posted on July 15, 2005 08:55:43 PM new
Rove has a history of leaking info.
"This is not the first time Mr. Rove has been linked to a leak reported by Mr. Novak. In 1992, Mr. Rove was fired from the Texas campaign to re-elect the first President Bush because of suspicions that he had leaked information to Mr. Novak about shortfalls in the Texas organization's fund-raising. Both Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove had been the source."
posted on July 15, 2005 09:12:32 PM newSounds like backing down to me.
I agree....it is beginning to look that way.
----
Another thing I'm finding funny, in reading different press reports, is that there are all these 'leaks' about who said what in their grand jury testimony. Being leaked, of course, by anonymous sources.
"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 17, 2005 10:59:06 AM new
Top Cheney Aide Among Sources in CIA Story
Updated 1:23 PM ET July 17, 2005
By PETE YOST
WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide was among the sources for a Time magazine reporter's story about the identity of a CIA officer, the reporter said Sunday.
Until last week, the White House had insisted for nearly two years that vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove were not involved in the leaks of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.
The White House refused last week to repeat those assertions when it was revealed that Rove had told Time reporter Matt Cooper that the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson apparently works at the CIA and that she had authorized his trip to Africa. The CIA dispatched Wilson to check out a report that the government of Niger had sold yellowcake uranium to Iraq for nuclear weapons.
Cooper said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he spoke to Libby after first learning about Wilson's wife from Rove.
According to Cooper, Libby and Rove were among the government officials referred to in Cooper's subsequent Time story that said Wilson's wife was a CIA official and that she was involved in sending her husband on a trip to Africa.
Cooper's article was headlined, "A War on Wilson?"
On Sunday, Cooper also said there may have been other sources for that information. He declined to elaborate.
In a first-person account in the latest issue of Time, Cooper said Rove ended their telephone conversation with the words, "I've already said too much." Cooper speculated that Rove could have been worried about being indiscreet or "it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else."
Republicans are responding to the revelations about Rove's role in the leak by saying that the deputy White House chief of staff first heard about Wilson's wife from a reporter.
The chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, told NBC that the disclosure about getting the information from a reporter vindicates Rove and that Democrats who have called for Rove's dismissal should apologize.
But John Podesta, former White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration, said the White House's assurance in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leak "was a lie." Rove's credibility "is in shreds," said Podesta, who appeared with Mehlmen.
Wilson was the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on July 17, 2005 02:12:45 PM new
mingo- thanks for setting these neocons straight.
obviously Rove had to get his info from someone else who had access to it. this was discussed when this story really began over a week ago, and we knew this would be the next logical step.
but go ahead, neocon linda and neocon etex... keep believing they are backing off Rove. go right ahead, because before you know it, we'll soon see not only Rove in the fire, but Cheney, and even the little puppet himself... GW feeling the heat.
posted on July 17, 2005 04:52:32 PM new
Read extex, read, it says no such thing.
A neocon is a Bush worshipping, blindly following , butt kissing, extreme right wing-nut who believes a dictatorship lead by Republicans is what America should be all about.
posted on July 17, 2005 05:11:42 PM new
Of course, you can't take mt/cf's word as anything close to the truth. That's a word not in her vocabulary.
Some believe that the true meaning of the use of the word 'neocon' [also know as - neoconservative or neoconservatisn - means a person who once was left leaning in their political positions.
Others believe this is what the term means:
Adapted From: WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
neoconservativism
Anoun1 neoconservativism
an approach to politics or theology that represents a return to a traditional point of view (in contrast to more liberal or radical schools of thought of the 1960s)
---------
"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!!!
==================
Neoconservatism in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Neoconservatism (United States))
''Neoconservatism'' is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States. The "newness" refers the term's origination as either describing converts new to American conservatism (sometimes coming from a liberal or big-government New Deal background) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization.
The neoconservatives, often dubbed the neocons by supporters and critics alike, are credited with (or blamed for) influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981â€"1989) and George W. Bush (2001â€"present).
Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative.
Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.
Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. Most people described as "neoconservatives" are members of the Republican Party. The term is used more often by those who oppose "neoconservative" politics than those who subscribe to them; indeed, many to whom the label is applied reject it. The term is frequently used pejoratively, both by self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right, and by Democratic politicians opposing neoconservatives from the left.
Recently, Democratic politicians have used the term to criticize the Republican policies and leaders of the current Bush administration.
Critics of the term argue that the word is overused and lacks coherent definition. For instance, they note that many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues. They also point out that the meaning has changed over time. Whereas the term was originally used for former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but aggressively opposed the Soviet Union, now the term is primarily used to describe those who support an aggressive worldwide foreign policy against radical Islam and terrorists.
The term is also used to describe those who are accused of adopting a "unilateral" foreign policy rather than relying on United Nations consensus and actions.
In academia, the term refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to more traditional conservative policy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation or periodicals such as Policy Review or National Review.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 17, 2005 05:32 PM ]
posted on July 17, 2005 05:48:37 PM new
BOY-O-BOY Linda_K has zero to say about the truth. If you all want to see a woman that is nuts look at Linda_K's words like these -----------------------------------------------
"Of course, you can't take mt/cf's word as anything close to the truth. That's a word not in her vocabulary." LINDA_K in all her Glory. YES... LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted on July 19, 2005 10:57:16 AM new
If those on the right do not like neocon how about the term: "radcon"
Radical conservatives -- "radcons," I call them -- are taking over the public agenda. Radcons are revolutionaries. For them, ends justify means. They'll do whatever it takes to win. Listen to Paul Weyrich, prominent radcon founder of The Heritage Foundation and coiner of the term "moral majority": "We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of the country." And they are meeting with woefully little resistance.
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 20, 2005 11:06:25 AM new
Just so all the C&Ping about the Supreme Court appointee doesn't drown out an ongoing investigation which it was timed to do:
By the Dayton Daily News
In 2003, President George W. Bush was determined to paint Iraq as a country with a nuclear weapons program.
He said in his State of the Union speech, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The uranium would be used for nukes.
The year before, the Central Intelligence Agency had sent Joseph C. Wilson IV to Africa to check out the facts. He came back saying that reports about Iraq's alleged shopping were suspect. After Mr. Bush asserted differently in his speech, Mr. Wilson questioned the president's statement.
Then word got out that Mr. Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. The disclosure ended her career in a covert position. Immediately, the White House was accused of victimizing her as retaliation against Mr. Wilson.
Releasing the agent's name could be a crime, and a special prosecutor was brought in.
Now two years have passed, and dramatic court battles have been fought over two journalists' refusal to say where they got their information about Mr. Wilson's wife. The White House press secretary has said he spoke with one person suspected of being a leaker: political operative Karl Rove. The press secretary insisted Mr. Rove wasn't involved. And President Bush said anybody who had outed an agent would be fired.
Now it turns out Mr. Rove told a reporter that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but didn't mention her name. Mr. Rove's lawyer says Mr. Rove's purpose was to persuade a Time magazine reporter that Mr. Wilson wasn't an unbiased observer.
Some people think his trip to Africa was a case of nepotism, or that the CIA wanted to undercut the president's war rationale.
The facts so far don't show Mr. Rove definitively doing anything illegal. But he did try to discredit a critic of the president; he did allow the White House to put out wrong information; and he did let a reporter twist in the wind for two years, in a determined effort to protect himself. (Another reporter also is in jail.)
And the CIA should not have to worry about political operatives putting out any information about intelligence officers.
If a Democrat had done such a thing, Republicans would be accusing him of being willing to do anything in the name of politics, even undermining the country.
Now the White House is refusing to comment, saying only that the investigation is proceeding. Meanwhile, though, Republicans are putting out self-serving information about Mr. Rove's purportedly good intentions to help a reporter who he was concerned might be taken in.
Much attention is focused on whether Mr. Rove can survive. A confidant of the president whom Mr. Bush credits with engineering his re-election, Mr. Rove has always played close to edge, and some say he has been caught stepping over.
The bigger problem, however, is that the Bush administration has put out so much misinformation about Iraq. In the hardball environment the White House has fostered, attempts to fight off the resulting embarrassments were almost destined to produce more embarrassments.
posted on July 20, 2005 11:15:47 AM new
OH MY...what do we have here? MT/CF copy and pasting when she b1tches about it being done all the time. how funny...
And on Rove....STILL NO PROOF....as a matter of fact the more testimony that is provided to the public....the more we can see there WILL BE NO PROOF OF ANY WRONG DOING ON KR's PART
desperate, desperate.....and a hypocrite too.
"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 20, 2005 11:19:12 AM new
Oh LindaK there IS proof, you choose not to see it. But then being a neocon you don't see anything wrong with an immoral, unethical lying advisor to the president, it IS the norm.
posted on July 20, 2005 11:25:14 AM new
There's NO proof....and both those news outlets called Rove...not the other way around. BOTH brought up the mention of Wilson's lying to Rove...and he set them straight that Wilson was a liar and they might want to check things out before reporting lies to the public based on what Wilson had said.
Guess have the truth pointed out about Wilson's multiple LIES bothers some fanatics on the left. But Rove's warning turned out to be the truth.
Just one more thing that pissed the left off....proof of Wilson's lies.
So...dream on....Karl Rove won't be indicted ....and you can cry and whine some more at that time.
"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 20, 2005 11:49:21 PM new
It is also a proven fact that someone in the Bush administration leaked a covert CIA agent's name.
Treason is still treason and this administration committed an act of treason and is desperately trying to cover it up.
posted on July 21, 2005 05:28:48 AM new
The fact is the WH also lied about this. First they said no one on the Bush team had anything to do with the leak. Now all of a sudden you have Cheney's aid and Karl Rove.
Liars all around.
Bush lied when he used the yellow cake refernece in his state of the union address. He lied about Iraq having WMD. What else will he be lying about.
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 21, 2005 10:28:59 AM new
Yes, Logan, lies all over the place and even if Wilson HAD lied about Niger(which it's been proven he didn't) committing treason to smear someone who exposes the Bush lies is still the despicable act of immoral degenerates who overpopulate this White House.
