Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Karl Rove: Traitor?
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 106 of 271 (223887)
07-15-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Monk
07-14-2005 8:07 PM


Re: Rove should go
Monk writes:
If it is shown, through special prosecutor Fitzgerald’s report, that there was another leak that exposed Plame long before the conversation between Rove and Cooper, then I don’t see how Rove was doing anything wrong.
My opinions are based on Karl Rove's history. Knowing what we do about how he runs a campaign, do you not think that he mentioned Plame as a way of getting back at her husband?
You say that you think he's innocent. Innocent of what, exactly, divulging the name of an undercover agent?...perhaps. Innocent of participating in conduct that is WRONG, and it's especially wrong for a senior member of the white house staff?...no way.
Karl Rove is a prime example of what's wrong with politics in this Country. What he did was disgusting. You make it sound as if he was just having a happy-go-lucky conversation, dropped Plame's name, and went on, as if it meant nothing. Come on Monk, even you can't possible believe that. He did it to discredit her husband. Again, I base this on his history, which is deplorable for anyone involved with politics, let alone the top advisor to the President
I guess what bothers me the most is how Republicans circle the wagons and defend even the most heinous of behaviors, rather than admit any wrong doing. And then they attack the other side. Notice how this has become all about Wilson, and what a big ole fat liar he is?
Remember how during the campaign, Kerry’s war record became such a hot topic. For fucks sake, he’s the guy the volunteered and went to Vietnam. The other guy weaseled out! One guys war record is public knowledge, the other guys National Guard records are missing.
Remember how McCain’s adopted child became such a hot topic in certain states?
Remember when Gore made a comment about his part in the Internet, and suddenly the other side makes it sound like he said he invented the thing?
The list goes on and on. Bush gets in trouble and the bullshit starts to fly.
Stand up and be a man Monkadmit the Karl Rove should go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Monk, posted 07-14-2005 8:07 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by arachnophilia, posted 07-15-2005 9:30 AM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 135 by Monk, posted 07-18-2005 4:28 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 107 of 271 (223889)
07-15-2005 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by FliesOnly
07-14-2005 5:10 PM


Re: The Public Flagellation of Lefties
Well technically its not even alledged since HE HASN'T EVEN BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME! The prosecuter has said Rove is not a target!!!
The President said he would fire anyone in his administation that leaked the name.
Wrong again. Go find the President's quote.
WASHINGTON Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer, but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.
OWNED!
And guess what? That's right, a New York Times Editor is SITTING IN JAIL FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!!!!
Time for all of you left wing head-hunters to look somewhere else. You are just making yourselves look really stupid (much like the media) by keeping with this story.
This message has been edited by Tal, 07-15-2005 09:00 AM

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrong
Do you know what your DNC stands for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by FliesOnly, posted 07-14-2005 5:10 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by FliesOnly, posted 07-15-2005 9:43 AM Tal has replied
 Message 111 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 10:39 AM Tal has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 108 of 271 (223897)
07-15-2005 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by FliesOnly
07-15-2005 8:46 AM


Re: Rove should go
Remember how during the campaign, Kerry’s war record became such a hot topic. For fucks sake, he’s the guy the volunteered and went to Vietnam. The other guy weaseled out! One guys war record is public knowledge, the other guys National Guard records are missing.
that one blew my mind. i still don't get how they pulled that off. ...not that there's anything wrong with draft dodging.
Remember how McCain’s adopted child became such a hot topic in certain states?
hey, speaking push-polls, i had this wonderful idea. i think we should organize a completely scandalous push-poll against karl rove. just because i love seeing irony bite someone in the ass. i mean, we could use real stuff about him too. but we should make up completely outrageous claims about him.
"how would your opinion about karl rove change if you knew he ate babies?"
"would you like karl rove more or less if you knew about his scandalous affair with president bush's dog, buddy?"
"would you approve of karl rove's position in the white house if you knew he was actually a space alien bent on world domination?"
"how would you feel about karl rove raping your daughter? your son?"
the specially tailored ones would be even better. call up the kkk, and tell them he's really black and just wears a lot of makeup. then call up the naacp and tell them he's a card-carrying member of the kkk.
i think it'd be fun.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by FliesOnly, posted 07-15-2005 8:46 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 109 of 271 (223900)
07-15-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Tal
07-15-2005 8:52 AM


Re: The Public Flagellation of Lefties
Tal writes:
Wrong again. Go find the President's quote.
Well, it seems that only one quote won't do it.
First we have this: "... if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
And then we have this: "When asked at a post G-8 Summit News Conference on June 10, 2004 if he stood by his statement that he would fire whoever was responsible for the leak, Bush said, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.""
So in the first quote, it appears that ethics and integrity mean nothing to the President, that he'd only "take care of" the leaker if a crime were commited.
However, the second quote sure looks to me like he said he'd fire whoever leaked the name, regardless if a crime was committed or not.
So which quote ya gonna go with Tal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Tal, posted 07-15-2005 8:52 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Tal, posted 07-15-2005 10:22 AM FliesOnly has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 110 of 271 (223904)
07-15-2005 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by FliesOnly
07-15-2005 9:43 AM


Re: The Public Flagellation of Lefties
Show me your sources Flies, then responde to each one of these per Message 107:
1. The prosecutor has said Rove is not a target of any investigation.
2. ...Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer, but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources...
So if Karl Rove has testified under oath to a grand jury that he learned the name from the MEDIA, what does that do to your position?
3. Why did a federal judge send Judith Miller to JAIL for obstruction of justice, which by the way the New York Times called for the investigation?

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrong
Do you know what your DNC stands for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by FliesOnly, posted 07-15-2005 9:43 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by FliesOnly, posted 07-15-2005 11:59 AM Tal has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 111 of 271 (223908)
07-15-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Tal
07-15-2005 8:52 AM


speaking of things owned...
Did you check your own source (again)?
Certainly Rove hasn't been charged with a crime, I don't remember anyone claiming that he was, but not being a "target" is not the same thing as unindictable nonsuspect.
All your cited article made clear is that he is not the sole subject or goal of the investigation. Okay.
Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer, but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.
Yeah, that's where Karl may end up getting a little owned himself. So far there doesn't seem to be any corroboration for that besides Gannon, who was a Rep partisan hack and appears to have invented that fiction.
By the way what was the source for that specific quote (not doubting, just interested).
Time for all of you left wing head-hunters to look somewhere else. You are just making yourselves look really stupid (much like the media) by keeping with this story.
Is this supposed to be the 'ol "hey look over there", routine? No one has tried and convicted him, what is happening is some interesting questions have been raised (contrary to Rep whiners Karl was the source of the antiWilson info), and suddenly Bush and Co have gone into deep silence citing rules they had broken previously in order to defend Rove.
That's right, a New York Times Editor is SITTING IN JAIL FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!!!!!
As much as I am for freedom of the press, this does make sense to me. If this was classified info being handled, then she was in the receiving end up classified info. That she would not be willing to divulge where she got classified info would seem like a crime.
Would you be happy if a journalist was able to say "I'm protecting my source", when they have talked to a double agent at the CIA working for OBL, who was trying to get classified info on agents out through the media?
Indeed we seem to have seen some good effects of this threat as the Rove connection was revealed for sure.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Tal, posted 07-15-2005 8:52 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Tal, posted 07-15-2005 11:04 AM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 112 of 271 (223913)
07-15-2005 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Silent H
07-15-2005 10:39 AM


Re: speaking of things owned...
Certainly Rove hasn't been charged with a crime, I don't remember anyone claiming that he was, but not being a "target" is not the same thing as unindictable nonsuspect.
All your cited article made clear is that he is not the sole subject or goal of the investigation. Okay.
Let me quote the prosecutor.
Plamegate special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had told top White House advisor Karl Rove that he's not a target of his investigation into who leaked the identity of CIA analyst Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak.
And Fitzgerald has also asked the top Bush aide not to discuss the case in public.
Karl Rove is not a target. Are we speaking the same language here?
Yeah, that's where Karl may end up getting a little owned himself. So far there doesn't seem to be any corroboration for that besides Gannon, who was a Rep partisan hack and appears to have invented that fiction.
He testified under oath. If he's lying, he'll be charged with lying under oath like Bill Clinton.
By the way what was the source for that specific quote (not doubting, just interested).
Source
Is this supposed to be the 'ol "hey look over there", routine? No one has tried and convicted him, what is happening is some interesting questions have been raised (contrary to Rep whiners Karl was the source of the antiWilson info), and suddenly Bush and Co have gone into deep silence citing rules they had broken previously in order to defend Rove.
quote:
Fitzgerald (the prosecutor) has also asked the top Bush aide not to discuss the case in public.
What did Janet Reno tell reporters about the investigation regarding Lewinsky? She told them the white house isn't saying anything until the investigation is complete. That was good enough for the media. But not here! Why, how dare the administration try to cover up what Rove has done! There's no "deep silence." It's the same thing when the white house wouldn't comment on Clinton.
As much as I am for freedom of the press, this does make sense to me. If this was classified info being handled, then she was in the receiving end up classified info. That she would not be willing to divulge where she got classified info would seem like a crime.
Would you be happy if a journalist was able to say "I'm protecting my source", when they have talked to a double agent at the CIA working for OBL, who was trying to get classified info on agents out through the media?
Indeed we seem to have seen some good effects of this threat as the Rove connection was revealed for sure.
I'll let U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan answer this one for you.
"If she were given a pass today, then the next person could say as a matter of principle, 'I will not obey the law because of the abortion issue,' or the election of a president or whatever. They could claim the moral high ground, and then we could descend into anarchy."
Remember, the New York Times asked for this investigation because they thought they had a story about Rove leaking info. What was her source? Why won't she reveal it? If her source was Rove she would have lambasted him by now. So the question here is....who was Judith Miller's source?

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrong
Do you know what your DNC stands for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 10:39 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Morte, posted 07-15-2005 2:48 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 116 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 2:54 PM Tal has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 113 of 271 (223922)
07-15-2005 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tal
07-15-2005 10:22 AM


Re: The Public Flagellation of Lefties
Tal writes:
Show me your sources Flies, then responde to each one of these per Message 107:
The sources? Are you serious? Are you telling me that the quotes are incorrect? The quotes are everywhere Tal, just do a Google search. You know they're correct so stop playing stupid.
Humor me for a second, and answer the following: If the second quote is accurate, is it not the Presidents duty to fire Karl Rove?
Now, on to your "points":
Tal writes:
1. The prosecutor has said Rove is not a target of any investigation.
It doesn't matter. As I have said repeatedly, the legalities are a separate issue. Karl Rove released the name as a means of getting back at Wilson...THAT'S what I have a problem with. Whether or not he committed a crime is a very important issue in ADDITION to the lack of ethics and morality he demonstrates...the very qualities that your Party seems so hell bent on claiming they have, and the Dems lack. Prove it Tal, take the fucking ethical and moral high ground and admit the Karl Rove should be fired for what he did.
Tal writes:
2. ...Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer, but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources...
So if Karl Rove has testified under oath to a grand jury that he learned the name from the MEDIA, what does that do to your position?
NothingSee above
Tal writes:
3. Why did a federal judge send Judith Miller to JAIL for obstruction of justice, which by the way the New York Times called for the investigation?
Again, Tal, why does this matter? If you want me to speculate on why he sent her to jail, my guess would be that there is a bit of a gray area as to whether or not she is protected by the First Amendment from revealing her source, and the Judge seems to think that she is not. There, how's that. But why does this have any bearing whatsoever on the complete lack of ethical behavior on the part of Karl Rove?
My turn TalPlease respond to the following:
1. Do you believe that Karl Rove supplied anyone in the media with Plame’s identity?
2. If so, are you ok with this?
3. If sowhyhow...are you not bothered by this? Also, please explain why you think he released her identity to the media?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Tal, posted 07-15-2005 10:22 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Tal, posted 07-15-2005 2:26 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 114 of 271 (223940)
07-15-2005 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by FliesOnly
07-15-2005 11:59 AM


Re: The Public Flagellation of Lefties
1. The prosecutor has said Rove is not a target of any investigation.
It doesn't matter.
ROFL! It doesn't matter.
I love it.
. Karl Rove released the name as a means of getting back at Wilson
Yeah, forget that little thing called proof/evidence.
3. Why did a federal judge send Judith Miller to JAIL for obstruction of justice, which by the way the New York Times called for the investigation?
Again, Tal, why does this matter?
My stomach can't take much more, I'm about to go run 5 miles.
So little things like facts don't matter to you, but pure conjecture without any proof is solid, concrete support for your point?
If you want me to speculate on why he sent her to jail, my guess would be that there is a bit of a gray area as to whether or not she is protected by the First Amendment from revealing her source, and the Judge seems to think that she is not.
I'll let U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan answer this one for you.
"If she were given a pass today, then the next person could say as a matter of principle, 'I will not obey the law because of the abortion issue,' or the election of a president or whatever. They could claim the moral high ground, and then we could descend into anarchy."
1. Do you believe that Karl Rove supplied anyone in the media with Plame’s identity?
Yes. He said, "I think his wife is in the CIA."
2. If so, are you ok with this?
Yes. He didn't blatantly point out her name, indeed he didn't even know it.
3. If sowhyhow...are you not bothered by this? Also, please explain why you think he released her identity to the media?
I'll answer with this...
Senators Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) blew the cover of an undercover CIA agent in Senate hearings discussing confirmation of John Bolton's nomination to U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Despite Bolton's repeated referrals to the agent as "Mr. Smith," Kerry and Lugar continued to refer to the agent by his real name. During his unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign, Mr. Kerry harshly recriminated the Bush Administration for allegedly leaking information about Valerie Plame, a CIA agent whose cover was blown in 2003.

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrong
Do you know what your DNC stands for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by FliesOnly, posted 07-15-2005 11:59 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by FliesOnly, posted 07-15-2005 4:00 PM Tal has not replied

  
Morte
Member (Idle past 6102 days)
Posts: 140
From: Texas
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 115 of 271 (223941)
07-15-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Tal
07-15-2005 11:04 AM


Change in message
What did Janet Reno tell reporters about the investigation regarding Lewinsky? She told them the white house isn't saying anything until the investigation is complete. That was good enough for the media. But not here! Why, how dare the administration try to cover up what Rove has done! There's no "deep silence." It's the same thing when the white house wouldn't comment on Clinton.
I can’t say that I’ve followed this issue very closely, so I may be completely off-base, but I believe that it is at least in part because they were willing to speak about it earlier in the investigation.
From a press briefing by Press Secretary Scott McClellan on July 11, 2005:
quote:
Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement [that you would not comment on the leak while it was an ongoing investigation], on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation"?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That's something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy.
Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.
Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.
Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.
Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.
Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --
Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.
Go ahead, Terry.
Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.
quote:
Q After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the President's word that anybody who was involved would be let go?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.
In other words, McClellan had clearly stated earlier that anybody in the administration involved in the leak would be let go (as did Bush later on)...
September 29, 2003 briefing:
quote:
The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.
...and that Karl Rove was not involved.
(same briefing as above):
quote:
Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --
Q But how does --
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice.
Q But the President has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove --
MR. McCLELLAN: I said it publicly. I said that --
Q But I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --
MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion.
October 10, 2003 briefing:
quote:
Q Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.
So, as it stands, it appears that he was perfectly willing to comment on those two subjects until evidence emerged which pointed towards Karl Rove as a strong possibility, at which point he refused to answer any and all questions on the subject (see first quote). Again, I haven't been following this investigation closely, but from what I've seen it appears that this change is why the media is questioning the refusal to speak on the issue, not some sense of indignation or hatred towards Rove as you imply.
(Have to get back to work in a minute now, will try to proofread later on today.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Tal, posted 07-15-2005 11:04 AM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Monk, posted 07-15-2005 3:03 PM Morte has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 116 of 271 (223944)
07-15-2005 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Tal
07-15-2005 11:04 AM


Re: speaking of things owned...
Karl Rove is not a target. Are we speaking the same language here?
I'm not sure any more. I agree that he wasn't a target, and here you are repeating that to me. I said being a target is not the same thing as unindictable nonsuspect.
Let me quote the prosecutor...
Fitzgerald has also made it clear, however, that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe, Luskin told York.
So he is a subject, but not a target. If we are both speaking english or american, then that means he is not the sole goal or focus of the investigation, though it is possible he could end up getting charged, depending on where the investigation leads.
He testified under oath. If he's lying, he'll be charged with lying under oath like Bill Clinton.
According to your source his current line is that Novak told him about Plame, which is possible of course since Novak had two sources, to which Rove assented. Now let's forget the fact that that directly contradicts his claim that he didn't know Plame's name and so did not identify her... just to make things easy for you. That clearly means that by the time he talked with Cooper he definitely knew her name.
In any case, his excuse is that he heard the story before from two people in the media whose names he can't recall. That sounds about right to you?
Fitzgerald (the prosecutor) has also asked the top Bush aide not to discuss the case in public.
Yet they did, and they continue to use other media outlets to pour out their case. Indeed they even try and sneak in nonverbal suggestions that he's fine using photo ops. But let's get back to the fact that they did. They discussed it right up till there was some bad evidence revealed and THEN said that F told them not to talk, so they can't.
Well he sure as hell didn't tell him not to talk right when it became convenient for them, now did he? And what was great was to see Mclellan squirm under that question. There was no reason he could not talk about the timeline of when they were asked not to discuss the case, yet that's what he pulled up as a defense.
That was good enough for the media. But not here! Why, how dare the administration try to cover up what Rove has done! There's no "deep silence." It's the same thing when the white house wouldn't comment on Clinton.
Are you seriously trying to pass this off as even partially true? You are saying the media gave Clinton a free ride regarding Lewinsky? What planet were you on?
They became so obsessed, and merciless with his nonresponses that he was eventually forced into having to give a public address on that subject alone.
Please tell me the media and Republicans will treat this as seriously and intensely as they did a fucking blowjob, please please please.
What was her source? Why won't she reveal it? If her source was Rove she would have lambasted him by now. So the question here is....who was Judith Miller's source?
Maybe it was someone other than Rove? The investigation is not solely focused on Rove. Novak said he had two sources. Cooper had a couple right? Maybe Judith did. Heck just having to confirm Rove's side of the story (where he was told this classified info from two reporters "he can't remember") may be why Miller is in jail.
The subject of the thread was Rove, based on evidence that was coming out. That does not mean that anyone, at least I sure didn't, think it had to be Rove for sure or that it had to be just Rove. I still think the evidence is pointing toward him, but I don't have all the evidence.
Most of my commentary has been conditionals. IF, THEN.
IF he did it and it she was covert, THEN should he be arrested? If he did it and she wasn't covert, THEN should he still be fired?
Get the concept? Please answer the questions.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Tal, posted 07-15-2005 11:04 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Tal, posted 07-15-2005 3:41 PM Silent H has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 117 of 271 (223945)
07-15-2005 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Morte
07-15-2005 2:48 PM


Re: Change in message
So, as it stands, it appears that he was perfectly willing to comment on those two subjects until evidence emerged which pointed towards Karl Rove as a strong possibility, at which point he refused to answer any and all questions on the subject.
Why don't you believe McClellan when he says the special prosecutor asked him not to discuss the matter in public?
Is he supposed to ignore that request? He was answering questions before while the investigation was under way and did so up until the time the special prosecutor asked the adminstration to hold further comment.
You quoted him saying this here:
quote:
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.
So again, is McClellan supposed to ignore the special prosecutors request?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Morte, posted 07-15-2005 2:48 PM Morte has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 3:28 PM Monk has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 118 of 271 (223947)
07-15-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Monk
07-15-2005 3:03 PM


Re: Change in message
He was answering questions before while the investigation was under way and did so up until the time the special prosecutor asked the adminstration to hold further comment.
The point is that the timing of that request would have had to coincide rather conveniently with the revelation of info regarding Rove that was contrary to their previously stated support.
Journalists asked McClellen to clarify when the request was made, and then he refused to discuss it, though that clearly has nothing to do with the investigation itself.
Doesn't it sound just a bit fishy to you?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Monk, posted 07-15-2005 3:03 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Monk, posted 07-15-2005 4:27 PM Silent H has replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 119 of 271 (223948)
07-15-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Silent H
07-15-2005 2:54 PM


Re: speaking of things owned...
The investigation is not solely focused on Rove.
Incorrect. The investigation isn't focused on Rove at all, you are.
IF he did it and it she was covert, THEN should he be arrested?
According to the law, if he specifically leaked her name with the intention of outing her thereby blowing her cover, yes. However, what has happened here isn't even close.
If he did it and she wasn't covert, THEN should he still be fired?
No.
Let me add this.
The wife of Bush-bashing former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson is apparently not a covert CIA operative or an undercover agent, though she's been described that way repeatedly since the CIA asked for an investigation on how her identity was made public.
According to columnist Robert Novak, who revealed Mrs. Wilson's name in his July 14 column, sources at the CIA expressly told him she was not a spy.
"According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives," Novak told his audience on CNN's "Crossfire."

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrong
Do you know what your DNC stands for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 2:54 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2005 4:18 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 122 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 4:20 PM Tal has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 120 of 271 (223950)
07-15-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Tal
07-15-2005 2:26 PM


Re: The Public Flagellation of Lefties
Tal writes:
ROFL! It doesn't matter.
I love it.
Do you have to practice being a complete idiot, or does it just come naturally to you? Wait, maybe you're "paragraphically illiterate", because it's the only other explanation I can come up with for you response. Let me see if I can make this any clearer.
Here's the entire exchange. Try reading it a bit more carefully this time. See if maybe you can't get past the first sentence and then notice how ALL the other sentences work in sequence to make a point.
Tal in post 113 writes:
1. The prosecutor has said Rove is not a target of any investigation.
To which I reply with
FliesOnly writes:
It doesn't matter. As I have said repeatedly, the legalities are a separate issue. Karl Rove released the name as a means of getting back at Wilson...THAT'S what I have a problem with. Whether or not he committed a crime is a very important issue in ADDITION to the lack of ethics and morality he demonstrates...the very qualities that your Party seems so hell bent on claiming they have, and the Dems lack. Prove it Tal, take the fucking ethical and moral high ground and admit the Karl Rove should be fired for what he did.
See Tal, reading and understanding the ENTIRE paragraph makes a big difference in the meaning. Good luck with your reading problem, I hope you can work it out.
Tal writes:
Yeah, forget that little thing called proof/evidence.
Oh dear God in heaven, you have got to be kidding me. Hey, Tal, here’s a suggestion for youtry reading your own stuff. Later, even you admit that he supplied the media with Plame’s identity. (HINT: Keep reading and again, see how it all relates)
Again, here's the whole exchange:
FliesOnly writes:
1. Do you believe that Karl Rove supplied anyone in the media with Plame’s identity?
Tal writes:
Yes. He said, "I think his wife is in the CIA."
FliesOnly writes:
2. If so, are you ok with this?
Tal writes:
Yes. He didn't blatantly point out her name, indeed he didn't even know it.
Holy crap, Tal admits Rove supplied the media with her name. Guess even He (Tal) will be screaming for the President to fire him. Unless, course, Tal is a hypocrite.
What's truly sad though, is that this is your justification for not being upset. You truly are one of the most two-faced people I have ever had the pleasure of "talking" to. That has got to be the most ridiculous bullshit of an excuse for unethical, immoral behavior I have ever read. He didn't "Blatantly" point out her name. Ok, you have to be doing this just to piss me off. You can't really be this stupid...can you? Seriously...it's ok to give "hints", just not the name...what are you, a third grader on the playground?
"Nah Nah, I know someone you don't know...but here's a hint. Her husband went to Niger recently and found out some stuff. His last name is Wilson and her last name rhymes with flame and her first name sounds kinda like gallery. And she may or may not be a covert spybut that's all I'm telling you...nah nah." Christ Tal, grow up. When people act like Karl Rove did, others may die as a result.
I asked
FliesOnly writes:
3. If sowhyhow...are you not bothered by this? Also, please explain why you think he released her identity to the media?
Tal replied with:
Tal writes:
I'll answer with this...
Senators Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) blew the cover of an undercover CIA agent in Senate hearings discussing confirmation of John Bolton's nomination to U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Despite Bolton's repeated referrals to the agent as "Mr. Smith," Kerry and Lugar continued to refer to the agent by his real name. During his unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign, Mr. Kerry harshly recriminated the Bush Administration for allegedly leaking information about Valerie Plame, a CIA agent whose cover was blown in 2003.
First offgood non-answer answer.
Let me guess though, you expect me to say something along the lines that I’m ok with this. Sorry to disappoint you Tal, but I am NOT a partisan hack like you.
I will also admit that I am not familiar with this so I have nothing much to say now, except that if it is in any way similar to the Karl Rove incident, then he too (Kerry) should be removed from political office.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Tal, posted 07-15-2005 2:26 PM Tal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024