Bushie family Nazi connection....they sure all scratch each other's back, don't they?


www.counterpunch.org/wasserman10062003.html

Ciao

Tico, you're a lawyer, are you not? What's with all the deception? Oooooopppps, you're a lawyer. Actually, there are a lot of honest lawyers, but you, why is it that you have so much trouble facing the truth? And to boot, you so often seek to lead the discussion away from the truth.

Could you please provide them? If not we will have to assume they are so bad you would be embarrassed if we knew you were using them.

I've subscribed Britannica. But like most others I think, Wikipedia is more up-todate with their information.

I'm not aware of other encyclopædias with a similar reputation.
Since I didn't notice on the other hand that Foxfyre quoted from Britannica, I can't wait to see the response to xingu's question.

Walter as usual is clueless re what the discussion is actually about, but is quite happy to use any subject to take a jab at me. And as for Xingu and JTT, rant on my friends. I use Wikipedia to find key words to look for sources that provide their own sources or at least name the writer(s) who are providing the facts. Because of the broad subject matter in Wikipedia, it is useful for this. I will at times post a Wikipedia article, but I will qualify it that it is from Wikipedia and will include other sources supporting it or caution the reader that I didn't take time to hunt up supporting sources.

I don't depend on Wikipedia to have had any peer review or authentication by anybody with particular expertise on the subject and I have personally found numerous misrepresentations presented as facts in Wikipedia. I don't trust Wikipedia to be the last word on anything and will not claim verifications for my opinions based on Wikipedia alone.

Yes, but I'm quite happy with that.

MSN Encarta is pretty good -- and a significant part of it is free.

If that is so, why don't you try giving him a clue and tell us what your sources are. We now know they're not Wikipedia. What are they?

I prefer Britannica ... mostly because it's - still - more "quotable" in scientific works.

I post them as appropriate. This whole ridiculous discussion came up because I objected to using Wikipedia as the sole source to bash President Bush, Karl Rove, etc. Walter, however, saw it as a discussion of on line encyclopdedias which it wasn't. So bite me.

If you don't like what's being said then pick up your toys and go home.

Otherwise state your sources.

Well, sometimes I really might do so, but at least I try not to compare apples with vegetables: to all my knowledge, Wikipedia is an (online) encyclopaedia.

But since I'm clueless ...

Later, darling.

When is it inappropriate?

Post my source for me saying I don't accept Wikipedia as the last word on anything? You're kidding right?

Inappropriate is when they have a) already been posted ad nauseum such as in the case on this thread re Bush and Rove or b) people are having a civil discussion including their personal point of view or c) some a-holes are disrupting the thread with a lot of garbage.

At least, it became now manifestated a couple of times that I'm clueless as usual.

And most probably I'm a "a-hole" additionally by now.

So you've posted your sources ad nauseum? Should be a simple task to go and find them one and shut up those clueless guys once and for all.

As for b) if it's just personal opinion, that should be made clear and sources have nothing to do with it (as in, it's dishonest to claim that what is just a personal opinion arises from mysterious but uncited "sources"), and as for c) a great way to deal with disruptions is to bring things back to facts.