Countdown to Rove Indictments...

What points did he get wrong, McGentrix?

revel wrote:

What points did he get wrong, McGentrix?

For you and the chorus he is preaching to? None I am sure.

McGentrix wrote:

revel wrote:

What points did he get wrong, McGentrix?

For you and the chorus he is preaching to? None I am sure.

Your failure to address the question speaks volumes.

parados wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

revel wrote:

What points did he get wrong, McGentrix?

For you and the chorus he is preaching to? None I am sure.

Your failure to address the question speaks volumes.

Really? Volumes? You believe "every grandma in the USA [broke] down in tears over trying to understand a Prescription Drug Plan"? Of course you do. You also probably agree that Iraq has been "the worst run war ever", huh? Of course you do. Setanta? Is that true? You are keen on keeping history accurate.

All this and more leads me to believe that Joe likes to exagerrate his points so those of you that agree with him can be the same "yahoos" that will agree with his every word. Preaching to the choir, as I said.

McGentrix wrote:

substitute elephants for donkeys and Bill Clinton for Karl Rove and voila!!!!

Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.

Quote:

I stand by my statement that not a single person was convicted of any crime connected to whitewater.

So now we are back to "not a single" from "most of".

Bill and Hill have 25 million in the bank because of sycophants like you. If there isn't a 12 step program to address this, there will be.

parados wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

revel wrote:

What points did he get wrong, McGentrix?

For you and the chorus he is preaching to? None I am sure.

Your failure to address the question speaks volumes.

Really? Volumes? You believe "every grandma in the USA [broke] down in tears over trying to understand a Prescription Drug Plan"? Of course you do. You also probably agree that Iraq has been "the worst run war ever", huh? Of course you do. Setanta? Is that true? You are keen on keeping history accurate.

All this and more leads me to believe that Joe likes to exagerrate his points so those of you that agree with him can be the same "yahoos" that will agree with his every word. Preaching to the choir, as I said.

...I understand certain folks like to address everything in partisan terms. ...

I agree that the largest sticking point in this being an actual crime is what you list as point # 2. I will admit to being unaware that the covert status of Valerie Plame had been definitely established by Fitzgerald. Perhaps he has alluded to her outing as a CIA agent, but can you cite specific language and evidence submitted in the court papers where he indicates her status definitely is classified and covert? If you can produce it, I will concede point #1, but point #2 would still trump the crime.

she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003

Parados, I will admit to a bias. I am biased according to my judgement of the character of the politicians observed over a period of time. So are you. We need to look at each possible crime on a case by case basis and determine the intent and comparative gravity of the crime. If speeding on the highway is a crime, then we are virtually all criminals. Some so-called crimes are merely political in nature, whereas others are more self serving and blatant. For example, breaking a campaign finance law can sometimes be more innocent and incidental than embezzlement. Blatant and widespread campaign finance crimes would be more serious, but surely you could admit to gray areas in the campaign finance laws? Actively lobbying for and knowingly receiving foreign money would be very serious in my opinion. Some of the things done by DeLay were not illegal at the time and not that serious in my opinion. I am not endorsing DeLay in all of his activities. He sounds like a wheeler dealer and perhaps the party is better off without him. The Valerie Plame case appears to me to be fairly political in nature, under the circumstances in which it happened, so I think its a waste of time.

So Joe Wilson wrote a op-ed piece about what he knew, and the White House said "Let's fix this guy's wagon." Not, "Okay, we beg to differ but respect Mr. Wilson's right under the First Amendment to say such things in print." No, they have so little respect for any citizen with an opposing position to theirs that they let the dogs out.

Some bunch of leaders of democracy, huh? They slimed that Wilson guy AND his wife to keep his big mouth. YES, it's a proud, proud day for our way of life, let that be a lesson to you less free nations, this is how it's done in the best democracy on earth.

Joe(What a bunch of pathetic clowns.)Nation

Joe Nation wrote:

So Joe Wilson wrote a op-ed piece about what he knew, and the White House said "Let's fix this guy's wagon." Not, "Okay, we beg to differ but respect Mr. Wilson's right under the First Amendment to say such things in print." No, they have so little respect for any citizen with an opposing position to theirs that they let the dogs out.

Some bunch of leaders of democracy, huh? They slimed that Wilson guy AND his wife to keep his big mouth. YES, it's a proud, proud day for our way of life, let that be a lesson to you less free nations, this is how it's done in the best democracy on earth.

Joe(What a bunch of pathetic clowns.)Nation

Joe, Wilson's findings in Iraq included the fact that Iraq had indeed been in contact with Niger about some commerce. Even though they claimed it was about something else, some in the CIA, not all, believed it indicated an effort by Hussein to attempt to obtain yellowcake. There are a few ways to interpret it. You could take the word of the officials that it was indeed about something else at least initially. However, if the officials believed we may have already known about the contacts, they may have gone as far as acknowledging that part of it while claiming it was about something else.

The bottom line is that Wilson learned nothing of real impact in Niger. He did no undercover work. He did nothing but have tea with a few officials. Is anyone naive to believe they are going to tell him anything substantive? Wilson of all people should know this. Then to come back here and start claiming he has proof of anything and start writing op ed pieces is suspicious in my opinion. Then when you learn who recommended him for the trip, I think there is something else going on here, and I am glad we know a bit more about Wilson and Plame. After all, they engaged in an effort to discredit the administration. You think they are valid. Some of us do not. I simply am not that impressed with Wilson and Plame, the couple of Vanity Fair fame. Perhaps you are. We can agree to disagree.

From Fitzgerald's news conference

Quote:

she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html


That leaves us with the following:

Plame's status with CIA was classified
It is a crime to knowingly reveal classified information
Rove revealed Plame's status as a CIA officer to reporters
We don't know if Rove knew Plame's status was classified.

If Wilson didn't learn anything, then why didn't the WH just come out and say that? Why did they go after Plame by releasing her name to reporters? Do you approve of personal attacks on someone's family? Are you happy now that Plame can no longer contribute to the information on Iran's nuclear program? Does it really make the US safer?

Shouldn't our government be honest enough to take on the issue publically instead of revealing classified information to reporters and telling the reporters to lie about it coming from the WH?

parados wrote:

From Fitzgerald's news conference

Quote:

she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html


That leaves us with the following:

Plame's status with CIA was classified
It is a crime to knowingly reveal classified information
Rove revealed Plame's status as a CIA officer to reporters
We don't know if Rove knew Plame's status was classified.

Parados, I thought you said the covert status of Plame was in the court papers Fitzgerald filed? Is the above all you can cite?

Plame's status with the CIA being classified and her current job being covert, there may be a difference? As evidenced by Fitzgeralds statement in the link you provide:
"Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. "

So, Parados, Fitzgerald never claimed Plame's job was covert, which if I understand the law this investigation all revolves around, does require. I remember now hearing him say this, and it really puzzled me. My thought is why are we proceeding with this investigation if he cannot even determine that?