posted on July 12, 2005 12:14:50 PM new
::It has to do with the fact, that at THIS point, nothing has been proven.::
No Linda - It's proven that he lied. He stated that he said NOTHING. He told Scott McClellan that he said nothing. Now we know, via his own admissions that this is not true.
Why lie and have the voice of the White House lie about it as well if you truly did nothing wrong?
And now that you know that he told the little lie, why do you refguse to believe that he told the big lie? If he said nothg and did nothing wrong, why not say that two years ago rather than wait until the people keeping your secret are going to jail?
Sorry - if a democrat pulled this Linda you would be screaming for his head on a platter and you know that's is true.
BTW - Anyone catch HElen Thomas's question to McClellan at the press conference? She summed up in once simple question exactly why Rove needs to resign. Has Karl Rove appologized to you for damaging your credibility?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on July 12, 2005 12:40:49 PM new
Like I've said, fenix, it all depends on how the question was put to him. If he was directly asked did you 'out' plume and he said no, he'd never discusssed that with anyone....then he could be telling the truth. [he hadn't said what he is accused of saying]. It's the wording I'm focusing on.
----
And for anyone interested in another perspective on this case and why Miller has decided to go to jail rather than testify at the grand jury hearings.....AIM offers a reason why she may not want to talk. After all Rove gave permission for ALL reporters he spoke with to speak about what HE said to them. A very good character point, imo. He could have chosen to keep them silent...but he didn't.
Something doesn't add up about why Judith Miller went to jail. The New York Times reporter didn't write a story about the Valerie Plame case and had a waiver from her source in order to talk about it to the grand jury. But she insisted on going to jail anyway.
Speculation is mounting that Miller is protecting herself that Miller was herself a source of information about Plame that made it to several Bush administration officials and was then recycled to columnist Robert Novak. He, then, disclosed Plame's employment by the CIA and her role in arranging for her husband Joe Wilson's mission to Africa to investigate the Iraq-uranium link.
This would help explain why Miller didn't write a story about the case. It would be difficult for Miller to write a story when she was so deeply involved in how it developed. Disclosure of her role then or now would be extremely embarrassing.
Wilson had written a column for the Times bashing the administration's Iraq policy and it would have been natural for Miller to write something when Novak's column was published. But Miller didn't write anything. Why? Defenders of the Times have used this fact to allege that the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, is out of control and that free-press rights are in danger.
But there could be another explanation of Miller's behavior and why Fitzgerald wants her testimony. She could be the key to exonerating Bush administration officials of possible violations of the law against knowingly disclosing the identities of covert intelligence agents.
If they were simply passing along information from Miller or some other journalist about Joseph Wilson's wife, then they can't be accused of deliberately disclosing classified information about Plame's identity.
The assumption all along has been that Miller is going to jail to protect a source. This doesn't make sense because her "source" provided a waiver, releasing Miller from any promise of confidentiality. These waivers have enabled several reporters to testify in the case. Why should Miller be any different, unless her relationship with her "source" is different?
In other words, what if the "source" was an official who may have given some information to Miller but received some important information in return and then passed it on to others already questioned by Fitzgerald? This would explain why Miller, who didn't write a story, got dragged into the case.
The more likely explanation is that Miller is protecting private discussions with administration officials, and that during those discussions she provided or confirmed information about Plame's identity. This would make sense. Both Miller and Plame covered the subject of weapons of mass destruction and it was likely that they knew one another, or at least were aware of each other's work in this field.
This speculation may be unfair to Miller but it is fed by her silence and reports in the press. The Washington Post reported that "Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials?not the other way around?that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee."
What's abundantly clear, at the very least, is that the Times is caught in a major case of hypocrisy. The paper editorialized on December 31, 2003, in favor of Fitzgerald's investigation, on the grounds that it was imperative to find out "who violated federal law by giving the name of the undercover intelligence operative to Novak for publication in his column." But what if the name was provided to Novak by an administration official who got it from Miller?
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 12, 2005 12:52 PM ]
posted on July 12, 2005 01:08:33 PM new
Truth? You don't want to wait to hear the truth. You already have convicted him in your own minds. Not innocent until groven guilty at all.
The dems have been looking for another scandal since watergate....haven't found one yet...but they're still 'wishin' and hopin' and plannin' and schemin'.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 12, 2005 02:19:38 PM new "The dems have been looking for another scandal since watergate....haven't found one yet"
Scandals are so plentiful, I'm amazed that you stuck your neck out and said that. linda. Just a few that you are too blind to see... war without reason, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay torture committed during that war, The Niger forgeries, and all the lies to the country in an attempt to cover these crimes, the Haliburton scandals, the Pentagon-Israel spy case, and now, the whole group is involved in more lies to cover for Rove who has endangered U.S. National security to take revenge on a whistleblower. What a scandalous group of thugs.
posted on July 12, 2005 02:48:55 PM newLike I've said, fenix, it all depends on how the question was put to him. If he was directly asked did you 'out' plume and he said no, he'd never discusssed that with anyone....then he could be telling the truth. [he hadn't said what he is accused of saying]. It's the wording I'm focusing on
I seem to recall President Clinton focused on "the wording", also. Of course, I'm sure it's different.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 12, 2005 02:50:32 PM new
::A very good character point, imo. He could have chosen to keep them silent...but he didn't.::
A very good charachter point? You are kidding right? How much money was spent on lawyers by people other than Rove to protect him from what you say is no wrong doing. You are grasping woman!!
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on July 12, 2005 03:51:40 PM new
But Bear, we are talking about the LIES from this White House for the last 2 years. When Neocons like you have no defense for the lies from this White House you always bring up the past. Guess what bear that kind of stuff isn't working any longer with the American people. YES...
posted on July 12, 2005 04:26:10 PM new
So Bear - does this now mean that you are excusing lying or just that you are excusing lying as long as it is done by a republican?
I seem to remember that you have been raking Clinton over the coals for quite a few years now for lying - should we now expect that same treatment for Rove?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on July 12, 2005 06:08:47 PM new
Why is this sooooo hard to understand?
Clinton lied about his private sex life and Rove alledgedly committed TREASON.
I know the neocons have really weird ideas about sex but even a neocon like LindaK must realize TREASON is more important than someone's sex life....then again maybe not
I think LindaK and other neocons are just writhing in agony because "slick Willy" is STILL popular and not just here abut all around the world!
Bush isn't
[ edited by mingotree on Jul 12, 2005 11:37 PM ]
posted on July 12, 2005 07:46:48 PM new
I love how Rove's actions show how much he supports the U.S. War on terror. Our brave agents better watch out or their cover may be blown next for Rove's personal agenda.
Rove has shown he does not care who he discredits just as long as he wins.
Rove discredited a veteran who lost 3 limbs in service to this country and then had the nerve to say this senator was un-American because he voted against Bush's version of the Homeland Security Bill.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
"Thats rich, A slick willy supporter now complaining about alleged lies?"
I'm not sure who you refer to with this comment, but I didn't think Clinton should have lied under oath. I've always felt we need to hold our leaders accountable, and I am sure most of the other "liberals" you love to dispute feel the same way. It is quite sad and disappointing that Clinton felt compelled to lie over it.
So, the real question is whether you feel the same about Rove? Will you be holding him accountable as you have for Clinton? This isn't about liberalism or conservatism, but ethics, morality, and the law.
"Try Rove for treason? Sure, right after Berger is sentenced to prison for stealing secret documents."
The Berger story was debunked so long ago, why do you bother to even mention it?
Everyone knows Berger did NOT "steal" secret documents. The story was debunked and you know it. Ironically, the story that you claim to be true was originally written by none other than Jeff Gannon, that male prostitute that seemed to be good buddies (if you know what I mean) with Karl Rove. Now, how can we even trust this piece of garbage???? Here is the original story published by Talon News...
By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
July 22, 2004
WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Shortly after news broke that former Clinton administration National Security Advisor Samuel "Sandy" Berger was being investigated by the Justice Department for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives, the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) removed its anti-terror plan from its web site.
Republicans have suggested that the information contained in the documents was used to formulate Kerry's policy, but are limited in proving those charges because the material is still classified. The sudden disappearance of the policy from the campaign web site that coincided with Berger's dismissal supports Republicans' contention that the purloined data formed the basis of at least part of the Democratic candidate's homeland security program.
The link to the policy is now defunct, but the original page was temporarily preserved in a Google cache. The Kerry release outlining the policy is also archived on the conservative discussion board FreeRepublic.com (web site).
Key portions of the policy removed from the web site included the following three passages:
-- Increase Port Security and Accelerate Border Security. Currently, 95% of all non-North American U.S. trade moves by sea, concentrated mostly in a handful of ports. John Kerry believes improvements in port security must be made, while recognizing that global prosperity and America's economic power depends on an efficient system. Kerry's plan would develop standards for security at ports and other loading facilities for containers and assure facilities can meet basic standards. To improve security in commerce, John Kerry believes we should accelerate the timetable for the action plans agreed to in the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico "smart border" accords as well as implement security measures for cross-border bridges. Finally John Kerry will pursue modest safety standards for privately held infrastructure and will help owners find economical ways to pay for increased security.
-- Secure Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Weapons Facilities and Chemical Facilities. John Kerry will appoint an Energy Secretary who takes nuclear plant security seriously and ensures meticulous follow-up to any security violations. He would also order an immediate review of engagement orders and weaponry for plant guards, and ensure attack simulation drills be as realistic as possible. A Kerry Administration would ensure that security of our nuclear weapons facilities is a U.S. government responsibility -- not cede it to private contractors as the Bush Administration considered doing. A Kerry Administration will tighten security at chemical facilities across the nation that produce or store chemicals, focusing first on facilities in major urban areas where millions of Americans live within the circle of vulnerability.
-- Tighten Aviation Security and Combat Threats to Civilian Aircraft. John Kerry will close loopholes in existing regulations on cargo carried by passenger flights and increase the reliability of new screening procedures. Kerry will increase perimeter inspections of U.S. airports and work with international aviation authorities to make sure the same standards are in place at all international airports. He will work with our allies to crackdown on the sale of shoulder-fired missiles that could be used in an attack on civilian aircraft, and are sold on the black market.
The Kerry campaign did not respond to a Talon News inquiry about the removal of the link from the web site.
Instead of reviewing documents for the 9/11 Commission investigation, Republicans suggested that Berger used the information from the National Archives to help the Kerry campaign.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said, "Reportedly these documents related to homeland security and then suddenly we see that the Kerry campaign came forward with what may have been illegal documents. This is sensitive stuff and was a significant breach of security."
"Kerry knows better than to use these documents," Chambliss added.
Berger admitted to removing documents from the National Archives on five separate occasions, but maintains that it was "inadvertent."
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) believes otherwise, saying, "There is a curious connection between the removal of these documents and the Kerry press conference on port security. It's disappointing what people might do as they try to take the president down."
Berger had been the dominant national security advisor to Sen. Kerry and was suggested by some as a potential Secretary of State in a Kerry administration, something that now appears unlikely no matter what the outcome of November's election.
When asked by NBC if he was aware of the investigation, Kerry said, "I didn't have a clue."
Democrats tried to deflect the damaging revelation by claiming its timing was politically motivated.
"Somebody leaked it obviously with an intent to do damage to Mr. Berger, and that's unfortunate," Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) said. "I think the timing of all this is curious. Berger deserves the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is complete."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the Justice Department to produce documents about any correspondence with the White House on the investigation. He is accusing Republicans of a "smear campaign" against Berger.
McAuliffe has great cause for concern since two important Kerry advisors have been damaged in the past two weeks.
Former Ambassador Joe Wilson was discredited by a Senate Intelligence Committee report that contradicted Wilson's public statements about how he was selected for a sensitive mission to Niger in 2002 and the results of his report about Saddam Hussein's attempt to purchase uranium in Africa. Wilson represented his investigation as proof that President Bush misled the United States in making the case for the invasion of Iraq. An investigation into British intelligence confirms that Bush's claim was "well founded."
While political reactions to the Berger affair are predictably mixed, there is no doubt that the former national security advisor broke the law. The documents he removed carry the highest classifications for secrecy: code word clearance.
Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) called Berger's actions "just a third-rate burglary."
But former FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy disagrees, calling it a grave transgression against national security. Liddy wonders why the Justice Department has not arrested Berger for having admitted to committing five felonies.
Liddy pointed out that Berger is the second Clinton official to face prosecution for withdrawing classified materials from secure premises. Former CIA director John Deutsch was pardoned by President Clinton in the final hours of his second term and spared from suffering any punishment for having taken laptops with classified materials to his home in 1996.
Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) questioned Berger's motivation for the thefts.
He said, "What in heaven's name was he thinking? What is so important that he would risk both his reputation and prosecution to remove these documents? What's there to hide?"
He added, "There is no one with his experience who can claim that these are the actions of an absent-minded employee. Sandy Berger knows better."
Foley recalled the final days of the Clinton administration when he said, "And we thought it was bad when they were only stealing furniture."
posted on July 13, 2005 08:26:51 AM new
Sandy Berger didn't steal any documents Bear, it just isn't true. You probably still think Clinton had Vince Foster killed too, even though no less than Kenneth Starr concluded that Foster committed suicide plain and simple.
From the Wall Street Journal, not exactly a liberal rag:
Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Several prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have voiced suspicion that when Mr. Berger was preparing materials for the 9/11 Commission on the Clinton administration's antiterror actions, he may have removed documents that were potentially damaging to the former president's record.
The conclusion by archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission.
Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said officials there "are confident that there aren't any original documents missing in relation to this case." She said in most cases, Mr. Berger was given photocopies to review, and that in any event officials have accounted for all originals to which he had access.
That included all drafts of a so-called after-action report prepared by the White House and federal agencies in 2000 after the investigation into a foiled bombing plot aimed at the Millennium celebrations. That report and earlier drafts are at the center of allegations that Mr. Berger might have permanently removed some records from the archives. Some of the allegations have related to the possibility that drafts with handwritten notes on them may have disappeared, but Ms. Cooper said archives staff are confident those documents aren't missing either.
Daniel Marcus, general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, said the panel had been assured twice by the Justice Department that no originals were missing and that all of the material Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the commission. "We are told that the Justice Department is satisfied that we've seen everything that the archives saw," and "nothing was missing," he said
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 13, 2005 08:30:04 AM new
Meant to add Bear,
I realize that Talon News, NewMax and the New York Post are far more credible sources than the Wall Street Journal, so I can understand why you've chosen to think Berger actually stole documents.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 13, 2005 09:15:14 AM new
Linda, again you are correct. But we know the attention span of the current demonrats is less that their IQ.
Media Shoot Blanks at Rove
Lacking evidence of criminal conduct, Democrats are nevertheless urging the resignation of White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove for talking to Time magazine staffer Matt Cooper about CIA employee Valerie Plame. But Rove deserves a medal for trying to warn the media about the ulterior motives of Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, who would later become a Kerry campaign adviser.
The media are in a feeding frenzy over the fact that Rove told Cooper that Plame "apparently" worked for the CIA. But this shows that Rove wasn't even aware of her actual status at the agency and could not, therefore, have violated a law against knowingly disclosing the identity of an undercover CIA operative.
The phony controversy, which featured reporters asking 30 questions about this matter at the Monday White House press briefing, demonstrates how Republicans and conservatives come under fire for doing nothing wrong. No matter how many questions they ask, there is still no evidence that Rove broke the law.
The White House position-that Rove did not disclose classified information-remains intact. The only new development is that the White House will not say anything further on the case, which is somehow being interpreted by the liberal press as a contradiction of what the White House previously said. But there is no contradiction. It's wise to refrain from comment when New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who may have some critical testimony and might be able to exonerate Bush administration officials of deliberately leaking Plame's name, refuses to talk. It is possible that Miller could set the record straight about who told what to whom and where the information about Plame came from. It could have come from Miller, who has a waiver from her "source" to talk about the case to a grand jury but decided to go to jail instead. Rather than speculate on Miller's motives, the liberal press would rather hype the Rove story into something it is not, in an obvious effort to damage the Bush administration.
The Washington Post media reporter, Howard Kurtz, jumped on the bandwagon, saying that "politically, this is a bombshell. Rove, who has insisted he did not leak Plame's name, had something to do with this effort, even if he didn't 'name' her."
But wait a minute. If Rove did not identify her by name, and seemed to be unclear about her actual employment status, how can he be accused of violating the law against deliberately disclosing the name of a covert CIA operative? And what is "this effort" and why does it matter?
Showing complete disregard of the facts of the case, Kurtz said that Rove "was attempting to undercut Wilson when he told Cooper that wifey had helped set up Wilson's fact-finding trip to Niger (where Wilson didn't find the facts the administration wanted on Saddam seeking uranium) and that the uranium business could still be true (it wasn't). And didn't the White House promise to fire anyone involved in the leak?"
To repeat: there's no evidence that Rove was involved in violating the law by leaking classified information about the identity of a CIA operative. What the evidence shows is that Rove was familiar with the role played by Plame in arranging her husband's mission to Africa to investigate an Iraq-uranium link, and that Rove talked to Cooper about this. Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson," and Rove told Cooper that Plame "authorized" Wilson's trip to Africa to probe the Iraq-uranium link. In this case, Rove was telling the truth.
It appears that Rove was aware that Plame's role in her husband's mission may have violated federal nepotism laws and that it was a set-up to embarrass the administration. On page 346 of his own book, Wilson noted that the law against nepotism would forbid his wife from recommending him for the job, which may be why he adamantly insisted that she had nothing to do with it. However, a Senate Intelligence Committee report on this matter includes a memo from Plame to the CIA recommending her husband's involvement.
Plame's role was disclosed to columnist Bob Novak because some official or officials knew that she was involved in the Wilson mission and found this objectionable. It would not be surprising to learn that Rove was a source for other journalists on this story because Wilson spewed false information about his mission and why it occurred. Is Rove supposed to be fired because he fought back against the administration's political enemies and tried to provide the press some accurate information?
Another critical fact is that, contrary to media reports, including his own New York Times column, Wilson's report did confirm Iraqi interest in obtaining uranium from Niger.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had noted that Wilson's report to the CIA found that "in 1999 an Iraqi delegation sought the expansion of trade links with Niger—and that former Niger government officials believed that this was in connection with the procurement of yellowcake [uranium ore]." Uranium is Niger's main export. In other words, this element of Wilson's report actually supported Bush's State of the Union statement that the British reported that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. Then-CIA director George Tenet, referring to what was in the Wilson report, noted that a former Niger official "said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."
So on what basis does Howard Kurtz, who is supposed to keep the media honest, come to the conclusion that what the administration said about the "uranium business" was not true? What Bush said was true, certainly in the sense that Iraq had expressed interest in uranium in the past. But Wilson misrepresented the findings of his own mission in order to write that New York Times op-ed bashing the Bush administration.
As it happened, rather than push for an investigation of violations of federal nepotism laws involving Wilson and his wife, the White House panicked under a media assault and gave way to critics, including the New York Times, who wanted the White House investigated for an alleged role in a classified leak to Novak. There is still no evidence of any such leak. But there is clear evidence that Times reporter Judith Miller is obstructing justice in this case. And that is why she sits in jail. Our right to know has become a right to remain silent by the press. It's more fun for the press to talk about Karl Rove.
posted on July 13, 2005 09:30:45 AM new
They sure are VERY much misinformed....must be why they draw so many of the conclusions they do....[incorrectly].
------------
No one has yet mentioned that it was wilson that started this whole thing by lying to the press in the first place. HE lied about it from the beginning. HE lied about what he 'didn't find' in Niger. Kind of hard to find evidence when your sitting around drinking 'tea'. Everything he has said to this point as been prove to be a lie - even by the Senate Intelligence investigation.
Does that bother the liberals? heck no. They WANT to believe his charges against Rove. They're like frenzied paranas, who have been throw some chum, trying to make a case where there's not one.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 13, 2005 11:02:52 AM newKind of hard to find evidence when your sitting around drinking 'tea'. Everything he has said to this point as been prove to be a lie
You must be talking about the information Bush used to in order to start his personal agenda in the middle east. Linda you have to use better news sources other than Al-Jazaera.
Bush lied about what he thought was in IRAQ and has lied about it time and time again. To this day he still expect to find his WMD.
Bush lied in his '03 State of the Union address about what the WH knew about the "yellow cake" information. I guess he had too much "Jim Beam" that night or did he have to much of the white powder that looks like powder sugar.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 13, 2005 12:32:57 PM newGuess the liberals here think sandy berger pled GUILTY for no reason.
Ever hear of a plea agreement...
He could have been forced to enter a guilty plea to avoid having to go to trial on a more serious charge.
Next I suppose you are going to tell me only the guilty are sent to prison.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 13, 2005 12:54:53 PM new
Rove's own words are more damning than speculation:
ap·par·ent (adj.)
1) Readily seen; visible.
2) Readily understood; clear or obvious.
3) Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming: an apparent advantage.
Rove's statement that Plame "apparently" was a CIA operative brings that very fact to light.
New we see the familiar Republican smear tactics begin. None of it diminishes the fact that Rove intentionally exposed a covert CIA operative.
This is more than a scandal -- it's a national security issue. Republicans can spin it to the moon, but it will cripple the Bush administration and any future Republican efforts.
Rove is standing too close to Bush to remain a target. Look what happened to Rice after she admitted overlooking the footnotes in that 90-page document that led us into war with Iraq. Well, you don't hear much about Condi Rice anymore. Bush has to sack Rove.
posted on July 13, 2005 01:56:41 PM new
To those that believe Rove didn't lie, then I guess you believe Clinton when he said "oral sex is not sex".
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 14, 2005 12:00:21 AM new
OK so Rove is a sweet innocent little Boy Scout, then why doesn't he say something?
Why doesn't Bush defend him?
Why doesn't Bush say something about him?
Why does Scott McClellend lie?
Why do the birds go on singing?
Why doesn't Valerie Plame kick Karl in his nuts?
Why does everything the Republicans do get the big OK because the Democrats did it too?
Why do people think if Rove is fired he still won't have his hand up the ass of the president pulling those stringy things to make his mouth move?
Is the Rove thing a smokescreen for another story or is there going to be a bigger story to blow away the Rove thing?
Are Rove and McCllend really lovers?
